第一個約若沒有瑕疵，就無須尋求第二個約了。

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。

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.

那麼，如果百姓藉着利未人的祭司職任能達到完全－因為百姓是在這職分下領受律法的－為甚麼還需要按照麥基洗德的體系另外興起一位祭司，而不按照亞倫的體系呢？

這樣，律法是與神的應許對立嗎？絕對不是！如果律法的頒佈能使人得生命，義就誠然出於律法了。

一方面，先前的誡命因軟弱無能而廢掉了，

如今耶穌已經得了更優越的事奉，正如他作更美之約的中保；這約原是憑更美之應許立的。