which in A.V. is rendered ‘although I was an husband to them.” Grotius suggests a variant in the Hebrew as giving rise to the translation ἠμέλησα but it seems to be justified by an analo- gous Arabic expression (see Moses Stuart in loc. and Bleek).
Ver. 10. ὅτι αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη ἣν διαθήσομαι . . . ‘For this is.
325
ἡμέρας ἐκείνας, λέγει Κύριος, διδοὺς νόμους μου εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν
> ~ Ἀν ἢ, , 7 A > , A ” > - αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς - καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς
3
εἰς Θεὸν, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί µοι εἰς λαόν. - A -
σιν ἕκαστος τὸν πλησίον] αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἕκαστος τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ,
“-“ , A λέγων, Γνῶθι τὸν Κύριον" ὅτι πάντες εἰδήσουσί µε, ἀπὸ μικροῦ
h ‘ > εν ,
11. "καὶ οὐ διδάξω- ἃ x. 16; ΠῚ δ Joan. vi.
45, 05.
1 Joan. il.
27.
1T.R. in P, f, vg., SyrP-mg; πολιτην in RABDEKL, ἆ, e, Copt.
the covenant which I will covenant with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord.” The ὅτι justifies the differ- entiation of this covenant from the Sinai- tic, and the ascription to it of the term ‘““new”’. It also introduces the positive aspect of the newness of the covenant. This consists in three particulars. It is inward or spiritual; it is individual and therefore universal; it is gracious and provides forgiveness. μετὰ τὰς ἡμέ- paS ἐκείνας, i.e., after the days, spoken of ver. 8, have arrived. διδοὺς γόμους pov... The LXX (vat.) has διδοὺς δώσω, but this writer omits δώσω in x. 16 as well as here. The par- ticiple cannot be attached either to διαθή- σομαι or to ἐπιγράψω without intolerable harshness. We must, therefore, suppose that the writer was simply quoting from the Alexandrian text which omits δώσω {8ο also Q = Codex Marchalianus), and does not concern himself about the ele- gance or even correct grammar of the words. See Buttmann, p.291. νό μους μου. ‘The plural occurs again in the same quotation, x. 16, but not elsewhere in the N.T.; nor does the plural appear to be found in any other place of the LXX
as a translation of FTV” Westcott. τ
εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν. “In Aristotle διάνοια includes all intellect, theoretical and practical, intuitive and discursive” (Burnet’s Nic. Eth., p. 276). Plato defines it in Soph. 263 E thus: ὃ μὲν ἐντὸς τῆς Ψυχῆς πρὸς αὑτὴν διάλογος ἄνευ φωνῆς γιγνόμενος. In N.T. it is sometimes used for the ‘‘mind,”, as in Eph. iv. 18, τι Pet. i. 13, 2 Pet. iii. 1; sometimes for the thoughts produced in the mind, Eph. ii. 3; sometimes for the inner man gener- ally, as in Lukei. 51, Col. i. 21. And in this sense here. καὶἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν “andon their heart”. καρδίας may be either genitive singular, or accusa- tive plural, both constructions being found after γράφειν ἐπὶ. The meaning is that God’s law, instead of being written on tables of stone, should under the new covenant be written on the spirit and desires of man. ‘“ Unde significavit eos non forinsecus habere, sed ipsam legis
justitiam dilecturos”(Atto). This ‘‘ better promise” involves a new spirit, effecting that man’s own will shall concur with the divine. Cf. 2 Cor. 11.3. καὶ ἔσομαι avtots... “and I will be to thema God, and they shall be to me a people”. For the distinction between the Hebraistic construction ἔσομαι eis and the legitimate Greek εἶναι or γένεσθαι εἰς see Buttmann, Ῥ. 150. This of course was the aim of the old covenant as well, and is expressed in the original promise, Exod. vi. 7: 1 will take you to myself as my people, and I shall be to you a God’’. See also Jerem. vii. 23. xi. 4. This is the ultimate statement of the end or aim of all religion.
Ver 11. καὶ οὐ μὴ διδάξωσιν. ... “Απά they shall not teach, each man his fellow-citizen and each man his brother, saying, ‘ Know the Lord,’ for all shall know me from small to great among them”. This second ‘‘better’’ promise follows on the first as its natural con- sequence. The inward acceptance of God’s will involves the knowledge of God. In the new covenant all were to be “taught of God” (Isa. liv. 13, Jo. vi. 45) and independent of the instruction of a privileged class. Under the old covenant, none but the educated scribe could under- stand the minutie of the law with which religion was identified. The elaborate ritual made it impossible for the private individual to know whether a ram or a pigeon was the appropriate sacrifice for his sin, or whether his sin was mortal or venial. A priest had to be consulted. Under the new covenant intermediates were to be abolished. The knowledge of God was to lie in the heart alongside of the love of parent or friend, and would demand for its expression ΠΟ more ex- ternal instruction than those primal, in- stinctive and home-grown affections. οὐ μὴ διδάξωσιν, “ The intensive od μὴ (of that which in no wise will or shall happen) is sometimes—indeed most com- monly—joined with the conjunctive aor- ist, sometimes with the conjunctive present, sometimes also with the indicative future”. Winer, p. 634, who also dis- cusses Hermann’s canon and Dawes’ regarding this form. εἰδήσουσιν, for