There have been in the past many misconceptions concerning the covenants between God and Man. It has been proposed by some that God is the author of two different types of Covenants. This has been termed in many and various ways. One of the current misconceptions of our day is seeing covenants as either uni-lateral or bi-lateral. Uni-lateral meaning that God sets the boundaries of the covenant and pledges His faithfulness to it. In this type of covenant man has absolutely no responsibility. The covenant is totally based on God's faithfulness and ability to keep the covenant. Examples of this type of Covenant are God's covenant with Noah after the flood, Genesis 9:9-17. Another example is the covenant which God made with Abraham, Genesis 15 & 17. The second type, bi-lateral, sees this covenant relationship in a different light. God is the author of a mutually agreeable arrangement. God pledges is faithfulness along with man who also pledges faithfulness. An example of this type of covenant is the one between God and Israel in Exodus 24. Many theologians consider this type of covenant one of "Law" and the other as one of "Grace". This has helped produce the misconception of the Old Testament being Law and the New Testament being Gospel. In reality what must be understood is that God is a God of grace, a God of love, One who desires all men to come to the knowledge of the truth. The theologians of our day who insist that the covenant made at Mt. Sinai (Ex. 24) is one of Law have forgotten that it was God who took the children of Israel by the hand and led them out of the land of Egypt, Jer. 31:32. It is the purpose of this undertaking to show that the Old Testament understanding of covenant (b^erith) and the New Testament use of diatheke is essentially the same.

The term in the Old Testament which is translated covenant is b^erith. The dictionary definition of b^erith according to BDB is; Covenant. Specifically BDB defines the covenant with Israel at Mt. Sinai as; "a divine constitution given to Israel with promises on condition of obedience and penalties for disobedience, in the form of tables of the covenant . . . ." ⁽¹⁾ Holladay adds nothing to this except to use the term "alliance" as a possible translation for b^erith. ⁽²⁾ The etymology of the word b^erith is very unclear. Leon Morris in his book The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross quotes several individual theologians with differing opinions. Morris says Henry S. Gehman is very optimistic when he says; "The etymology of the word in Hebrew is apparently quite clear: the Akkadian term baru, "to bind," "to fetter" and biritu "fettering," "fetters" suggest that Hebrew b^erith contains the sense of a binding or a bond."⁽³⁾ Continuing on Morris says; "Thus E. Kautsch says: `After the thoroughgoing investigations of J. P. Valeton and R. Kraetzschmar, there can be no doubt that b^erith belongs primarily to the secular vocabulary, and means "cutting into pieces," namely, of one or more sacrificial victims . . . .'" ⁽⁴⁾ Weinfeld in his article on b^erith in The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament proposes that the etymology of b^erith although unclear, could be from the word brh meaning, "to eat". ⁽⁵⁾ Weinfeld continues, "it refers to the festive meal accompanying the covenantal ceremony." ⁽⁶⁾ This would tie into the idea of a sacrificial meal being a major aspect of the sacrificial ceremony. In the end, however, Weinfeld agrees with Gehman that b^erith carries a meaning of, "to clasp" or "to fetter." ⁽⁷⁾

In many instances the occurrence of b^erith it is connected with the word karath. Even though the translation of karath b^erith is simple, "to cut a covenant," its meaning is far more reaching. There is the aspect of the sacrificial animal which is cut in two and laid on the ground. Then the two parties of the covenant would pass through the two halves symbolizing the curse which would befall the one who broke the covenant agreement, Jer. 34:18-20. A clear example of this action of passing through the animal halves is seen in Genesis 15 when Abraham prepares the covenant animals but then sleeps and God alone passes through the halves. Thus symbolizing His grace to Abraham and his descendants in that nothing was required of them.

There is also the aspect of the blood of the covenant which is seen in the sacrifice. In Exodus 24 when God makes the covenant with the Children of Israel, Moses reads all the commandments of the Lord to them and they pledge their faithfulness. It must be kept in mind, this is not a bi-lateral covenant. God chose the Children of Israel. As the One who creates the covenant, God has the right to require anything He desires from those in the covenant. Once the people in Ex. 24 respond to God's commandment, "All that the Lord has said we will do and be faithful," Moses takes the blood of the covenant and sprinkles it on the people. This act has great significance because the greatest need of the people was the forgiveness their sins. The blood symbolizes the forgiveness which is theirs in the covenant. The author to the Hebrews writes, "For where there is a diatheke, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator," (9;16) and again, "without the shedding of blood there is no remission," (9:22).

There are essentially two different types of covenants in the text of Scripture. The first is a covenant made between men. The second is a covenant made between God and men. Gottfried Quell is addressing this states:

The Old Testament statements which use the word B^erith may be divided into two main groups. To the one belong those in which the concept is understood as the firmly regulated form of a fellowship between God and man or man and God. To the other belong those in which the covenant is presented as the half-Legal and half-sacral form of a fellowship between man and man. ⁽⁸⁾

In the Septuagint (LXX) B^erith is translated as diatheke 270 times. Quell states, ". . . the LXX assumes that diatheke expresses the essential content of B^erith . . ."⁽⁹⁾ We can conclude from this information that since the Apostle Paul was an expert in the Hebrew Scriptures and in the LXX that when he uses the term diatheke it carries with it all the freight of B^erith.

Yet we must also look to see what Paul may have learned from his Hellenistic background and training in rhetoric. Johannes Behm writes of diatheke, "It is most commonly used for `last will and testament,' a technical term in Greek jurisprudence in every age, but also found in literary and popular Greek." ⁽¹⁰⁾ This term can be found in many of the writings of many of the great philosophers and theologians throughout history. Men such as Aristophines, Plato, Peter Londbard, etc. Many of these men understood diatheke in relation to a will or testament. Leon Morris in addressing the etymology of this word says;

Diatheke carries the notion of a laying-down, a disposition, the preposition with its indication of duality direction attention to a laying down with reference to another. Eventually it came to signify a disposition of property by testament, but before this stage was reached it is quite possible that it meant rather an authoritative disposition in general without regard to whether it took place in a testament or not. If this is so the usage of the LXX is explained, for as we have seen, this is the sort of idea which the Hebrew B^erith conveys. In so far, then, as the underlying Hebrew gives us the meaning of diatheke, it indicates that the word signified a transaction between two parties in which one party held the decisive position, laid down the conditions of the agreement, and in general imposed his will, the sole function of there other party being to accept or reject what was determined by the dominant partner.⁽¹¹⁾

This seems to be in line with the teaching of the scholars and philosophers of old. In seeking to gain some understanding of the meaning of diatheke from the non-Biblical sources one is lead to the same conclusion. Moulton and Milligan state, "In papyri and inscrr. the word means testament, will with absolute unanimity, and such frequency that illustration is superfluous."⁽¹²⁾ This seems to give credence to a way of understanding diatheke as "testament" rather than "covenant." Yet Morris seems to be heading in a different direction when he quotes the conclusions of W. D. Ferguson which are;

First, that it is testamentary rather than contractual. It is not a mutual compact to which both parties give assent, mutually contracting to do certain things, but the act of one person giving charges to another, of bestowing property on another or both. Second, The thing enjoined in the diatheke is apparently always to be executed after the decease of the testator. Thirdly, when property is bequeathed it may be accompanied by a charge to be fulfilled, and in such a way that the commission must be accepted in order to obtain the property. And fourthly, the usage of the term diatheke in the inscriptions is similar to its usage in the Old and New Testaments in that the initiative is always taken by one person . . . the one making the diatheke always assumes the right to command, and to withhold his bequest if the conditions attached to it are not fulfilled.⁽¹³⁾

Had the meaning of B^erith been merely a contract between two parties the authors of the LXX would likely have chosen the Greek term suntheke which means a compact which is mutually agreed on by two differing parties who have equal standings. Moulton and Milligan address this contrast between "covenant" and "will" when they say,

But it is entirely natural to assume that in the period of the LXX this monopoly was not established, and the translator were free to apply the general meaning as a rendering of B^erith.⁽¹⁴⁾

The monopoly which the men are speaking of is the use of diatheke in the exclusive way as "last will and testament" of an individual. If indeed this word was still in the process of development and formulation of its meaning, and if the only other alternative was suntheke which carried the idea of a mutual agreement between two parties, it is logical that diatheke would be chosen for the translation of B^erith. Following this line of thought, Paul with his Rabbinical training would have understood diatheke as, used in the LXX, in the way of B^erith as "covenant" and not in the first century sense of "testament" or "will." To add to this view of the development of diatheke, Burton writes;

In the Greek papyri . . . diatheke occurs frequently, always in the sense of "testament," "will." Many of these are dated in the first and second centuries, a few as early as the reign of Augustus.

And again,

From the usage, therefore, of writers before N.T. or approximately contemporaneous with it there emerge two distinct meanings of the word. "Testament" or "testamentary provision" is the most frequent use in classical writers, and is the invariable sense in Josephus and the papyri. The meaning "covenant" is very infrequent in classical writers, but is the almost invariable meaning in the LXX, and the O.T. Apocr. . .⁽¹⁵⁾

The evidence which is available seems to be conclusive that diatheke did not take its final form in meaning until a very late date. Those authors who insist on translating diatheke exclusively as "testament" are not showing true scholarship in their work. On the other hand there is validity to the use of "will" or "testament" for diatheke in some instances, but these are only when the context of the particular passage calls for it. This should be the exception and not the norm.

The term diatheke is used only 33 times in the New Testament, seven of which are in Old Testament quotations. Paul uses the term only nine times. The verses in which Paul uses diatheke are; Romans 9:4 and 11:27, I Corinthians 11:25, II Corinthians 3:6 and 3:14, Galatians 3:15, 17 and 4:24, and Ephesians 2:12. Of these nine one is a quote from the Old Testament (Rom. 11:27), and the words of I Corinthians 11:27 are the words of institution which are not the words of Paul but of Christ.

In Galatians Paul's uses diatheke both in the sense of being established by man and of God. Of the three uses of diatheke in Galatians, two come in his third "probatio," and the third use comes in his sixth.

In the third "probatio" Paul has just concluded his argument of 3:1-5 that one does not begin in the Spirit only to be perfected in the flesh. And, 3:6-14, in which Paul puts forth his strongest argument stating that only those who have faith in Christ are true sons of Abraham, because Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law. Now Paul begins the argument of the superiority of the covenant of "promise" over that of the Law. In verses 3:15-25 Paul is following the line of thought that once a covenant is established it cannot be changed at all. He states in verse 15, "Brothers, I speak according to the customs of men, a covenant having been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds to it." According to the customs or practices of men, once a covenant is made by a man and after it is ratified, it will not and indeed cannot be changed. Paul is appealing to there own understanding of a covenant which was used in there day. There is a possibility that in this text, depending on the meaning given to "will" or "testament," that one of these terms might be used. Paul is speaking in human terms using illustrations common to the readers of his epistle. He could have had the idea of a "will" left by a person for the provisions of his loved ones upon the event of his death. But even this meaning does not negate the use of covenant, if covenant is understood as the unchangeable terms set by one individual and given to another. The point which Paul is making is that it is made by man, and it cannot be changed. How much greater is a covenant which is made by God. If, indeed, a covenant made by man cannot be changed, then certainly a covenant made by God in no way can be changed. This is the basis for his entire third argument. The main emphasis is in verse 17 where Paul says, "What I am saying is this; the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise." If a human covenant can not be abolished then one made by God cannot be either. If God established the covenant of promise, then the Law cannot nullify it.

In Paul's sixth probatio (4:21-31) he uses allegory to contrast the covenant of bondage which is represented by the bondwoman Hagar and her son Ishmael with the covenant of the free-woman who is Sarah with her son Isaac. Many have seen this as a total contrast of the Law and the Promise; the Mt. Sinai vs. Abraham; the old vs. the new. Yet, there some who seem to have a clearer understanding of this section of Scripture, one is Paul S. H. Liao. He sees this as proceeding from and directly related to the discussion of righteousness of faith which is contrast to the righteousness of the Law. He writes,

. . . Paul is contrasting the "covenant" of righteousness by faith with the "covenant" of righteousness by works, and is not opposing the duo diathekai as two historical covenants.⁽¹⁶⁾

The contrast is not of two sperate covenants as much as it is two different ways of seeking to obtain righteousness. One, the Law, is unable to give righteousness because of our inability to keep it. The other, the Promise from faith is able to give to us the righteousness of Christ. It is the contrast of freedom in Christ verses the bondage of the Law. The two women and their sons are used in an allegorical way. On the use of allegory Luther said,

Allegories do not provide solid proofs in theology; but, like pictures, they adorn and illustrate a subject. For if Paul has not provided the righteousness of faith against the righteousness of works by more substantial arguments, he would not have accomplished anything with this allegory. But because he has already fortified his case with more solid arguments -- based on experience, on the case of Abraham, on the evidence of Scripture, and on analogy -- now, at the end of the argument, he adds an allegory as a kind of ornament. For it is very fine, once the foundation has been properly laid and the case has been firmly established, to add some kind of allegory. Just as a picture is an ornament for a house that has already been constructed, so and allegory is a kind of illumination of an oration or of a case that has already been established on other grounds.⁽¹⁷⁾