Hebrews 8

CHAPTER 8

Hebrews 8:1. ἐπὶτοῖςλεγομένοις] B: ἐντοῖςλεγομένοις. Explanatory gloss.

Hebrews 8:2. Recepta: καὶοὐκἄνθρωπος. But καί is wanting in B D* E* à, 17, It. Arabb. Euseb. Already rejected by Mill. Rightly deleted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford.

Hebrews 8:4. Elz. Matth. Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, have εἰμὲνγάρ. Defended also by Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 504, Obs.), and Reiche. But γάρ cannot be referred back to Hebrews 8:3, and upon the referring of it back to Hebrews 8:2 the addition, Hebrews 8:3, would become aimless and inexplicable. More in keeping logically, and better attested (by A B D* à, 17, 73, 80, 137, Vulg. It. Copt., al.), is the reading: εἰμὲνοὖν, already commended to attention by Griesbach, and adopted by Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, Alford, which is accordingly to be preferred.

Instead of the Recepta τῶνἱερέωντῶνπροσφερόντων (approved by Bloomfield, who, however, encloses the first τῶν within brackets, and Reiche), Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford have rightly adopted merely τῶνπροσφερόντων. Preferred also by Delitzsch. τῶνἱερέων, to the rejection of which already Grotius, Mill, and Griesbach were inclined, is an elucidatory gloss. It is condemned by the decisive authority of A B D* E* à, 17, 67** 73, 137, al., Vulg. It. Copt. Aeth. Arm.

τόν] before νόμον in the Recepta (recently contended for by Bloomfield and Delitzsch) is to be deleted, with Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, after A B à* 17, 57, 80, al., Theodoret. The later addition of the article is more easily to be explained than its omission.

Hebrews 8:5. Elz.: ποιήσῃς. But all the uncial mss., many cursives, Orig. Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Oecum. Theophyl. have ποιήσεις, which also is found in LXX. Exodus 25:40. Commended by Griesbach. Rightly adopted already in the edd. Erasm. 1, Ald. Stephan. 1, 2, and recently by Matthaei, Scholz, Bleek, Lachm. Tisch. and Alford. Approved also by Delitzsch and Reiche.

Hebrews 8:6. In place of the Recepta νυνὶδέ, Lachm. reads, but without sufficient authority (B D* Ath.): νῦνδέ. The more euphonious νυνὶδέ is protected by A D** D*** E K L à, min., and many Fathers.

Instead of the Recepta τέτευχε (B D*** à*** min. Damasc. [once] Theophyl. [cod.]), there is found in the edd. Complut. Plantin. Genev. the peculiarly Attic form: τετύχηκε. This is supported by 47, 72, 73, 74, al., Athan. (thrice), Bas. Antioch. Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Best attested is the form: τέτυχεν (by A D* K L à* 80, 116, 117, al., Athan. Oecum. Theophylact), which is therefore rightly preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford.

Hebrews 8:8. αὐτοῖς] So Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche, after B D*** E L à***, likewise, as it seems, almost all min. Chrys. Damasc. al.

Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 8 read αὐτούς. But the attestation of the latter (A D* K à* 17, 39, al., Theodoret) is not at all decisive, and the accusative, seeing it requires the conjoining with μεμφόμενος, opposed to the context; see the exposition.

Hebrews 8:10. ἡδιαθήκη] Lachm.: ἡδιαθήκη [μου], after A D E. μου is found, indeed, also with the LXX. in most MSS. (but not in the Cod. Alex.); yet, nevertheless, since it forms a tautological addition, and does not correspond to the Hebrew original (כִּי זֹאת הַבְּרִית), it probably arose only by a mechanical repetition from the preceding διαθήκῃμου.

Hebrews 8:11. Recepta: τὸνπλησίον. But the weighty authority of all uncial mss. (B: τὸνπολείτην), most cursives, as well as that of Syr. utr. Arabb. Copt. Arm. It. al., Chrys. (codd.) Theodoret, Damasc. Aug. requires the reading: τὸνπολίτην, already presented by the edd. Complut. Stephan. 1, 2, al., and later approved by Bengel and Wetstein, as also adopted by Griesbach, Matthaei, Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. Bloomfield, Alford, Reiche, and others.

ἀπὸμικροῦ] Elz. Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield: ἀπὸμικροῦαὐτῶν. But αὐτῶν is wanting in A B D* E* (?) K à, 17, 31, 61, 73, 80, al., Copt. Arm. It. Vulg., with Cyr. Chrys. al. Already suspected by Griesbach. Rightly deleted by Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. 1 and 8, and Alford.

Hebrews 8:12. καὶτῶνἁμαρτιῶναὐτῶνκαὶτῶνἀνομιῶναὐτῶν] The concluding words: καὶτῶνἀνομιῶναὐτῶν, have been taken for a gloss by Bleek, Tisch. 1, 2, and 8, and Alford (comp. already Beza and Grotius); and in accordance with B à* 17, 23, Vulg. Copt. Basm. Syr. Arab. Erp. rejected. They are also declared suspected by Delitzsch. But in favour of their retention (Lachm. Bloomfield, Tisch. 7, Reiche) decides partly the preponderating authority of A D E K L à*** al., partly the recurrence of the same words on the repetition of the citation Hebrews 10:17. The addition might easily be overlooked on account of the homoioteleuton.

Hebrews 8:1-13

Hebrews 8:1-13. Not merely, however, as regards His person is Christ highly exalted above the Levitical priests; the sanctuary, too, in which He fulfils the office of High Priest, is highly exalted above the Levitical sanctuary. For Christ sustains His high-priestly office in the heavenly tabernacle, erected by God Himself, of which as the archetype the earthly tabernacle, in which the Levitical priests fulfil their office, is a mere copy. So much the more excellent is the priestly ministry of Christ, in proportion as the Covenant of which He is the Mediator is a better covenant, because resting upon the foundation of better promises. The character of this promised New Covenant is a more inward, spiritual one; and by the promise of a New Covenant the Old is declared to be outworn and no longer serviceable.

Hebrews 8:2

Hebrews 8:2. Declaration of the capacity in which Christ has sat down at the right hand of God: as a sacrificing priest of the true sanctuary and tabernacle, which the Lord erected, not a man. Hebrews 8:2 is to be joined without any comma to Hebrews 8:1. For only the qualification of the ἐκάθισενκ.τ.λ., Hebrews 8:1, which is first added by means of Heb 8:2,—not merely the fact of the καθίσαι in itself, since this had already been often mentioned in the epistle,—contains the new main feature which the author aims at bringing into prominence.

τῶνἁγίων] is not masculine (Oecumenius: ἀρχιερεύςφησιτῶνἡγιασμένωνπαρʼ αὐτοῦἀνθρώπωνἡμῶνγάρἐστινἀρχιερεύς, Primasius, Cajetan, Schulz, Paulus, Stengel) but neuter; it denotes, however, neither the holy things (Luther, Hunnius, Balduin), nor that which is required for the priestly service (Seb. Schmidt, Braun, Rambach, Ewald), nor “such holy things as stand in essential relation to the σκηνὴἀληθινή” (Kurtz), but the sanctuary (according to Erasmus, Jac. Cappellus, Böhme, Stuart, Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 513; Alford, Maier, and others, specially: the Most Holy Place), in which (or: in regard to which) the priestly service is performed. Comp. Hebrews 9:8; Hebrews 9:12; Hebrews 9:24-25, Hebrews 10:19, Hebrews 13:11.

Synonymous with τῶνἁγίων is the τῆςσκηνῆς, added by way of elucidation; and from the adjective of the latter, τῆςἀληθινῆς, we have also to supply in thought the corresponding adjective τῶνἀληθινῶν (comp. Hebrews 9:24) to the foregoing τῶνἁίγων. For even the earthly high priest was a τῶνἁγίωνλειτουργός; only a τῶνἁγίωντῶνἀγηθινῶνλειτουργός he was not.

λειτουργός] Comp. λειτουργεῖν, Hebrews 10:11, and λειτουργία, Hebrews 8:6; Hebrews 9:21; Philippians 2:17; Luke 1:23. With the classic writers, λειτουργός denotes the bearer of any public office, or office of the State. In the general sense of a “servant” it stands Hebrews 1:7; Romans 13:6; Philippians 2:25. But already with the LXX. (Nehemiah 10:39; cf. Sir 7:30, al.) it is spoken specially of him who discharges priestly service. In accordance therewith it has here, too (comp. Hebrews 8:3), as well as Romans 15:16, the signification: sacrificing priest.

τῆςἀληθινῆς] The σκηνή is called true, not in opposition to the false, but as the archetype[85] existing in heaven in contrast with the earthly image of the same (Hebrews 8:5), which latter, as is always the case with the copy in relation to the original, could be only something imperfect.

ἣνἔπηξεν] Comp. Exodus 33:7.

ὉΚΎΡΙΟς] is here God, as elsewhere in our epistle only in the O. T. citations.

ὁκύριος, οὐκἄνθρωπος] Comp. ΣΚΗΝῆςΟὐΧΕΙΡΟΠΟΙΉΤΟΥ, Hebrews 9:11; ΟὐΧΕΙΡΟΠΟΊΗΤΑἍΓΙΑ, Hebrews 9:24.

[85] Comp. Wis 9:8 : εἶπαςοἰκοδομῆσαιναὸν … καὶ … θυσιαστήριον, μίμημασκηνῆςἁγίας, ἣνπροητοίμασαςἀπʼ ἀρχῆς.

Hebrews 8:3

Hebrews 8:3. Subsidiary remark in justification of the expression λειτουργός, Hebrews 8:2. The λειτουργεῖν, or the presenting of sacrifices, is just something essential in the fulfilment of the office of every high priest; a λειτουργός, or sacrificing priest, must thus Christ also be.

By the statement, Hebrews 8:3, the argument itself is not interrupted. For enclosing the verse within a parenthesis, with Cameron, Stengel, and others, there exists therefore no reason.

γάρ] the explanatory namely.

On πᾶςγὰρ … καθίσταται, comp. Hebrews 8:1: πᾶςγὰρἀρχιερεὺς … καθίσταταιτὰπρὸςτὸνθεόν, ἵναπροσφέρῃδῶράτεκαὶθυσίας.

ὅθενἀναγκαῖον] sc. ἦν (Syriac, Beza, Piscator, Owen, Bengel, Bleek, de Wette, Hofmann, Komm. p. 306; Woerner), not ἐστίν (Vulgate, Luther, Calvin, Schlichting, Schulz, Böhme, Stuart, Kuinoel, Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 407; Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 505; Alford, Maier, Moll, Ewald, M‘Caul, al.). For the author knows only one single sacrificial act of Christ, an act performed once for all (not one continually repeated), as is evident partly from the parallel passages, Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 9:12; Hebrews 9:25; Hebrews 9:28, Hebrews 10:10; Hebrews 10:12; Hebrews 10:14, partly from the preterite προσενέγκῃ in our passage.

ἔχειντικαὶτοῦτον, ὃπροσενέγκῃ] that also this (High Priest) should have somewhat that He might offer up. By the τί the author understands Christ’s own body, which He gave up to death as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sinful world. The indefinite mode of expression by τί, however, was chosen just because the reference to the sacrifice in this place was only an incidental one, and that which was intended could the less be misunderstood by the readers, in that immediately before, Hebrews 7:27, it had been declared by means of ἑαυτὸνἀνενέγκας in what the sacrifice of Christ consisted.

Hebrews 8:4-5

Hebrews 8:4-5. Return (οὖν) from the subsidiary remark, Hebrews 8:3, to the main thought in Hebrews 8:2 (τῶνἁγίωνκαὶτῆςσκηνῆςτῆςἀληθινῆς, ἣνκ.τ.λ.), and proof for the same.

Hebrews 8:5

Hebrews 8:5. The author at once attaches to the proof given, Hebrews 8:4,—that Christ must be High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary,—the testimony of Scripture that the earthly sanctuary, in which the Levitical priests officiate, is a mere copy of the heavenly, thus only an imperfect sanctuary. Schlichting: Vel rationem quandam div. autor his verbis exprimit, cur Christus, si in terris esset, sacerdos esse non posset, nempe quia sacerdotes illi, qui in terris degentes offerunt, umbrae tantum serviunt coelestium; vel tantum a contrario illustrat id, quod de pontifice nostro dixerat, nempe eum esse veri tabernaculi ministrum, legales vero pontifices umbrae tantum et exemplari illius coelestis tabernaculi servire. Not to enclose within a parenthesis (Griesbach, Schulz, Scholz, al.), since the same easily joins on syntactically to Hebrews 8:4, and διαφορωτέρας, Hebrews 8:6, points back to its subject-matter.

οἵτινες] nimirum qui.

ὑποδείγματικαὶσκιᾷ] a copy and shadow. ὑποδείγματι corresponds to the δειχθέντασοι in the ensuing citation, and denotes here (otherwise Hebrews 4:11) that which is shown only by way of hints, or only in its general outlines (comp. τὰὑποδείγματα, Hebrews 9:23), has thus the notion of a merely imperfect sketch or copy. Yet more emphatically is the notion of imperfection brought out by means of καὶσκιᾷ. For σκιά stands not merely opposed to the σῶμα, as the unsubstantial to the substantial (Colossians 2:17; Josephus, de Bello Jud. ii. 2. 5 : σκιὰναἰτησόμενοςβασιλείας, ἧςἥρπασενἑαυτῷτὸσῶμα, Philo, de confus. linguarum, p. 348; with Mangey, I. p. 434), but also to the εἰκών, as the shadowy image melting into obscurity, and only to be recognised in its exterior outlines to the likeness distinctly struck off, containing light and colour, and enabling one to recognise the original. Comp. Hebrews 10:1: σκιὰν … οὐκαὐτὴντὴνεἰκόνατῶνπραγμάτων; Achilles Tatius, i. p. 47 (in Wetstein ad Hebrews 10:1): οὕτωτέθνηκενκαὶτῆςεἰκόνοςἡσκιά; Cicero, de Officiis, iii. 17: Sed nos veri juris germanaeque justitiae solidam et expressam effigiem nullam tenemus; umbra et imaginibus utimur.

λατρεύουσιν] is taken unnaturally by Calvin, Pareus, Bengel, Peirce, Schulz, and others in the absolute sense: “who serve God in a copy and shadow.” The datives ὑποδείγματικαὶσκιᾷτῶνἐπουρανίων form the object of the verb (comp. Hebrews 13:10): “who minister (as priests) to that which is but a copy and shadow of the heavenly.”

λατρεύειν here, by virtue of the connection, entirely equivalent to λειτουργεῖν; in general, however, of wider signification, and differing from λειτουργεῖν as the Hebrew עָבַד from שֵׁרֵת.

τῶνἐπουρανίων] not “of the heavenly things” (Luther), “of the heavenly relations and facts of redemption” (Ebrard), “of the heavenly relations and divine thoughts” (Moll), “of the ideal possessions in general, belonging to the kingdom of God” (Tholuck); but: of the heavenly sanctuary. Comp. the citation immediately following, as also Hebrews 8:2; Hebrews 9:23-24.

καθὼςκεχρημάτισταιΜωϋσῆς] according to the response, or divine revelation, which Moses received. The passive χρηματίζεσθαι in this sense only in the N. T. (Hebrews 11:7; Matthew 2:22; Acts 10:22, al.) and in Josephus (Antiq. iii. 8. 8, xi. 8. 4).

ἐπιτελεῖν] denotes here not the completion of that which is already begun. What is meant is the execution of that which had previously only been resolved on.

The citation is from Exodus 25:40. The γάρ, even as φησίν, belongs to the author of our epistle, on which account ὅραγάρφησιν is to be written without placing a comma after γάρ.

φησίν] sc. ὁχρηματισμός, the divine response, or, since in Exodus (Exodus 40:1) God is expressly named as the speaker: ὁθεός (Heinrichs, Bleek, Stengel, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Kurtz, al.), not ἡγραφή (Böhme).

πάντα] is wanting with the LXX.

κατὰτὸντύπον] in accordance with the pattern (תַּבְנִית), i.e. corresponding to the archetype presented to the contemplation of Moses in the manner of a revelation, or by means of a vision. Comp. Acts 7:44. Over-refined, indeed, although linguistically not less admissible than the other, is the interpretation of Faber Stapulensis, Rivetus, Schlichting, Grotius, Limborch, Storr, Bleek, and Maier, that in connection with τύπος we have to think of a mere copy of the archetype, so that the Levitical priests served in priestly guise the copy of a copy.

τὸνδειχθέντα] LXX.: τὸνδεδειγμένον.

ἐντῷὄρει] upon the mount, namely Sinai.

Hebrews 8:6

repeats, in the form of an antithesis to Hebrews 8:4-5, the main proposition of the new section, that Christ accomplishes His priestly service in the heavenly sanctuary (Hebrews 8:2); in the progress of the discourse, however, advances an additional argument in favour of this main proposition: in that the naturalness of the fact asserted is evidenced by the superiority of that covenant which has been brought in by Christ

Hebrews 8:6 repeats, in the form of an antithesis to Hebrews 8:4-5, the main proposition of the new section, that Christ accomplishes His priestly service in the heavenly sanctuary (Hebrews 8:2); in the progress of the discourse, however, advances an additional argument in favour of this main proposition: in that the naturalness of the fact asserted is evidenced by the superiority of that covenant which has been brought in by Christ. As, therefore, the author (Hebrews 7:20-22) had deduced from the higher priestly rank of Christ the more excellent nature of the covenant brought in by Him; so here, conversely, from the better nature of the covenant established by Him, is inferred the higher order of His priestly ministry, νυνὶδέ forms the opposition to εἰμὲνοὖν, Hebrews 8:4, while διαφορωτέρας points back antithetically to the contents of Heb 8:5. Theophylact: Ἐκείνουτοῦνοήματοςἤρτηταιταῦτα, τοῦΕἰμὲνγὰρἦνἐπὶγῆς, οὐκἂνἦνἱερεύςνυνὶδὲμὴὤν, φησίν, ἐπὶγῆς, ἀλλὰτὸνοὐρανὸνἔχωνἱερατεῖον, διαφορωτέραςἐπέτυχελειτουργίαςτουτέστιν, οὐκἔστιναὐτοῦἡλειτουργίατοιαύτη, οἵαἡτῶνἐπὶγῆςἀρχιερέωνἀλλʼ οὐράνιος, ἅτετόπονἔχουσατῆςοἰκείαςτελετῆςτὸνοὐρανόν.

νυνὶδέ] not in the temporal, but in the logical sense: but now.

διαφορωτέραςλειτουργίας] inasmuch, namely, as the σκηνή, in which He fulfils His office, is the ἀληθινή, ἣνἔπηξενὁκύριος, οὐκἄνθρωπος (Hebrews 8:2).

On the comparative διαφορωτέρας, see at Hebrews 2:4.

καὶ after ὅσῳ renders distinctly apparent the inner correspondence of the two principal members in the proposition, Hebrews 8:6.

μεσίτης] Mediator (Hebrews 9:15, Hebrews 12:24; Galatians 3:19-20; 1 Timothy 2:5; LXX. Job 9:33), inasmuch as He has proclaimed the New and better Covenant, and has sealed the same by His death on the cross.

ἥτις] which, us such. Introduction of the proof that the covenant of which Christ is made the Mediator is a better one (Hebrews 7:22), i.e. affords full satisfaction to the heart seeking salvation and deliverance, which the Mosaic covenant was incapable of pacifying. The proof for this superiority the author derives from the fact that the New Covenant has been enacted upon the ground of (ἐπί [cf. Hebrews 7:11; Acts 14:3]) better promises, i.e. promises more excellent with regard to their subject-matter. The expression νενομοθέτηται is chosen not in order to denote the similarity of nature in the two covenant-foundings, but, after the analogy of the Pauline mode of expression, Romans 3:27 (Romans 9:31), in order to oppose to the Mosaic law, hitherto in operation, the New Covenant as in some sense a new law (comp. νόμουςμου, Hebrews 8:10) now come into force.

μρείττοσινἐπαγγελίαις] What is meant is without doubt the several factors in the contents of the passage from Jeremiah cited immediately after—to wit, the promise of the forgiveness of sins (comp. Hebrews 8:12), which the Old Covenant was not able to bring about (Romans 8:3; Galatians 3:10 ff.), in connection with the character of innerness of the New Covenant in general (Hebrews 8:10-11), as opposed to the externalism of the Old.

The explaining of the κρείττονεςἐπαγγελίαι, with Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, Clarius, Bengel, Carpzov, Whitby, M‘Lean, Bisping, and others, of everlasting blessedness and the other eternal blessings of Christianity, in opposition to the purely terrestrial and temporal promises of Mosaism (the peaceful possession of the land of Canaan, a long life upon earth, etc.), is to be rejected; because—apart from the contradiction in which this interpretation stands with the elucidation given by the author himself by virtue of the ensuing citation from Scripture—it is, as Bleek rightly observes, improbable that the author should have referred the promises deposited in the Mosaic law to merely earthly things, in place of referring them to the object of which he understands the promise already imparted to Abraham—the bringing in of the great salvation for the people of God in the person of Christ.

The view, too, that the ἐπαγγελίαι of the New Covenant are called κερίττονες because they are better guaranteed (Stengel and others), has the context against it.

Hebrews 8:7-13

Hebrews 8:7-13. Evidence from Scripture that the New Covenant rests upon better promises than the Old, and consequently is a better covenant than that. God Himself has, by the fact of His having promised a new covenant, pronounced the former one to be growing obsolete.

Hebrews 8:8

Hebrews 8:8. Making good of the assertion, Hebrews 8:7, that the Old Covenant was not free from fault, and God on that account made known His purpose of establishing a New one. Since μεμθόμενος manifestly corresponds to the ἄμεμπτος, Hebrews 8:7, and there the non-freedom from blame regards the covenant itself, not the possessors thereof, it is more natural to combine αὐτοῖς with λέγει (Faber Stapulensis, Piscator, Schlichting, Grotius, Limborch, Peirce, Michaelis, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, Kuinoel, Klee, Bleek, Stein, Bloomfield, Reiche, Comment, crit. p. 65 sq.; Conybeare, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, M‘Caul, and others) than—what is certainly possible in a grammatical respect (see the Lexicons)—to join it to μεμφόμενος (Peshito, Vulgate, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Er. Schmid, Bengel, Wolf, Carpzov, Heinrichs, Böhme, Stengel, Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Hofmann, al.).

λέγει] sc. ὁθεός. Comp. the thrice-occurring λέγεικύριος in the following citation (Hebrews 8:8-10).

αὐτοῖςλείγει] He saith unto them, namely, the possessors of the πρώτηδιαθήκη.

The citation beginning with ἰδού, and extending to the close of Heb 8:12, is from Jeremiah 31. (LXX. 38):31–34, after the LXX., with slight deviations.

λέγεικύριος] so in the LXX. of the Cod. Alex. The Cod. Vatican, and others have φησὶκύριος.

In place of καὶσυντελέσωἐπὶτὸνοἶκονἸσραὴλκαὶἐπὶτὸνοἶκονἸούδα, it reads in the LXX.: καὶδιαθήσομαιτῷοἴκῳἸσραὴλκαὶτῷοἴκῳἸούδα. Perhaps a change designedly made in order to characterize the New Covenant as a completed or perfect one.

Hebrews 8:9

Hebrews 8:9. Οὐκατὰτὴνδιαθήκην, ἣνἐπίησατοῖςπατράσιναὐτῶν] negative unfolding of the foregoing positive expression καινήν (namely, a covenant): not after the manner of the covenant (לֹא כַבְּרִית) which I made for their fathers, i.e. one qualitatively different therefore, and that as being a better one.

ἣνἐποίησα] LXX.: ἣνδιεθέμην.

τοῖςπατράσιναὐτῶν] in the Hebrew אֶת־אֲבו̇תָם, with their fathers. The mere dative with ἐποίησα excludes the notion of reciprocity in the covenant-founding which has taken place, and presents it purely as the work of the disposition made by God.

ἐνἡμέρᾳἐπιλαβομένουμουκ.τ.λ.] in the day (at the time) when I look hold of their hand, to lead them forth out of the land of Egypt (בְּיו̇í הֶחֱזִיקִי בְיָדָם לְחו̇צִיאָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם). An unwieldy but not exactly incorrect construction (see Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 531), in place of which Justin Martyr, Dial. cum Tryph. Jude 1:11, in citing the same words of Scripture, has chosen the less cumbrous ἐνᾗἐπελαβόμην. The note of time characterizes the covenant as the Mosaic one.

ὅτι] for; not: “because,” as protasis to κἀγὼκ.τ.λ. as the apodosis (Calvin, Böhme, Hofmann, al.).

κἀγώ] emphatic personal opposition to αὐτοί: and consequently I also concerned not myself about them.

λέγεικύριος] LXX. (Cod. Alex. too): φησὶκύριος.

Hebrews 8:10

Hebrews 8:10. Justification of the διαθήκηνκαινήν, οὐκατὰτὴνδιαθήκηνκ.τ.λ., Hebrews 8:8-9, by a definite indication of the nature of the covenant to be instituted.

ὅτιαὕτηἡδιαθήκηκ.τ.λ.] for this (or the following) is the covenant which I will institute for the house of Israel, αὕτη introduces with emphasis the material characterization following with διδοὺςκ.τ.λ.

οἶκοςἸσραήλ] here embraces the whole nation, while in Hebrews 8:8 it denoted one of the two kingdoms into which it had been divided.

μετὰτὰςἡμέραςἐκείνας] after those days, i.e. after the days which must first have elapsed, before the ἡμέραι mentioned, Hebrews 8:8,—in which the New Covenant is to come into existence,—begin to dawn. Wrongly Oecumenius: ποίαςἡμέρας; τὰςτῆςἐξόδου, ἐναἷςἔλαβοντὸννόμον.

λέγεικύριος] LXX.: φησὶκύριος.

διδούς] So LXX. Cod. Alex., while Cod. Vatic. and other MSS. of the LXX. have διδοὺςδώσω. In the Hebrew נָתַחִּי. διδούς does not stand for δώσω (Vatablus, Schlichting, Bengel, and others). Just as little have we to supplement it with δώσω (Heinrichs, Stengel, al.), or with εἰμί or ἔσομαι (Kuinoel, Bloomfield), or διαθήσομαιαὐτήν (Delitzsch).

Nor have we to join it to the following ἐπυγράψω (so Böhme, but undecidedly, and Paulus), in such wise that we must render καί before ἐπιγράψω by “also.” It attaches itself grammatically to the preceding διαθήσομαι. In order to obviate any unevenness of construction, we may then place a colon after διάνοιαναὐτῶν. The separation, however, of the καὶἐπιγράψω from that which precedes is not actually necessary, since instances of a transition from the participle to the tempus finitum are elsewhere nothing strange. See Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 533.

διάνοια] mind, i.e. soul, innermost part (קֶרֶב). Accentuation of the character of innerness in the New Covenant, as opposed to the externalism of the Old. Comp. 2 Corinthians 3:3.

καρδίας] either accusative (Deuteronomy 4:13; Deuteronomy 5:22, al.) or genitive (comp. Exodus 34:28; Numbers 17:2-3, al.). In favour of the latter pleads the singular in the Hebrew original; in favour of the former, the reading of the Cod. Alex.: ἐπὶτὰςκαρδίας. We cannot take into account, in favour of the accusative, the greater conformity to the character of the Greek language, according to which, on account of the plurality of persons (αὐτῶν), one must also speak of καρδίαι, in the plural. For without regard to this distinction the singular διάνοιαν has already been just placed, and in like manner the singular τῆςχειρός is placed, Hebrews 8:9.

In place of ἐπὶκαρδίαςαὐτῶνἐπιγράψωαὐτούς, the Cod. Alex, of the LXX. has: ἐπιγράψωαὐτοὺςἐπὶτὰςκαρδίαςαὐτῶν, and the Cod. Vatic.: ἐπὶκαρδίαςαὐτῶνγράψωαὐτούς.

καὶἔσομαιαὐτοῖςεἰςθεὸνκ.τ.λ.] Comp. already Exodus 6:7; Leviticus 26:12, al.; also 2 Corinthians 6:16.

The Hebraizing εἰναιεἰς (הָיָה לְ) as Hebrews 1:5.

Hebrews 8:11

Hebrews 8:11. The consequence resulting from the διδόναινόμουςεἰςτὴνδιάνοιαναὐτῶνκ.τ.λ., Hebrews 8:10. Comp. Joe 3:1-2; 1 John 2:27.

καὶοὐμὴδιδάξωσιν] and then they shall not instruct (Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 472; Buttmann, Gramm. des neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 183), as regards the sense equivalent to: and then it will not be needful that they instruct each other; the reason for which is stated immediately after, in the on ὅτιπάντεςεἰδήσουσίνμεκ.τ.λ. On the intensifying οὐμή, see Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 471 f.

τὸνπολίτηναὐτοῦ] his fellow-citizen. So in the LXX., Cod. Vatic., and most MSS., while Cod. Alex. has in the first member τὸνἀδελφόν, in the second τὸνπλησίον.

γνῶθι] in the Hebrew the plural: דְּעוּ.

μικροῦ] With the LXX. in most Codd.: μικροῦαὐτῶν.

ἀπὸμικροῦἕωςμεγάλουαὐτῶν] Young and old (כְמִקְּטַנָם וְעַד־גְּדו̇לָם). Comp. Acts 8:10; LXX. Jeremiah 6:13; Jonah 3:5; Genesis 19:11, al.

Hebrews 8:12

Hebrews 8:12. The inner ground of this communion with God and this knowledge of Him.

ὅτι] not: “that” (Michaelis, ad Peirc.), but: for.

ἵλεωςἔσομαιταῖςἀδικίαιςαὐτῶν] I will be gracious (אֶסֶלֵח) to their unrighteousnesses, i.e. will forgive and forget the same.

ἀδικίαι] in the plural, in the N. T. only here, but of frequent occurrence with the LXX. Designation of the alienation from God in its single outbreaks and forms of manifestation.

καὶτῶνἁμαρτιῶνκαὶτῶνἀνομιῶναὐτῶν] LXX. merely: καὶτῶνἁμαρτιῶναὐτῶν, in accordance with the Hebrew: וּלְחַטָּאתָם לֹא אֶזְכָּר־עו̇ã.

Hebrews 8:13

Hebrews 8:13. The author derives the result from the Scripture testimony, Hebrews 8:8-12.

ἐντῷλέγεινκαινήν] in that He (sc. God) saith: a new (covenant). Comp. ἐντῷλέγεσθαι, Hebrews 3:15, and ἐντῷὑποτάξαι, Hebrews 2:8.

πεπαλαίωκεντὴνπρώτην] He hath made the first old (contrary to linguistic usage, Ebrard: “relatively older”), i.e. has declared it to be out of date, outworn, and no longer serviceable.

παλαιοῦν] a word belonging to a later period of the Greek language, elsewhere ordinarily used in the intransitive sense: “to grow old,” and generally in the middle voice (as a little below, and Hebrews 1:11); is found likewise in the transitive sense, “to make old,” in Lamentations 3:4; Job 9:5. To abolish or render obsolete the word itself does not signify; but rendering obsolete is the natural consequence of pronouncing out of date or outworn. The author accordingly does not directly express notion of abrogation by πεπαλαίωκεν in this place,—a sense, moreover, which, on account of the following παλαιούμενον, would here be inappropriate,—but leaves the reader to divine it.

τὸδὲπαλαιούμενονκαὶγηράσκονἐγγὺςἀφανισμοῦ] but that which is growing ancient and is becoming infirm with years, is near to disappearing or perishing.

γηράσκειν] ordinarily said of human beings (to become enfeebled with age, senescere); then, however, also of things, comp. e.g. Xenoph. Ages. Hebrews 11:14: ἡμὲντοῦσώματοςἰσχὺςγηράσκει, ἡδὲτῆςψυχῆςῥώμη … ἀγήρατόςἐστιν.

The author says sparingly: near to disappearing (comp. κατάραςἐγγύς, Hebrews 6:8), in that he takes his standpoint at the time of the divine promises just quoted. But if God in the time of Jeremiah already designated the Old Covenant as that which is nigh unto ruin, it was therein necessarily declared by implication, that now, after so long a time is passed and the New Covenant has already been in reality brought in, the Old Covenant, as to its essence (if not yet as to its external manifestation), must have been already entirely abrogated, must have entirely lost its force and validity.