In the case of a willThe term "will" here refers to a legal document that outlines the distribution of a person's estate after their death. In biblical times, a will, or testament, was a common legal practice, much like today. The Greek word used is "diathēkē," which can mean both "covenant" and "will." This dual meaning is significant in understanding the New Covenant established through Jesus Christ, as it implies both a legal and relational agreement. The concept of a will is also seen in the Old Testament, where God's covenants with His people often included promises that would be fulfilled in the future.
it is necessary to establish the death
The necessity of death to enact a will underscores the seriousness and finality of the covenant. In the context of Hebrews, this phrase highlights the importance of Jesus' sacrificial death to activate the New Covenant. The death of the testator (the one who made the will) is a legal requirement for the will to take effect, symbolizing the fulfillment of God's promises through Christ's death. This mirrors the sacrificial system of the Old Testament, where the death of an animal was required to atone for sin, pointing to the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus.
of the one who made it
The "one who made it" refers to the testator, in this case, Jesus Christ. His role as both the mediator and the testator of the New Covenant is central to the message of Hebrews. This phrase emphasizes the personal nature of the covenant; it is not just a legal transaction but a deeply relational act initiated by Christ Himself. Theologically, this connects to the idea of Jesus as the fulfillment of the law and the prophets, as He is both the author and the perfecter of faith. His death was necessary to bring the promises of the New Covenant into effect, offering eternal inheritance to believers.
Persons / Places / Events
1.
The Author of HebrewsTraditionally attributed to Paul, though the exact authorship is uncertain. The author writes to Jewish Christians, emphasizing the superiority of Christ and the New Covenant.
2.
The RecipientsJewish Christians who were familiar with the Old Testament laws and sacrificial system, facing pressure to revert to Judaism.
3.
The Old CovenantThe agreement between God and Israel, established through Moses, involving laws and sacrifices.
4.
The New CovenantInstituted by Jesus Christ, emphasizing grace and faith, fulfilling the Old Covenant's promises.
5.
The Death of ChristCentral to the New Covenant, His death is the event that enacts the "will" or testament, providing salvation and eternal inheritance.
Teaching Points
Understanding CovenantsThe concept of a covenant in biblical terms is akin to a legal will, requiring the death of the testator to be enacted. This underscores the necessity of Christ's sacrificial death.
The Necessity of Christ's DeathJust as a will is only effective upon the death of the one who made it, the New Covenant required Christ's death to be activated, offering believers eternal life and inheritance.
The Assurance of InheritanceBelievers can have confidence in their spiritual inheritance because it is secured by the death and resurrection of Christ, much like a legal will guarantees an inheritance.
Living Under the New CovenantChristians are called to live in the reality of the New Covenant, embracing the grace and freedom it provides, rather than reverting to the old ways of the law.
Faith and ObedienceThe New Covenant calls for a response of faith and obedience, not as a means to earn salvation, but as a grateful response to the gift already given through Christ's death.
Bible Study Questions and Answers
1.What is the meaning of Hebrews 9:16?
2.How does Hebrews 9:16 illustrate the necessity of Christ's death for the covenant?
3.What parallels exist between a will's activation and Christ's sacrifice in Hebrews 9:16?
4.How does Hebrews 9:16 connect to Old Testament sacrificial practices?
5.How can understanding Hebrews 9:16 deepen our appreciation for Christ's atoning work?
6.In what ways should Hebrews 9:16 influence our daily walk with Christ?
7.What does Hebrews 9:16 imply about the necessity of Christ's death for the new covenant?
8.How does Hebrews 9:16 relate to the concept of a will or testament?
9.Why is a death required for a covenant to be valid according to Hebrews 9:16?
10.What are the top 10 Lessons from Hebrews 9?
11.What did Jesus mean by 'some will not taste death'?
12.In Judges 16, why would God continue to work through Samson despite his moral failings?
13.What is a Last Will and Testament?
14.Hebrews 2:9 says Jesus was made 'lower than the angels' yet fully divine--how can Jesus be both eternally divine and temporarily beneath angels?What Does Hebrews 9:16 Mean
In the case of a will• A will (or covenant) sets forth promises that the benefactor wants fulfilled after his passing.
• Scripture often equates God’s covenant with a legal will—promises guaranteed by His character (Galatians 3:15-17;Psalm 105:8-10).
• Jesus spoke of “the new covenant in My blood” (Luke 22:20), clearly echoing this legal imagery.
It is necessary• God’s covenants are not casual suggestions. They carry binding, legal necessity.
• The Old Testament repeatedly shows God binding Himself with oath and sacrifice (Genesis 15:9-18;Exodus 24:3-8).
• Necessity underscores certainty: what God decrees must come to pass (Numbers 23:19).
To establish• “Establish” means to validate or put into force.
• In earthly law a will is only executed when the proper requirement—proof of death—is met.
• Likewise, the new covenant required a once-for-all validation (Hebrews 7:27;Hebrews 10:14).
The death• Blood was the God-appointed proof that life was given (Leviticus 17:11).
• Every old-covenant sacrifice pointed forward to the ultimate death that would truly “establish” forgiveness (Hebrews 9:22-23).
• Jesus’ death fulfills and supersedes every previous sacrifice (John 1:29;1 Peter 1:18-19).
Of the one who made it• Only the death of the covenant-maker Himself could unlock its blessings.
• Christ, both testator and mediator, chose to die so His heirs might live (Hebrews 2:9-10;Romans 8:17).
• Because He rose, He also guarantees continual enforcement of His will (Hebrews 7:25;Revelation 1:18).
summaryHebrews 9:16 teaches that, just as an earthly will is activated by the death of its maker, so the new covenant required the death of its Author. Jesus’ sacrificial death legally enacted every promised blessing—complete forgiveness, new life, and eternal inheritance—assuring believers that what God has willed for them is irrevocably theirs.
(16)
Testament.--As has been already pointed out, the greatest difference of opinion has existed in regard to the meaning of the Greek word
diath?k? in this passage. (See Note on
Hebrews 7:22.) It will be seen at once that the interpretation of this verse and the next entirely depends on that one question. If "testament" is the correct meaning of the Greek word, the general sense of the verses is well given in the Authorised version. A few commentators even agree with that version in carrying back the idea of testament into
Hebrews 9:15, although in the other two places in which the word is joined with "Mediator" (
Hebrews 8:6;
Hebrews 12:24) they adhere to the ordinary rendering, "covenant." By most, however, it is held that a new thought is introduced in the present verse. The writer, it is urged, having spoken of a promise of an
inheritance,(
Hebrews 9:15), and a promise that cannot be made valid unless death take place, avails himself of the illustration which a second (and very common) meaning of the leading word affords; and though a covenant has hitherto been in his thoughts, he adds interest and force to his argument by calling up the analogy of a testament or will. It is further urged that this procedure will not seem unnatural if we reflect that the
diath?k? between God and man is never exactly expressed by
covenant,since it is not of the nature of a mutual compact between equals. (See
Hebrews 7:22.) The position is chiefly defended by two arguments:--(1)
Hebrews 9:16, being a general maxim, gives no intelligible sense in regard to a covenant, but is easy and natural as applied to a will. (2) A Greek word used in
Hebrews 9:17, where the literal translation is "over (the) dead," cannot be used of sacrifices of slain animals, but of men only. This, we believe, is a fair statement of the case on the one side; and it may be fully acknowledged that, if
Hebrews 9:16-17 stood alone, and if they were written of Gentile rather than Jewish usage, the case would be very strong. As it is, we are compelled to believe that the difficulties which this interpretation brings with it are beyond comparison more serious than those which it removes. (1) There is no doubt that in the overwhelming majority of New Testament passages the meaning
covenant must be assigned. By many high authorities these verses are considered to contain the
only exception. (2) In the LXX. the word is extremely common, both for the covenants of God and for compacts between man and man. (See Note on
Hebrews 7:22). (3) The application of
diath?k? in this Epistle rests on the basis of the Old Testament usage, the key passage being
Jeremiah 31:31-34, quoted at length in Hebrews 8. With that quotation this passage is linked by the association of
diath?k? with Mediator in
Hebrews 9:15 and
Hebrews 8:6, and with "the first" in
Hebrews 9:15 and in
Hebrews 8:13;
Hebrews 9:1. (4) In the verses which follow this passage the meaning
covenant must certainly return, as a comparison of
Hebrews 9:20 with the verse of Exodus which it quotes (
Exodus 24:8) will show. (5) It is true that the idea of "death" has appeared in
Hebrews 9:15, but it is the death
of a sin-offering; and there is no natural or easy transition of thought from an expiatory death to the death of a testator. And yet the words which introduce
Hebrews 9:16;
Hebrews 9:18 ("For" and "Wherefore") show that we are following the course of an
argument. (6) Though to us
Hebrews 9:16 may present a very familiar thought, we must not forget that to Jews dispositions by will were almost altogether unknown. Were it granted that a writer might for illustration avail himself of a second meaning which a word he is using might happen to bear, this liberty would only be taken if by that means
familiar associations could be reached, and the argument or exhortation could be thus urged home. In an Epistle steeped in Jewish thought such a transition as that suggested would be inexplicable. There are other considerations of some weight which might be added; but these seem sufficient to prove that, even if the difficulties of interpretation should prove serious, we must not seek to remove them by wavering in our rendering of
diath?k? in these verses. We believe, therefore, that the true translation of
Hebrews 9:16-17, must be the following:--
For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be brought in the death of the covenanter. For a covenant is of force when there hath been death (literally,
over the
dead)
; for hath it ever any strength while the covenanter liveth? InHebrews 9:15 we have seen the two-fold reference of the death of Jesus, to the past and to the future. As High Priest He has offered Himself as a sin-offering to cleanse the conscience from dead works; the same offering is also looked on as a ransom redeeming from the penalty of past transgressions; and, still by means of His death, He has, as Mediator, established a new covenant. We are reminded at once of the words of Jesus Himself, "This cup is the new covenant
in My blood" (
1Corinthians 11:25). It is this very thought which the writer proceeds to develop: a covenant cannot be established without death--cannot exist at all. That amongst Jews and Greeks and Romans alike covenants were confirmed by sacrifice we need not pause to prove; of this usage we have the earliest example in Genesis 15. In such sacrifices, again, there is "brought in," or
assumed the death of him who makes the covenant. There will not, perhaps, be much difficulty in accepting this as a maxim. The conflict of opinion really begins when we ask
in what manner this is assumed. The usual answer is, that the death of victims is emblematic of the punishment which the contracting parties imprecated on themselves if they should break their compact. It may have been so amongst the Greeks and Romans, though this is doubtful.
[11] Amongst the Jews, however, the analogy of their general sacrificial system, in which the victim represented the offerer, renders such an explanation very improbable. As to the precise idea implied in this representation, it is not easy to speak with certainty. It has been defined in two opposite ways. In the death of the victim each contracting party may be supposed to die either as to the
future,in respect of any power of altering the compact (the covenant shall be as safe from violation through change of intention as if the covenanter were removed by death); or as to the
past,to the former state of enmity each is now dead. It is not necessary for our argument to decide such a question as this. The only material points are, that a covenant must be established over sacrifices, and that in such a sacrifice "the death of him that made the covenant" must in some manner be "brought in" or assumed. There remains only the application to the particular covenant here spoken of. If this be taken as made between God and man, the sacrificial death of Jesus in man's stead ratified the covenant for ever, the former state of separation being brought to an end in "the reconciliation" of the gospel. The peculiar character of
Hebrews 9:15, however (see above), seems rather to suggest that, as Jesus is set forth as High Priest and sacrifice, so He is both the Author of the covenant and the sacrifice which gives to it validity. In this case we see represented in His sacrifice the death of each "covenanter." (The transition from "Mediator" to Giver of the covenant is not greater than that which the other interpretation requires--a transition from a mediator of a testament to a testator.) There are minor points relating to details in the Greek which cannot be dealt with here. Of the two arguments quoted above, the former has, we hope, been fully met; though (it may be said in passing) it would be easier to give up
Hebrews 9:16 as a
general maxim, and to regard it as applying only to a covenant between God and
sinful man, than to divorce the whole passage from the context by changing "covenant" into "will." One point of interest must not be omitted. There are coincidences of expression with
Psalm 1:5 which make it very probable that that Psalm, memorable in the development of the teaching of the Old Testament, was distinctly in the writer's mind. This comparison is also of use in the explanation of some expressions in the original of these two verses. . . .
Parallel Commentaries ...
Greek
In the case ofὍπου(Hopou)Adverb
Strong's 3699:Where, whither, in what place. From hos and pou; what(-ever) where, i.e. At whichever spot.[a] will,διαθήκη(diathēkē)Noun - Nominative Feminine Singular
Strong's 1242:From diatithemai; properly, a disposition, i.e. a contract.[it is] necessaryἀνάγκη(anankē)Noun - Nominative Feminine Singular
Strong's 318:From ana and the base of agkale; constraint; by implication, distress.to establishφέρεσθαι(pheresthai)Verb - Present Infinitive Middle or Passive
Strong's 5342:To carry, bear, bring; I conduct, lead; perhaps: I make publicly known. A primary verb.[the] deathθάνατον(thanaton)Noun - Accusative Masculine Singular
Strong's 2288:Death, physical or spiritual. From thnesko; death.of the [one who]τοῦ(tou)Article - Genitive Masculine Singular
Strong's 3588:The, the definite article. Including the feminine he, and the neuter to in all their inflections; the definite article; the.made [it],διαθεμένου(diathemenou)Verb - Aorist Participle Middle - Genitive Masculine Singular
Strong's 1303:(a) I appoint, make (of a covenant), (b) I make (a will). Middle voice from dia and tithemi; to put apart, i.e. dispose.
Links
Hebrews 9:16 NIVHebrews 9:16 NLTHebrews 9:16 ESVHebrews 9:16 NASBHebrews 9:16 KJV
Hebrews 9:16 BibleApps.comHebrews 9:16 Biblia ParalelaHebrews 9:16 Chinese BibleHebrews 9:16 French BibleHebrews 9:16 Catholic Bible
NT Letters: Hebrews 9:16 For where a last will and testament (Heb. He. Hb) 
