<- Previous   First   Next ->

between God and man is directed, then there would have been no room for another. The argument is parallel to that in Heb. 7:11 ff.
eij ga;r...h\n a[mempto" ] For if that first covenant had been faultless , Latt. nam si...culpa vacasset , fulfilling perfectly the purpose to which it pointed. Comp. 7:18.

The Law itself is not blamed: the fault lay with those who received it (8:8). None the less the Covenant did fail, so far as it brought no consummation of man's true destiny.

The Covenant is called first in contrast with deutevra by common Greek usage. Comp. Heb. 9:6 f.; 10:9; Acts 1:1. The addition of the pronoun
(
ejkeivnh ) presents the Old Covenant as occupying the mind of the readers. Comp. 2 Cor. 7:8; Matt. 18:32.
oujk a]n deut. ejzht. tovpo" ] a place would not have been sought for a second , Vulg. non utique secundi locus inquireretur. God made known His purpose to establish a second Covenant; but for this, in the order of His Providence, fitting conditions were required. Hence it was not the Covenant itself for which men sought, but the place for it, the circumstances under which it could be realised. The feeling of dissatisfaction, want, prompted to a diligent inquiry; and to this the words addressed to Jeremiah—the prophet of the national overthrow and exile—bear witness.

For the phrase zhtei'n tovpon compare tovpon euJrei'n Heb. 12:17; t. didovnai Rom. 12:19; t. labei'n Acts 25:16.

The two imperfects eij h\n ... oujk a]n ejzhtei'to mark a continuous state. While the first Covenant remained in force, there was yet searching for something more. This thought is expressed by: ‘If the first had been...a place would not have been sought’: and not by ‘If the first were...would not be sought.’ Comp. Heb. 11:15; and Additional Note on 4:8.

Heb. 8:8 a. memfovmeno" ga;r aujtouv" ] The existence offailure—fault—is established by the language of the Lord to Jeremiah: for finding fault with them, he saith ...(Latt. vituperans enim: si prius culpa vacasset above). The people were not yet prepared to receive the revelation which God designed to give. The Law had not had its perfect work with them. They had not lived up to that which they had received.

The reference in them ( i.e. the Israelites) is supplied from a knowledge of the circumstances. Comp. 4:8; 11:28. So Theophylact: toutevsti toi'" jIoudaivoi" (reading aujtoi'" ) toi'" mh; dunamevnoi" teleiwqh'nai dia; tw'n nomikw'n prostagmavtwn . If aujtoi'" is read the translation finding fault with it he saith to them is possible, but it appears to be very unlikely.
levgei ] Jer. 31:31-34 (38:31-34). The speaker is the Lord Himself, not the prophet. The quotation (Heb. 8:8 b-12) is taken, with some variations, from the LXX. which, in the main, agrees with the Hebrew. See Additional Note. Carpzov has pointed out that Philo in a remarkable passage places Jeremiah in connexion with Moses, gnou;" o{ti ouj movnon muvsth" ejsti;n ajlla; kai; iJerofavnth" iJkanov" ( De Cher. § 14; 1.148 M.).

The context of the quotation gives it a special force. Jeremiah at the crisis of national calamity pictures the final result of the discipline of the exile into which Judah was now going. The united people ‘Israel and Judah’ are to return to their land (Jer. 30:3). Ephraim is again recognised as first-born (31:9). The sorrows of Rachel are consoled (31:15 ff.). The counsel of divine love finds certain accomplishment (31:37). This issue is summed up in the


<- Previous   First   Next ->