Click
here to show/hide instructions.
Instructions on how to use the page:
The commentary for the selected verse is is displayed below.
All commentary was produced against the King James, so the same verse from that translation may appear as well. Hovering your mouse over a commentary's scripture reference attempts to show those verses.
Use the browser's back button to return to the previous page.
Or you can also select a feature from the Just Verses menu appearing at the top of the page.
Selected Verse: Hebrews 8:7 - Strong Concordance
| Verse |
Translation |
Text |
| Heb 8:7 |
Strong Concordance |
For [1063] if [1487] that [1565] first [4413] covenant had been [2258] faultless [273], then should [302] no [3756] place [5117] have been sought [2212] for the second [1208]. |
| |
King James |
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. |
Summary Of Commentaries Associated With The Selected Verse
| A Commentary, Critical, Practical, and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments, by Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset and David Brown [1882] |
Same reasoning as in Heb 7:11.
faultless--perfect in all its parts, so as not to be found fault with as wanting anything which ought to be there: answering all the purposes of a law. The law in its morality was blameless (Greek, "amomos"); but in saving us it was defective, and so not faultless (Greek, "amemptos").
should no place have been sought--as it has to be now; and as it is sought in the prophecy (Heb 8:8-11). The old covenant would have anticipated all man's wants, so as to give no occasion for seeking something more perfectly adequate. Compare on the phrase "place . . . sought," Heb 12:17. |
| Notes on the Bible, by Albert Barnes, [1834] |
For if that first covenant had been faultless - see the note on Heb 7:11. It is implied here that God had said that that covenant was not perfect or faultless. The meaning is not that that first covenant made under Moses had any real faults - or inculcated what was wrong, but that it did not contain the ample provision for the pardon of sin and the salvation of the soul which was desirable. It was merely "preparatory" to the gospel.
Then should no place have been sought for the second - There could not have been - inasmuch as in that case it would have been impossible to have bettered it, and any change would have been only for the worse. |
| Vincent's Word Studies, by Marvin R. Vincent [1886] |
| The statement that a better covenant was enacted upon better promises is justified by the very existence of that second covenant. "If that first covenant had been faultless, there would no place have been sought for a second." The argument is like that in Heb 7:11 (see note). Notice the imperfect tense ἐξητείτο, lit. would have been being sought. A search would not have been going on. This implies a sense of dissatisfaction while the old covenant was still in force, and a looking about for something better. This hint is now expanded. It is to be shown that the Levitical system answered to a covenant which was recognized as imperfect and transitory by an O.T. prophet, since he spoke of a divine purpose to establish a new covenant. |
| Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, by John Wesley [1754-65] |
| For if the first had been faultless - If that dispensation had answered all God's designs and man's wants, if it had not been weak and unprofitable unable to make anything perfect, no place would have been for a second. |
| Adam Clarke Commentary on the Whole Bible - Published 1810-1826 |
| If that first had been faultless - This is nearly the same argument with that in Heb 7:11. The simple meaning is: If the first covenant had made a provision for and actually conferred pardon and purity, and given a title to eternal life, then there could have been no need for a second; but the first covenant did not give these things, therefore a second was necessary; and the covenant that gives these things is the Christian covenant. |
17 For [1063] ye know [2467] how [3754] that afterward [2532] [3347], when he would [2309] have inherited [2816] the blessing [2129], he was rejected [593]: for [1063] he found [2147] no [3756] place [5117] of repentance [3341], though [2539] he sought [1567] it [846] carefully [1567] with [3326] tears [1144].
8 For [1063] finding fault [3201] with them [846], he saith [3004], Behold [2400], the days [2250] come [2064], saith [3004] the Lord [2962], when [2532] I will make [4931] a new [2537] covenant [1242] with [1909] the house [3624] of Israel [2474] and [2532] with [1909] the house [3624] of Judah [2455]:
9 Not [3756] according to [2596] the covenant [1242] that [3739] I made with [4160] their [846] fathers [3962] in [1722] the day [2250] when I took [1949] them [846] by the hand [3450] [5495] to lead [1806] them [846] out of [1537] the land [1093] of Egypt [125]; because [3754] they [846] continued [1696] not [3756] in [1722] my [3450] covenant [1242], and I [2504] regarded [272] them [846] not [272], saith [3004] the Lord [2962].
10 For [3754] this [3778] is the covenant [1242] that [3739] I will make [1303] with the house [3624] of Israel [2474] after [3326] those [1565] days [2250], saith [3004] the Lord [2962]; I will put [1325] my [3450] laws [3551] into [1519] their [846] mind [1271], and [2532] write [1924] them [846] in [1909] their [846] hearts [2588]: and [2532] I will be [2071] to [1519] them [846] a God [2316], and [2532] they [846] shall be [2071] to [1519] me [3427] a people [2992]:
11 And [2532] they shall [1321] not [3364] teach [1321] every man [1538] his [846] neighbour [4139], and [2532] every man [1538] his [846] brother [80], saying [3004], Know [1097] the Lord [2962]: for [3754] all [3956] shall know [1492] me [3165], from [575] the least [3398] [846] to [2193] the greatest [3173] [846].
11 If [1487] [3303] therefore [3767] perfection [5050] were [2258] by [1223] the Levitical [3020] priesthood [2420], (for [1063] under [1909] it [846] the people [2992] received the law [3549] what [5101] further [2089] need [5532] was there that another [2087] priest [2409] should rise [450] after [2596] the order [5010] of Melchisedec [3198], and [2532] not [3756] be called [3004] after [2596] the order [5010] of Aaron [2]?
11 If [1487] [3303] therefore [3767] perfection [5050] were [2258] by [1223] the Levitical [3020] priesthood [2420], (for [1063] under [1909] it [846] the people [2992] received the law [3549] what [5101] further [2089] need [5532] was there that another [2087] priest [2409] should rise [450] after [2596] the order [5010] of Melchisedec [3198], and [2532] not [3756] be called [3004] after [2596] the order [5010] of Aaron [2]?
11 If [1487] [3303] therefore [3767] perfection [5050] were [2258] by [1223] the Levitical [3020] priesthood [2420], (for [1063] under [1909] it [846] the people [2992] received the law [3549] what [5101] further [2089] need [5532] was there that another [2087] priest [2409] should rise [450] after [2596] the order [5010] of Melchisedec [3198], and [2532] not [3756] be called [3004] after [2596] the order [5010] of Aaron [2]?
11 If [1487] [3303] therefore [3767] perfection [5050] were [2258] by [1223] the Levitical [3020] priesthood [2420], (for [1063] under [1909] it [846] the people [2992] received the law [3549] what [5101] further [2089] need [5532] was there that another [2087] priest [2409] should rise [450] after [2596] the order [5010] of Melchisedec [3198], and [2532] not [3756] be called [3004] after [2596] the order [5010] of Aaron [2]?