Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 8:10 - 8:10
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_8:10. Justification of the διαθήκην καινήν , οὐ κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην κ . τ . λ ., Heb_8:8-9, by a definite indication of the nature of the covenant to be instituted.
ὅτι αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη κ . τ . λ .] for this (or the following) is the covenant which I will institute for the house of Israel, αὕτη introduces with emphasis the material characterization following with διδοὺς κ . τ . λ .
οἶκος Ἰσραήλ ] here embraces the whole nation, while in Heb_8:8 it denoted one of the two kingdoms into which it had been divided.
μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας ] after those days, i.e. after the days which must first have elapsed, before the ἡμέραι mentioned, Heb_8:8,—in which the New Covenant is to come into existence,—begin to dawn. Wrongly Oecumenius: ποίας ἡμέρας ; τὰς τῆς ἐξόδου , ἐν αἷς ἔλαβον τὸν νόμον .
λέγει κύριος ] LXX.: φησὶ κύριος .
διδούς ] So LXX. Cod. Alex., while Cod. Vatic. and other MSS. of the LXX. have διδοὺς δώσω . In the Hebrew ðÈúÇçÌÄé . διδούς does not stand for δώσω (Vatablus, Schlichting, Bengel, and others). Just as little have we to supplement it with δώσω (Heinrichs, Stengel, al.), or with εἰμί or ἔσομαι (Kuinoel, Bloomfield), or διαθήσομαι αὐτήν (Delitzsch). Nor have we to join it to the following ἐπυγράψω (so Böhme, but undecidedly, and Paulus), in such wise that we must render καί before ἐπιγράψω by “also.” It attaches itself grammatically to the preceding διαθήσομαι . In order to obviate any unevenness of construction, we may then place a colon after διάνοιαν αὐτῶν . The separation, however, of the καὶ ἐπιγράψω from that which precedes is not actually necessary, since instances of a transition from the participle to the tempus finitum are elsewhere nothing strange. See Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 533.
διάνοια ] mind, i.e. soul, innermost part ( ÷ÆøÆá ). Accentuation of the character of innerness in the New Covenant, as opposed to the externalism of the Old. Comp. 2Co_3:3.
καρδίας ] either accusative (Deu_4:13; Deu_5:22, al.) or genitive (comp. Exo_34:28; Num_17:2-3, al.). In favour of the latter pleads the singular in the Hebrew original; in favour of the former, the reading of the Cod. Alex.: ἐπὶ τὰς καρδίας . We cannot take into account, in favour of the accusative, the greater conformity to the character of the Greek language, according to which, on account of the plurality of persons ( αὐτῶν ), one must also speak of καρδίαι , in the plural. For without regard to this distinction the singular διάνοιαν has already been just placed, and in like manner the singular τῆς χειρός is placed, Heb_8:9.
In place of ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς , the Cod. Alex, of the LXX. has: ἐπιγράψω αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τὰς καρδίας αὐτῶν , and the Cod. Vatic.: ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν γράψω αὐτούς .
καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς εἰς θεὸν κ . τ . λ .] Comp. already Exo_6:7; Lev_26:12, al.; also 2Co_6:16.
The Hebraizing εἰναι εἰς ( äÈéÈä ìÀ ) as Heb_1:5.