假使先前的是無可責備，就不必為一個在後的找地位了。

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。

如果頭一個約沒有缺點，就沒有尋求另一個約的必要了。

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，倘若藉着利未人的祭司職分能有完全勝任的資格（而人民之領受了律法倒是以這職分為基本），哪裏還需要另一種的一位祭司興起來、是照麥基洗德的等次、而不稱為照亞倫的等次呢？

這樣，律法與應許相反麼？斷乎不是。假使有一個能使人活的律法曾經頒賜下來，稱義就真是由於律法了。

這一來，一方面因規條之劣弱和無益，先前的條例就被廢掉（

基督呢、其實基督既已得了更優越的領禮拜職分，他就依這量度、做更好之約的中保了；這個約是憑着更好的應許按律法而立的。