如果头一个约没有缺点，就没有寻求另一个约的必要了。

那前约若没有瑕疵，就无处寻求后约了。

第一个约若没有瑕疵，就无须寻求第二个约了。

第一个约若没有瑕疵，就无须寻求第二个约了。

因为如果第一个约没有缺点，就不必另立新约了。

原来，如果那第一个约是无可指责的，就没有寻求第二个约的必要了，

那前約若沒有瑕疵，就無處尋求後約了。

第一個約若沒有瑕疵，就無須尋求第二個約了。

第一個約若沒有瑕疵，就無須尋求第二個約了。

因為如果第一個約沒有缺點，就不必另立新約了。

如果頭一個約沒有缺點，就沒有尋求另一個約的必要了。

假使先前的是無可責備，就不必為一個在後的找地位了。

原來，如果那第一個約是無可指責的，就沒有尋求第二個約的必要了，

倘前約無缺、則無庸立後約矣、

如前之約罔缺、則後之約毋庸、

前約若無虧缺、則無立後約之處、

使舊約已屬完美無缺、應無另立新約之餘地；

For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.

Suppose nothing had been wrong with that first covenant. Then no one would have looked for another covenant.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

If the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need for a second covenant to replace it.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second one.

For if that first covenant had been free of fault, no circumstances would have been sought for a second.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then would no place have been sought for a second.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second one.

For if that first[ covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, no one would have looked for a second one.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.

这样看来，如果藉着利未人的祭司制度能达到完全的地步（人民是在这制度下领受律法的），为什么还需要照着麦基洗德的体系，另外兴起一位祭司，而不照着亚伦的体系呢？

这样，律法和神的应许是对立的吗？绝对不是。如果所赐下的律法能使人得生命，义就真的是出于律法了。

一方面，从前的条例因为软弱，没有用处，就废弃了；

但是现在耶稣得了更尊贵的职分，正好像他是更美的约的中保，这约是凭着更美的应许立的。