如果頭一個約沒有缺點，就沒有尋求另一個約的必要了。

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。

如果头一个约没有缺点，就没有寻求另一个约的必要了。

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。

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.

這樣看來，如果藉著利未人的祭司制度能達到完全的地步（人民是在這制度下領受律法的），為甚麼還需要照著麥基洗德的體系，另外興起一位祭司，而不照著亞倫的體系呢？

這樣，律法和神的應許是對立的嗎？絕對不是。如果所賜下的律法能使人得生命，義就真的是出於律法了。

一方面，從前的條例因為軟弱，沒有用處，就廢棄了；

但是現在耶穌得了更尊貴的職分，正好像他是更美的約的中保，這約是憑著更美的應許立的。