 |  |
There is a useful comment in Grimm's Lexicon which reads:
"Diatheke. (1.) A disposition, arrangement, of any sort which one wishes to be
valid; Gal. 3:15, where under the name of a man's disposition is meant specifically a
testament, as it is a specimen and example of that disposition . . . . . a testament or will
(so in Greek witness from Aristophanes). (2.) a compact, covenant very often in the
Scriptures from berith (Vulgate testamentum)."
Here, by the happy choice of the word "disposition", we may use it either in the sense
of a man's will, or of God's covenant.
Sir William Ramsay, commenting upon the attitude of many writer, says:
"The Biblical usage is a different topic . . . . . The commentators have not been
sufficiently careful to keep those two questions separate from one another."
The word diatheke is often found in inscriptions, and always in the sense of will or
testament, and Paul by prefacing his comments with the words "I speak after the manner
of men" shows what is in his mind. Dr. Bullinger, who strongly maintains the translation
"covenant" in Heb. 9: 16, 17, says in his Greek Concordance:
"Diatheke, a disposition, especially of property by will and testament. This word is
the usual rendering of berith in the O.T. which certainly means a covenant."
The point of Paul's argument in Gal. 3: 15 is that a will once made is irrevocable. If
we assume that the law governing the making of an ancient will is the same as that which
is in force today, then we certainly find no cogency in the Apostle's illustration; but to
quote Sir William Ramsay again:
"Our procedure must be very different. We have to take the word diatheke in its
ordinary sense, `after the manner of men'; . . . . . then we observe what is the character
attributed by Paul to the known classes of will in other ancient nations, and so determine
its origin."
Archaeology demonstrates the truth that this irrevocability was a characteristic of
Greek law. The making of the will was the appointment of the heir, and this by a process
was entitled "adoption". When once such a will had been confirmed, no alteration was
allowable or possible. Moreover a will today is secret; then, in Galatia, it was public and
open.
The Roman-Syrian Law-Book cited by Mitteis well illustrates Gal. 3: 15:
"It actually lays down the principle that a man can never put away an adopted son,
and that he cannot put away a real son without good ground. It is remarkable that the
adopted son should have a stronger position than the son by birth; yet it was so."
Every will had to be passed through the Record Office of the city. This illuminates
the Apostle's argument "when it hath been confirmed". The Galatians, fully acquainted
as they were with their own laws, would appreciate the Apostle's argument. Granted that