前約若無虧缺、則無立後約之處、

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。

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、

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.

昔民受律法、即在利未子孫得祭司職之時、若賴此祭司之職、能得成全、何用別設一祭司、循麥基洗德之等次、而不循亞倫之等次乎、又作人若賴利未子孫所得祭司之職能得成全何須別設一祭司循麥基洗德之等次而非循亞倫之等次乎民所受之律法與此祭司之職實有關係

然則律法與天主之許相反乎、非也、若賜以能致生之律法、則人必由律法可得稱義、

前之法度、輕弱無益、故廢之、

今所立之約更美、立約所許之福亦更美、耶穌既為此約之中保、則其所得祭司之職亦更美、