Hebrews 9:17

Heb 9:17. Ἐπὶ νεκροῖς, over [super] the dead) briefly expressed, instead of this expression, over or upon the death of the testators. So LXX. Lev 21:5, ἐπὶ νεκρῷ, over the dead [upon the death of a relative].—μήποτε) This particle plainly implies an interrogation;[51] moreover, ἐπεὶ, with an interrogation, has great force, Rom 3:6; 1Co 14:16; 1Co 15:29. See Not. ad Chrys. de Sacerd., p. 424.

[51] So Lachm. rightly has an interrogation marked at ὁ διαθέμενος;—ED.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Heb_9:17. Confirmatory elucidation of Heb_9:16. The words of the verse are connected together as parts of a single statement. We have no right to break up the same, in such wise that διαθήκη γὰρ ἐπὶ νεκροῖς βεβαία is made a parenthesis, and ἐπεὶ κ.τ.λ. joined to Heb_9:16 (Hofmann).

ἐπὶ νεκροῖς] in the case of dead persons, i.e. only upon condition that the author of the διαθήκη is dead, or has died.

βεβαία] firm or inviolable (comp. Heb_2:2), inasmuch, namely, as, after the death of the testator has supervened, the abrogation or alteration of the testament on his part is no longer possible.

μήποτε] never. The making of μήποτε equivalent to μήπω or nondum (Vulgate, Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus, Luther, Schlichting, Böhme) is linguistically inadmissible. Oecumenius, Theophylact, Lud. de Dieu, Heinsius, Bengel, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Lachmann, Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 429), Delitzsch, and Ewald regard the word as an interrogative particle, which does not alter the sense, and might appear the preferable course, since, on the supposition of an assertory statement, the objective οὔποτε might have been expected in place of the subjective μήποτε. Nevertheless, elsewhere too, with later authors, the placing of the subjective negation is not at all rare after ἐπεί, when it introduces an objectively valid reason. See Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 447; Buttmann, Gramm. des neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 304.

ἰσχύει] sc. διαθήκη, not ὁ διαθέμενος (Peirce).

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

after--literally, "over," as we say "upon the death of the testators"; not as THOLUCK, "on the condition that slain sacrifices be there," which the Greek hardly sanctions.

otherwise--"seeing that it is never availing" [ALFORD]. BENGEL and LACHMANN read with an interrogation, "Since, is it ever in force (surely not) while the testator liveth?"

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

17. after men are dead] This rendering expresses the meaning rightly—a will is only valid “in cases of death,” “in the case of men who are dead.” Ex vi termini, “a testament,” is the disposition which a man makes of his affairs with a view to his death. The attempt to confine the word diathçkç to the sense of “covenant” which it holds throughout the rest of the Epistle has led to the most strained and impossible distortion of these words ἐπὶ νεκροῖς in a way which is but too familiar in Scripture commentaries. They have been explained to mean “over dead victims,” &c.; but all such explanations fall to the ground when the special meaning of diathçkç in these two verses is recognised. The author thinks it worth while to notice, in passing, that death is the condition of inheritance by testament, just as death is necessary to ratify a covenant (Gen_15:7-10; Jer_34:18).

otherwise it is of no strength at all …] The words are better taken as a question—“Since is there any validity in it at all while the testator is alive?” This is an appeal to the reader’s own judgment.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For a testament is of force after men are dead,.... The necessity of Christ's death is here urged, from the nature and force of a testament or will, among men, which does not take place, and cannot be executed, till a man is dead.

Otherwise it is of no strength at all whilst the testator liveth; no claim can be made by the legatees for the part they have in it, nor can any disposition be made by the executor of it; not that hereby is suggested, that the testament or will of God was uncertain and precarious till the death of Christ, and subject to change and alteration as men's wills are till they die; nor that the inheritance could not be enjoyed by the Old Testament saints; for it is certain, it was entered upon by them before the death of Christ; but the sense is, that there was a necessity of it, that the saints right unto it, upon the foot of justice, might be evident by it.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Ver. 17. While the testator liveth] For it is in his power to alter it at his pleasure, as reason requireth. Our Henry II first crowned, and then cast off his eldest son Henry, not suffering him to be what himself had made him.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For a testament - Such an arrangement as God enters into with man; see the remarks on Heb 9:16.

Is of force - Is ratified, or confirmed - in the same way as a deed or compact is confirmed by affixing a seal.

After men are dead - ἐπὶ νεκροῖς epi nekrois. “Over the dead.” That is, in accordance with the view given above, after the animal is dead; or over the body of the animal slain for sacrifice, and to confirm the covenant. “For a covenant is completed or confirmed over dead sacrifices, seeing it is never of force as long as the victim set apart for its ratification is still living.” ms. notes of Dr. JohnP. Wilson. To this interpretation it is objected, that “νεκροῖς nekrois - “nekrois” - means only “dead men;” but human beings surely were not sacrificed by the Jews, as a mediating sacrifice in order to confirm a covenant.” Prof. Stuart in loc. In regard to this objection, and to the proper meaning of the passage, we may remark:

(1) That the word “men” is not in the Greek, nor is it necessarily implied, unless it be in the use of the Greek word rendered “dead.” The proper translation is, “upon, or over the dead.” The use of the word “men” here by our translators would seem to limit it to the making of a will.

(2) It is to be presumed, unless there is positive proof to the contrary, that the Greeks and Hebrews used the word “dead” as it is used by other people, and that it “might” refer to deceased animals, or vegetables, as well as to human beings. A sacrifice that had been offered was dead; a tree that had fallen was dead; an animal that had been torn by other wild animals was dead. It is “possible” that a people might have one word to refer to “dead men,” and another to “dead animals,” and another to “dead vegetables:” but what is the evidence that the Hebrews or the Greeks had such words?

(3) What is the meaning of this very word - νεκρός nekros - “nekros” - in Heb 6:1; Heb 9:14, of this very Epistle when it is applied to works - “dead works” - if it never refers to anything but people? compare Jam 2:17, Jam 2:20, Jam 2:26; Eph 2:1, Eph 2:5; Rev 3:1. In Ecc 9:4, it is applied to a dead lion. I suppose, therefore, that the Greek phrase here will admit of the interpretation which the “exigency of the place” seems to demand, and that the idea is, that a covenant with God was ratified over the animals slain in sacrifice, and was not considered as confirmed until the sacrifice was killed.

Otherwise - Since - ἐπεί epei. That is, unless this takes place it will be of no force.

It is of no strength - It is not “strong” - ἰσχύει ischuei - it is not confirmed or ratified. “While the testator liveth.” Or while the animal selected to confirm the covenant is alive. It can be confirmed only by its being slain. A full examination of the meaning of this passage Heb 9:16-17 may be found in an article in the Biblical Repository, vol. 20, pp. 51-71, and in Prof. Stuart’s reply to that article. Bib. Repos. 20, pp. 356-381.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

For a testament is of force after men are dead: the testator being by death disseised of his goods and lands, the right takes place of the legatees, and the time of their challenging it; such a sacred tie there is upon the surviving, that none can of right add to it, alter, or disannul it.

Otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth; it is of no force while the maker of it liveth, because they have need of the things bequeathed; they can alter and change it, and by the will itself it is declared none shall have any right to the things bequeathed in it till the testator be dead. The consequent of all this is, that the Testator of the new testament must put it in force by death; and his death is of greater force to confirm his testament than that of men, because his will can never be violated, it being a Divine constitution, but the human testament may. Christ, God-man, after dieth, as Testator, and puts the testament in force; and by breaking the bonds of death, doth gloriously effect that the legatees perform the conditions required in the will, to fit them for receiving their legacies; and then faithfully distributeth them to them by his grand executor the Holy Spirit, who applieth the virtue of it to the legatees under the Old Testament, as well as these under the New; he being the Testator, as well as the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

After he is dead - Neither this, nor after men are dead is a literal translation of the words. It is a very perplexed passage.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

17. Is of force after men are dead. As soon as a man dies, his last will and testament comes into force, but has no force whatever while he lives. The application of this is that Christ's testament, the new covenant, came into force when he died. The old covenant was in force to the cross; it was then “nailed to the cross,” and Christ having died, the New Testament came into force. It has been urged against this view that the making of wills was not a custom of Israel. It was, however the custom of the whole Roman Empire, and Judea was now a Roman province. The Roman customs had made provinces of the empire familiar with the use of wills.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

17. ἐπὶ νεκροῖς. Lit., “over the dead.” The A.V. rendering (“after men are dead”) expresses the meaning rightly—a will is only valid “in cases of death,” “in the case of men who are dead.” Ex vi termini, “a testament” is the disposition which a man makes of his affairs with a view to his death. The attempt to confine the word διαθήκη to the sense of “covenant,” which it holds throughout the rest of the Epistle, has led to the most strained and impossible distortion of these words ἐπὶ νεκροῖς in a way which is but too familiar in Scripture commentaries. They have been explained to mean “over dead victims,” &c.; but all such explanations fall to the ground when the special meaning of διαθήκη in these two verses is recognised. The author thinks it worth while to notice, in passing, that death is the condition of inheritance by testament, just as death is necessary to ratify a covenant (Gen 15:7-10; Jer 34:18). To his readers, in all probability, the momentary change of sense would have been at once intelligible; and especially if they were readers of Philo. The unusual expression ἐπὶ νεκροῖς, where ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀποθανοῦσιν might have been more intelligible, is due to the silent parallel between the “testament” and the “covenant” which is passing through the author’s mind. Ἐπὶ often implies supposition or condition; ἐπὶ ν. over dead persons, i.e. not until there are dead persons, when death has taken place. Winer, p. 491.

ἐπεὶ … μήποτε ἰσχύει …; The words are perhaps better taken as a question—“Since is there any validity in it at all while the testator is alive?” This is an appeal to the reader’s own judgement. The μὴ is thus accounted for, which we must otherwise explain by the fact that he is not thinking of any particular testament, Winer, p. 602. As a matter of fact, however, though we should here have expected the absolute denial of οὔποτε, later writers constantly use μὴ after ἐπεί.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

17.] for (renders a fresh reason within the domain of the former γάρ, explaining the axiom of ver. 16) a testament is of force (βεβαία, see on ch. 2:2, and Rom 4:16) in the case of the dead (ἐπί, over, the thing predicated being the substratum or condition of the subject. Doubtless in choosing the plural, and indeed the word itself, the Writer has in his mind the transition which he is about to make from the death of the New Testament to the typical deaths of the Old, which were of animals, between which and men, νεκρά, not ἀποθανόντα, would be the common term), seeing that it (a διαθήκη) is never (we should expect οὔποτε here, the assertion being absolute and of matter of fact: but it appears to be a habit of later writers after ἐπεί to use the subjective, not the objective negation. So Ælian xii. 63, ἐπεὶ μὴ πάνυ ἦν πλούσιος: Lucian, Hermot. 47, ἐπεὶ μηδενὸς ἡγεμόνος τοιούτου ἔς γε τὸ παρὸν εὐποροῦμεν: Ptol. Geogr. viii., ἐπεὶ μηδὲν εἶχε τοιοῦτον … ἀντιπαραγράφειν. But we must not render μήποτε as = μήπω, which vulg., Faber Stap., Erasm., Luther, Calv., Böhme have done. Many expositors take it interrogatively: “surely it is not?” &c. So Œc., Thl., De Dieu, Bengel, Lachmann, and even Delitzsch: but quite unnecessarily, as the above usage is undoubted, and the question introduces an unnecessary harshness) availing when (ὅτε corresponding to μήποτε) he that made it is alive.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For a testament is of force after men are dead [διαθηκη γαρ επι νεκροις βεβαια] . Rend. "for a covenant is of force (or sure) over (or upon) dead (victims)." Comp. Soph. Elect. 237; Eurip. Ion. 228; Aesch. Eumen. 316; Hdt 4:162. See also Lev 21:5.

Otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth [επει μη τοτε ισχυει οτε ζη ο διαθεμενος] . Rend. "since it hath not then force when the institutor is alive" : until he has been representatively slain.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

17. διαθήκη γάρ... διαθέμενος) For a covenant ἐδ sure where there hath been death, since it doth not ever have Sorce when he that made it liveth. Vulg. Testamentum enim in mortuis confirmatum est; alioquin nondum valet dum vivit qui testatus eat. The statement which has been made is supported by an explanation which is borrowed from ancient usage and language. A solemn covenant was made upon tho basis of a sacrifico. The death of the victim was supposed to give validity to it. The idea which is involved in the symbolic act is intelligible and important. Tho unchangenbloness of a covenant is seen in the fact that he who has made it has deprived himself of all furthor power of movoment in this respect: while the ratification by death is still incomplete, while the victim, the re tative of him who makes it, still lives, that is, while he who makes it still possesses the full power of action and freedom to change, the covenant is not of force.

The sense here given to the death

[μή more’ ἰσχύει ὅτε ζῇ ὁ [διαθέμενος.

impartment of a new life which have beon already connected with Obrist’s work (vo. 14, 15).

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901), The Epistle to the Hebrews (1889) and The Epistles of St John (1883) — public domain (pre-1929). Text recovered from Internet Archive / Google Books OCR scans. Westcott’s Gospel of John commentary is not included (its OCR lost the chapter running-heads required for reliable verse-keying). Some Greek quoted in the Hebrews volume is imperfectly rendered by the OCR.