324
f Jer. xxi. δευτέρας ἐζητεῖτο τόπος. 8. ! μεμφόμενος yap αὐτοῖς! λέγει, ““᾿Ιδοὺ,.
31, εἰς.
> ἡμέραι ἔρχονται, λέγει Κύριος, kal συντελέσω ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰσραὴλ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται, λέγ :
καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον ᾿Ιούδα διαθήκην καινήν - 9. οὐ κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην.
ἣν ἐποίησα τοῖς πατράσιν αὐτῶν, ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπιλαβομένου μου τῆς
n ~ aA A χειρὸς αὐτῶν, ἐξαγαγεῖν αὐτοὺς ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου : ὅτι αὐτοὶ οὐκ
g Jer. xxxi. 33, etc. ; Zach. viii. 8.
ἐνέμειναν ἐν τῇ διαθήκῃ pou, κἀγὼ ἠμέλησα αὐτῶν, λέγει Κύριος. Το. " ὅτι αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη ἣν διαθήσομαι τῷ οἴκῳ Ἰσραὴλ μετὰ τὰς
χαντοις with NCBDcEL ; αντους in Q*AD*KP, 17, 39, 114, 137, Thdrt., Chrys.
Jeremiah xxxviii. 31-34 in LXX, xxxi. 31-34 A.V. ἡμέραι Epxovrarisa frequent formula in Jeremiah. καὶ ‘‘The ubiquitous Hebrew and, serving here the purpose of the ὅτε which might have been expected” (Vaughan). συντελ- έσω, the LXX has διαθήσομαι, and Augustine (De Sfir. 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 pur- posely selected the συντελέσω to express more clearly the conclusive perfecting power of the new covenant of the gos- Ρε]... So, too, Weiss, who also calls attention to the fact that it is followed by ἐπὶ as in the expression συντελ. τ. ὀργὴν éwi... But in the face of the occurrence in Jer. xxxiv. 8, (LXX, xli. 8) of the expression συντελέσαι διαθήκην πρὸς ...,it is precarious to maintain that our author in selecting this word meant more than ‘‘completea covenant”’. ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰσραὴλ Kat... 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 Cor. xi. 25. In 2 Cor. il. 6, the καινὴ διαθ. is contrasted with τ. παλαιᾶς διαθ. of ver. 14. The new covenant is also called véa in xii. 24; καινή properly meaning new in charac- ter, véa young or new in date. As in ver. 7 the condemnation of the old im- plied a promise of the new; so in ver. xiii., the promise of the new is considered as involving the condemnation of the old.
Ver.g. οὐ κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην... “ΕἾΝ οἱ according to the covenant which I made with their fathers.” These words express negatively wherein the καινότης of the covenant consists. It was not to be a repetition of that which had failed. It was to be framed with a view to avoiding the defects of the old. It must
‘unusual, but not incorrect.’’
not be such a covenant as dealt in symbols and externals. That former cov- enant is further defined in the words. ἣν éwolynoa..., a clause which is intended to remind the readers that it was through no lack of power or grace: on God’s part that the covenant had failed. His intention and power to fulfil His part was put beyond doubt by the deliverance from Egypt. ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπιλαβομένου pov τ. χειρὸς αὐτῶν . . . “sicut nutrix apprehendit manum parvuli, vel qui de fovea per manum attrahit aliquem sive secum ducit’’ (Herveius). The construction determined by the Hebrew, which, how- ever, has the infinitive not the participle, is, according to Winer (710) ‘“ perhaps Buttmann, however, (316) condemns it as “‘a perfectly un-Greek construction” and ‘nothing more than a thoughtless imitation of the original Hebrew, of which πὸ other similar example is to be found in the N.T.” Cf. Baruch, ii. 28 ἐν ἡμέρᾳ év- τειλαμένου σου, κ.τ.λ. Cf. Viteau, Gram. p. 209-10. On ἐπιλαβ. see ii. 16. ὅτι. αὐτοὶ οὐκ ἐνέμειναν “because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord”. Both parties abandoned the covenant and so it became null. Bengel’s note on this clause is this: “ Correlata, utiver. το, ex opposito: Evo eis in Deum, et illi erunt mihi in populum; sed ratione inversa : populus fecerat initium tollendi foederis prius: in novo omnia et incipit et perficit Deus”. The pronouns are emphatic in both clauses κἀγὼ ἠμέλησα αὐτῶν representing OD ΠΟΥ Ny τ ο) ο ὑπ = wag