LOOKING UNTO JESUS OR CHRIST IN TYPE AND ANTITYPE. BY ...

is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established
upon better promises." Here the word "covenant" is expressed,
and no conflicting questions can arise concerning
it. Verse 7: "For if that first [covenant] had been faultless,
then should no place have been sought for the second."
Here the word "covenant" is a supplied word, as in
chapter 9:1; but can there be any possible doubt that the
old covenant is referred to? -- None at all. In verses 8-12
the apostle quotes the promise of the new covenant made by
the Lord through Jeremiah, over six hundred years before,
contrasting the new with the old, then in force, and showing
the superiority of the new covenant over the old. Then
in verse 13 he continues: "In that he saith, A new [covenant],
he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth
and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." Here the word
"covenant" is again a supplied word. But can there be any
possible doubt that it is the new covenant of which he has
just been speaking that is referred to? and that the adjective
"first," immediately following, refers to the old
covenant? -- None whatever. Now, passing the man-made division
of chapters, to verse 1 of chapter 9, the apostle
keeps right on in his line of thought: "Then verily the
first [covenant] had also ordinances of divine service, and
a worldly sanctuary." p. 109, Para. 2, [LOOKING].
Here the word "covenant" is again supplied; but can there
be any doubt that the reference is to the old covenant? --
Certainly no more question than there is that the word
"first" in chapter 8:7 refers to the old covenant, and the
word "new" in chapter 8:13 refers to the new covenant. The
covenants are here the apostle's subject and he designates
and distinguishes them by these adjectives. The word
"first" in chapter 8:13 confessedly refers to the old covenant.
Now is it possible that the same word in the verse
following (chapter 9:1), used in the same manner on the
same subject, refers, not to the covenant but to something
entirely different, without the least intimation or ground
for inference that there has been any change of subject? --
It is utterly impossible; and such a claim is not only a
daring breach of logic, but a denial of direct testimony.
p. 110, Para. 1, [LOOKING].
This point settled, that Paul in Heb. 9:1 refers to the
first covenant, the way is wonderfully cleared and simplified
for an application of the testimony of the Scriptures
relative to the change from the old dispensation to the
new; without this, all is thrown into confusion. For the