Act 3:26, 7:8, Rom 9:4, 11:27, Gal 3:15, 17, 4:24, Eph 2:12, Heb 8:6, 8-10 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 26. Unto you first . To you who are Jews. This was the direction that the gospel should be first preached to the Jews, beginning at Jerusalem, . Jesus himself also confined his ministry entirely to the Jews. Having raised up . This expression does not refer to his having raised him from the dead, but is used in the same sense as in , where God promised that he would raise up a prophet, and send him to teach the people. Peter means that God had appointed his Son Jesus, or had commissioned him to go and preach to the people to turn them away from their sins. To bless you . To make you happy; to fulfil the promise made to Abraham. In turning away . That is, by his preaching, example, death, etc. The highest blessing that can be conferred on men is to be turned from sin. It is the source of all woes; and if men are turned from that, they will be happy. Christ blesses no one in sin, or while loving sin, but by turning them from sin. This was the object which he had in view in coming, . The design of Peter in these remarks was to show them that the Messiah had come, and that now they might look for happiness, pardon, and mercy through him. As the Jews might, so may all; and as Jesus while living sought to turn away men from their sins, so he does still, and still designs to bless all nations by the gospel which he had himself preached, and to establish which he died. All may therefore come and be blessed; and all may rejoice in the prospect that these blessings shall yet be bestowed on all the kindreds of the earth. May the happy day soon come! (c) "Unto you first" (d) "turning away every one"

Acts 3:26

Verse 26. Unto you first. To you who are Jews. This was the direction that the gospel should be first preached to the Jews, beginning at Jerusalem, Lk 24:47. Jesus himself also confined his ministry entirely to the Jews.

Having raised up. This expression does not refer to his having raised him from the dead, but is used in the same sense as in Acts 3:22, where God promised that he would raise up a prophet, and send him to teach the people. Peter means that God had appointed his Son Jesus, or had commissioned him to go and preach to the people to turn them away from their sins.

To bless you. To make you happy; to fulfil the promise made to Abraham.

In turning away. That is, by his preaching, example, death, etc. The highest blessing that can be conferred on men is to be turned from sin. It is the source of all woes; and if men are turned from that, they will be happy. Christ blesses no one in sin, or while loving sin, but by turning them from sin. This was the object which he had in view in coming, Isa 59:20, Mt 1:21. The design of Peter in these remarks was to show them that the Messiah had come, and that now they might look for happiness, pardon, and mercy through him. As the Jews might, so may all; and as Jesus while living sought to turn away men from their sins, so he does still, and still designs to bless all nations by the gospel which he had himself preached, and to establish which he died. All may therefore come and be blessed; and all may rejoice in the prospect that these blessings shall yet be bestowed on all the kindreds of the earth. May the happy day soon come!

Acts 7:8

Verse 8. And he gave him. That is, God appointed, or commanded this, Gen 17:9-13.

The covenant. The word covenant denotes, properly, a compact or agreement between two or more persons, usually attended with seals, or pledges, or sanctions. In Gen 17:7, and elsewhere: it is said that God would establish his covenant with Abraham; that is, he made him certain definite promises, attended with pledges and seals, etc. The idea of a strict compact or agreement between God and man, as between equal parties, is not found in the Bible. It is commonly used, as here, to denote a promise on the part of God, attended with pledges, and demanding, on the part of man, in order to avail himself of its benefits, a stipulated course of conduct. The covenant is therefore another name for denoting two things on the part of God:

(1.) A command, which man is not at liberty to reject, as he would be if a literal covenant; and,

(2.) a promise, which is to be fulfilled only on the condition of obedience. The covenant with Abraham was simply a promise to give him the land, and to make him a great nation, etc. It was never proposed to Abraham with the supposition that he was at liberty to reject it, or to refuse to comply with its conditions. Circumcision was appointed as the mark or indication that Abraham and those thus designated were the persons included in the gracious purpose and promise. It served to separate them as a peculiar people; a people whose peculiar characteristic it was, that they obeyed and served the God who had made the promise to Abraham. The phrase, "covenant of circumcision," means, therefore, the covenant or promise which God made to Abraham, of which circumcision was the distinguishing mark or sign.

The twelve patriarchs. The word patriarch properly denotes the father and ruler of a family. But it is commonly applied, by way of eminence, to the progenitors of the Jewish race, particularly to the twelve sons of Jacob. Acts 2:29.

(b) "he gave him the covenant" Gen 17:9-11 (c) "so Abraham" Gen 21:1-4 (d) "Isaac begat" Gen 25:26 (e) "Jacob begat twelve patriarchs" Gen 29:32

Romans 9:4

Verse 4. Who are Israelites. Descended from Israel, or Jacob; honoured by having such an ancestor, and by bearing a name so distinguished as that of his descendants. It was formerly the honourable appellation of the people of God.

To whom pertaineth. To whom it belongs. It was their elevated external privilege.

The adoption. Of the nation into the family of God, or to be regarded as his peculiar people, De 7:6.

And the glory. The symbol of the Divine presence that attended them from Egypt, and that finally rested over the ark in the first temple --the Shekinah, Ex 13:21,22, 25:22.

And the covenants. The various compacts or promises which had been made from time to time with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and with the nation; the pledges of the Divine protection.

The giving of the law. On Mount Sinai, Ex 20:1. Comp. Ps 147:19.

And the service of God. The temple service; regarded by them as the pride and ornament of their nation.

And the promises. Of the Messiah; and of the spread of the true religion from them as a nation.

(x) "adoption" De 7:6 (y) "glory" Ps 90:16, Isa 60:19 (1) "covenants" or, "testaments" (z) "covenants" Gen 17:2, De 29:14, Jer 31:33 (a) "law" Ps 147:19, Rom 3:2 (b) "service of God" Ex 12:25 (c) "promises" Eph 2:12

Romans 11:27

Verse 27. For this is my covenant, etc. This expression is found immediately following the other in Isa 59:21. But the apostle connects with it a part of another promise taken from Jer 31:33,34; or rather he abridges that promise, and expresses its substance, by adding, "when I shall take away their sins." It is clear that he intended to express the general sense of the promises, as they were well known to the Jews, and it was a point concerning which he did not need to argue or reason with them, that God had made a covenant with them, and intended to restore them if they were cast off, and should then repent and turn to him. The time and manner in which this shah be, is not revealed. It may be remarked, however, that that passage does not mean that the Redeemer shall come personally and preach to them, or reappear for the purpose of recalling them to himself; nor does it mean that they will be restored to the land of their fathers. Neither of these ideas is contained in the passage. God will doubtless convert the Jews, as he does the Gentiles, by human means, and in connexion with the prayers of his people; so that the Gentiles shall yet repay the toil and care of the ancient Jews in preserving the Scriptures, and preparing the way for the Messiah; and both shall rejoice that they were made helps in spreading the knowledge of the Messiah.

(a) "this is my covenant" Jer 31:31, Heb 10:16

Galatians 3:15

Verse 15. Brethren, I speak after the manner of men. I draw an illustration from what actually occurs among men. The illustration is, that when a contract or agreement is made by men involving obligations and promises, no one can add to it or take from it. It will remain as it was originally made. So with God. He made a solemn promise to Abraham. That promise pertained to his posterity. The blessing was connected with that promise, and it was of the nature of a compact with Abraham. But if so, then this could not be effected by the law which was four hundred years after, and the law must have been given to secure some different object from that designed by the promise made to Abraham, Gal 3:19. But the promise made to Abraham was designed to secure the "inheritance," or the favour of God; and if so, then the same thing could not be secured by the observance of the law, since there could not be two ways so unlike each other of obtaining tho. same thing. God cannot have two ways of justifying and saving men; and if he revealed a mode to Abraham, and that mode was by faith, then it could not be by the observance of the law which was given so long after. The main design of the argument and the illustration here, Gal 3:15 and following is to show that the promise made to Abraham was by no means made void by the giving of the law. The law had another design, which did not interfere with the promise made to Abraham. That stood on its own merits, irrespective of the demands and the design of the law. It is possible, as Rosenmuller suggests, that Paul may have had his eye on an objection to his view. The objection may have been, that there were important acts of legislation which succeeded the promise made to Abraham, and that that promise must have been superseded by the giving of the law. To this he replies, that the Mosaic law given at a late period could not take away or nullify a solemn promise made to Abraham, but that it was intended for a different object.

Though it be but a man's covenant. A compact or agreement between man and man. Even in such a case no one can add to it or take from it. The argument here is, that such a covenant or agreement must be much less important than a promise made by God. But even that could not be annulled. How much less, therefore, could a covenant made by God be treated as if it were vain. The word covenant here διαθηκεν is, in the margin, rendered "testament;" i.e., will. So Tindal renders it. Its proper classical signification is will or testament, though in the Septuagint and in the New Testament it is the word which is used to denote a covenant or compact. Acts 3:25. Here it is used in the proper sense of the word covenant, or compact; a mutual agreement between man and man. The idea is, that where such a covenant exists, where the faith of a man is solemnly pledged in this manner, no change can be made in the agreement. It is ratified, and firm, and final.

If it be confirmed. By a seal or otherwise.

No man disannulleth, etc. It must stand. No one can change it. No new conditions can be annexed; nor can there be any drawing back from its terms. It binds the parties to a faithful fulfillment of all the conditions. This is well understood among men; and the apostle says that the same thing must take place in regard to God.

(1) "covenant" or "testament"

Galatians 3:17

Verse 17. The covenant that was confirmed before of God. By God, in his promise to Abraham. It was confirmed before the giving of the law. The confirmation was the solemn promise which God made to him.

In Christ. With respect to the Messiah; a covenant relating to him, and which promised that he should descend from Abraham. The word "in," in the phrase "in Christ," does not quite express the meaning of the Greek, ειςχριστον. That means rather "unto Christ," or unto the Messiah; i.e., the covenant had respect to him. This is a common signification of the preposition εις.

The law. The law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai.

Which was four hundred and thirty years after. In regard to the difficulties which have been felt respecting the chronology referred to here, Acts 7:6. The exact time here referred to was probably when Abraham was called, and when the promise was first made to him. Assuming that as the time referred to, it is not difficult to make out the period of four hundred and thirty years. That promise was made when Abraham was seventy-five years old, Gen 12:3,4. From that time to the birth of Isaac, when Abraham was a hundred years old, was twenty-five years, Gen 21:5. Isaac was sixty when Jacob was born, Gen 25:26. Jacob went into Egypt when he was one hundred and thirty years old, Gen 47:9. And the Israelites sojourned there, according to the Septuagint, Ex 12:40, two hundred and fifteen years, which completes the number. See Doddridge, Whitby, and Bloomfield. This was doubtless the common computation in the time of Paul; and as his argument did not depend at all on the exactness of the reckoning, he took the estimate which was in common use, without pausing or embarrassing himself by an inquiry whether it was strictly accurate or not. His argument was the same, whether the law was given four hundred and thirty years after the promise, or only two hundred years. The argument is, that a law given after the solemn promise which had been made and confirmed, could not make that promise void. It would still be binding, according to the original intention; and the law must have been given for some purpose entirely different from that of the promise. No one can doubt the soundness of this argument. The promise to Abraham was of the nature of a compact. But no law given by one of the parties to a treaty or compact can disannul it. Two nations make a treaty of peace, involving solemn promises, pledges, and obligations. No law made afterwards by one of the nations can disannul or change that treaty. Two men make a contract with solemn pledges and promises. No act of one of the parties can change that, or alter the conditions. So it was with the covenant between God and Abraham. God made to him solemn promises, which could not be affected by a future giving of a law. God would feel himself to be under the most solemn obligation to fulfil all the promises which he had made to him.

(a) "which was" Ex 12:40,41

Galatians 4:24

Verse 24. Which things. The different accounts of Ishmael and Isaac.

Are an allegory. May be regarded allegorically, or as illustrating great principles in regard to the condition of slaves and freemen; and may therefore be used to illustrate the effect of servitude to the law of Moses compared with the freedom of the gospel. He does not mean to say that the historical record of Moses was not true, or was merely allegorical; nor does he mean to say that Moses meant this to be an allegory, or that he intended that it should be applied to the exact purpose to which Paul applied it. No such design is apparent in the narrative of Moses, and it is evident that he had no such intention. Nor can it be shown that Paul means to be understood as saying that Moses had any such design, or that his account was not a record of a plain historical fact. Paul uses it as he would any other historical fact that would illustrate the same principle, and he makes no more use of it than the Saviour did in his parables of real or fictitious narratives to illustrate an important truth, or than we always do of real history to illustrate an important principle. The word which is here used by Paul αλληγορεω is derived from αλλος, another, and αγορευω, to speak, to speak openly or in public. --Passow. It properly means to speak anything otherwise than it is understood, (Passow;) to speak allegorically; to allegorize. The word does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, nor is it found in the Septuagint, though it occurs often in the classic writers. An allegory is a continued metaphor. See Blair's Lectures, xv. It is a figurative sentence or discourse, in which the principal object is described by another subject resembling it in its properties and circumstances.-- Webster. Allegories are in words what hieroglyphics are in painting. The distinction between a parable and an allegory is said to be, that a parable is a supposed history to illustrate some important truth, as the parable of the good Samaritan, etc.; an allegory is based on real facts. It is not probable, however, that this distinction is always carefully observed. Sometimes the allegory is based on the resemblance to some inanimate object, as in the beautiful allegory in the eightieth Psalm. Allegories, parables, and metaphors abound in the writings of the East. Truth was more easily treasured up in this way, and could be better preserved and transmitted when it was connected with an interesting story. The lively fancy of the people of the East also led them to this mode of communicating truth; though a love for it is probably found in human nature. The best sustained allegory of any considerable length in the world is, doubtless, Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress; and yet this is among the most popular of all books. The ancient Jews were exceedingly fond of allegories, and even turned a considerable part of the Old Testament into allegory. The ancient Greek philosophers also were fond of this mode of teaching. Pythagoras instructed his followers in this manner, and this was common among the Greeks, and was imitated much by the early Christians. --Calmet. Many of the Christian fathers, of the school of Origen, made the Old Testament almost wholly allegorical, and found mysteries in the plainest narratives. The Bible became thus with them a book of enigmas, and exegesis consisted in an ingenious and fanciful accommodation of all the narratives in the Scriptures to events in subsequent times. The most fanciful and the most ingenious man, on this principle, was the best interpreter; and as any man might attach any hidden mystery which he chose to the Scriptures, they became wholly useless as an infallible, guide. Better principles of interpretation now prevail; and the great truth has gone forth, never more to be recalled, that the Bible is to be interpreted on the same principle as all other books; that its language is to be investigated by the same laws as language in all other books; and that no more liberty is to be taken in allegorizing the Scriptures than may be taken with Herodotus or Livy. It is lawful to use narratives of real events to illustrate important principles always. Such a use is often made of history; and such a use, I suppose, the apostle Paul makes here of an important fact in the history of the Old Testament.

For these are. These may be used to represent the two covenants. The apostle could not mean that the sons of Sarah and of Hagar were literally the two covenants; for this could not be true, and the declaration would be unintelligible. In what sense could Ishmael be called a covenant? The meaning, therefore, must be, that they furnished an apt illustration or representation of the two covenants; they would show what the nature of the two covenants was. The words "are" and "is," are often used in this sense in the Bible, to denote that one thing represents another. Thus in the institution of the Lord's Supper: "Take, eat; this Is my body," (Mt 26:26;) i.e., this represents my body. The bread was not the living body that was then before them. So in Gal 4:28: "This is my blood of the new covenant;" i.e., this represents my blood. The wine in the cup could not be the living blood of the Redeemer that was then flowing in his veins. Gen 41:26.

The two covenants. Marg., testaments. The word means, here, covenants or compacts. 1Cor 11:25. The two covenants here referred to are the one on Mount Sinai made with the Jews, and the other that which is made with the people of God in the gospel. The one resembles the condition of bondage in which Hagar and her son were; the other the condition of freedom in which Sarah and Isaac were.

The one from the mount Sinai. Marg., Sin. The Greek is Sina, though the word may be written either way.

Which gendereth to bondage. Which tends to produce bondage or servitude. That is, the laws are stern and severe; and the observance of them costly, and onerous, like a state of bondage. Acts 15:10.

Which is Agar: Which Hagar would appropriately represent. The condition of servitude produced by the law had a strong resemblance to her condition as a slave.

(a) "allegory" 1Cor 10:11 (1) "covenants" "testaments" (2) "Sinai" "Sina" (b) "Sinai" De 33:2

Ephesians 2:12

Verse 12. Ye were without Christ. You were without the knowledge of the Messiah. You had not heard of him; of course you had not embraced him. You were living without any of the hopes and consolations which you now have, from having embraced him. The object of the apostle is to remind them of the deplorable condition in which they were by nature; and nothing would better express it than to say they were "without Christ," or that they had no knowledge of a Saviour. They knew of no atonement for sin. They had no assurance of pardon. They had no well-founded hope of eternal life. They were in a state of darkness and condemnation, from which nothing but a knowledge of Christ could deliver them. All Christians may, in like manner, be reminded of the fact that, before their conversion, they were "without Christ." Though they had heard of him, and were constantly under the instruction which reminded them of him, yet they were without any true knowledge of him, and without any of the hopes which result from having embraced him. Many were infidels. Many were scoffers. Many were profane, sensual, corrupt. Many rejected Christ with scorn; many by simple neglect. All were without any true knowledge of him; all were destitute of the peace and hope which result from a saving acquaintance with him. We may add, that there is no more affecting description of the state of man by nature than to say, he is without a Saviour. Sad would be the condition of the world without a Redeemer-sad is the state of that portion of mankind who reject him. Reader, are you without Christ?

Being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel. This is the second characteristic of their state before their conversion to Christianity. This means more than that they were not Jews.

It means that they were strangers to that polity--πολιτεια or arrangement by which the worship of the true God had been kept up in the world, and of course were strangers to the true religion. The arrangements for the public worship of JEHOVAH were made among the Jews. They had his law, his temple, his sabbaths, and the ordinances of his religion. Rom 3:2. To all these the heathen had been strangers, and of course they were deprived of all the privileges which resulted from having the true religion. The word here rendered commonwealth--πολιτεια--means, properly, citizenship, or the right of citizenship, and then a community, or state. It means here that arrangement or organization by which the worship of the true God was maintained. The word aliens--απηλλοτριωμενοι--here means merely that they were strangers to. It does not denote, of necessity, that they were hostile to it; but that they were ignorant of it, and were, therefore, deprived of the benefits which they might have derived from it, if they had been acquainted with it.

And strangers. This word --ξενος--means, properly, a guest, or a stranger, who is hospitably entertained; then a foreigner, or one from a distant country; and here means that they did not belong to the community where the covenants of promise were enjoyed; that is, they were strangers to the privileges of the people of God.

The covenants of promise. Rom 9:4. The covenants of promise were those various arrangements which God made with his people, by which he promised them future blessings, and especially by which he promised that the Messiah should come. To be in possession of them was regarded as a high honour and privilege; and Paul refers to it here to show that, though the Ephesians had been by nature without these, yet they had now been brought to enjoy all the benefits of them. On the word covenant, Gall 3:15. It may be remarked, than Walton (Polyglott) and Rosenmuller unite the word "promise" here with the word "hope"--having no hope of the promise. But the more obvious and usual interpretation is that in our common version, meaning that they were not by nature favoured with the covenants made with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc., by which there was a promise of future blessings under the Messiah.

Having no hope. The apostle does not mean to affirm that they did not cherish any hope, for this is scarcely true of any man; but that they were without any proper ground of hope. It is true of perhaps nearly all men that they cherish some hope of future happiness. But the ground on which they do this is not well understood by themselves, nor do they in general regard it as a matter worth particular inquiry. Some rely on morality; some on forms of religion; some on the doctrine of universal salvation; all who are impenitent believe that they do not deserve eternal death, and expect to be saved by justice. Such hopes, however, must be unfounded. No hope of life in a future world can be founded on a proper basis which does not rest on some promise of God, or some assurance that he will save us; and these hopes, therefore, which men take up they know not why, are delusive and vain.

And without God in the world. Gr., αθεοι--atheists; that is, those who had no knowledge of the true God. This is the last specification of their miserable condition before they were converted; and it is an appropriate crowning of the climax. What an expression! To be without God--without God in his own world, and where he is all around us! To have no evidence of his favour, no assurance of his love, no hope of dwelling with him! The meaning, as applied to the heathen Ephesians, was, that they had no knowledge of the true God. This was true of the heathen, and in an important sense also it is true of all impenitent sinners, and was once true of all who are now Christians They had no God. They did not worship him, or love him, or serve him, or seek his favours, or act with reference to him and his glory. Nothing can be a more appropriate and striking description of a sinner now than to say that he is "without God in the world." He lives, and feels, and acts, as if there were no God. He neither worships him in secret, nor in his family, nor in public. He acts with no reference to his will. He puts no confidence in his promises, and fears not when he threatens; and were it announced to him that there is no God, it would produce no change in his plan of life, or in his emotions. The announcement that the emperor of China, or the king of Siam, or the sultan of Constantinople, was dead, would produce some emotion, and might change some of his commercial arrangements; but the announcement that there is no God would interfere with none of his plans, and demand no change of life. And if so, what is man in this beautiful world without a God? A traveller to eternity without a God! Standing over the grave without a God! An immortal being without a God! A man--fallen, sunk, ruined, with no God to praise, to love, to confide in; with no altar, no sacrifice, no worship, no hope; with no Father in trial, no counsellor in perplexity, no support in death! Such is the state of man by nature. Such are the effects of sin.

(*) "commonwealth of Israel" "community"

Hebrews 8:6

Verse 6. But now hath he obtained. That is, Christ.

A more excellent ministry. A service of a higher order, or of a more exalted nature. It was the real and substantial service of which the other was but the emblem; it pertained to things in heaven, while that was concerned with the earthly tabernacle; it was enduring, while that was to vanish away. 2Cor 3:6, seq.

By how much. By as much as the new covenant is more important than the old, by so much does his ministry exceed in dignity that under the ancient dispensation,

He is the Mediator. Gal 3:19, Gal 3:19, where the word Mediator is explained. It means here that Christ officiates between God and man according to the arrangements of the new covenant.

Of a better covenant. Marg. "Or testament." This word properly denotes a disposition, arrangement, or ordering of things; and, in the Scriptures, is employed to describe the arrangement which God has made to secure the maintenance of his worship on earth, and the salvation of men. It is uniformly used in the Septuagint and in the New Testament to denote the covenant which God makes with men. The word which properly denotes a covenant or compact συνθηκη--suntheke, is never used. The writers of the New Testament evidently derived its use from the Septuagint; but why the authors of that version employed it as denoting a will, rather than the proper one denoting a compact, is unknown. It has been supposed by some, and the conjecture is not wholly improbable, that it was because they were unwilling to represent God as making a compact or agreement with men, but chose rather to represent him as making a mere arrangement or ordering of things. Compare Heb 8:8, and Heb 9:16,17. This is a better covenant than the old, inasmuch as it relates mainly to the heart; to the pardon of sin; to a spiritual and holy religion. See Heb 8:10. The former related more to external rites and observances, and was destined to vanish away. See Heb 8:13.

Which was established upon better promises. The promises in the first covenant pertained mainly to the present life. They were promises of length of days; of increase of numbers; of seed-time and harvest; of national privileges; and of extraordinary peace, abundance, and prosperity. That there was also the promise of eternal life it would be wrong to doubt; but this was not the main thing. In the new covenant, however, the promise of spiritual blessings becomes the principal thing. The mind is directed to heaven; the heart is cheered with the hopes of immortal life; the favour of God and the anticipation of heaven are secured in the most ample and solemn manner.

(d) "excellent ministry" 2Cor 3:6-9, Heb 7:22 (2) "better covenant" "testament"

Hebrews 8:8-10

Verse 8. For finding fault with them. Or rather, "finding fault, he says is, with the Jewish people-for they had had nothing to do in giving the covenant, but with the covenant itself. "Stating its defects, he had said to them that he would give them one more perfect, and of which that was only preparatory. So Grottos, Stuart, Rosenmuller, and Erasmus understand it. Doddridge, Koppe, and many others understand it as it is in our translation, as implying that the fault was found with the people, and they refer to the passage quoted from Jeremiah for proof, where the complaint is of the people. The Greek may bear either construction; but may we not adopt a somewhat different interpretation still? May not this be the meaning? "For, using the language of complaint, or language that implied that there was defect or error, he speaks of another covenant." According to this, the idea would be, not that he found fault specifically either with the covenant or the people, but generally that he used language which implied that there was defect somewhere when he promised another and a better covenant. The word rendered "finding fault" properly means, to censure, or to blame. It is rendered in Mk 7:2 "they found fault," to wit, with those who ate with unwashed hands; in Rom 9:19, "why doth he yet find fault?" It occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It is language used where wrong has been done; where there is ground of complaint; where it is desirable that there should be a change. In the passage here quoted from Jeremiah, it is not expressly stated that God found fault either with the covenant or with the people, but that he promised that he would give another covenant, and that it should be different from that which he gave them when they came out of Egypt--implying that there was defect in that, or that it was not faultless. The whole meaning is, that there was a deficiency which the giving of a new covenant would remove.

He saith. In Jer 31:31-34. The apostle has not quoted the passage literally as it is in the Hebrew, but he has retained the substance, and the sense is not essentially varied. The quotation appears to have been made partly from the Septuagint, and partly from the memory. This often occurs in the New Testament.

Behold. This particle is designed to call attention to what was about to be said as important, or as having some special claim to notice. It is of very frequent occurrence in the Scriptures, being much more freely used by the sacred writers than it is in the classic authors.

The days come. The time is coming. This refers doubtless to the times of the Messiah. Phrases such as these, "in the last days," "in after times," and "the time is coming," are often used in the Old Testament to denote the last dispensation of the world --the dispensation when the affairs of the world would be wound up. See the phrase explained in the Notes, Heb 1:2, and Isa 2:2. There can be no doubt that, as it is used by Jeremiah, it refers to the times of the gospel.

When I will make a new covenant. A covenant that shall contemplate somewhat different ends; that shall have different conditions, and that shall be more effective in restraining from sin. The word covenant here refers to the arrangement, plan, or dispensation into which he would enter in his dealings with men. On the meaning of the word, Acts 7:8, and Heb 9:16,17. The word covenant with us commonly denotes a compact or agreement between two parties that are equal, and who are free to enter into the agreement or not. In this sense, of course, it cannot be used in relation to the arrangement which God makes with man. There is

(1) no equality between them, and

(2) man is not at liberty to reject any proposal which God shall make. The word, therefore, is used in a more general sense, and more in accordance with the original meaning of the Greek word. It has been above remarked, Heb 8:6, that the proper word to denote covenant, or compact-- συνθηκη syntheke --is never used either in the Septuagint or in the New Testament; another word διαθηκη -- diathake--being carefully employed. Whether the reason there suggested for the adoption of this word in the Septuagint be the real one or not, the fact is indisputable. I may be allowed to suggest, as possible, here an additional reason why this so uniformly occurs in the New Testament. It is, that the writers of the New Testament never meant to represent the transactions between God and man as a compact or covenant, properly so called. They have studiously avoided it; and their uniform practice, in making this nice distinction between the two words, may show the real sense in which the Hebrew word rendered covenant , berith -is used in the Old Testament. The word which they employ-- διαθηκη -never means a compact or agreement as between equals. It remotely and secondarily means a will, or testament-- and hence our word "New Testament." But this is not the sense in which it is used in the Bible--for God has never made a will in the sense of a testamentary disposition of what belongs to him. We are referred, therefore, in order to arrive at the true Scripture view of this whole matter, to the original meaning of the word-- diatheke διθηκη --as denoting a disposition, arrangement, plan; then that which is ordered, a law, precept, promise, etc. Unhappily, we have no single word which expresses the idea, and hence a constant error has existed in the church--either keeping up the notion of a compact--as if God could make one with men; or the idea of a will--equally repugnant to truth. The word διαθηκη is derived from a verb--διατιθημι--meaning, to place apart, to set in order; and then to appoint, to make over, to make an arrangement with. Hence the word διαθηκη diatheke--means, properly, the arrangement or disposition which God made with men in regard to salvation; the system of statutes, directions, laws, and promises, by which men are to become subject to him, and to be saved. The meaning here is, that he would make a new arrangement, contemplating, as a primary thing, that the law should be written in the heart; an arrangement which would be peculiarly spiritual in its character, and which would be attended with the diffusion of just views of the Lord.

With the house of Israel. The family, or race of Israel--for so the word house is often used in the Scriptures and elsewhere. The word "Israel" is used in the Scriptures in the following senses.

(1.) As a name given to Jacob, because he wrestled with the angel of God and prevailed as a prince, Gen 32:28.

(2.) As denoting all who were descended from him-- called "the children of Israel"--or the Jewish nation.

(3.) As denoting the kingdom of the ten tribes--or the kingdom of Samaria, or Ephraim--that kingdom having taken the name Israel in contradistinction from the other kingdom, which was called Judah.

(4.) As denoting the people of God in general--his true and sincere friends--his church. Rom 2:28, Rom 2:29; Rom 9:6. In this place, quoted from Jeremiah, it seems to be used to denote the kingdom of Israel in contradistinction from that of Judah, and together they denote the whole people of God, or the whole Hebrew nation, This arrangement was ratified and confirmed by the gift of the Messiah, and by implanting his laws in the heart. It is not necessary to understand this as refering to the whole of the Jews, or to the restoration of the ten tribes; but the words Israel and Judah are used to denote the people of God in general; and the idea is, that with the true Israel under the Messiah the laws of God would be written in the heart, rather than be mere external observances.

And with the house of Judah. The kingdom of Judah. This kingdom consisted of two tribes--Judah and Benjamin. The tribe of Benjamin was, however, small, and the name was lost in that of Judah.

(a) "Behold" Jer 31:31-34

Verse 9. Not according to the covenant, etc. An arrangement or dispensation relating mainly to outward observances, and to temporal blessings. The meaning is, that the new dispensation would be different from that which 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" οτι 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, --which may be rendered, "although I was their Lord;" or, as it is translated by Gesenius, "and I rejected them." The word --means,

(1.) to be lord or master over anything, (Isa 26:13;)

(2.) to become the husband of any one, (De 21:13, 24:1;)

(3.) with --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 loathe, 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 men. Instead of regarding and treating them as his friends, he would punish them for their offences, and visit them with calamities.

Verse 10. For this is the covenant. This is the arrangement, or the dispensation, which shall succeed the old one.

With the house of Israel. With the true Israel; that is, with all those whom he will regard and treat as his friends.

After those days. This may either mean, "after those days I will put my laws in their hearts," or, "I will make this covenant with them after those days." This difference is merely in the punctuation, and the sense is not materially affected. It seems to me, however, that the meaning of the Hebrew in Jeremiah is, "in those after days" Isa 2:1, "I will put my laws into their mind;" that is, in that subsequent period, called in Scripture "the after times," "the last days;" "the ages to come," meaning the last dispensation of the world. Thus interpreted, the sense is, that this would be done in the times of the Messiah.

I will put my laws into their mind. Marg. Give. The word give in Hebrew is often used in the sense of put. The meaning here is, that they would not be mere external observances, but would affect the conscience and the heart. The laws of the Hebrews pertained mainly to external rites and ceremonies; the laws of the new dispensation would relate particularly to the inner man, and be designed to control the heart. The grand peculiarity of the Christian system is, that it regulates the conscience and the principles of the soul rather than external matters. It prescribes few external rites, and those are exceedingly simple, and are merely the proper expressions of the pious feelings supposed to be in the heart; and all attempts either to increase the number of these rites, or to make them imposing by their gorgeousness, have done just so much to mar the simplicity of the gospel, and to corrupt religion.

And write them in their hearts. Marg. Upon. Not on tables of stone or brass, but on the soul itself. That is, the obedience rendered will not be external. The law of the new system will have living power, and bind the faculties of the soul to obedience. The commandment there will be written in more lasting characters than if engraved on tables of stone.

And I will be to them a God. This is quoted literally from the Hebrew. The meaning is, that he would sustain to them the appropriate relation of a God; or, if the expression may be allowed, he would be to them what a God should be, or what it is desirable that men should find in a God. We speak of a father's acting in a manner appropriate to the character of a father; and the meaning here is, that he would be to his people all that is properly implied in the name of God. He would be their Lawgiver, their Counsellor, their Protector, their Redeemer, their Guide. He would provide for their wants, defend them in danger, pardon their sins, comfort them in trials, and save their souls, he would be a faithful friend, and would never leave them nor forsake them. It is one of the inestimable privileges of his people that JEHOVAH is their God. The living and ever-blessed Being who made the heavens sustains to them the relation of a Protector and a Friend, and they may look up to heaven feeling that he is all which they could desire in the character of a God.

And they shall be to me a people. This is not merely stated as a fact, but as a privilege. It is an inestimable blessing to be regarded as one of the people of God, and to feel that we belong to him--that we are associated with those whom he loves, and whom he treats as his friends.

(1) "put" "give" (2) "in" "upon" (a) "and I" Hoss 2:23, Zech 8:8 (*) "God" "Be their God"