Presents were considered as tokens of honour;—not meant as offers of payment or enrichment, (1 Sam. ix. 7); and especially presents of dresses. 1 Sam. xviii. 4. Luke xv. 22. Tavernier, p. 43, mentions a nazar, whose virtue so pleased a king of Persia, that he caused himself to be disappareled, and gave his own habit to the nazar, which is the greatest honour a king of Persia can bestow on a subject.
Such presents are given by kings on great occasions, especially at the marriages of their children. The Sultan Achmet, at the marriage of his eldest daughter, “gave presents to above 20,000 persons.” Knolles's Hist. of the Turks, p. 1311. So Ahasuerus “gave gifts, according to the state of the king.” Esth. ii. 18.
The king gives his garment of honour before the wearer is admitted into his presence;—De la Mottraye's Trav. p. 199; (Does this illustrate Zech. iii. 3, 4?)—and would resent it if any, having received robes of him, should appear in his presence without wearing these marks of his liberality. And to refuse such favours, when offered, is considered as one of the greatest indignities. Sir John Chardin relates an instance where such a refusal cost a vizier his life. See 4 Calm. Dict. pp. 64, 126, 514.
The use of the word testament, (diatheke,) in a sense involving also the idea of a covenant, and in connexion with the circumstances of a compact, has greatly perplexed many English readers of the Bible. The difficulty occurs in Matt. 26, 28, and the parallel places, where our Lord employs the word testament, or last will, in connexion with the sacrificial shedding of his own blood; a ceremony which, by means of a suitable animal, usually was adopted among the ancients, upon the making of the most solemn engagements; and instead of which, the mutual partaking of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, by the contracting parties, was substituted among Christians in later times. The same embarrassment occurs, perhaps in a greater degree, in the exposition of several passages in the eighth and ninth chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews, (manifestly written by a profound lawyer, be he Paul or Apollos), where he uses language applicable indifferently both to a covenant inter vivos and a last will. For with us, a testament is simply a declaration of the last will of the testator, in regard to the disposition of his property after his decease, irrespective of any consent, or even knowledge, at the time, on the part of him to whom the estate is given; while a covenant requires the mutual consent of both parties, as essential to its existence. The one is simply the ultima voluntas of an individual, the other is the aggregatio mentium of both or all.
The solution of this difficulty belongs rather to theologians, whose province it is by no means intended here to invade; but perhaps a reference to the laws and usages in force in Judea in the times of our Saviour and his Apostles may furnish some aid, which a lawyer might contribute without transgressing the limit of his profession.
It is first to be observed that the municipal laws of Greece and Rome were strikingly similar; those of Greece having been freely imported into the Roman jurisprudence. In like manner, the similarity of the Grecian laws and usages with those extant in Asia Minor, indicated a common origin; and thus, what Greece derived from Egypt and the states of Asia Minor, these states, after many ages, received again as the laws of their Roman masters. It should also be remembered that Palestine had been reduced to a Roman province some years before the time of our Saviour; long enough, indeed, to have become familiar with Roman laws and usages, even had they been previously unknown; and that Paul, to whom the Epistle to the Hebrews is generally attributed, was himself a thorough-bred lawyer, well versed in the customs of his country, whether ancient or modern. Among those nations, the civil magistrate often exercised the functions of the priesthood, these dignities being in some respects identical; and thus, whatever was transacted before the magistrate, might naturally seem to partake of the character of an act of religion. Covenants were always made with particular formalities, and to those of graver nature, religious solemnities were often superadded. They were frequently confirmed by an oath, the most solemn form of which was taken standing before the altar; and whosoever swore by the altar, swore by the sacrifice thereon, and was held as firmly bound as though he had passed between the dismembered parts of the victim. Of the latter kind was the oath, by which God confirmed his covenant with Abraham (Gen. xv.) when the visible light of his presence passed between the pieces which the patriarch had divided and laid “each piece one against another.”
With these things in view, we may now look at some of the modes of transferring property, practised by the nations alluded to.
Among the methods of alienation or sale of property by the owner, in his lifetime, was that which in the Roman law was termed mancipatio; a mode by which the vendor conveyed property to the purchaser, each party being present, either in person or by his agent, representative, or factor. Five witnesses were requisite, one of whom was called libripens, or the balance-holder. This form had its origin in the sale of goods by weight, but was gradually extended to all sales; and the practice was for the buyer to strike the balance with a piece of money called a sestertius, which was immediately paid over to the vendor as part of the price; and hence the expression per æs et libram vendere.
Wills or testaments were made with great solemnity. One method among the Romans, probably common, in its principal traits, to the other nations before mentioned, was termed the testament per æs et libram, it being effected in the form of a sale. This mode seems to have been resorted to whenever the estate was given to a stranger, (hæres extraneus,) to the exclusion of the hæres suus, or necessarius, or, as we should say, the heir at law; and it was founded on the purchase of the estate by the adopted heir, who succeeded to the privileges of the child. The forms of a sale by mancipatio were therefore scrupulously observed; the presence and agreement of the purchaser, either in person or by his representative or negotiator, being necessary to its validity. The reason for requiring this form was because it involved a covenant on the part of the adopted heir or legatee, by which he became bound to pay all the debts of the testator. Having entered into this covenant, he had the best possible title in law to the inheritance, namely, that of a purchaser for a valuable consideration. Among the Greeks, and probably among the Romans also, this was transacted in the presence of a magistrate, who sanctioned it by his sentence of approval. This was the most ancient form of a will; and it does not seem to have been abrogated until the time of Constantine.
Now, when our Saviour speaks of the new testament in his blood, or of his blood of the new testament, and when Paul uses similar forms of expression may not the figure have reference to the custom above stated? And if so, may not this custom guide us to the true meaning of the words? Does it intimate to us that the promised inheritance was first given to man, as it were by a testament in this ancient form, upon a covenant of his own perfect obedience to every part of the law of God; that having broken this covenant, his title became forfeited; that the inheritance was afterwards promised, in the same manner, to every one, Jew or Gentile, upon a new covenant and condition, namely of a true faith in Christ; a faith evinced in the fruits of a holy life; that this inheritance by a new testament and covenant was negociated, as it were, and obtained for man by the mediation of Jesus Christ, (“the mediator of the new testament,” Heb. 9. 15,) as the representative of all who should accept it by such faith, and their surety for the performance of its conditions; that it was purchased by his obedience and solemnized by the sacrifice of himself as the victim?