226
VIII. 12—13. ΙΧ. τ.
A ΄ 12. ᾿ὅτι ἵλεως ἔσομαι ταῖς ἀδικίαις
Rom. xi. αὐτῶν ἕως μεγάλου αὐτῶν "
Ξ αὐτῶν, καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν ἀνομιῶν αὐτῶν οὐ μὴ μνησθῶ ett.” 13. Ἐν τῷ λέγειν “Καινὴν, πεπαλαίωκε τὴν πρώτην" τὸ δὲ παλαιούμενον καὶ γηράσκον, ἐγγὺς ἀφανισμοῦ.
ἐν ὃ, ΙΧ. 1. "ΕΙΧΕ μὲν οὖν καὶ
ἡ πρώτη σκηνὴ ” δικαιώματα λατρείας,
‘kat in NADEKLP, d, e, f, vg., SyrP, Arm.; om. in B, 3, 38, 52, Syrsch, Copt.,
Thphyl.
2 σκήνη omitted in SABDEKLP, f, vg., and by T., Tr., WH, R.; found in 47,
73, 74, 80, 137, Thdrt.
this form of the future Veitch (p. 216) quotes Homer, Theognis, Herodotus, Isocrates. ἀπὸ μικροῦ ἕως pey- άλου, an expression commonly used in LXX to denote universality, Gen. xix. 11, where possibly it is equivalent to ἀπὸ γεανίσκου ἕως πρεσβυτέρου of ver. 4; 1 Sam. xxx. 19, where it is used of spoils of war. Gesenius (117, 2) understands the adjectives as superlatives.
Ver. 12. ὅτι ἵλεως ἔσομαι ταῖς ἀδικίαις αὐτῶν . . . “For! will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins will I remember no more.” This third better promise is united to the former by ὅτι, showing that the forgiveness of sins or God’s grace is fundamental to any possible renewal and maintenance of covenant.
Ver. 13. ἐν τῷ λέγειν Καινήν. “Tn saying ‘New,’ He hath antiquated the first; and that which is antiquated and growing old is near extinction [lit. disappearance].” That is to say, by speaking in the passage quoted, ver. 8, of a new covenant, God brands the former as old. Thus even in Jeremiah’s time the Mosaic covenant was disparaged. The fact that a new was required showed that it was insufficient. It was con- demned as antiquated. And that which is antiquated and aged has not much longer to live. πεπαλαίωκεν, the active is found in LXX, Job. ix. 5; xxxil. 15, etc.; the mid. is common, in Plato and elsewhere in the sense of “ growing old”. ἐγγὺς ἀφανισμοῦ, cf. ἐγγὺς κατάρας, vi. δ. ἀφανισμός, is suggestive of utter destruction, abolition; thus in Polyb. v. τι, 5 it is joined with ἀπώλεια. Cf. Diod. Sic. v. 32, ἀποκτείνουσιν, ἢ κατακαίουσιν, ἤ τισιν ἄλλαις τιμωρίαις ἀφανίζουσι.
CHAPTER IX. Ver.1-14. The insuffi- ciency of the first covenant is further illustrated from the character of its ordinances. For it was not devoid of elaborate and impressive appointments and regulations for worship, but these
only pictured their own inefficiency. Es- pecially did the exclusion from the holiest place of all but the High Priest, who himself could only enter once a year, and with blood, signify that so long as these ordinances remained there could be no perfect approach of the worshipper to God. But this approach was achieved by Christ who ministered in the tabernacle not made with hands, and by His own blood cleansed the conscience and thus brought men into true fellowship with God.
CHAPTER IX. Ver. τ. Εἶχε μὲν οὖν καὶ ἡ πρώτη ... “Even the first covenant, however, had ordinances of worship and the holy place suitable to this world,” z.e., as hinted in viii. 2, a tent pitched by man, constructed with
‘earthly materials, “ of this creation,” ver.
11.,and thus appealing to sense. Farrar renders ‘‘and its sanctuary—a material one”. οὖν is continuative, and might almost be rendered “to resume”. μὲν find its correlative δὲ in ver. 6; the first covenant had, indeed, a sanctuary with elaborate arrangements, but after all it was only a symbol. That διαθήκη. not σκηνή, 15 to be understood after πρώτη, is demanded by the context and is now universally recognised. So Chrysostom, ἡ πρώτη, τίς: ἡ διαθήκη. Of the read- ing σκηνή Calvin says, ‘‘nec dubito, quin aliquis indoctus lector, pro sua inscitia . . . perperam addiderit.” εἶχε at first sight seems to require us to date the epistle after the destruction of Jerusalem, but it is quite possible that, as Delitzsch says, the writer is looking back upon the old from the platform of the new coven- ant. ‘The author in saying had merely looks back from his own historical posi- tion to the Mosaic tabernacle and its or- dinances, which are everywhere assumed as the standard of the O.T. things; the past ‘had’ no more implies that the O.T. ministry had passed away in fact or even in principle, than the present ‘go in’ (ver. 6) implies the reverse” (David- son.) δικαιώματα λατρείας. δικ-