A commentary on the whole Epistle to the Hebrews. By M. John Calvin. Translated…A commentarie on the vvhole Epistle to the Hebrevves. By M. Iohn Caluin. Translated…

For where a Testament is, &c.] Ver. 16 Were there but this one place, yet were it sufficient to show that this Epistle was not written in Hebrew: for Berith, in the Hebrew tongue, signifies Covenant, and not Testament. But because the Greek word Diathece, hath these two significations, to wit, of the Covenant, and of the Testament: for this cause the Apostle alluding to the second signification, affirmeth that the promises could not otherwise be of any weight or stability, unless they had been sealed by the death of Christ. Which he proves by the common right of Testaments: the effect of which is deferred till the death of the Testator. Although it may yet seem that the Apostle grounds his speech upon too weak a reason: so as that which he saith may easily be refuted. For God made no Testament under the law, but made a Covenant with the ancient people. And thus the Apostle could not gather from the thing it self, neither yet ⟨p. 188⟩from the name, that the death of Christ was necessary. For if he would infer by the matter it self, that it was needful Christ should die, because the Testament is not ratified, till the death of the Testator come between: some might presently reply, that Berith (which word Moses useth here and there to this purpose) is a Covenant made between the living: so as we cannot think otherwise of the matter. As touching the name, he simply alludes, as I have said, to the signification of the Greek word Diathece, which hath two significations: and therefore he chiefly insists upon the thing. Neither is this repugnant to that which some might say, that it was a covenant which God made with his people. For this covenant was like a Testament, because it was established, and confirmed by blood. This principle then must be retained, that God never used signs at random, nor without cause. Now so it is that God in confirming of the Covenant intermingled blood therewithal. It follows then that it was not a contract between the living (as they say) but such a contract as required death to come between. For a Testament hath this condition proper unto it, that it begins to take effect after death. If we then consider that the Apostle contends rather about the substance, than the name:

For where a Testament is, &c.] Ver. 16 Were there but this one place, yet were it sufficient to shew that this Epistle was not written in Hebrue: for Berith, in the Hebrue tongue, signifies Couenant, and not Testament. But because the Greeke word Diathece, hath these two significations, to wit, of the Couenant, and of the Testament: for this cause the Apostle alluding to the second signification, affirmeth that the promises could not otherwise bee of any weight or stabilitie, vnlesse they had been sealed by the death of Christ. Which he proues by the common right of Testaments: the effect of which is deferred till the death of the Testator. Although it may yet seeme that the Apostle grounds his speech vpon too weake a reason: so as that which he saith may easily be refuted. For God made no Testament vnder the law, but made a Couenant with the ancient people. And thus the Apostle could not gather from the thing it selfe, neither yet