"For this is the covenant (diatheke) that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people" (Heb.8:10).

Let us examine the meaning of the Greek word diatheke. Adolf Deissmann wrote that "There is ample material to back me in the statement that no one in the Mediterranean world in the first century A.D. would have thought of finding in the word diatheke the idea of covenant." (Adolf Deissmann, Light From the Ancient East, translated by Lionel R.M. Strachan [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1927], 337-338).

J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan say that diatheke "is properly 'dispositio,' an 'arrangement' made by one party with plenary power, which the other party may accept or reject, but cannot alter. A 'will' is simply the most conspicuous example of such an instrument, which ultimately monopolized the word just because it suited its differentia so completely" (J.H. Molton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930], 148).

Louis Berkhof wrote that "In the Septuagint the word berith is rendered diatheke in every passage where it occurs with the exception of Deut. 9:15 (marturion) and I Kings 11:11 (entole). The word diatheke is confined to this usage, except in four passages. This use of the word seems rather peculiar in view of the fact that it is not the usual Greek word for covenant, but really denotes a disposition, and consequently also a testament. The ordinary word for covenant is suntheke" (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology [Grand Rapids, 1949], 262-263).

The word diatheke does not carry with it the sense of a compact or agreement between two parties, which is the normal understanding of a covenant. The Greek word for "compact" is syntheke but that word was avoided by the Septuagint translators in regard to any diatheke between God and Israel.

Geerhardus Vos says "to the Greek mind (diatheke) did not necessarily call up the idea of a testamentary transaction; it could express a disposition or arrangement for one's self in any other sphere uncolored by the associations of the law-court or the last will" (Geerhardus Vos, "Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke," The Princeton Thelogical Review, Vol. 13, No.4, 1915, 601-602).

That is the way which the New Diatheke promised to Israel should be understood. It is a promise made by God to the nation of Israel which benefits that nation. It is a promissory disposition uncolored by the association of a last will and testament.

Vos also said that "in Eph. ii. 12 the phrase 'covenants of the promise,' in which the genitive is epexegetical, yields positive proof that Paul regards the diatheke as so many successive promissory dispositions of God, not as a series of mutual agreements between God and the people" (Ibid., p.609).

The following verse expresses the meaning in regard to today's New Diatheke: "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament (kanios diatheke); not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life" (2 Cor.3:6).

One of the meaning of the Greek word diatheke is "the last disposition which one makes of his earthly possessions after his death, a testament or will" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon). That is the meaning which the author of the book of Hebrews assigns to diatheke in the following verses:

"For where a testament (diatheke) is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth" (Heb.9:16-17).

Zane C. Hodges writes that the author of Hebrews "treated the Greek word for 'covenant' (diatheke) in the sense of a will. While 'covenants' and 'wills' are not in all respects identical, the author meant that in the last analysis the New Covenant is really a testamentary disposition. Like human wills, all the arrangements are secured by the testator and its beneficiaries need only accept its terms" (Walvoord & Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament [Colorado Springs: Chariot Victor Publishing 1983], p.802).

K.J. Woolcombe defined typology in the following way: "Typology, considered as a method of exegesis, may be defined as the establishment of historical connexions between certain events, persons, or things in the Old Testament and similar events, persons, or things in the New Testament" (Woolcombe, "The Biblical Origins and Patristic Development of Typology," in Essays on Typology, vol.22, Studies in Biblical Theology, ed. Geoffrey W. H. Lampe and Kenneth Woolcombe [Naperville, IL: A. R. Allenson,1957], p.39-40).

Israel's New Diatheke is based on the grace and promises of God and the New Testament is also established on the grace and promises of God. And just as the promises in regard to the New Covenant will never fail all the promises in regard to the New Testament will never fail.

Of course the Lord Jesus' words in regard to the "blood" of the New Diatheke referred to His death. That death satisified the requirement to make Israel's New Diatheke legally binding. This "requirement" is found in the following verse:

"Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make (karath) an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David" (Isa.55:3).

The Hebrew word translated "make" is karath, and that word means "to make a covenant, so used from slaying and dividing the victims, as was customary in making a covenant" (Gesenius's Lexicon).

Actually it was also used in some cases to make a promissory disposition binding, and that is the case in regard to the New Diatheke promised to the nation of Israel.

From this we can understand that the death of the Lord provided the means whereby the New Diatheke promised to the nation of Israel became ratified and legally binding.

Hodges says that "Treating the New Covenant in this way, the author argued that its force--like that of all human wills--depends on the death of the one who made it. That is when it takes effect" (Walvoord & Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament, p.802).

So we can see that a "death" is necessary in order for Israel's New Diatheke to become ratified and legally binding and it also takes a "death" in order for today's New Diatheke to become legally binding and to come into force.

The "nation" of Israel will receive all of her promised blessings through the operation of a Diatheke: "For this is the covenant (diatheke) that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people" (Heb.8:10).

Under the New Testament the believer is told that God has promised him eternal life: "And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life" (1 Jn.2:25).

We also know that this eternal life is "in Christ Jesus": "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim.1:1).

How does the believer receive the promise of eternal life which is in Christ?: "That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel" (Eph.3:6).

Sir Robert Anderson writes that "Our spiritual and eternal blessings do not depend on a covenant made with us, but upon a testament under which we are beneficiaries" (Anderson, Types in Hebrews [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1978], p.56).

There is a definite typological correspondance between the New Diatheke promised to national Israel and the New Diatheke that is in operation today. The Scriptures reveal that God will employ a diatheke (A Promissory Disposition) as the instrument by which national Israel will receive her blessings and this principle illustrates or pictures the way that individual Christians are now being blessed--through the instrumentality of a diatheke (Last Will and Testament).

The author of Hebrews points out another typological correspondance, that neither a "testament" nor a "promissory disposition" can be made operational apart from a "death": "For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood" (Heb.9:17-18; NKJV).

We can see a typological relationship between the New Diatheke promised to Israel and the New Testament. This typological relationship includes the fact that the diatheke promised to Israel is established on the grace and promises of God and therefore it is immutable. That can also be said about the New Testament.

The blessings of Israel's New Diatheke, including the future forgiveness of sins and the spiritual regeneration of the nation of Israel, picture the forgiveness of sins and spiritual regeneration experienced by the individual believer today. In both cases the New Diatheke resulted from God's own instigation and in both cases God chose to bind Himself to fulfill what was promised in each diatheke.

The typological relationship examined in this study reveals that there can be no doubt that there is a definite resemblance between Israel's New Diatheke and the New Diatheke that is in force today. The "types" revealed under Israel's New Diatheke answer to the truths of today's New Diatheke, as Anderson would say, "as exactly as a key fits the lock it is intended to open!"

Next