lact, 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 Tayyeλíaι of the New Covenant are called KρEίTTOVES because they are better guaranteed (Stengel and others), has the context against it.

Vv. 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.

Ver. 7. Justification of the κρείττονος and κρείττοσιν, ver. 6. ei v] if it were (vii. 11, viii. 4). — πρWτN ÈKEÍVN] sc. dialýкη. On the superlative, quite in keeping with the linguistic usage of the Greek, see Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 229, Obs. 1.- ǎμεμπтos] faultless (Phil. ii. 15, iii. 6), satisfactory, sufficient. Theodoret: τὸ ἄμεμπτος ἀντὶ τοῦ τελεία τέθεικε. — οὐκ ἂν δευτέρας ἐζητεῖτο τόπος] place would not have been sought (sc. by God, in the O. T., or in the passage of Scripture immediately adduced) for a second (covenant); ie. it would not have been expressed by God Himself, that a second covenant is to come in beside the first, and replace it. In this general sense ἐζητεῖτο τόπος is to be taken, and the form of expression in the apodosis to be explained from a mingling of a twofold mode of contemplation (οὐκ ἂν δευτέρα ἐζητεῖτο καὶ δευτέρας οὐκ ἣν ἂν τόπος: a second would not be sought by God, nor would there be any place for a second). No emphasis rests upon TóTOS; on which

account it is over-refining, when Bleek finds in eηTEITO TÓTOS the reference that to the New Covenant, according to ver. 10, the place was assigned in the hearts of men, while the Old was written upon tables of stone.

Ver. 8. Making good of the assertion, ver. 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 μεμφόμενος manifestly corresponds to the ἄμεμπτος, ver. 7, and there the non-freedom from blame regards the covenant itself, not the possessors thereof, it is more natural to combine aurois with Aéyet (Faber Stapulensis, Piscator, Schlichting, Grotius, Limborch, Peirce, Michaelis, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, Kuinoel, Klee, Bleek, Stein, Bloomfield, Reiche, Comment. crit. p. 65 sq.; Cony beare, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, M'Caul, and others) than what is certainly possible in a grammatical respect (see the Lexicons) to join it to peμpóμevos (Peshito, Vulgate, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Er. Schmid, Bengel, Wolf, Carpzov, Heinrichs, Böhme, Stengel, Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Hofmann, al.). — λéyei] sc. λέγει] ὁ θεός. Comp. the thrice - occurring Aéyet kúpios in the following citation (vv. 8, 9, 10). — avtoîs λéyei] He saith unto them, namely, the possessors of the πрóτη dialŃêη. The citation beginning with idoú, and extending to the close of ver. 12, is from Jer. xxxi. (LXX. xxxviii.) 31-34, after the LXX., with slight deviations. — λéye Kúρios] so in the LXX. of the Cod. Alex. The Cod. Vatican. and others have noi κύριος. — In place of καὶ συντελέσω ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ιούδα, it reads in the LXX.: καὶ διαθήσομαι τῷ οἴκῳ Ἰσραὴλ καὶ τῷ οἴκῳ Ἰούδα. Perhaps a change designedly made in order to characterize the New Covenant as a completed or perfect one.

Ver. 9. Οὐ κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην, ἣν ἐποίησα τοῖς πατράσιν avτŵv] negative unfolding of the foregoing positive expression Kaιvýν (namely, a covenant): not after the manner of the covenant (S) which I made for their fathers, i.e. one qualitatively different therefore, and that as being a better one. — ἣν ἐποίησα] LXX.: ἣν διεθέμην. — τοῖς πατράσιν αὐτῶν] in the Hebrew onions, with their fathers. The mere dative

with eroínoa 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.èv nμéρa èπiλaἡμέρᾳ ἐπιλαBoμévov μov K.T.λ.] in the day (at the time) when I took hold of their hand, to lead them forth out of the land of Egypt An unwieldy but not Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl.

exactly incorrect construction (see p. 531),. in place of which Justin Martyr, Dial. cum Tryph. Jud. 11, in citing the same words of Scripture, has chosen the less cumbrous ἐν ᾗ ἐπελαβόμην. The note of time characterizes the covenant as the Mosaic one. OT] for; not: "because," as protasis to kȧyà K.T.λ. as the apodosis (Calvin, Böhme, Hofmann, al.). — kȧyά] emphatic personal opposition to avroí : and consequently I also concerned not myself about them. λéyei kúpios] LXX. (Cod. Alex. too): pnoì kúpios.

Ver. 10. Justification of the διαθήκην καινήν, οὐ κατὰ τὴν Sɩaðýkηv K.T.λ., vv. 8, 9, by a definite indication of the nature of the covenant to be instituted. — ὅτι αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη κ.τ.λ.] ý for this (or the following) is the covenant which I will institute for the house of Israel. avτn introduces with emphasis the material characterization following with διδοὺς κ.τ.λ. — οἶκος 'Iopanλ] here embraces the whole nation, while in ver. 8 it denoted one of the two kingdoms into which it had been divided. μerà тàs nμéρas éκelvas] after those days, i.e. after the days which must first have elapsed, before the nμépai mentioned, ver. 8,-in which the New Covenant is to come into existence, begin to dawn. Wrongly Oecumenius: Toías ἡμέρας; τὰς τῆς ἐξόδου, ἐν αἷς ἔλαβον τὸν νόμον. — λέγει κύριος] LXX.: φησὶ κύριος. — διδούς] So LXX. Cod. Alex., while Cod. Vatic. and other MSS. of the LXX. have Sidovs δώσω. In the Hebrew 'nny. διδούς does not stand for δώσω (Vatablus, Schlichting, Bengel, and others). Just as little have we to supplement it with dúow (Heinrichs, Stengel, al.), or with εἰμί οι ἔσομαι Kuinoel, Bloomfield), oι διαθήσομαι avrýv (Delitzsch). Nor have we to join it to the following éπyρá (so Böhme, but undecidedly, and Paulus), in such wise that we must render kai before èπvypáчw by " also." It attaches itself grammatically to the preceding Stańooμai. In order to obviate any unevenness of construction, we may then place a colon after diávolav avtŵv. The separation, however,

of the rai éπyрáyw 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. — Stávola] mind, i.e. soul, innermost part (). Accentuation of the character of innerness in the New Covenant, as opposed to the externalism of the Old. Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 3. xapdías] either accusative (Deut. iv. 13, v. 22, al.) or genitive (comp. Ex. xxxiv. 28; Num. xvii. 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.: èì Tàs Kapdías. 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 Stávolav has already been just placed, and in like manner the singular Ts xeɩpós is placed, ver. 9.— In place of ẻπì καρδίας αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αυτούς, the Cod. Alex. of the LXX. has: ἐπιγράψω αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τὰς καρδίας αὐτῶν, and the Cod. Vatic.: ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν γράψω αὐτούς. — καὶ ἔσομαι AVTOîs Eis beòv K.T.λ.] Comp. already Ex. vi. 7; Lev. xxvi. 12, al.; also 2 Cor. vi. 16. - The Hebraizing elva eis

Ver. 11. The consequence resulting from the Sidóvai vóμovs eis Thu diavolav avтŵv K.T.λ., ver. 10. Comp. Joel iii. 1, 2; τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν 1 John ii. 27. - кaì où μǹ didúğwouv] 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 ὅτι πάντες εἰδήσουσίν με κ.τ.λ. On the intensifying ov un, see Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 471 f. — Tòν TOλÍTην AUTOû] his fellow-citizen. So in the LXX., Cod. Vatic., and most MSS., while Cod. Alex. has in the first member Tòv ådeλpóv, in the second Tov Tλnoíov. — yvwli] in the Hebrew the plural: W. τὸν πλησίον. μικροῦ] With the LXX. in most Codd.: μικροῦ αὐτῶν. ἀπὸ μικροῦ ἕως μεγάλου αὐτῶν] Young and old (? Comp. Acts viii. 10; LXX. Jer. vi. 13; Jonahı iii. 5; Gen. xix. 11, al.

.(וְעַד־גְּדוֹלָם

founding which has taken place, and presents it purely

the work of the disposition made by God.èv nμéρа èπi Boμévov μov K.T.λ.] in the day (at the time) when I took hin of their hand, to lead them forth out of the land of Eg An unwieldy. but

exactly incorrect construction (see Winer, Gramm., 7 A p. 531),. in place of which Justin Martyr, Dial. cum Tr Jud. 11, in citing the same words of Scripture, has chosen less cumbrous ἐν ᾗ ἐπελαβόμην. The note of time characte the covenant as the Mosaic one. OT] for; not: "beca as protasis to kȧyà K.T.λ. as the apodosis (Calvin, Bö Hofmann, al.). Kayo] emphatic personal opposition to a and consequently I also concerned not myself about the Aéyel KúρLOS] LXX. (Cod. Alex. too): pnoi kúpios.

28 esing the readi

ke into a ty to th

on acco

380 speak this distin placed, a

ced. ver. 9.

να αυτούς, the

επί τας καρδ

pay a

γραψω

ready Ex.

Ver. 10. Justification of the Siаlýкην каιvýν, où кaт Sialýкηv K.T.λ., vv. 8, 9, by a definite indication of the n of the covenant to be instituted. — ὅτι αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη for this (or the following) is the covenant which I will in for the house of Israel. aurn introduces with emphasi material characterization following with διδοὺς κ.τ.λ. 'Iopan] here embraces the whole nation, while in ve denoted one of the two kingdoms into which it had divided. μerà Tàs nμépas éκelvas] after those days, ie-The Heb μετὰ ἡμέρας ἐκείνας] the days which must first have elapsed, before the " mentioned, ver. 8,-in which the New Covenant is toting from into existence, begin to dawn. Wrongly Oecumenius:er. 10. Co ἡμέρας; τὰς τῆς ἐξόδου, ἐν αἷς ἔλαβον τὸν νόμον. — κύριος] LXX. : φησὶ κύριος. Sidous] So LXX. Cod. while Cod. Vatic. and other MSS. of the LXX. have Swow. In the Hebrew n. 88ous does not stand for (Vatablus, Schlichting, Bengel, and others). have we to supplement it with S

or with εἰμί oι ἔσομα

avrýv (Delitzsch).

ἐπιγράψω (30 Bol wise that we must attaches itself gra order to ohiate a place a

Kuinc 100

ιδιξωσιν] and p. 472; E as regards th needful that Just as stated immed

(Heinrichs, Steng

On th

or Siap. 471£-T the for LXX, Cod. Vut ulus), ist member To all in the Hebre On most Codd.:

m αὐτῶν] Young

10; LXX. Je