Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 8:9
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
9. I took them by the hand ] See note on Heb 2:16.
because they continued not in my covenant ] The disobedience of the Israelites was a cause for nullifying the covenant which they had transgressed (Jdg 2:20-21; 2Ki 17:15-18). Comp. Hos 1:9, “Ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.”
and I regarded them not ] These words correspond to the “though I was a husband unto them” of the original. The quotation is from the LXX., who perhaps followed a slightly different reading. Rabbi Kimchi holds that the rendering of the LXX. is justifiable even with the present reading.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Not according to the covenant … – An arrangement or dispensation relating mainly to outward observances, and to temporal blessings. The meaning is, that the new dispensation would be different from what was made with them when they came out of Egypt. In what respects it would differ is specified in Heb 8:10-12.
Because they continued not in my covenant – In Jeremiah, in the Hebrew, this is, while my covenant they brake. That is, they failed to comply with the conditions on which I promised to bestow blessings upon them. In Jeremiah this is stated as a simple fact; in the manner in which the apostle quotes it, it is given as a reason why he would give a new arrangement. The apostle has quoted it literally from the Septuagint, and the sense is not materially varied. The word rendered because – hoti – may mean since – since they did not obey that covenant, and it was ineffectual in keeping them from sin, showing that it was not perfect or complete in regard to what was needful to be done for man, a new arrangement shall be made that will be without defect. This accords with the reasoning of the apostle; and the idea is, simply, that an arrangement may be made for man adapted to produce important ends in one state of society or one age of the world, which would not be well adapted to him in another, and which would not accomplish all which it would be desirable to accomplish for the race. So an arrangement may be made for teaching children which would not answer the purpose of instructing those of mature years, and which at that time of life may be superseded by another. A system of measures may be adapted to the infancy of society, or to a comparatively rude period of the world, which would be ill adapted to a more advanced state of society. Such was the Hebrew system. It was well adapted to the Jewish community in their circumstances, and answered the end then in view. It served to keep them separate from other people; to preserve the knowledge and the worship of the true God, and to introduce the gospel dispensation.
And I regarded them not – In Jeremiah this is, Although I was an husband unto them. The Septuagint is as it is quoted here by Paul. The Hebrew is, wa’aanokiy baaaltiy baam – which may be rendered, although I was their Lord; or as it is translated by Gesenius, and I rejected them. The word baal – means:
(1)To be lord or master over anything Isa 26:13;
(2)To become the husband of anyone Deu 21:13; Deu 24:1;
(3)With ba-, to disdain, to reject; so Jer 3:14. It is very probable that this is the meaning here, for it is not only adopted by the Septuagint, but by the Syriac. So Abulwalid, Kimchi, and Rabbi Tanchum understood it.
The Arabic word means to reject, to loath, to disdain. All that is necessary to observe here is, that it cannot be demonstrated that the apostle has not given the true sense of the prophet. The probability is, that the Septuagint translators would give the meaning which was commonly understood to be correct, and there is still more probability that the Syriac translator would adopt the true sense, for.
(1)The Syriac and Hebrew languages strongly resemble each other; and,
(2)The old Syriac version – the Peshito – is incomparably a better translation than the Septuagint.
If this, therefore, be the correct translation, the meaning is, that since they did not regard and obey the laws which he gave them, God would reject them as his people, and give new laws better adapted to save people. Instead of regarding and treating them as his friends, he would punish them for their offences, and visit them with calamities.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 9. Not according to the covenant] The new covenant is of a widely different nature to that of the old; it was only temporal and earthly in itself, though it pointed out spiritual and eternal things. The new covenant is totally different from this, as we have already seen; and such a covenant, or system of religion, the Jews should have been prepared to expect, as the Prophet Jeremiah had, in the above place, so clearly foretold it.
They continued not in my covenant] It should be observed that the word , which we translate covenant, often means religion itself; and its various precepts. The old covenant in general stated, on God’s side, I will be your God; on the Israelites’ side, We will be thy people. This covenant they brake; they served other gods, and neglected the precepts of that holy religion which God had delivered to them.
And I regarded them not] And I neglected them or despised them; but the words in the Hebrew text of the prophet are veanochi baalti bam, which we translate, although I was a husband to them. If our translation be correct, is it possible to account for this most strange difference between the apostle and the prophet? Could the Spirit of God be the author of such a strange, not to say contradictory, translation of the same words? Let it be observed:
1. That the apostle quotes from the Septuagint; and in quoting a version accredited by and commonly used among the Jews, he ought to give the text as he found it, unless the Spirit of God dictated an extension of meaning, as is sometimes the case; but in the present case there seems to be no necessity to alter the meaning.
2. The Hebrew words will bear a translation much nearer to the Septuagint and the apostle than our translation intimates. The words might be literally rendered, And I was Lord over them, or I lorded or ruled over them; i.e., I chastised them for their transgressions, and punished them for their iniquities; , I took no farther care of them, and gave them up into the hands of their enemies, and so they were carried away into captivity. This pretty nearly reconciles the Hebrew and the Greek, as it shows the act of God in reference to them is nearly the same when the proper meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words is considered.
Some suppose that the letter ain in is changed for cheth, and that the word should be read bachalti, I have hated or despised them. An ancient and learned Jew, Rab. Parchon, has these remarkable words on this passage,
,
and I baatti baam, translate, I hated them; for ain is here changed and stands for cheth, as it is said, their soul bachalah bi, translate, hath hated me.” None of the Hebrew MSS. collated by Kennicott and De Rossi give any various reading on this word. Some of the versions have used as much latitude in their translations of the Hebrew as the Septuagint. But it is unnecessary to discuss this subject any farther; the word baal itself, by the consent of the most learned men, signifies to disdain or despise, and this is pretty nearly the sense of the apostle’s expression.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The Spirit proceedeth to show the form of the covenant denied.
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers; not the same covenant for habit or form, nor any like unto the same for the manner of its administration, as was made by the Lord with the Hebrews their progenitors, when they were strangers in Egypt, and under great bondage there.
In the day when I took them by the hand; the day that I laid my hand on them, and took hold of theirs, even the last day of the four hundred and thirty years foretold to Abraham, Gen 15:13,16; compare Exo 12:40,41; as a father takes hold of his child to pluck it out of danger. It is a metaphor setting out Gods special act of providence, in their miraculous deliverance out of Egypt, keeping them in his hand, while he was smiting their enemies; setting them at liberty, and then striking covenant with them, and binding them by it to be his obedient people, as such redemption mercy did deserve. At which time the covenant was unlike the promise or gospel one for external habit and form only, as carried on by a ceremonial law and priesthood, over which Christs was to have the pre-eminency for power and efficacy of administration.
Because they continued not in my covenant; these unbelieving Hebrews, under that administration of the covenant, continued not faithful to it, as by their own word and consent they bound themselves to it, but apostatized from God and his truth, Deu 5:27. The word used by the prophet signifieth the breaking and making void the covenant. The administration of it did not hold them in close to God, but they frustrated all Gods ordinances, turned idolaters, forsook the Lord, and worshipped the gods of the nations round about.
And I regarded them not; hmelhsa, I took no care of them, I did neither esteem nor regard them, but cast them off from being my people for their lewd, treacherous covenant-breaking with me; they would not return unto me, and I rejected them from being my people, or a people as they were before. Who knows where the nine tribes and the half are? And in what a dispersed, shattered condition are the remaining Jews to this day! The apostle in this follows the Septuagint, who read the effect of their sin, their rejection, for what was their sin itself, which by the prophet is expressed should I be a Lord or Husband to them; which is an aggravation of their sin from Gods dominion over them or marriage-relation to them; yet did they break his marriage-covenant with them according to their lewd and whorish heart: see Eze 16:1-63; 23:1-49. But in this quotation by the apostle, and translation of the Septuagint, it is a metonymy of the effect for the cause, to reject, cast off, or neglect them for their treachery to him in their marriage covenant, which was the true cause of it. The verb itself may signify to neglect or despise; and so Kimchi reads it, Jer 3:1, and is so rendered in this place by other rabbies, and so it signifieth in other languages.
Saith the Lord: this is Gods irrevocable word, used four times by the prophet, Jer 31:31-34, and three times repeated by the apostle here, as proper only to the Lord; none can speak so truly, certainly, infallibly, as he.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
9. Not according to, c.verydifferent from, and far superior to, the old covenant, which only”worked wrath” (Ro 4:15)through man’s “not regarding” it. The new covenant enablesus to obey by the Spirit’s inward impulse producing love because ofthe forgiveness of our sins.
made withrather asGreek, “made to”: the Israelites being onlyrecipients, not coagents [ALFORD]with God.
I took them by the handasa father takes his child by the hand to support and guide his steps.”There are three periods: (1) that of the promise (2) that ofthe pedagogical instruction; (3) that of fulfilment” [BENGEL].The second, that of the pedagogical pupilage, began at the exodusfrom Egypt.
I regarded them notEnglishVersion, Jer 31:32,translates, “Although I was an husband unto them.”Paul’s translation here is supported by the Septuagint, Syriac,and GESENIUS, and accordswith the kindred Arabic. The Hebrews regarded not God,so God, in righteous retribution, regarded them not. On”continued not in my covenant,” Schelling observes: The lawwas in fact the mere ideal of a religious constitution: inpractice, the Jews were throughout, before the captivity, moreor less polytheists, except in the time of David, and the first yearsof Solomon (the type of Messiah’s reign). Even after the return fromBabylon, idolatry was succeeded by what was not much better,formalism and hypocrisy (Mt12:43). The law was (1) a typical picture, tracing out thefeatures of the glorious Gospel to be revealed; (2) it had adelegated virtue from the Gospel, which ceased, therefore, when theGospel came.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers,…. The ancestors of the Jews at Mount Sinai:
in the day when I took then, by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; which is mentioned, not only to observe the time when the former covenant was made with the Israelites, which was just upon their deliverance out of Egypt; but also to show their weakness and inability to have delivered themselves, and the tenderness of God towards them; they were like children, they could not help themselves when God took them by the hand, and brought them forth with an outstretched arm; and likewise to expose their ingratitude, and vindicate his conduct towards them:
because they continued not in my covenant; though they promised, at the reading of it, that all that the Lord had said, they would hear and do; but their hearts were not right with God, and they were not steadfast in his covenant, and therefore their carcasses fell in the wilderness:
and I regarded them not, saith the Lord; the words in Jer 31:32 are very differently rendered in our translation, “although I was an husband unto them”: and so it becomes an aggravation of their sin of ingratitude, in not continuing in his covenant: in the margin it is rendered interrogatively, “should I have continued an husband unto them?” that is, after they had so treated him, no; as if he should say, I will not behave towards them as such; I will reject them, and disregard them. The Chaldee paraphrase is just the reverse of the apostle’s translation, “and I was well pleased with them”: some render them, “I ruled over them”, as a lord over his servants, in a very severe manner. Others, observing the great difference there is between the Hebrew text, and the apostle’s version, have supposed a different Hebrew copy from the present, used by the Septuagint, or the apostle, in which, instead of , it was read either , or ; but there is no need of such a supposition, since Dr. Pocock g has shown, that , in the Arabic language, signifies to loath and abhor, and so to disregard; and Kimchi h relates it as a rule laid down by his father, that wherever this word is used in construction with , it is to be taken in an ill part, and signifies the same as , “I have loathed”; in which sense that word is used in Zec 11:8 and so here, I have loathed them, I abhorred them, I rejected them, I took no care of them, disregarded them, left their house desolate, and suffered wrath to come upon them to the uttermost.
g Not. Miscell. in Port. Mesis, p. 9. h In Jer. xxxi. 32. & Sepher Shorashim, rad.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
In the day that I took them ( ). Genitive absolute ( and second aorist middle participle of ), “a Hellenistic innovation” (Moffatt) in imitation of the Hebrew after in place of , occurring also in Barn. 2:28.
By the hand ( ). Technical use of the genitive of the part affected.
To lead them forth ( ). Second aorist active infinitive of to denote purpose.
For they continued not ( ). First aorist active indicative of , old verb to remain in (Ac 14:22). The Israelites broke the covenant. Then God annulled it.
I regarded not (). “I neglected” as in 2:3. The covenant was void when they broke it.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
In the day when I took [ ] . An unusual construction. Lit. in the day of me having taken hold. Comp. Joh 4:39.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Not according to the covenant,” (ou kata ten diatheken) “Not according to the covenant,” of the Law, Deu 27:9-10; Deu 29:1; Deu 29:9.
2) “That I made with their fathers,” (hen epoiesa tois patrasin auton) “Which I made with their fathers,” Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then with all Israel, as recounted in blessings and curses, Deu 27:1 to Deu 29:29.
3) “In the day when I took them by the hand,” (en hemera epilabomenou mou tes cheiros auton) “In the day when I took their hand (in mine), as he led them affectionately out of the land of bondage and oppression, as described, Exo 12:1 to Exo 14:31.
4) “To lead them out of the land of Egypt,” (eksagagein autos ek ges aiguptou) “To lead them forth progressively out of or from the land of Egypt,” and he did, demonstrating his care for them, formerly pledged in Abraham, Gen 12:1-3; 1Co 10:1-6.
5) “Because they continued not in my covenant,” (hoti autoi ouk enemeinan en te diatheke mou) “Because they continued (or remained) not in my covenant,” rebelled against the Law covenant, bringing this Divine indictment, Jdg 2:20-21; 2Ki 17:15-18; Jer 15:1-3.
6) “And I regarded them not, saith the Lord,” (kago emelesa auton legei koerios) “And I disregarded them, says the Lord,” this is a statement of God’s abandoning Israel from her covenant, land-grant inheritance, setting her aside because of her chosen rebellion, Rom 11:25; Mat 23:37-39.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
9. Not according to the covenant, etc. Here is expressed the difference between the covenant which then existed and the new one which he caused them to expect. The Prophet might have otherwise said only: “I will renew the covenant which through your fault has come to nothing;” but he now expressly declares that it would be one unlike the former. By saying that the covenant was made in the day when he laid holds on their hand to rescue them from bondage, he enhanced the sin of defection by thus reminding them of so great a benefit. At the same time he did not accuse one age only of ingratitude; but as these very men who had been delivered immediately fell away, and as their posterity after their example continually relapsed, hence the whole nation had become covenantbreakers.
By saying that he disregarded them or cared not for them, he intimates that it would profit them nothing to have been once adopted as his people, unless he succored them by this new kind of remedy. At the same time the Prophet expresses in Hebrew something more; but this has little to do with the present question. (133)
(133) See Appendix E 2.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(9) Not according to the covenant.The difference is declared below (Heb. 8:10-12). In the day when they were led forth out of Egypt the token of Gods covenant was the deliverance itself. At Sinai, Exo. 24:7-8 (see Heb. 9:18-22), the book of the covenant was read, and the blood of the covenant was sprinkled on the people, who had promised obedience to all the words that the Lord had said.
And I regarded them not.It is here that the translation departs from the Hebrew, which, as is now generally believed, is faithfully represented in our Authorised version: although I was an husband unto them (that is, had the authority of a husband). The quotation here follows the LXX. without change.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
9. Not covenant fathers Positively, as last verse, it was to be a new covenant; negatively, it was not to be the old one continued and amended: it was to be a substitution, not an improvement merely. The old covenant was to cease existence, and a new one take its place. And, lest the words might seem to signify some minor change, a full specification of the old covenant is given. It was that covenant made when God led Israel out of Egypt, namely, the Mosaic covenant. A change no less than an abolition of the Mosaic and an establishment of a new Messianic covenant, was to take place.
Because Important reason given: the failure of Israel (not of God) to keep the covenant. They continued not, then I regarded them not.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Heb 8:9 . , ] negative unfolding of the foregoing positive expression (namely, a covenant): not after the manner of the covenant ( ) which I made for their fathers, i.e. one qualitatively different therefore, and that as being a better one.
] LXX.: .
] in the Hebrew , with their fathers. The mere dative with 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.
. . .] in the day (at the time) when I look hold of their hand, to lead them forth out of the land of Egypt ( ). An unwieldy but not exactly incorrect construction (see Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 531), in place of which Justin Martyr, Dial. cum Tryph. Jud 1:11 , in citing the same words of Scripture, has chosen the less cumbrous . The note of time characterizes the covenant as the Mosaic one.
] for; not: “because,” as protasis to . . . as the apodosis (Calvin, Bhme, Hofmann, al.).
] emphatic personal opposition to : and consequently I also concerned not myself about them.
] LXX. (Cod. Alex. too): .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Ver. 9. The covenant that I made ] He meaneth not here the covenant of grace made with Abraham, but circumcision, the legal ceremonies and services, that burden which neither they nor their fathers could bear.
When I took them by the hand ] Teaching them to go, taking them by the arms, Hos 11:3 , keeping their feet, 1Sa 2:9 , and leading them through the deep, as a horse in the wilderness, that they should not stumble, Isa 63:13 .
And I regarded them not ] Heb. Although I was a husband unto them, q.d. Yet nevertheless they forsook the guide of their youth, and forgat the covenant of their God, Jer 31:32 ; Pro 2:17 . Therefore God regarded them not, or cared not for them, as the Greek hath it, . “If you forsake him, he will forsake you,”2Ch 15:22Ch 15:2 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
9 .] (this covenant is first specified negatively: it is not to be like that first one) not according to the covenant ( , different in quality from, not after the measure of) which I made (LXX again, : see reff.) to (not “ with :” it is a pure dative, and betokens mere agency on the part of the subject, God: the people of Israel, the objects, being only recipients, not co-agents) their fathers, in the day of my taking hold of their hand (the idiom is Hebraistic: . Justin M. Dial. c. Tryph. c. 11, p. 112, cites it . This expression would shew beyond a doubt, being one which the Writer of our Epistle would never have adopted in a translation of his own, that he is quoting the LXX) to bring them out of the land of Egypt: because they abode not in my covenant, and I disregarded them (thus, making render a reason for the foregoing, and attaching it to the whole following sentence, most of the moderns: and this is apparently most agreeable to the Heb., , where, says Bleek, the is only a particle of relation or connexion with the preceding, either for the subject, “quippe illi,” or for the object, “quod fdus meum:” and either way it = “ for (or because ) they broke my covenant .” But many take the sentence beginning with as an independent one “because they abode not in my covenant, I also disregarded them.” So Chrys. ( , ), Thl., Bhme, Kuinoel, Klee, al.), saith ( , LXX) the Lord .
On the fact, , Delitzsch gives a striking quotation from Schelling, Offenbarungsphilosophie, “The Law appears to be the mere ideal of a religious constitution, as it has never existed in fact: in practice, the Jews were almost throughout polytheists. The substance of their national feeling was formed by heathendom: the accidents only, by revelation. From the queen of heaven down to the abominations of the Phnicians, and even to Cybele, the Jews passed through every grade of paganism.” “In fact,” adds Delitzsch, “there is no period of the history of Israel before the captivity, in which more or less idolatry was not united with the worship of Jehovah, except the time of David and the first years of Solomon, during which the influence of Samuel still continued to be felt. And when by the captivity Idol-worship was completely eradicated from the people, as far at least as regards that part of it which returned, it is well known that a hypocritical letter-worship got the mastery over them, which was morally very little better.” See note on Mat 12:43 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Heb 8:9 . “Not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers.” These words express negatively wherein the 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 not be such a covenant as dealt in symbols and externals. That former covenant is further defined in the words , 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. . “sicut nutrix apprehendit manum parvuli, vel qui de fovea per manum attrahit aliquem sive secum ducit” (Herveius). The construction determined by the Hebrew, which, however, has the infinitive not the participle, is, according to Winer (710) “perhaps unusual, but not incorrect.” Buttmann, however, (316) condemns it as “a perfectly un-Greek construction” and “nothing more than a thoughtless imitation of the original Hebrew, of which no other similar example is to be found in the N.T.” Cf. Bar 2:28 , . . . Cf. Viteau, Gram . p. 209 10. On . see Heb 2:16 . “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, uti Heb 8:10 , ex opposito: Ero 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 representing 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 but it seems to be justified by an analogous Arabic expression (see Moses Stuart in loc . and Bleek).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
when, &c. Literally of My taking hold of. Greek. epilambanomai. See Heb 2:16.
the = My.
out of Greek. ek. App-104.
land. Greek. ge, as Heb 8:4.
continued. Greek. emmeno. See Act 14:22.
and I regarded . . . not = I also disregarded. Greek. ameleo. See 1Ti 4:14.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
9.] (this covenant is first specified negatively: it is not to be like that first one) not according to the covenant ( , different in quality from, not after the measure of) which I made (LXX again, : see reff.) to (not with: it is a pure dative, and betokens mere agency on the part of the subject, God: the people of Israel, the objects, being only recipients, not co-agents) their fathers, in the day of my taking hold of their hand (the idiom is Hebraistic: . Justin M. Dial. c. Tryph. c. 11, p. 112, cites it . This expression would shew beyond a doubt, being one which the Writer of our Epistle would never have adopted in a translation of his own, that he is quoting the LXX) to bring them out of the land of Egypt: because they abode not in my covenant, and I disregarded them (thus, making render a reason for the foregoing, and attaching it to the whole following sentence, most of the moderns: and this is apparently most agreeable to the Heb., , where, says Bleek, the is only a particle of relation or connexion with the preceding, either for the subject, quippe illi, or for the object, quod fdus meum: and either way it = for (or because) they broke my covenant. But many take the sentence beginning with as an independent one-because they abode not in my covenant, I also disregarded them. So Chrys. ( , ), Thl., Bhme, Kuinoel, Klee, al.), saith (, LXX) the Lord.
On the fact, , Delitzsch gives a striking quotation from Schelling, Offenbarungsphilosophie,-The Law appears to be the mere ideal of a religious constitution, as it has never existed in fact: in practice, the Jews were almost throughout polytheists. The substance of their national feeling was formed by heathendom: the accidents only, by revelation. From the queen of heaven down to the abominations of the Phnicians, and even to Cybele, the Jews passed through every grade of paganism. In fact, adds Delitzsch, there is no period of the history of Israel before the captivity, in which more or less idolatry was not united with the worship of Jehovah, except the time of David and the first years of Solomon, during which the influence of Samuel still continued to be felt. And when by the captivity Idol-worship was completely eradicated from the people, as far at least as regards that part of it which returned, it is well known that a hypocritical letter-worship got the mastery over them, which was morally very little better. See note on Mat 12:43.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Heb 8:9. , I made) LXX., , I have arranged or disposed. To perfect is more than to make and dispose.-, in the day) Days, in the plural, are opposed to this one day, Heb 8:8. These many days are the days that intervened between the day of the Exodus and the New Testament.- , when I took them by the hand) Whilst their sense of the Divine help and power was recent, these men in old times obeyed; but they were wont soon to revolt and turn God from them. This was their custom; comp. presently after, they continued not. It was not merely one singular act.- , out of the land of Egypt) There are three periods:-1. That of the promise; 2. That of instruction (pdagogi); 3. That of fulfilment. The instruction (as children) began at the time of the departure from Egypt, with that which was destined to become old (Heb 8:13).- , , they did not continue in My covenant, and I did not regard (care for) them) Correlatives, as Heb 8:10, from the opposite, I will be to them a GOD, and they shall be to Me a people; but the method of proceeding is now reversed: the people had begun first to put an end to the covenant: God both begins and perfects all things in the new covenant, Heb 8:10-11.- ) LXX., , and I did not regard them. , and I ruled over them; although some claim for the verb , the meaning , disregard, from the Arabic idiom. Gods ruling and disregard may, in some measure, be reconciled in this view: I treated them as if they were not Mine; Hos 1:9 : nor was I propitious to their sins; Deu 29:19; Deu 31:16, etc. They are not regarded over whom such lordly rule is exercised; they do not rejoice in (are not privileged with) that access, in which those who are in covenant or in friendship rejoice; Joh 15:15 : but they are treated as slaves; nor are they held in great consideration, whatever may befall them; Eze 24:6, at the end; Jer 15:1-2. The passages, Jer 3:14, Eze 20:33; Eze 20:37, express a somewhat similar idea: but in both places there is rather a promise than a threatening; nay, even in the present, Jer 31:32. The Hebrew Masters, as Surenhusius shows, in , p. 628, understand the word to apply to the dominion of love and good pleasure; and it is not, save by an error in writing, that they turn it into the contrary, , I have disdained or disregarded (fastidivi). The LXX. seem evidently to have read , which very word Jeremiah uses, ch. Jer 14:19, () ; hath thy soul loathed Sion?
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
, , , , .
For the quotation and translation of these words out of the prophet Jeremiah, the reader may consult the Exereitations in the first volume, Exerc. 5. [p. 111.] the apostle in this place renders by , and in this place only; the reason whereof we shall see afterwards. , which my covenant they brake, rescinded, dissipated; the apostle renders , and they continued not in my covenant: for not to abide faithful in covenant is to break it. , and I was an husband unto them, or rather, a lord over them; in the apostle, , and I regarded them not. On what reason and grounds the seeming alteration is made, we shall inquire in the exposition.
, non secundum testamentum; secundum illud testamentum; and so the Syriac, , not according unto that testament; others, foedus, and illud foedus. Of the different translation of this word by a testament and a covenant, we have spoken before.
. Syr., , which I gave; quod feci, which I made. , for , with the fathers; for that is required to be joined to the verb . And therefore the Syriac, omitting the preposition, turns the verb into gave gave to the fathers; which is properly , cum patribus eorum.
. Vulg., non permanserunt; others, perstiterunt. So the Syriac, , they stood not, they continued not. Maneo is used to express stability in promises and covenants: At tu dictis, Albane, maneres, Virg. AEn. 8:643; and, Tu modo promissis maneas, AEn. 2:160. So is permaneo in officio, in armis, in amicitia, to continue steadfast unto the end. Wherefore it is as well so rendered as by persisto. is so used by Thucydides: , to abide firm and constant in covenants. And is he who is firm, stable, constant in promises and engagements.
, ego neglexi, despexi, neglectui habui. Syr., , I despised, I neglected, I rejected them. , is curae non habeo, negligo, contemno; a word denoting a casting out of care with contempt. [8]
[8] EXPOSITION. . This is the Septuagint rendering. The Hebrew, according to A. V., ms, though I was an husband to them. Some explain the discrepancy by conjecturing that the Greek translators had the guttural cheth instead of ayin in their copies. As the Arabic cognate word signifies to despise or reject, Kimchi and Pococke adopt this translation of the Hebrew word in this passage. Hengstenberg in his Christology denies that the word can bear this sense. ED.
Heb 8:9. Not according to that covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
The greatest and utmost mercies that God ever intended to communicate unto the church, and to bless it withal, were enclosed in the new covenant. Nor doth the efficacy of the mediation of Christ extend itself beyond the verge and compass thereof; for he is only the mediator and surety of this covenant. But now God had before made a covenant with his people. A good and holy covenant it was; such as was meet for God to prescribe, and for them thankfully to accept of. Yet notwithstanding all the privileges and advantages of it, it proved not so effectual, but that multitudes of them with whom God made that covenant were so far from obtaining the blessedness of grace and glory thereby, as that they came short, and were deprived of the temporal benefits that were included therein. Wherefore, as God hereon promiseth to make a new covenant with them, seeing they had forfeited and lost the advantage of the former, yet if it should be of the same kind therewith, it might also in like manner prove ineffectual. So must God give, and the church receive, one covenant after another, and yet the ends of them never be obtained.
To obviate this objection, and the fear that thence might arise, God, who provideth not only for the safety of his church, but also for their comfort and assurance, declares beforehand unto them that it shall not be of the same kind with the former, nor liable to be so frustrated, as to the ends of it, as that was.
And there are some things remarkable herein:
1. That the preface unto the promise of this new covenant is a blame charged on the people, finding fault with them, blaming them, charging them with sin against the covenant that he had made with them.
2. That yet this was not the whole ground and reason of making this new covenant. It was not so, I say, that the people were not steadfast in it and unto the terms of it. For had it been so, there would have no more been needful to reinstate them in a good condition, but only that God should pardon their former sins, and renew the same covenant unto them again, and give them another venture or trial thereon. But inasmuch as he would do so no more, but would make another covenant of another nature with them, it is evident that there was some defect in the covenant itself, it was not able to communicate those good things which God designed to bless the church withal.
3. These two things being the only reason that God gives why he will make this new covenant, namely, the sins of the people, and the insufficiency of the first covenant to bring the church into that blessed estate which he designed them; it is manifest that all his dealings with them for their spiritual and eternal good are of mere sovereign grace, and such as he hath no motive unto but in and from himself alone. There are sundry things contained in these words:
First, An intimation that God had made a former covenant with his people: . There is in these verses a repetition three times of making covenant,; and in every place in the Hebrew the same words are used, . But the apostle changeth the verb in every place. First, he expresseth it by , Heb 8:8; and in the last place by , which is most proper, Heb 8:10, ( and are usual in other authors;) here he useth , in reference unto that covenant which the people brake and God disannulled. And it may be he did so, to distinguish their alterable covenant from that which was to be unalterable, and was confirmed with greater solemnity. God made this covenant as others of his outward works, which he resolved to alter, change, or abolish, at the appointed season. It was a work whose effects might be shaken, and itself afterwards be removed; so he speaks, Heb 12:27. The change of the things that are shaken is , as of things that are made, made for a season; so made as to abide and endure for an appointed time only: such were all the things of this covenant, and such was the covenant itself. It had no criteria aeternitatis upon it, no evidences of an eternal duration. Nothing hath so but what is founded in the blood of Christ. He is , the everlasting Father, or the immediate author and cause of every thing that is or shall be everlasting in the church. Let men labor and contend about other things whilst they please; they are all shaken, and must be removed.
Obs. 1. The grace and glory of the new covenant are much set off and manifested by the comparing of it with the old. This is done here by God, on purpose for the illustration of it. And it is greatly made use of in this epistle; partly to prevail with us to accept of the terms thereof, and to abide faithful therein; and partly to declare how great is their sin, and how sore will be the destruction of them by whom it is neglected or despised. As these things are insisted on in other places, so are they the subject of the apostles discourse, Hebrews 12 from verse 15 unto the end.
Obs. 2. All Gods works are equally good and holy in themselves; but as unto the use and advantage of the church, he is pleased to make some of them means of communicating more grace than others. Even this covenant, which the new was not to be like unto, was in itself good and holy; which those with whom it was made had no reason to complain of. Howbeit God had ordained that by another covenant he would communicate the fullness of his grace and love unto the church. And if every thing that God doth be improved in its season, and for its proper ends, we shall have benefit and advantage by it, though he hath yet other ways of doing us more good, whose seasons he hath reserved unto himself. But this is an act of mere sovereign goodness and grace, that whereas any have neglected or abused mercies and kindnesses that they have received, instead of casting them off on that account, God takes this other course, of giving them such mercies as shall not be so abused. This he did by the introduction of the new covenant in the room of the old; and this he doth every day. So Isa 57:16-18. We live in days wherein men variously endeavor to obscure the grace of God, and to render it inglorious in the eyes of men; but he will for ever be admired in them that believe.
Obs. 3. Though God makes an alteration in any of his works, ordinances of worship, or institutions, yet he never changeth his intention, or the purpose of his will In all outward changes there is with him no variableness nor shadow of turning. Known unto him are all his works from the foundation of the world; and whatever change there seems to be in them, it is all effected in pursuance of the unchangeable purpose of his will concerning them all. It argued not the least change or shadow of turning in God, that he appointed the old covenant for a season, and for some certain ends, and then took it away, by making of another that should excel it both in grace and efficacy.
Secondly, It is declared with whom this former covenant was made: , with their fathers. Some Latin copies read, cure patribus vestris, with your fathers; but having spoken before of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah in the third person, he continueth to speak still in the same. So likewise is it in the prophet, , their fathers.
1. Their fathers, their progenitors, were those that this people always boasted of. For the most part, I confess, they rose higher in their claim from them than those here principally intended, namely, unto Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the twelve patriarchs. But in general their fathers it was whereof they made their boast; and they desired no more but only what might descend unto them in the right of these fathers. And unto these God here sends them, and that for two ends:
(1.) To let them know that he had more grace and mercy to communicate unto the church than ever those fathers of theirs were made partakers of. So would he take them off from boasting of them, or trusting in them.
(2.) To give warning by them to take heed how they behaved themselves under the tender of this new and greater mercy. For the fathers here intended were those that God made the covenant withal at Sinai; but it is known, and the apostle hath declared at large in the third chapter of this epistle, how they brake and rejected this covenant of God, through their unbelief and disobedience, so perishing in the wilderness. These were those fathers of the people with whom the first covenant was made; and so they perished in their unbelief. A great warning this was unto those that should live when God would enter into the new covenant with his church, lest they should perish after the same example. But yet was it not effectual towards them; for the greatest part of them rejected this new covenant, as their fathers did the old, and perished in the indignation of God.
Obs. 4. The disposal of mercies and privileges, as unto times, persons, seasons, is wholly in the hand and power of God. Some he granted unto the fathers, some to their posterity, and not the same to both. Our wisdom it is to improve what we enjoy, not to repine at what God hath done for others, or will do for them that shall come after us. Our present mercies are sufficient for us, if we know how to use them. He that wanteth not a believing heart shall want nothing else.
2. Who those fathers were with whom God made this covenant, is further evident from the time, season, and circumstances of the making of it:
(1.) For the time of it, it was done , that is, , in that day. That a day is taken in the Scripture for an especial time and season wherein any work or duty is to be performed, is obvious unto all. The reader may see what we have discoursed concerning such a day on the third chapter. And the time here intended is often called the day of it: Eze 20:6, In the day I lifted up mine hand unto them to bring them forth of the land of Egypt; at that time or season. A certain, determinate, limited time, suited with means unto any work, occasion, or duty, is so called a day. And it answereth unto the description of the time of making the new covenant given in the verse foregoing, Behold, the days are coming, the time or season approacheth. It is also used in a way of eminency; a day, or a signal eminent season: Mal 3:2, Who may abide the day of his coming? the illustrious glory and power that shall appear and be exerted at his coming. In the day, is, at that great, eminent season, so famous throughout all their generations.
(2.) This day or season is described from the work of it: , , that I firmly laid hold. And , is to take hold of with a design of helping or delivering; and sundry things are intimated as well as the way and manner of the deliverance of that people at that time:
[1.] The woful, helpless condition that they were in then in Egypt. So far were they from being able to deliver themselves out of their captivity and bondage, that, like children, they were not able to stand or go, unless God took them and led them by the hand. So he speaks, Hos 11:3, I taught them to go, taking them by their arms. And certainly never were weakly, froward children, so awkward to stand and go of themselves, as that people were to comply with God in the work of their deliverance. Sometimes they refused to stand, or to make a trial of it; sometimes they cast themselves down after they were set on their feet; and sometimes with all their strength went backwards as to what God directed them unto. He that can read the story of their deliverance with any understanding, will easily discern what pains God was at with that people to teach them to go when he thus took them by the hand. It is therefore no new thing, that the church of God should be in a condition of itself able neither to stand nor go. But yet if God will take them by the hand for their help, deliverance shall ensue.
[2.] It expresseth the infinite condescension of God towards this people in that condition, that he would bow down to take them by the hand. In most other places the work which he then accomplished is ascribed unto the lifting up or stretching out of his hand, Eze 20:6. See the description of it, Deu 4:34; Deu 26:8. It was towards their enemies a work of mighty power, of the lifting up of his hand; but towards them it was a work of infinite condescension and patience, a bowing down to take them by the hand. And this was the greatest work of God. For such were the frowardness and unbelief, so multiplied were the provocations and temptations of that people, that if God had not held them fast by the hand, with infinite grace, patience, forbearance, and condescension, they had inevitably ruined themselves. And we know in how many instances they endeavored frowardly and obstinately to wrest themselves out of the hand of God, and to cast themselves into utter destruction. Wherefore this word, When I took them by the hand, for the end mentioned, compriseth all the grace, mercy, and patience, which God exercised towards that people, whilst he wrought out their deliverance by lifting up his hand amongst and against their adversaries.
And indeed no heart can conceive, no tongue can express, that infinite condescension and patience which God exerciseth towards every one of us, whilst he holds us by the hand to lead us unto rest with himself. Our own hearts, in some measure, know with what waywardness and frowardness, with what wanderings from him and withdrawing from his holy conduct, we exercise and are ready to weary his patience continually; yet do not mercy and grace let go that hold which they have taken on us. O that our souls might live in a constant admiration of that divine grace and patience which they live upon; that the remembrance of the times and seasons wherein, if God had not strengthened his hand upon us, we had utterly destroyed ourselves, might increase that admiration daily, and enliven it with thankful obedience!
[3.] The power of this work intended is also included herein; not directly, but by consequence. For, as was said, when God took them by the hand by his grace and patience, he lifted up the hand of his power, by the mighty works which he wrought among their adversaries. What he did in Egypt, at the Red Sea, in the wilderness, is all included herein. These things made the day mentioned eminent and glorious. It was a great day, wherein God so magnified his name and power in the sight of all the world.
[4.] All these things had respect unto and issued in that actual deliverance which God then wrought for that people. And this was the greatest mercy which that people ever were or ever could be made partakers of, in that condition wherein they were under the old testament. As unto the outward part of it, consider what they were delivered from, and what they were led into, and it will evidently appear to be as great an outward mercy as human nature is capable of. But besides, it was gloriously typical, and representative of their own and the whole churchs spiritual deliverance from sin and hell, from our bondage to Satan, and a glorious traduction into the liberty of the sons of God. And therefore did God engrave the memorial of it on the tables of stone, I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. For what was typified and signified thereby is the principal motive unto obedience throughout all generations; nor is any moral obedience acceptable unto God that doth not proceed from a sense of spiritual deliverance.
And these things are here called over in this promise of giving a new covenant, partly to mind the people of the mercies which they had sinned against, and partly to mind them that no concurrence of outward mercies and privileges can secure our covenant-relation unto God, without the special mercy which is administered in the new covenant, whereof Jesus Christ is the mediator and surety.
Thus great on all accounts was the day, and the glory of it, wherein God made the old covenant with the people of Israel; yet had it no glory in comparison of that which doth excel. The light of the sun of glory was on this day seven-fold, as the light of seven days, Isa 30:26. A perfection of light and glory was to accompany that day, and all the glory of Gods work and his rest therein, the light of seven days, was to issue in it. From the things we have observed, it is fully evident both what was the covenant that God made, and who were the fathers with whom it was made. The covenant intended is none other but that made at Sinai, in the third month after the coming of the people out of Egypt, Exo 19:1; which covenant, in the nature, use, and end of it, we have before described. And the fathers were those of that generation, those who came out of Egypt, and solemnly in their own persons, they and their children, entered into the covenant, and took upon them to do all that was required therein; whereon they were sprinkled with the blood of it, Exo 24:3-8, Deu 5:27. It is true, all the posterity of the people unto whom the promise was now given were bound and obliged by that covenant, no less than those who first received it; but those only are intended in this place who actually in their own persons entered into covenant with God. Which consideration will give light unto what is affirmed, that they brake his covenant, or continued not in it.
A comparison being intended between the two covenants, this is the first general part of the foundation of it with respect unto the old.
The second part of it is in the event of making this covenant; and this is expressed both on the part of man and God, or in what the people did towards God, and how he carried it towards them thereon.
First, The event on the part of the people is in these words, Because they continued not in my covenant, .
, which, in the original, is expressed by , which we render because; , as it is sometimes a relative, sometimes a redditive, which, or because. If we follow our translation, because, it seems to give a reason why God made a covenant with them not like the former; namely, because they continued not in the former, or brake it. But this indeed was not the reason of it. The reason, I say, why God made this new covenant not according unto the former, was not because they abode not in the first. This could be no reason of it, nor any motive unto it. It is therefore mentioned only to illustrate the grace of God, that he would make this new covenant notwithstanding the sin of those who brake the former; as also the excellency of the covenant itself, whereby those who are taken into it shall be preserved from breaking it, by the grace which it doth administer. Wherefore I had rather render here by which, as we render in the prophet, which my covenant; or for, for they abode not. And if we render it because, it respects not Gods making a new covenant, but his rejecting them for breaking the old.
That which is charged on them is, that they continued not, they abode not in the covenant made with them. This God calls his covenant, They continued not in my covenant; because he was the author of it, the sole contriver and proposer of its terms and promises, , they brake, they rescinded, removed it, made it void. The Hebrew word expresseth the matter of fact, what they did; they brake or made void the covenant: the word used by the apostle expresseth the manner how they did it; namely, by not continuing faithful in it, not abiding by the terms of it. The use of the word , and , unto this purpose, hath been before declared. And what is intended hereby we must inquire:
1. God made this covenant with the people on Sinai, in the authoritative proposition of it unto them; and thereon the people solemnly accepted of it, and took it upon themselves to observe, do, and fulfill the terms and conditions of it, Exo 19:8, especially Exo 24:3; Exo 24:7,
The people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said, will we do.
And, All that the LORD hath said, will we do, and be obedient. So Deu 5:27. Hereupon the covenant was ratified and confirmed between God and them, and thereon the blood of the covenant was sprinkled on them, Exo 24:8. This gave that covenant its solemn ratification.
2. Having thus accepted of Gods covenant, and the terms of it, Moses ascending again into the mount, the people made the golden calf. And this fell out so suddenly after the making of the covenant, that the apostle expresseth it by, They continued not in it, they made haste to break it.He expresseth the sense of the words of God hereon, Exo 32:7-8,
Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves: they have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
For therein they brake the covenant wherein God had in a peculiar manner assumed the glory of that deliverance unto himself.
3. Wherefore the breaking of the covenant, or their not continuing in it, was firstly and principally the making of the molten calf. After this, indeed, that generation added many other sins and provocations, before all things proceeded so far that God sware in his wrath that they should not enter into his rest. This fell out on their professed unbelief and murmuring on the return of the spies, Numbers 14, whereof we have treated at large on Hebrews 3. Wherefore this expression is not to be extended unto the sins of the following generations, neither in the kingdom of Israel nor in that of Judah, although they variously transgressed against the covenant, disannulling it so far as lay in them. But it is their sin who personally first entered into covenant with God that is reflected on. That generation with whom God made that first covenant immediately brake it, continued not in it. And therefore let that generation look well to themselves unto whom this new covenant shall be first proposed. And it so fell out, that the unbelief of that first generation who lived in the first days of the promulgation of the new covenant, hath proved an occasion of the ruin of their posterity unto this day. And we may observe,
Obs. 5. That sins have their aggravations from mercies received. This was that which rendered this first sin of that people of such a flagitious nature in itself, and so provoking unto God, namely, that they who contracted personally the guilt of it had newly received the honor, mercy and privilege, of being taken into covenant with God. Hence is that threatening of God with respect hereunto, Nevertheless in the day when I visit, I will visit their sin upon them, Exo 32:34. He would have aremembrance of this provoking sin in all their following visitations. Let us therefore take heed how we sin against received mercies, especially spiritual privileges, such as we enjoy by the gospel.
Obs. 6. Nothing but effectual grace will secure our covenant obedience one moment. Greater motives unto obedience, or stronger outward obligation thereunto, no people under heaven could have than this people had newly received; and they had publicly and solemnly engaged themselves thereunto. But they quickly turned out of the way. And therefore in the new covenant is this grace promised in a peculiar manner, as we shall see on the next verse.
Secondly, The acting of God towards them hereon is also expressed: And I regarded them not. There seems to be a great difference between the translation of the words of the prophet and these of the apostle taken from them. In the former place we read, Although I was an husband unto them; in this, I regarded them not. And hereby the utmost difference that can be objected against the rendering of these words by the apostle is represented. But there was no need of rendering the words in the prophet, , Although I was an husband unto them, as we shall see. Howbeit many learned men have exceedingly perplexed themselves and others in attempting a reconciliation between these passages or expressions, because they seem to be of a direct contrary sense and importance. I shall therefore premise some things which abate and take off from the weight of this difficulty, and then give the true solution of it. And unto the first end we may observe,
1. That nothing of the main controversy, nothing of the substance of the truth which the apostle proves and confirms by this testimony, doth any way depend on the precise signification of these words. They are but occasional, as to the principal design of the whole promise; and therefore the sense of it doth not depend on their signification. And in such cases liberty in the variety of expositions may be safely used.
2. Take the two different senses which the words, as commonly translated, do present, and there is nothing of contradiction, or indeed the least disagreement between them. For the words, as we have translated them in the prophet, express an aggravation of the sin of the people: They brake my covenant, although I was (that is, therein) an husband unto them, exercising singular kindness and care towards them. And as they are rendered by the apostle, they express the effect of that sin so aggravated, He regarded them not; that is, with the same tenderness as formerly: for he denied to go with them as before, and exercised severity towards them in the wilderness until they were consumed. Each way, the design is to show that the covenant was broken by them, and that they were dealt withal accordingly. But expositors do find or make great difficulties herein. It is generally supposed that the apostle followed the translation of the LXX., in the present copy whereof the words are so expressed. But how they came to render by , they are not agreed. Some say the original copies might differ in some letters from those we now enjoy. Therefore it is thought: they might read, as some think, , neglexi, or , fastidivi, I neglected or loathed them. And those who speak most modestly, suppose that the copy. which the LXX. made use of had one of these words instead of , which yet is the truer reading; but because this did not belong unto the substance of the argument which he had in hand, the apostle would not depart from that translation which was then in use amongst the Hellenistical Jews.
But the best of these conjectures is uncertain, and some of them by no means to be admitted. Uncertain it is that the apostle made any of his quotations out of the translation of the LXX.; yea, the contrary is certain enough, and easy to be demonstrated. Neither did he write this epistle unto the Hellenistical Jews, or those who lived in or belonged unto their dispersions, wherein they made use of the Greek tongue; but unto the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judea principally and in the first place, who made no use of that translation. He expressed the mind of the Scripture as he was directed by the Holy Ghost, in words of his own. And the coincidence of them with those in the present copies of the LXX. hath been accounted for in our Exercitations.
Dangerous it is, as well as untrue, to allow of alterations in the original text, and then upon our conjectures to supply other words into it than what are contained in it. This is not to explain, but to corrupt the Scripture. Wherefore one learned man (Pococke in Miscellan.) hath endeavored to prove that , by all rules of interpretation, in this place must signify to despise and neglect, and ought to have been so translated. And this he confirms from the use of it in the Arabic language. The reader may find it in the place referred unto, with great satisfaction.
My apprehensions are grounded on what I have before observed and proved. The apostle neither in this nor in any other place doth bind up himself precisely unto the translation of the words, but infallibly gives us the sense and meaning; and so he hath done in this place. For whereas signifies a husband, or to be a husband or a lord, being added unto it in construction, as it is here, , it is as much as jure usus sum maritali, I exercised the right, power, and authority of a husband towards them; I dealt with them as a husband with a wife that breaketh covenant:that is, saith the apostle, I regarded them not with the love, tenderness, and affection of a husband.So he dealt indeed with that generation which so suddenly brake covenant with him. He provided no more for them as unto the enjoyment of the inheritance, he took them not home unto him in his habitation, his resting-place in the land of promise; but he suffered them all to wander, and bear their whoredoms in the wilderness, until they were consumed. So did God exercise the right, and power, and authority of a husband towards a wife that had broken covenant. And herein, as in many other things in that dispensation, did God give a representation of the nature of the covenant of works, and the issue of it.
Thirdly, There is a confirmation of the truth of these things in that expression, Saith the Lord. This assertion is not to be extended unto the whole matter, or the promise of the introduction of the new covenant; for that is secured with the same expression, verse 8, , Saith the Lord. But it hath a peculiar in it, being added in the close of the words, , and respects only the sin of the people, and Gods dealing with them thereon. And this manifests the meaning of the preceding words to be Gods severity towards them: I used the authority of a husband, I regarded them not as a wife any more, saith the Lord.
Now, God thus uttered his severity towards them, that they might consider how he will deal with all those who despise, break, or neglect his covenant.
So,saith he, I dealt with them; and so shall I deal with others who offend in an alike manner.
This was the issue of things with them with whom the first covenant was made. They received it, entered solemnly into the bonds of it, took upon themselves expressly the performance of its terms and conditions, were sprinkled with the blood of it; but they continued not in it, and were dealt withal accordingly. God used the right and authority of a husband with whom a wife breaketh covenant; he neglected them, shut them out of his house, deprived them of their dowry or inheritance, and slew them in the wilderness. On this declaration, God promiseth to make another covenant with them, wherein all these evils should be prevented. This is the covenant which the apostle designs to prove better and more excellent than the former. And this he doth principally from the mediator and surety of it, compared with the Aaronical priests, whose office and service belonged wholly unto the administration of that first covenant. And he confirms it also from the nature of this covenant itself, especially with respect unto its efficacy and duration. And hereunto this testimony is express, evidencing how this covenant is everlastingly, by the grace administered in it, preventive of that evil success which the former had by the sin of the people.
Hence he says of it, , Not according unto it; a covenant agreeing with the former neither in promises, efficacy, nor duration. For what is principally promised here, namely, the giving of a new heart, Moses expressly affirms that it was not done in the administration of the first covenant. It is neither a renovation of that covenant nor a reformation of it, but utterly of another nature, by whose introduction and establishment that other was to be abolished, abrogated, and taken away, with all the divine worship and service which was peculiar thereunto. And this was that which the apostle principally designed to prove and convince the Hebrews of. And from the whole we may observe sundry things.
Obs. 7. No covenant between God and man ever was, or ever could be stable and effectual, as unto the ends of it, that was not made and confirmed in Christ. God first made a covenant with us in Adam. There was nothing therein but the mere defectibility of our natures as we were creatures that could render it ineffectual. And from thence did it proceed. In him we all sinned, by breach of covenant. The Son of God had not then interposed himself, nor undertaken on our behalf. The apostle tells us that in him all things consist; without him they have no consistency, no stability, no duration. So was this first covenant immediately broken. It was not confirmed by the blood of Christ. And those who suppose that the efficacy and stability of the present covenant do depend solely on our own will and diligence, had need not only to assert our nature free from that depravation which it was under when this covenant was broken, but also from that defectibility that was in it before we fell in Adam. And such as, neglecting the interposition of Christ, do betake themselves unto imaginations of this kind, surely know little of themselves, and less of God. Obs. 8. No external administration of a covenant of Gods own making, no obligation of mercy on the minds of men, can enable them unto steadfastness in covenant obedience, without an effectual influence of grace from and by Jesus Christ. For we shall see in the next verses that this is the only provision which is made in the wisdom of God to render us steadfast in obedience, and his covenant effectual unto us.
Obs. 9. God, in making a covenant with any, in proposing the terms of it, retains his right and authority to deal with persons according to their deportment in and towards that covenant: They brake my covenant, and I regarded them not.
Obs. 10. Gods casting men out of his especial care, upon the breach of his covenant, is the highest judgment that in this world can fall on any persons.
And we are concerned in all these things. For although the covenant of grace be stable and effectual unto all who are really partakers of it, yet as unto its external administration, and our entering into it by a visible profession, it may be broken, unto the temporal and eternal ruin of persons and whole churches. Take heed of the golden calf.
Fuente: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews
Covenant Promises
In these verses God the Holy Spirit gives us five, blessed covenant promises, promises and blessings of grace which the Lord our God declared from old eternity. These are promises steadfast and sure to all Gods elect, promises of grace flowing freely to chosen sinners, according as God hath chosen us in Christ before the world began. This is what the Lord God declared he would do for all his people in this Gospel day by his free, sovereign, saving grace in Christ. These are matters as infallibly secure to Gods elect as the very throne of God himself.
1. I will put my laws in their minds and write them in their hearts. — Gods laws here cannot possibly have reference merely to the moral law. We know that because Gods moral law is inscribed upon every mans conscience by nature in creation (Rom 2:14-15; Rom 1:18-20).
The laws of God here refer to the commandments of the Gospel, all the commands of Christ with respect to repentance, faith and godliness (1Jn 3:23-24). Indeed, the whole Word of God is included. Saving grace gives the believer a genuine love for the whole of Gods Revelation and causes us to cherish it.
These things are written not on tablets of stone, but on every believers heart and mind. Believers think on the things of God, meditate upon them, love his Word and his way, and walk in the light of his revealed will. I love thy law, O Lord! His commandments are not grievous, but precious to the renewed heart (Mat 11:28-30; 1Jn 5:1-4).
2. I will be to them their God and they shall be my people. — He who is our God is the God of all creation. He is the God of all men, all angels, and all devils. But this is a promise of special grace, special grace, indeed!
Here God almighty promises that he is the God of his covenant people, just as he is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus (Joh 17:21; 1Jn 1:3). Yes, we who believe on Christ are his people in the sense that all mankind are his people; but this is a promise of grace. It goes far, far beyond mans creature relationship to God. We are the sons of God, whom he loved distinctly and chose in Christ. We are the family of God (Rom 8:14-17; 1Jn 3:1-3).
3. They all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. — Heb 1:1 sheds some light on this. In the Old Testament, God spoke to his people through the prophets and the priests. If a man wanted to know what the Lord had to say, he inquired of the prophet. If he wanted to offer a sacrifice, he went to the priest. That is not the case in this gospel age. Every believer has an unction from the Holy One (1Jn 2:20). We all have the mind of Christ (1Co 2:14-16).
All who are born of God are taught of God; and all who are taught of God are well-taught. They are taught to come to Christ for all things (Joh 6:44-45). — Every believer is a son of God by adoption. — Every believer is a student of the Word. — Every believer is taught of God. — Every believer is a priest to offer sacrifices of prayer and praise. — Every believer has the Spirit of God dwelling in him. Every believer has the mind of Christ and discerns all things.
The Lord Jesus today has given his church pastors and teachers that we may grow in grace through the ministry of the Word; but those pastors are not priests. All believers know the Lord, pray to the Lord, and walk with the Lord. In Christ, we are kings and priests unto God (Heb 4:14-16; Heb 10:19-22; Rev 1:4-6).
4. I will be merciful to their unrighteousness. — This refers to our sin. All unrighteousness is sin. The phrase tells us that God will forgive our sins (1Jn 1:8-10). God will pardon freely those to whom he is reconciled in Christ. This forgiveness of sin is more than an act of mercy. It is an act of justice. Christ has paid for our sins (1Jn 2:1-2). When the Lord God forgives sin he is faithful and just in doing so.
5. Their sins and iniquities I will remember no more. — What a blessed promise of grace this is! God remembers our sins no more! All our sins of all kinds: — original and actual, before conversion and after conversion, God remembers them no more! They are cast into the depths of the sea. They are cast behind his back. They cannot be found — ever!
Then, in Heb 8:13, the Holy Spirit tells us one last thing about the old covenant. Learn it and learn it well. That old, carnal, legal covenant is gone forever! In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
The establishing of the new covenant was the abolishment of the Levitical covenant. It served its day and purpose; but it is now taken away, never to be used again. As a garment rots and vanishes away, so that old garment of law and works has been put away forever (Gal 5:1-6). Christ is the end of the law!
Children of God, O glorious calling!
Surely His grace will keep us from falling!
Passing from death to life at His call,
Blessed salvation, once for all!
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
the covenant: Heb 9:18-20, Exo 24:3-11, Exo 34:10, Exo 34:27, Exo 34:28, Deu 5:2, Deu 5:3, Deu 29:1, Deu 29:12, Gal 3:15-19, Gal 4:24
I took: Gen 19:16, Job 8:20, *marg. Son 8:5, Isa 41:13, Isa 51:18, Mar 8:23, Act 9:8, Act 13:11
to lead: Exo 19:4, Exo 19:5, Psa 77:20, Psa 78:52-54, Psa 105:43, Psa 136:11-14, Isa 40:11, Isa 63:9, Isa 63:11-13
they continued: Exo 32:8, Deu 29:25, Deu 31:16-18, Jos 23:15, Jos 23:16, 2Ki 17:15-18, Psa 78:10, Psa 78:11, Psa 78:57, Isa 24:5, Isa 24:6, Jer 11:7, Jer 11:8, Jer 22:8, Jer 22:9, Jer 31:32, Eze 16:8, Eze 16:59, Eze 20:37, Eze 20:38
regarded: Jdg 10:13, Jdg 10:14, Lam 4:16, Amo 5:22, Mal 2:13
Reciprocal: Lev 26:9 – for I Lev 26:15 – break Deu 17:2 – in transgressing 1Ki 19:14 – forsaken Psa 50:16 – thou shouldest Jer 11:10 – the house of Israel Eze 44:7 – broken Hos 6:7 – transgressed Mic 7:18 – the remnant Joh 8:31 – If 2Co 5:17 – old
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Heb 8:9. The day refers to the period in general when Sinai was the principal place of interest. (See Jer 34:13-14.) The shortcomings of the Israelites was the reason on the human side for a change. (See verse 7.)
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Heb 8:9. The old covenant differs from the new in thisthat it was broken on the one side, and ended in indifference and displeasure on the other. Perfect as the Law was, the Jews never kept it. Idolatry prevailed in nearly all the earlier ages of the theocracy, as later hypocrisy and formalism prevailed; and so God withdrew the providential favour He had promised to show them, though only that in the end he might introduce an economy of richer grace; whether with a correspondent change upon the part of the ancient people of God remains, the Epistle tells us, yet to be seen.