For where there is a testament, the death of the testator must of necessity come in.

“It was probable that many of those who were more weakly would especially distrust the promises of Christ because He had died. Paul accordingly out of a superabundance introduced this illustration, deriving it from common custom. Of what kind is it? He says, "indeed, on this very account we ought to be of good courage." On what account? Because testaments are established and obtain their force when those who have made them are not living, but dead. "And for this cause," he says, "He is the Mediator of the New Testament." A Testament is made towards the last day, [the day] of death. And a testament is of this character: It makes some heirs, and some disinherited. So in this case also: "I will that where I am," Christ says, "they also may be." (John xvii. 24.) And again of the disinherited, hear Him saying, "I pray not for" all, "but for them that believe on Me through their word." (John xvii. 20.) Again, a testament has relation both to the testator, and to the legatees; so that they have some things to receive, and some to do, So also in this case. For after having made promises innumerable, He demands also something from them, saying, "a new commandment I give unto you." (John xiii. 34.) Again, a testament ought to have witnesses. Hear Him again saying, "I am one that bear witness of Myself, and He that sent Me beareth witness of Me." (John viii. 18.) And again, "He shall testify of Me" (John xv. 26), speaking of the Comforter. The twelve Apostles too He sent, saying, "Bear ye witness before God."”

“Inasmuch as the apostle says to the Hebrews, "A will takes effect only at the death of the one who made it," he therefore asserts that, with Christ's death for us, the new covenant has become valid. Its likeness was the old covenant, in which the death of the testator was prefigured in the sacrificial victim. Therefore, if one should ask how it is that we, in the words of the same apostle, are "children and heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ," since of course the inheritance is made valid by the death of the deceased and since an inheritance cannot be understood in any other way, the answer is this: he himself having in fact died, we have become heirs because we were also called his sons. "The sons of the bridegroom," he says, "do not fast while the bridegroom is with them." Therefore we are called his heirs, for he has left the peace of the Church, a peace which we possess in this life, in our possession through faith in the divine plan of salvation revealed in time.”

“Above, the Apostle expounded those things which were done in the old testament, and opened up their mystical exposition; here, from these things, he argues to his intended point, namely that the new testament is preferred over the old, because it can do what the old could not. And concerning this he does two things. For first he sets forth the conclusion he intends; second he proves something he had presupposed, at the place, For where a testament. Again the first is divided into two. For first he concludes from what has been said that Christ is the mediator; second he shows this — that the old testament could not do this — at the place, which were under the former. He says therefore: and therefore, namely because Christ entered into the holies, having found an eternal redemption, that is, leading unto eternal things, which the old could not do; hence it is necessary that this testament be other than that one, as the new is from the old. Ier. XXXI, 31: I will strike with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, et cetera. Apoc. XXI, v. 5: behold, I make all things new. Therefore Christ is the mediator of this new testament between God and man. I Tim. II, 5: the mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Now in every testament there is something which is promised, and something by which the testament is confirmed. But in the new testament heavenly and spiritual things are promised. Likewise this promise was confirmed by the death of Christ. And therefore Christ is the mediator of the new testament, that they who are called may receive the promise of eternal beatitude and of the eternal inheritance. And he says called, because this gift is not from works, but from the calling of God. Rom. VIII, 30: and whom he predestined, these he also called. I Thess. II, 12: we testified, that you should walk worthily of God, who has called you unto his kingdom and glory. Hence he says of the eternal inheritance, that is, of the eternal glory, which is our inheritance. I Pet. I, 3 s.: he has regenerated us unto a living hope, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and unfading, reserved in the heavens. Ps. CXXVI, 4: behold the inheritance of the Lord. Likewise: the Lord is the portion of my inheritance. Now we have this inheritance through the death of Christ. Hence he says, a death coming between. I Pet. III, 9: unto this you were called, that you might possess a blessing by inheritance. The effect of this death is redemption from the transgression of sin. I Petr. I, 18 s.: you were redeemed from your vain manner of life, not with corruptible things, gold or silver, but with the precious blood of an unspotted lamb. But could this redemption from sins have been effected in the old testament? And he answers that it could not, because those transgressions were under the former testament; as if to say: because they could not be removed by the power of the sacraments of the former testament. Rom. III, 9: we have charged that Jews and Greeks are all under sin. But against this, because David and many other saints had remission of sins. I respond. It must be said that as to this effect, which is entrance into heaven, no, because through the death of Christ the door of life was opened. For no one entered before the death of Christ. Zach. IX, 11: but you, by the blood of your testament, have sent forth your prisoners out of the pit, wherein is no water. But as to the stain, in this way they did obtain it; yet not by the power of the sacraments of the old law, but in the faith of Christ. Thus therefore the new testament is more excellent than the old, because it is confirmed by the death of Christ, by which sins are remitted, and because it exhibits the promise. Then, when he says, For where a testament, he proves what he had presupposed, namely that the new testament is confirmed through the death of Christ. And first he proves this by the authority of human law; second by the authority of divine law, at the place, Whence neither was the first. He says therefore: it has been said that the new testament is confirmed through the intervening death of Christ, because in order for a testament to be valid, it is necessary that the death of the testator intervene; and therefore the new testament would not have force, unless the death of Christ had intervened. Hence it is said, Io. XI, 50: it is expedient for you, that one man die for the people. Now the death of the testator is necessary for two things. First, that the testament may have firmness, because since it is an expression of the last will, it can always be changed before death. Hence he says, that a testament is confirmed in the dead, that is, through death. And in this way the new testament is confirmed through the death of Christ. Matth. XXVI, 28: this is my blood of the new testament, namely its confirmer and dedicator. Second, the death of the testator is necessary in order that the testament be valid and have efficacy. Hence he says, otherwise it is not yet valid, because no one can claim anything, nor even can the heirs claim the inheritance by force of the testament, except after the death of the testator. Therefore Christ willed to interpose his death for us. Then, when he says, Whence neither was the first, he proves this same thing by the authority of divine law, namely by that which is found in the old testament. And concerning this he does two things. For first he shows the agreement between the two testaments; second he shows the difference, at the place, It is necessary therefore. Concerning the first he does two things, for first he proposes; second he makes it manifest, at the place, For when...had been read. He says therefore: thus it has been said, that in order for a testament to be valid, it is necessary that the death of the testator intervene. Nor should this seem surprising, because not even the first testament was dedicated, that is, confirmed, without blood. But that blood prefigured the blood of Christ. For all these things happened to them in figure, I Cor. X, 11. Then, when he says, For...having been read, he proves the point proposed, namely that that testament was not confirmed without blood. And he proves this with respect to three things, in which there was a use of blood. First with respect to the promulgation of the law; second with respect to the consecration of the tabernacle, at the place, the tabernacle also; third with respect to the purification of the vessels, at the place, and almost all things in blood. Concerning the first it must be known that the Apostle here touches on the history which is found in Ex. XXIV, 7, where it is said, that after Moses had read before the people the commandments of the Lord, and they answering, All the things which the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient, Moses took the blood which he had ordered to be kept from the twelve calves, and sprinkled the book of the law and the people, as it were in confirmation of the testament. And therefore he says, for when every commandment had been read, etc., because it was necessary that it be read. For that reading was the promulgation of the law. For it was necessary that the law be promulgated. Taking, et cetera. Here there is a twofold literal objection. One, because in Ex. XXIV no mention is made of a goat, but of twelve calves. The second, because there also no mention is made of water and scarlet and hyssop. The response to these two is twofold. One, namely, because the Apostle had been raised in the law; hence he knew that this was the practice in purifications according to the law, that the sprinkling was done with the blood of goats and calves and water mixed with hyssop and scarlet wool, as with a sprinkler; and therefore, although this is not treated of in Exodus, nevertheless the Apostle took this from the custom of the legal rite. Or it can be said that this was the first consecration. And therefore the other sanctifications to come were contained in it, as it were, virtually; among which the chief was that which was done on the day of expiation, concerning which Lev. XVI, and another concerning the red heifer, Num. XVI. In the first, however, there was the blood of a calf and a goat; but in the second, water and scarlet wool and hyssop. Therefore, because that first one contained these two, the Apostle referred the whole to that one. He says therefore, taking the blood, etc., he sprinkled the book and all the people, saying: this is the blood of the testament, which God has commanded to you, namely, its confirmer. Eccli. XXIV, 33: Moses commanded us a law in the precepts of justice. For this blood was a figure of the blood of Christ, by which the new testament was confirmed. And therefore Christ used these very words. Matth. XXVI, 28: this is the blood of the new testament, namely, confirmatory. Now it was prefigured by the blood of the goat on account of the likeness of sinful flesh, and by that of the calf on account of strength. It is mixed, however, with water, because Baptism has its efficacy from the blood of Christ; and it is sprinkled with hyssop, which cleanses the breast, by which faith is signified. Act. c. XV, 9: purifying their hearts by faith. And by the scarlet wool, which is of a red color, charity is signified. Cant. V, 10: my beloved is white and ruddy. For through faith and love of the passion of Christ the people is cleansed. The book of the law is sprinkled too, because the passion of Christ fulfilled the law. Io. XIX, 30: it is consummated. Matth. V, 17: I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. Then, when he says, the tabernacle also, he sets down the consecration of the tabernacle, because he likewise sprinkled with blood the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. But against this, because the tabernacle had not yet been made, but in chapter XXV the consecration of the tabernacle is commanded. I respond. It must be said that although it is not the same blood by which the people and the tabernacle were sprinkled, nevertheless the tabernacle too was cleansed with blood. Hence it can be construed thus: he used blood, even when he sanctified the tabernacle. But against this, because in Num. and Lev. VIII it is said, that he anointed the tabernacle with oil. It is said, that he anointed the tabernacle with oil. I respond. It must be said that he is not speaking of that sanctification by which the tabernacle and its vessels were first consecrated, but of that which was done on the day of expiation. Or better, it must be said that he used blood also in the first, because it is said there that he anointed it with oil, and afterward that he sprinkled it. But oil is not a thing for sprinkling, hence it is understood that he first anointed it, and afterward sprinkled it with blood. And these two are necessary for sanctification, namely the power of the blood of Christ, and the oil of mercy, by which the tabernacle is sanctified, that is, the Church, and the vessels, that is, the ministers. Then, when he says, and almost all things according to the law are cleansed with blood, he goes on to treat of the other legal cleansings. Now there was a twofold cleansing: one from a bodily stain, such as leprosy; the other from a spiritual one, namely sin. The first could pertain to inanimate things, as is evident concerning the leprosy of houses. And the cleansing from this uncleanness was done with the blood of a slain animal, or with the water of expiation, which was made with the blood of the red heifer. And therefore he says almost all things, and not all things simply. Or almost all things, in such a way that the word "almost" qualifies the word "are cleansed," that is, they are almost cleansed, because they were not perfectly cleansed: this happens only through the sacrament of the new law. Or it can qualify the word "all." For not all things were cleansed with blood, because, as it is said, Num. XXXI, v. 23, whatever can endure fire is purged by fire; but those things which could not, are purged with the water of expiation. But for the cleansing from the stain of sin, the shedding of blood is necessary, because it was required for sacrifice. And therefore he says, that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. By which it was prefigured that the remission of sin was to be brought about through the blood of Christ. Hence in the old law the remission of sins came about not by the power of the sacrament, but by the power of faith in Christ. Hence it is frequently said there, the priest shall pray for him, and it shall be forgiven.”

“For where a testament is,.... The covenant of grace, as administered under the Gospel dispensation, is a testament or will. The Jews have adopted the Greek word, here used, into their language, and pronounce it and by it understand a dying man's last will and testament (d). Some of them make it to be of Hebrew derivation; as if it was said, , "this shall be to confirm" (e), or this shall be stable and firm; though others own it to be the same with this Greek word (f). The covenant of grace, is properly a covenant to Christ, and a testament or will to his people: it is his and their Father's will, concerning giving them both grace and glory; it consists of many gifts and legacies; in it Christ is made heir of all things, and his people are made joint heirs with him; they are given to him as his portion; and they have all things pertaining to life and godliness bequeathed to them, even all spiritual blessings; the witnesses of it are Father, Son, and Spirit; and the seals of it are the blood of Christ, and the grace of the Spirit; and this is registered in the Scriptures by holy men as notaries; and is unalterable and immutable: and this being made, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator; who is Christ; he has various parts in this will or testament; he is the surety and Mediator of it; and he is the executor of it; what is given in it, is first given to him, in order to be given to others; all things are put into his hands, and he has a power to give them to as many as the Father has given him; and here he is called the "testator": Christ, as God, has an equal right to dispose of the inheritance, both of grace and glory; and as Mediator, nothing is given without his consent; and whatever is given, is given with a view to his "death", and comes through it, and by virtue of it: hence there is a "necessity" of that, and that on the account of the divine perfections; particularly for the declaration of God's righteousness, or by reason of his justice; and also because of his purposes and decrees, which have fixed it, and of his promises, which are yea and amen in Christ, and are ratified by his blood, called therefore the blood of the covenant; and likewise on account of the engagements of Christ to suffer and die; as well as for the accomplishment of Scripture prophecies concerning it; and moreover, on account of the blessings which were to come to the saints through it, as a justifying righteousness, pardon of sin, peace and reconciliation, adoption and eternal life. (d) T. Hieros. Peah, fol. 17. 4. & T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 152. 2. (e) T. Bab. Bava Metzia, fol. 19. 1. Maimon & Bartenora in Misn. Moed Katon, c. 3. sect. 3. & in Bava Metzia, c. 1. sect. 7. & in Bava Bathra, c. 8. sect. 6. (f) Cohen de Lara Ir David, p. 30.”

“For where a testament is - A learned and judicious friend furnishes me with the following translation of this and the 17th verse: - "For where there is a covenant, it is necessary that the death of the appointed victim should be exhibited, because a covenant is confirmed over dead victims, since it is not at all valid while the appointed victim is alive." He observes, "There is no word signifying testator, or men, in the original. Διαθεμενος is not a substantive, but a participle, or a participial adjective, derived from the same root as διατηκη, and must have a substantive understood. I therefore render it the disposed or appointed victim, alluding to the manner of disposing or setting apart the pieces of the victim, when they were going to ratify a covenant; and you know well the old custom of ratifying a covenant, to which the apostle alludes. I refer to your own notes on Gen 6:18 (note), and Gen 15:10 (note). - J. C." Mr. Wakefield has translated the passage nearly in the same way. "For where a covenant is, there must be necessarily introduced the death of that which establisheth the covenant; because a covenant is confirmed over dead things, and is of no force at all whilst that which establisheth the covenant is alive." This is undoubtedly the meaning of this passage; and we should endeavor to forget that testament and testator were ever introduced, as they totally change the apostle's meaning. See the observations at the end of this chapter.”

“For where there is a testament, the death of the testator, &c. The same Greek word, corresponding to the Hebrew word Berith, is often used both in the books of the old and new Scriptures. The ancient Latin interpreter puts for it testamentum, a testament: but others would rather have the Hebrew and Greek word to signify any agreement, bargain, alliance, or covenant, which last word is generally put in the English Protestant translations, followed also by Mr. N. We do not deny but the Hebrew and Greek word have this signification, but not exclusively: this place of St. Paul shews evidently that they also signify what both in Latin and English is called a testament or last will, which is only of force by the death of the testator. The Protestants, therefore, here find themselves obliged to translate testament, contrary to their custom, and to apply this word not only to the promises and blessings God made to Christians, of which Christ is the mediator, and which were confirmed by his blood and by his death, but also to the former alliance and promises or blessings God made to the Israelites, when he chose them to be his elect people, and gave them his law and his commandments under Moses. It is true God is immortal in his own nature, cannot die, and therefore cannot make a testament that shall be confirmed by his own death. But as for the new alliance, or New Testament, as here it must be called, it was confirmed by the death of the Son of God; that is, of God made man, by which it is true to say that God died for us, though he did not die, nor could die, as God. And as for the former alliance, or first testament, as it is called here, (ver. 18.) that, says St. Paul, (which was only a figure of the second or new testament ) was not made nor ratified without the blood of so many victims as used to be offered and sacrificed. (Witham)”

“A general axiomatic truth; it is "a testament"; not the testament. The testator must die before his testament takes effect (Heb 9:17). This is a common meaning of the Greek noun diathece. So in Luk 22:29, "I appoint (by testamentary disposition; the cognate Greek verb diatithemai) unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me." The need of death before the testamentary appointment takes effect, holds good in Christ's relation as MAN to us; Of course not in God's relation to Christ. be--literally, be borne": "be involved in the case"; be inferred; or else, "be brought forward in court," so as to give effect to the will. This sense (testament) of the Greek "diathece" here does not exclude its other secondary senses in the other passages of the New Testament: (1) a covenant between two parties; (2) an arrangement, or disposition, made by God alone in relation to us. Thus, Mat 26:28 may be translated, "Blood of the covenant"; for a testament does not require blood shedding. Compare Exo 24:8 (covenant), which Christ quotes, though it is probable He included in a sense "testament" also under the Greek word diathece (comprehending both meanings, "covenant" and "testament"), as this designation strictly and properly applies to the new dispensation, and is rightly applicable to the old also, not in itself, but when viewed as typifying the new, which is properly a testament. Moses (Exo 24:8) speaks of the same thing as [Christ and] Paul. Moses, by the term "covenant," does not mean aught save one concerning giving the heavenly inheritance typified by Canaan after the death of the Testator, which he represented by the sprinkling of blood. And Paul, by the term "testament," does not mean aught save one having conditions attached to it, one which is at the same time a covenant [POLI, Synopsis]; the conditions are fulfilled by Christ, not by us, except that we must believe, but even this God works in His people. THOLUCK explains, as elsewhere, "covenant . . . covenant . . . mediating victim"; the masculine is used of the victim personified, and regarded as mediator of the covenant; especially as in the new covenant a MAN (Christ) took the place of the victim. The covenanting parties used to pass between the divided parts of the sacrificed animals; but, without reference to this rite, the need of a sacrifice for establishing a covenant sufficiently explains this verse. Others, also, explaining the Greek as "covenant," consider that the death of the sacrificial victim represented in all covenants the death of both parties as unalterably bound to the covenant. So in the redemption-covenant, the death of Jesus symbolized the death of God (?) in the person of the mediating victim, and the death of man in the same. But the expression is not "there must be the death of both parties making the covenant," but singular, "of Him who made (aorist, past time; not 'of Him making') the testament." Also, it is "death," not "sacrifice" or "slaying." Plainly, the death is supposed to be past (aorist, "made"); and the fact of the death is brought (Greek) before court to give effect to the will. These requisites of a will, or testament, concur here: (1) a testator; (2) heirs; (3) goods; (4) the death of the testator; (5) the fact of the death brought forward in court. In Mat 26:28 two other requisites appear: witnesses, the disciples; and a seal, the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the sign of His blood wherewith the testament is primarily sealed. It is true the heir is ordinarily the successor of him who dies and so ceases to have the possession. But in this case Christ comes to life again, and is Himself (including all that He hath), in the power of His now endless life, His people's inheritance; in His being Heir (Heb 1:2), they are heirs.”