Hebrews 8:7

εἰ γὰρ ἡ πρώτη … “For if that first had been faultless, no place would have been sought for a second.” ἡ πρώτη sc. διαθήκη. πρώτη for προτέρα as in Acts 1:1; 1 Corinthians 15:47, and this epistle passim. The covenant did not accomplish the purpose for which it was enacted; it did not bring men into spiritual and permanent fellowship with God. Cf. Hebrews 7:11; Hebrews 7:19; Galatians 3:20. οὐκ ἂν δευτέρας ἐζητεῖτο τόπος. “There would not have been as we know there was any demand for a second” (Farrar). Probably, however, ἐζητεῖτο refers to God's purpose, [“Inquisivit Deus locum et tempus opportunum” (Herveius)] not to man's craving; although necessarily the two must concur. τόπος is frequently used in the sense of “room” “opportunity” in later Greek, Romans 15:23; Luke 14:19; and cf. especially Revelation 20:11. τόπος οὐχ εὑρέθη αὐτοῖς. μεμφόμενος γὰρ … “For finding fault with them He says, Behold, there come days, etc.” The γὰρ obviously refers to ἄμεμπτος and justifies it, “For it is with fault finding, etc.” But now the object of the blame is slightly changed. “There is a subtle delicacy of language in the insensible shifting of the blame from the covenant to the people. The covenant itself could hardly be said to be faultless, seeing that it failed to bind Israel to their God; but the true cause of failure lay in the character of the people, not in the law, which was holy, righteous and good” (Rendall). This is the simplest construction and agrees with the ascription of blame in Hebrews 8:9. Thayer says “it is more correct to supply αὐτήν, i.e., διαθήκην, which the writer wishes to prove was not faultless, and to join αὐτοῖς with λέγει ”. No doubt this would be more logically consistent, but the question is, What did the writer say? He seems not to distinguish between the covenant and the people who lived under it. The old covenant was faulty because it did not provide for enabling the people to live up to the terms or conditions of it. It was faulty inasmuch as it did not sufficiently provide against their faultiness. Ἰδοὺ, κ. τ. λ. The quotation which here occupies five verses is taken from Jeremiah 38:31 34 in LXX, Jeremiah 31:31-34 A.V. ἡμέραι ἔρχονται is a frequent formula in Jeremiah. καὶ “The ubiquitous Hebrew and, serving here the purpose of the ὅτε which might have been expected” (Vaughan). συντελέσω, the LXX has διαθήσομαι, and Augustine (De Spir. et Lit. xix.) thinks this word (consummabo) is chosen for the sake of emphasising the sufficiency of the New Covenant. So Delitzsch: “Our author seems here to have purposely selected the συντελέσω to express more clearly the conclusive perfecting power of the new covenant of the gospel.” So, too, Weiss, who also calls attention to the fact that it is followed by ἐπὶ as in the expression συντελ. τ. ὀργὴν ἐπὶ … But in the face of the occurrence in Jeremiah 34:8, (LXX, Jeremiah 41:8) of the expression συντελέσαι διαθήκην πρὸς …, it is precarious to maintain that our author in selecting this word meant more than “complete a covenant”. ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰσραὴλ καὶ …, comprehensive of the whole people of God. Their blameworthy rupture had not severed them from God's grace and faithfulness. διαθήκην καινήν, the expression first occurs in our Lord's institution of the sacrament, τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τ. αἵματί μου, repeated in 1 Corinthians 11:25. In 2 Corinthians 3:6, the καινὴ διαθ. is contrasted with τ. παλαιᾶς διαθ. of 2 Corinthians 3:4. The new covenant is also called νέα in Hebrews 12:24; καινή properly meaning new in character, νέα young or new in date. As in Hebrews 8:7 the condemnation of the old implied a promise of the new; so in Hebrews 8:13, the promise of the new is considered as involving the condemnation of the old.