Hebrews 8:7

Εἰ γὰρ ἡ πρώτη ἐκείνη η῏ν ἄμεμπτος, οὐκ ἄν δευτέρας ἐζητεῖτο τόπος.

For if that first [covenant] had been blameless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

In this verse, and so also in those that follow unto the end of this chapter, the apostle designeth a confirmation of what he had before asserted and undertaken to prove. And this was, that there is a necessity of a new and better covenant, accompanied with better promises and more excellent ordinances of worship than the former. Hereon it follows that the first was to be disannulled and abolished: which was the main thesis he had to prove. And there are two parts of his argument to this purpose. For first he proveth, that on the supposition of another and better covenant to be introduced, it did unavoidably follow that the first was to be abolished, as that which was not perfect, complete, or sufficient unto its end; which he doth in this verse. Secondly, he proves that such a new, better covenant was to be introduced, in the verses following.

What he had before confirmed in sundry particular instances, he summarily concludes in one general argument in this verse, and that built on a principle generally acknowledged. And it is this, ‘All the privileges, all the benefits and advantages of the Aaronical priesthood and sacrifices, do all belong unto the covenant whereunto they were annexed, a chief part of whose outward administrations consisted in them.'This the Hebrews neither could nor did question. The whole of what they pleaded for, the only charter and tenure of all their privileges, was the covenant that God made with their fathers at Sinai. Wherefore that priesthood, those sacrifices, with all the worship belonging unto the tabernacle or temple, were necessarily commensurate unto that covenant. Whilst that covenant continued, they were to continue; and if that covenant ceased, they were to cease also. These things were agreed between the apostle and them.

Hereon he subsumes, ‘But there is mention of another covenant to be made with the whole church, and to be introduced long after the making of that at Sinai.'Neither could this be denied by them. However, to put it out of controversy, the apostle proves it by an express testimony of the prophet Jeremiah. In that testimony it is peculiarly declared, that this new covenant, that was promised to be introduced “in the latter days,” should be better and more excellent than the former, as is manifest from the promises whereon it is established; yet in this verse the apostle proceeds no further but unto the general consideration of God's promising to make another covenant with the church, and what would follow thereon.

From this supposition the apostle proves that the first covenant is imperfect, blamable, and removable. And the force of his inference depends on a common notion or presumption, that is clear and evident in its own light, And it is this, when once a covenant is made and established, if it will serve unto and effect all that he who makes it doth design, and exhibit all the good which he intends to communicate, there is no reason why another covenant should be made. The making of a new for no other ends or purposes but what the old was every way sufficient for, argues lightness and mutability in him that made it. Unto this purpose doth he argue, Galatians 3:21,

“If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.”

Could the first covenant have perfected and consecrated the church, could it have communicated all the grace and mercy that God intended to indulge unto the children of men, the wise and holy author of it would have had no thought about the introduction and establishment of another. It would have been no way agreeable unto his infinite wisdom and faithfulness so to do. Wherefore the promise hereof doth irrefragably prove, that both the first covenant and all the services of it were imperfect, and therefore to be removed and taken away.

Indeed this promise of a new covenant, diverse from that made at Sinai, or not like unto it, as the prophet speaks, is sufficient of itself to overthrow the vain pretences of the Jews wherein they are hardened to this day. The absolute perpetuity of the law and its worship, that is, of the covenant at Sinai, is the principal, fundamental article of their present faith, or rather unbelief. But this is framed by them in direct opposition unto the promises of God. For let it be demanded of them, whether they believe that God will make another covenant with the church, not according to the covenant which he made with their fathers at Sinai. If they shall say they do not believe it, then do they plainly renounce the prophets, and the promises of God given by them. If they do grant it, I desire to know of them with what sacrifices this new covenant shall be established; by what priest, with what worship, it shall be administered. If they say that they shall be done by the sacrifices, priests, and worship of the law, they deny what they granted before, namely, that it is a new and another covenant; for the sacrifices and priests of the law cannot confirm or administer any other covenant, but that which they belong and are confined unto. If it be granted that this new covenant must have a new mediator, a new priest, a new sacrifice, as it is undeniable it must, or it cannot be a new covenant, then must the old cease and be removed, that this may come into its place. Nothing but obstinacy and blindness can resist the force of this argument of the apostle.

The general design of the apostle in this verse being cleared, we may consider the words more particularly. And there are two things in them:

1. A positive assertion, included in a supposition, “If the first covenant had been blameless,” had not been defective; that is, it was so.

2. The proof of this assertion: “If it had not been so, place would not have been sought for the second;” which that there was, he proves in the following verses:

1. In the first part of the words there is,

(1.) A causal conjunction, rendering a reason; “for.”

(2.) The subject spoken of: “That first covenant.”

(3.) What is affirmed of it, as the affirmation is included in a negative supposition: It was not blameless, it is not blameless:

(1.) The conjunction, γάρ, “for,” showeth that the apostle intends the confirmation of what he had before discoursed. But he seems not to refer only unto what he had immediately before affirmed concerning the better promises of the new testament, but unto the whole argument that he hath in hand. For the general reason which here he insists upon, proves all that he had before delivered concerning the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood, and the whole worship of the first covenant depending thereon.

(2.) The subject spoken of is ἡ πρώτη ἐκείνη , ”that first;” that is, προτέρα διαθήκη , that “ former covenant:” the covenant made with the fathers at Sinai, with all the ordinances of worship thereunto belonging, whose nature and use we have before declared.

(3.) Hereof it is said, εἰ ἄμεμπτος η῏ν . Vulg. Lat., “si culpa vacasset.” And so we, “if it had been faultless.” I am sure the expression is a little too harsh in our translation, and such as the original word will not bear, at least doth not require. For it seems to intimate, that absolutely there was something faulty or blameworthy in the covenant of God. But this must not be admitted. For besides that the author of it, which was God himself, doth free it from any such charge or imputation, it is in the Scripture everywhere declared to be “holy, just, and good.” There is, indeed, an intimation of a defect in it; but this was not with respect to its own particular end, but with respect to another general end, whereunto it was not designed. That which is defective with respect unto its own particular end whereunto it is ordained, or which it is designed to accomplish, is really faulty; but that which is or may be so with respect unto some other general end, which it was never designed to accomplish, is not so in itself. This the apostle discourseth concerning, Galatians 3:19-22. We must therefore state the signification of the word from the subject-matter that he treats about in this place; and this is the perfection and consummation, or the sanctification and salvation of the church. With respect hereunto alone it is that he asserts the insufficiency and imperfection of the first covenant. And the inquiry between him and the Hebrews was, not whether the first covenant was not in itself holy, just, good, and blameless, every way perfect with respect unto its own especial ends; but whether it was perfect and effectual unto the general ends mentioned. This it was not, saith the apostle; and proves it undeniably, from the promise of the introduction of another general covenant for the effecting of them. Whereas, therefore, to be not ἄμεμπτος, is either to have some fault or vice accompanying any thing and adhering unto it, whereby it is unsuited unto or insufficient for its own proper end; or it is that whereunto somewhat is wanting with respect unto another general end which is much to be desired, but such as it was never designed to accomplish; as the art of arithmetic, if it be perfectly taught, is sufficient to instruct a man in the whole science of numeration; if it be not, it is faulty as unto its particular end; but it is no way sufficient unto the general end of making a man wise in the whole compass of wisdom, a thing far to be preferred before its particular end, be it never so perfect in its own kind; it is in the latter sense only that the apostle affirms that the first covenant was not ἄμεμπτος ,” or “blameless.” If it had been such as unto which nothing more was required or needful perfectly to complete and sanctify the church, which was the general end God aimed at, it had been absolutely perfect. But this it was not, in that it never was designed for the means of it. To the same purpose he argues, Hebrews 7:11; Hebrews 7:19. And with respect unto this end it is said that “the law was weak,” Romans 8:3; Galatians 3:21; Acts 13:38-39.

In brief, that which the apostle designeth to prove is, that the first covenant was of that constitution, that it could not accomplish the perfect administration of the grace of God unto the church, nor was ever designed unto that end; as the Jews then falsely, and their posterity still foolishly also imagine it to have done.

2. The ensuing words in this verse include the general proof of his assertion concerning the insufficiency of the first covenant unto the ends of God towards the church: Οὐκ ἃν δευτέρας ἐζητεῖτο τόπος.

His argument is plainly this: ‘The promise of a new covenant doth unavoidably prove the insufficiency of the former, at least unto the ends for which the new one is promised. For otherwise unto what end serves the promise, and covenant promised?'But there is some difficulty in the manner of the expression: “The place of the second had not been sought;” so the words lie in the original. But “the place of the second” is no more but “the second taking place;” the bringing in, the introduction and establishment of it. And this is said to be “sought;” but improperly, and after the manner of men. When men have entered into a covenant which proves insufficient for some end they do intend, they take counsel and seek out after other ways and means, or an agreement and covenant on such other terms as may be effectual unto their purpose. Wherefore this signifies no alteration, no defect in the wisdom and counsel of God, as unto what is now to be done, but only the outward change which he would now effect in the introduction of the new covenant. For as such changes among men are the issue of the alteration of their minds, and the effect of new counsels for the seeking out of new means for their end, so is this outward change, in the taking away of the old covenant and introduction of the new, represented in God; being only the second part of his counsel or purpose “which he had purposed in himself before the foundation of the world.” And we may hence observe,

Obs. 1. That whatever God had done before for the church, yet he ceased not, in his wisdom and grace, until he had made it partaker of the best and most blessed condition whereof in this world it is capable. He found out place for this better covenant.

Obs. 2. Let those unto whom the terms of the new covenant are proposed in the gospel take heed to themselves that they sincerely embrace and improve them; for there is neither promise nor hope of any further or fuller administration of grace.