5
ὄρει "- 6.
κρείττονός ἐστι διαθήκης μεσίτης, ἥτις ἐπὶ“ κρείττοσιν ἐπαγγελίαις 7. Εἰ γὰρ ἡ πρώτη ἐκείνη ἦν ἄμεμπτος, οὐκ ἂν
νενομοθέτηται.
323
“νυνὶ δὲ διαφορωτέρας τέτευχε! λειτουργίας, ὅσῳ Kale vii. 2ο: 2
Cor. iii.6.
Z τετευχε With RCBDcE; τετυχε with S*AD*KL, 80, 116; τετυχηκεν with P, 17. Veitch gives τετυχηκα as the Homeric form, τετευχα Arist. and Demosth.; τετυχα
here and in Diod., ‘late if correct’’.
Ver. 6. νυνὶ δὲ... - "μπε asi it is, He hath obtained a more excellent min- istry, by how much He is also mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted upon better promises.” νυνὶ δὲ, 1... He not being on earth, the δὲ pointing back to μὲν in ver. 4. For νυνὶ δὲ in its logical significance, cf. ix. 26; πι. 16; 1 Cor. xiv. 20; Arist. Hthics; I. iv.4. διαφορωτέρας λειτουργ- ίας, more excellent, as what is heavenly or real is more excellent than what is earthly andsymbolic. ὅσῳ καὶκρείτ- τονός ἐστιν διαθήκης μεσ- ἔτης, the ministry being a part of the work of mediating the better covenant, it must participate in the superior excel- lence of that covenant. And the superi- ority of the covenant consists in this, that it has been legally based on better promises. Had Paul so connected the law and the promises, a quip might have been supposed; but this writer uses vevop. in its ordinary sense without any allusion to its etymology. What these “better promises’? are he shows in vv. 8-12. ἥτις introduces the explanation of the κρείττονος, almost equivalent to ‘‘inas- much as it has been, etc.”” The μεσίτης (cf. xii. 24) is more comprehensive than the éyyvos of vii. 22, although μεσίτης is Hellenistic for the Attic peoéyyvos, and in Diod. Sic.iv.54 μεσίτης has exactly the sense of ἔγγυος. The full title in 1 Tim. li. 5 μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων presents the mediator as one who negotiates for both parties, and is something more than a guarantor. Moses was μεσίτης of the first covenant (Gal. iii. 19; Exod. xx. το); so that as already intimated in iii. 1, Christ absorbed in His ministry the work of both Moses and Aaron.
Vv. 7-13. A justification of the es- tablishment of a better covenant, on the grounds (1) that the first covenant was not faultless; (2) that Jeremiah had predicted the introduction of a new covenant (a) not like the old, but (6) based upon better promises; and (3) that even in Jeremiah’s days the first covenant was antiquated by the very title ‘‘new” ascribed to that which was then promised.
Ver.7. εἰγὰρήπρώτη... “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 Actsi. 1; 1 Cor. xv. 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. vii. 11, 19; Gal. iii. 20. οὐ κ 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 necess- arily the two must concur. τόπος is fre- quently used in the sense of ‘‘room”’ “‘ op- portunity” in later Greek, Rom. xv. 23; Luke xiv. το; and cf. especially Rev. xx. ΤΙ. τόπος οὐχ εὑρέθη αὐτοῖς. μεμφόμενος yap... ‘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, εἰς. But now the object of the blame is slightly changed. ‘‘ There is a subtle delicacy of language in the insen- sible shifting of the blame from the coy- enant 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 ascrip- tion of blamein ver. 9. Thayersays ‘‘it is more correct to supply αὐτήν, {.ε., διαθή- κην, 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 ques- tion 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. Jt was faulty inasmuch as it did not sufficiently provide against their faulti- ness. Ἰδοὺ, κ.τ.λ. The quotation which here occupies five verses is taken from