:
1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. 3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. 4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: 5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. 6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13 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.
Previous
Next
[AD 220] Tertullian on Hebrews 8:1
For to this end had He come, that, being Himself pure from sin, and in all respects holy, He might undergo death on behalf of sinners.

Source: On Modesty
[AD 325] Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius on Hebrews 8:1-2
Let people therefore learn and understand why the Most High God willed that he should be clothed with mortal flesh, afflicted with torture and sentenced to death when he sent his ambassador and messenger to instruct mortals with the precepts of his righteousness. For since there was no righteousness on earth, he sent a teacher, as it were, a living law to found a new name and temple so that, by his words and example, he might spread throughout the earth a true and holy worship. However, in order that people might know for sure that he was sent by God, it was fitting that he should not be born as human beings are born, composed of a mortal on both sides. Rather, so that it might appear that he was heavenly even in the form of man, he was born without the office of a father. For he had a spiritual Father—God. And, as God was the Father of his spirit without a mother, so a virgin was the mother of his body without a father. He was therefore both God and man, being placed in the middle between God and man. From which the Greeks call him Mesitēs, that he might be able to lead humankind to God—that is, to immortality. For if he had been God only (as we have before said), he would not have been able to afford to people examples of goodness; if he had been man only, he would not have been able to compel people to righteousness, unless there had been added an authority and virtue greater than that of man.

Source: DIVINE INSTITUTES 4.25
[AD 373] Ephrem the Syrian on Hebrews 8:1-2
“The point in what we are saying,” that is, the discussion which we have undertaken with regard to priesthood and the law, is now presented to you according to what I have said above. “We have such a high priest” of the high priests, who does not stand before the ark of alliance but “who,” by ascending, “is seated at the right hand of the throne of the majesty in heaven.”Moreover, he, who was so entirely praised, was “a minister in the sanctuary” in the very tabernacle of truth—that is, either in the kingdom of heaven, as he promised, or in this world, as he actually did by washing the feet of his disciples.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
[AD 379] Basil of Caesarea on Hebrews 8:1-2
If one assigns to the Father the upper place by way of precedence and asserts that the only begotten Son sits below, he will find that all the consequent conditions of body attach to the creature of his imagination. And if these are the imaginations of drunken delusion and frenzied insanity, can it be consistent with true religion for people taught by the Lord himself that “he that honors not the Son honors not the Father” to refuse to worship and glorify with the Father him who in nature, in glory and in dignity is conjoined with him? What shall we say? What just defense shall we have in the day of the awful universal judgment of all creation, if, when the Lord clearly announces that he will come “in the glory of his Father”;9 when Stephen beheld Jesus standing at the right hand of God; when Paul testified in the Spirit concerning Christ “that he is at the right hand of God”;11 when the Father says, “Sit at my right hand”; when the Holy Spirit bears witness that he has sat down on “the right hand of the majesty” of God—what defense shall we have when we attempt to degrade him, who shares the honor and the throne, from his condition of equality to a lower state? Standing and sitting, I apprehend, indicate the permanence and entire stability of the nature, as Baruch, when he wishes to exhibit the immutability and immobility of the divine mode of existence, says, “For you sit forever and we perish utterly.” Moreover, the place on the right hand indicates, in my judgment, equality of honor. It is rash, then, to attempt to deprive the Son of participation in the doxology, as though worthy only to be ranked in a lower place of honor.

Source: ON THE SPIRIT 6.15
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 8:1-2
"Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an High Priest; who is set down on the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens: a minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man."

1. Paul mixes the lowly things with the lofty, ever imitating his Master, so that the lowly become the path to the lofty, and through the former we are led to the latter, and when we are amid the great things we learn that these [lowly ones] were a condescension. This accordingly he does here also. After declaring that "He offered up Himself," and showing Him to be a "High Priest," what does he say? "Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: we have such an High Priest who is set down on the right hand of the throne of the majesty." And yet this is not [the office] of a Priest, but of Him whom the Priest should serve.

"A minister of the sanctuary," not simply a minister, but "a minister of the sanctuary. And of the true Tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man." You see the condescension. Did he not a little before make a separation, saying: "Are they not all ministering spirits?" [Hebrews 1:14] and therefore (he says) it is not said to them, "Sit on my right hand," [Hebrews 1:13] for He that sits is not a minister. How is it then that it is here said, "a minister," and "a minister of the Sanctuary"? For he means here the Tabernacle.

See how he raised up the minds of the believing Jews. For as they would be apt to imagine that we have no such tabernacle [as they had], see here (he says) is the Priest, Great, yea, much greater than the other, and who has offered a more wonderful sacrifice. But is not all this mere talk? Is it not a boast, and merely said to win over our minds? On this account he established it first from the oath, and afterwards also from "the tabernacle." For this difference too was manifest: but the Apostle thinks of another also, "which" (he says) the Lord pitched [or "made firm"] and not man. Where are they who say that the heaven whirls around? where are they who declare that it is spherical? For both of these notions are overthrown here.

"Now" (he says) "of the things which we have spoken this is the sum." By "the sum" is always meant what is most important. Again he brings down his discourse; having said what is lofty, henceforward he speaks fearlessly.

Source: Homily 14 on Hebrews
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Hebrews 8:1-2
He left till last the greatest honor, presenting him seated at the right hand of the throne of majesty. Aaron, the forebear of priests, remember, who was the first to receive the role of high priesthood, entered the divine sanctuary with fear and trembling, whereas this person has a seat at the right hand. He included the word minister, of course, because he is speaking of a high priest. What ministry does he discharge after offering himself once and for all, and no longer offering a further sacrifice? How is it possible for him at one and the same time to be seated and to minister? Only if you were to say the ministry is the salvation of human beings, which he procures in lordly fashion.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 8
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Hebrews 8:1-2
By “tent” he referred to heaven, where the apostle said he was ministering as man, though being its creator.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 8
[AD 893] Photios I of Constantinople on Hebrews 8:1-2
When he serves and ministers, it is for this purpose: to cleanse humans from their sins and to make them holy. For it is fitting for the minister and creator of the saints to sit at the right hand of the Father as true God and his Son.

Source: FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 8.1
[AD 900] Arethas of Caesarea on Hebrews 8:1-2
He calls the heavens “the tent” in this passage. In my opinion he seems to then call the flesh of the Lord “the true tent,” which also the Lord himself fashioned when he was not yet man, considering that immaculate flesh did not come into existence by human coupling but by the Holy Spirit.

Source: FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 8.2
[AD 325] Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius on Hebrews 8:2
For since there was no righteousness on earth, He sent a teacher, as it were a living law, to found a new name and temple,
[AD 373] Athanasius of Alexandria on Hebrews 8:3
I am very much surprised how they have ventured to entertain the idea that the Word became man in consequence of his nature. For, if this were so, the commemoration of Mary would be superfluous. For nature has no conception of a virgin bearing apart from a man. By the good pleasure of the Father, being true God, and Word and Wisdom of the Father by nature, he became man in the body for our salvation in order that, having something to offer for us he might save us all, “as many as through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” For it was not some man that gave himself up for us; since every man is under sentence of death, according to what was said to all in Adam, “earth you are and unto earth you shall return.” Nor yet was it any other of the creatures, since every creature is liable to change. But the Word himself offered his own body on our behalf that our faith and hope might not be in man, but that we might have our faith in God the Word himself.

Source: LETTER 61, TO MAXIMUS 3
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 8:3
That you may understand that he used the word minister of humanity, observe how he again indicates it: “For,” he says, “every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.” Do not now, because you hear that he sits, suppose that his being called high priest is mere idle talk. For clearly the former—his sitting—belongs to the dignity of the Godhead, but this [his being a priest] to his great lovingkindness and his tender care for us. On this account, he repeatedly urges this very thing and dwells more upon it, for he feared lest the other truth should overthrow it. Therefore, he again brings his discourse down to this, since some were inquiring why he died. He was a priest. But there is no priest without a sacrifice. It is necessary then that he also should have a sacrifice.

Source: ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 14.2
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 8:3-5
2. In the next place that you may understand that he used the word "minister" of the manhood, observe how he again indicates it: "For" [Hebrews 8:3] (he says) "every high priest is ordained to offer both gifts and sacrifices, wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer."

Do not now, because you hear that He sits, suppose that His being called High Priest is mere idle talk. For the former, viz. His sitting, belongs to the dignity of the Godhead, but this to His great lovingkindness, and His tender care for us. On this account he repeatedly urges this very thing, and dwells more upon it: for he feared lest the other [truth] should overthrow it. Therefore he again brings down his discourse to this: since some were enquiring why He died. He was a Priest. But there is no Priest without a sacrifice. It is necessary then that He also should have a sacrifice.

And in another way; Having said that He is on high, he affirms and proves that He is a Priest from every consideration, from Melchisedec, from the oath, from offering sacrifice. From this he also frames another and necessary syllogism. "For if" (he says) "He had been on earth, He would not be a Priest, seeing that there are priests who offer the gifts according to the Law." If then He is a Priest (as He really is), we must seek some other place for Him. "For if He were" indeed "on earth, He should not be a priest." For how [could He be]? He offered no sacrifice, He ministered not in the Priest's office. And with good reason, for there were the priests. Moreover he shows, that it was impossible that [He] should be a priest upon earth. For how [could He be]? There was no rising up against [the appointed Priests], he means.

3. Here we must apply our minds attentively, and consider the Apostolic wisdom; for again he shows the difference of the Priesthood. "Who" (he says) "serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things."

What are the heavenly things he speaks of here? The spiritual things. For although they are done on earth, yet nevertheless they are worthy of the Heavens. For when our Lord Jesus Christ lies slain [as a sacrifice], when the Spirit is with us, when He who sits on the right hand of the Father is here, when sons are made by the Washing, when they are fellow citizens of those in Heaven, when we have a country, and a city, and citizenship there, when we are strangers to things here, how can all these be other than "heavenly things"? But what! Are not our Hymns heavenly? Do not we also who are below utter in concert with them the same things which the divine choirs of bodiless powers sing above? Is not the altar also heavenly? How? It has nothing carnal, all spiritual things become the offerings. The sacrifice does not disperse into ashes, or into smoke, or into steamy savor, it makes the things placed there bright and splendid. How again can the rites which we celebrate be other than heavenly? For when He says, "Whose soever sins ye retain they are retained, whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted" [John 20:23] when they have the keys of heaven, how can all be other than heavenly?

"Who" (he says) "serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God, when he was about to make the tabernacle, for see, says He, that you make all things according to the pattern showed to you in the mount." Inasmuch as our hearing is less ready of apprehension than our sight (for the things which we hear we do not in such wise lay up in our soul, as those which we see with our very eyes), He showed him all. Either then he means this by "the example and shadow," or else he [speaks] of the Temple. For, he went on to say, "See" (His words are), that "thou make all things according to the pattern showed to you in the mount." Was it then only what concerned the furniture of the temple that he saw, or was it also what related to the sacrifices, and all the rest? Nay, one would not be wrong in saying even this; for The Church is heavenly, and is nothing else than Heaven.

Source: Homily 14 on Hebrews
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Hebrews 8:3
They do not understand that not even the proudest of spirits could themselves rejoice in the honor of sacrifices unless a true sacrifice was due to the one true God in whose place they desire to be worshiped. This sacrifice cannot be rightly offered except by a holy and righteous priest, and it also must be received by those for whom it is offered. And it also has to be without fault, so that it may be offered for cleansing those with faults. This is at least what everyone does who wants a sacrifice to be offered for themselves to God. Who then is so righteous and holy a priest as the only Son of God who had no need to purge his own sins by sacrifice, neither original sins nor those that are added by human life? And what could human beings more appropriately choose to be offered for themselves than human flesh? And what could be more fitting for this immolation than mortal flesh? And what could be cleaner for cleansing the faults of mortals than the flesh born in and from the womb of a virgin without any infection of carnal desires? And what could be more acceptably offered and taken than that the flesh of our sacrifice be the body of our priest? And so, where four things are to be considered in every sacrifice—(1) to whom it is offered, (2) by whom it is offered, (3) what is offered, (4) for whom it is offered—the same one and true mediator himself, reconciling us to God by the sacrifice of peace, might remain one with him [the Father] to whom he offered, might make those one in himself for whom he offered, and he himself might be in one both the offerer and the offering.

Source: ON THE TRINITY 4.14. [19]
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Hebrews 8:3
It is proper for a high priest to offer gifts to the God of all. For this reason, the only begotten, when he was made man and assumed our nature, offered it for us.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 8.3
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Hebrews 8:4-6
Now if we correctly understand it, this is the statement Moses writes in the beginning of his book, when he says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” For this is the beginning of all creation: to this beginning the end and consummation of all things must return. That is, that heaven and earth may be the dwelling place and rest of the pious, so that all the saints and the meek may first obtain an inheritance in that earth, for this is the teaching of the law and the prophets and the gospel. In that earth I believe there exist, the true and living forms of worship which Moses handed down under the shadow of the law. For it is said that “they serve as a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary”—that is, those who were in subjection in the law. To Moses himself it was also said, “See that you make everything according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain.” It seems to me, therefore, that on this earth the law was a kind of schoolmaster to those who by it were to be led to Christ and to be instructed and trained in order that, after the training of the law, they might more easily receive the more perfect precepts of Christ. So also that other earth, which receives into it all the saints, may first imbue and mould them by the precepts of the true and everlasting law, that they may more easily gain possession of those perfect precepts of heaven, to which nothing can be added. And in heaven there will truly be what is called the “eternal gospel” and that testament that is always new, which shall never grow old.

Source: ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 3.6.8
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Hebrews 8:4-6
But who could more properly speak to us about who God is than the Son? “For no one knows the Father except the Son.” We too aspire to know how God is Spirit as the Son reveals it and to worship God in the Spirit that gives life and not in the letter that kills. We want to honor God in truth and no longer in types, shadows and examples, even as the angels do not serve God in examples and the shadow of heavenly realities but in realities that belong to the spiritual and heavenly order, having a high priest of the order of Melchizedek as leader of the saving worship for those who need both the mystical and secret contemplation.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 13.146
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Hebrews 8:4-6
The apostle says with reference to the law that they who have circumcision in the flesh “serve as the copy and shadow of heavenly things.” And in another place, “is not our life on earth a shadow?” If then both the law that is on the earth is a “shadow” and all our life that is on earth is the same, and we live among nations under the “shadow of Christ,” we must consider whether the truth of all these shadows will be learned in that revelation when, no longer “through a mirror and darkly,” but “face to face” all the saints shall be counted worthy to behold the glory of God and the causes and truth of things. And the pledge of this truth being already received through the Holy Spirit, the apostle said, “Even if we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth we know him no more.

Source: ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 2.6.7
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Hebrews 8:4-6
Since, however, “when he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken,” we must admit, as far as the literal meaning is concerned, that, after the Lord was raised from the dead, the disciples understood that the things said about the temple refer to his passion and resurrection, and they recalled that the saying, “in three days I will raise it up” indicated the resurrection. It was then that “they believed both the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken,” since there is no earlier testimony that they had believed the Scripture or this word which Jesus spoke. For faith is, strictly speaking, the acceptance with one’s whole soul of the object of faith at baptism. But as for the anagogical meaning, since we previously mentioned the resurrection from the dead of the whole body of the Lord, we must know that the disciples—once they were reminded through the fulfillments of the Scripture which they had not thoroughly understood when they were in this life and once it was brought before their eyes and made manifest that it contained an example and shadow of certain heavenly things—believed what they formerly did not believe, and believed the word of Jesus as he who spoke it intended, which they had not understood before the resurrection.For how can one be said to believe the Scripture in the proper sense, when one does not perceive the meaning of the Holy Spirit in it which God wants to be believed, rather than the intent of the letter? According to this, we must say that none of those who walk according to the flesh believe in the spiritual meanings of the law, whose first principle they do not even imagine.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 10.298-300
[AD 339] Eusebius of Caesarea on Hebrews 8:4-6
It is now time to show that the very name of Jesus, and especially that of Christ, had already been honored by the ancient God-loving prophets. Moses himself, having been the first to make known the name of Christ as being especially revered and glorious, having handed down the types and symbols of heavenly things and the mysterious images according to the oracle which said to him, “See that you make everything according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain,” and having consecrated a man high priest of God insofar as it was at all possible, calls this man Christ. That is, to this dignity of the high priesthood, which surpassed all preeminence among humans, he attaches for additional honor and glory the name of Christ. Thus, then, he indeed knew Christ as a being divine. And the same Moses by divine inspiration foresaw the name Jesus very clearly and again also endowed this with special privilege. The name of Jesus, which had never been uttered among people before it was made known to Moses, Moses applied first to this one alone, whom he knew, again as a type and a symbol, would receive the rule over all after his death. His successor … had never before used the title Jesus but had been called by another name, Hoshea, which his parents had bestowed upon him. He himself [the successor] proclaims Jesus, as a privilege of honor far greater than a royal crown, giving him the name because Jesus, the son of Nun, himself bore a remembrance to our Savior, who alone, after Moses and the completion of the symbolic worship transmitted by him, received the rule of the true and pure religion. And in this way Moses bestowed the name of our Savior Jesus Christ as a mark of the greatest honor upon the two men who in his time surpassed all the rest of the people in virtue and glory—the high priest and him who would rule after him.

Source: ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 1.3
[AD 373] Ephrem the Syrian on Hebrews 8:4-6
Since they were in the darkness without a model, they managed their office according to a general affinity in divine matters. That is, all those ancient religious institutions were shadows and symbols of this institution of the church, which is established in its spirituality and divinity before him. And to Moses himself it was ordered, when he was about to build the tabernacle of the hour, “See that you make everything according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain.”

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 8:4-6
Here we must apply our minds attentively and consider the apostolic wisdom. For again he shows the difference of the priesthood, “who,” he says, “serve a copy and shadow of heavenly things.” What are the heavenly things he speaks of here? The spiritual things. For although they are done on earth, yet nevertheless they are worthy of the heavens. For when our Lord Jesus Christ lies slain as a sacrifice, when the Spirit is with us, when he who sits on the right hand of the Father is here, when sons are made by the washing, when they are fellow citizens of those in heaven, when we have a country and a city and citizenship there, when we are strangers to things here, how can all these be other than “heavenly things”? But what! Are not our hymns heavenly? Do not we also who are below utter in concert with them the same things that the divine choirs of bodiless powers sing above? Is not the altar also heavenly? How? It has nothing carnal. All spiritual things become the offerings. The sacrifice does not disperse into ashes or into smoke or into steamy savor. It makes the things placed there bright and splendid. How again can the rites that we celebrate be other than heavenly? For when he says, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained,” when they have the keys of heaven, how can all be other than heavenly?

Source: ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 14.3
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Hebrews 8:4-6
He mentioned this by way of defense to stress that he was not criticizing the law but regarding it also as venerable for containing the type of the heavenly things. This was the reason he said it was pointless to refer to him as a priest while living on earth, there being priests according to the law discharging the worship prescribed by the law. So if the priesthood according to the law also came to an end, and the high priest according to the order of Melchizedek offered sacrifice and made further sacrifices unnecessary, why do the priests of the New Covenant perform the sacramental liturgy? It is clear to those versed in divine things, however, that it is not another sacrifice we offer; rather, we perform the commemoration of the one, saving sacrifice. The Lord himself, remember, required this of us, “Do this in memory of me,” so that we should recall with insight the type of the sufferings undergone for us, kindle love for the benefactor and look forward to the enjoyment of the good things to come.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 8
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Hebrews 8:4-6
The divine apostle, by “shadow of the heavenly things” referred to the worship according to the law and confirms his statement with a scriptural testimony.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 8
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Hebrews 8:4-6
He concisely brought out the superiority: whereas the Old Covenant had corporeal promises associated with it—a land flowing with milk and honey, olive groves and vineyards, big families and suchlike things—the New had an eternal and heavenly kingdom.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 8
[AD 1274] Thomas Aquinas on Hebrews 8:5
377. - Having proved the excellence of Christ’s priesthood over that of the Levitical on the part of the person, the Apostle now proves the same on the part of the priesthood itself. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows in a general way that Christ’s priesthood is more excellent than that of the Old Law; secondly, in detail (chap. 9). The first is divided into two parts: first, he states his thesis; secondly, he explains it (v. 3). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he states the way in which he will present his teaching; secondly, he prefaces what he means to say (v. 1b).

378. - He says, therefore: Now the point in what we are saying is this [recapitulation]. A recapitulation is a brief synthesis containing many things. The word comes from ‘caput’ or ‘head,’ because, just as in the head are virtually and, as it were, summarily, contained all the things which are in the body, is in a recapitulation everything that has been said.

379. - Then (v. 1b) he prefaces what he means to say: first, the dignity of this priesthood; secondly, its office (v. 2).

380. - Its dignity is that we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven. The throne is judicial power, which befits certain persons as ministers of God, as all kings: ‘All the kings of the earth will adore him’ (Ps. 71:11), and all prelates: ‘Let a man so account of us as of Christ’s ministers (1 Cor. 4:1). Therefore, because Christ has judicial power, He is said to sit: ‘For the Father has given all judgment to the Son’ (Jn. 5:22). But because He has this in the most excellent manner after God, He sits on the right hand of majesty in the heavens, i.e., in the more prominent goods: ‘He sits on the right hand of the majesty on high’ (Heb. 1:3).

381. - The expression, ‘is seated,’ can be referred to Christ as God, and then He is seated in that way, because He has the same authority as the Father, although distinct in person; and so ‘majesty’ is taken for the person of the Father. Or, to Christ as man: and this is more in keeping with the Apostle’s intention, because he is speaking about the high priesthood of Christ, Who is a high priest as man. So He is seated in that way, because the assumed humanity has a certain association to the godhead; and He sits at the right hand to judge: ‘Your majesty has been elevated above the heavens’ (Ps. 8:3); ‘He gave him power to judge, because he is the Son of man’ (Jn. 5:27).

382. - Then when he says, a minister of the holies, he shows the dignity of his office. He says, minister of the sanctuary [holies], i.e., of the holy precincts, namely, of the sanctuary. For the ministers of old received the ministry of guarding sacred things and serving the tabernacle. But Christ had this in a more excellent manner, because He is a minister, not inasmuch as He is God, for then He is the author, but inasmuch as He is man: ‘And passing he will minister until them’ (Lk. 12:37). For the humanity of Christ is an organ of the divinity. Therefore, He is the minister of the holies, because He administers the sacraments of grace in the present life and of glory in the future. He is also the minister of the true tent [tabernacle] that cannot be removed’ (Is. 33:20); ‘Lord, who shall dwell in your tabernacle?’ (Ps. 14:1). But the man Christ is a minister because all the goods of glory are dispensed by Him. But he says, of the true, for two reasons: first, because of its difference from the Old, which was a figure of it: ‘Now all these things happened to them in figure’ (1 Cor. 10:11). The New, therefore, is the truth of the former. Therefore, it is true, i.e., containing the truth in relations to the figure. Secondly, because the former was made by a man, but the other, namely, of grace and of glory by God alone: ‘The Lord will give grace and glory’ (Ps. 83:12); ‘The grace of God, life everlasting’ (Rom. 6:23). Hence, he says, which is set up not by man but by the Lord: ‘We know, if our earthly house of this habitation be dissolved, that we have a building of God not made with hands, eternal in heaven’ (2 Cor. 5:1).

383. - Then (v. 3) he explains in detail. In regard to this he does three things: first, he shows that Christ is a minister of certain holy things; secondly, that they are not of the Old Law (v. 4); thirdly, that He is a minister of greater things (v. 6).

384. - He forms the following argument: Every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; and in this respect He is called a minister of the holies. But Christ is a high priest, as has been stated above. Therefore, it is necessary that He have something to offer: ‘Every priest taken from among men is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that He may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sin’ (Heb. 5:1). The sacrifice is offered with animals; the gifts with anything else: ‘They offer the burnt offerings of the Lord and the bread of their God’ (Lev. 21:6). But because it was necessary that Christ have something to offer, He offered Himself. But it was a clean oblation, because His flesh had no stain of sin: ‘And it shall be a lamb without blemish, a male, of one year’ (Ex. 12:5). Furthermore, it was suitable, because it was fitting that a man should satisfy for man: ‘He offered himself unspotted unto God’ (Heb. 9:14). It was also fit to be immolated, because His flesh was mortal: ‘God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and sin’ (Rom. 8:3). Also it was the same as the one to whom it was offered: ‘I and the Father are one’ (Jn. 10:30). And it unites to God those for whom it is offered: ‘That they may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us’ (Jn. 17:21).

385. - Then (v. 4) he shows that Christ is not a minister of the sacrifices of the Law. In regard to this he does three things: first, he introduces a consequence; secondly, he gives the reason (v. 4b); thirdly, he proves it by an authority (v. 4c).

386. - The consequence is this: If he were on earth (this is the antecedent), he would not be a priest at all (this is the consequent). Hence, the consequence is one conditional proposition. And it is read in a number of ways: first, according to a Gloss: for ‘if that which is offered were on earth, he would not be a priest.’ This can be understood in two ways: in one way so that the sense would be: If that which is offered were something earthly, Christ would not be a priest. As if to say: There would be no need for a priesthood, because there would be many to offer such things. But was not the flesh of Christ earthly? I answer that materially speaking it was earthly: ‘The earth is given into the hand of the wicked’ (Jb. 9:24). But it is said not to be earthly by reason of the union: ‘He that comes from heaven is above all’ (Jn. 3:31), i.e., the Son of God, Who united it to Himself. Also, by reason of the active power of the Holy Spirit, Who formed it; and by reason of the fruit, because His oblation is not ordained to obtaining something earthly: ‘You are of this world; I am not of this world’ (Jn. 8:23). This is the first and better explanation. The second is this: ‘Even if,’ i.e., although that which is offered ‘is on earth,’ because it is necessary that something be offered, ‘He would not be a priest,’ but someone worthy, because no one could be found worthy to offer it.

387. - There are three readings in which the one offering is understood: first, in general, so that the sense is this: If there were another earthly priest, who could offer heavenly things, Christ would not be a priest. Another is of Christ specifically: If Christ were an earthly priest, the right of the priesthood would not belong to Him, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. Still another is the following: If Christ were still on earth, in the sense that He had not yet ascended, He would not be a priest, because He would not have completed His priesthood.

388. - But according to the first explanation the reading is continued in the following way: There would be many who according to the law would offer such gifts, namely, those who serve a copy [exemplar] and shadow of heavenly things. The sacraments of the Old Law were figures of other things in two respects: first, in regard to knowledge; secondly, in regard to fulfillment. In regard to knowledge he says, exemplar, because in the Old Law, as in an exemplar could be read that to which our knowledge should be led. But it seems that he is speaking in an improper sense: for an exemplar is prior to that of which it is an exemplar, namely, an example. But heavenly things are prior and were not made according to a likeness of the Old Law, but rather conversely. I answer that something is said to be prior in two ways: in one way, absolutely, and that is the way the objection proceeds; in another way, in relation to its end, and then it is true that those are not prior. In regard to the second he says, a shadow, because just as a shadow represents a body without ever becoming a body, so those things represented the New Testament: ‘For the Law, having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things’ (Heb. 10:1).

389. - Then he proves the reasonableness of the consequence when he says, when Moses was about to erect the tabernacle, he was instructed by God saying, ‘See that you make everything according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain’ (Ex. 25:40), because inferior things naturally tend to a likeness of superior things. For the Lord wished to lead us by sensible things to intelligible and spiritual things: ‘Do you know the order of heaven, and can you set down the reason thereof on the earth?’ (Jb. 38:33).
[AD 373] Athanasius of Alexandria on Hebrews 8:6-9
“It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.” Both in the verse before us, then, and throughout, does he ascribe the word better to the Lord, who is better and other than originated things. For better is the sacrifice through him, better the hope in him and also the promises through him, not merely as great compared with small, but the one differing from the other in nature, because he who conducts this economy, is better than things originated.

Source: Discourses Against the Arians 1.13. [59]
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 8:6
4. "But now has He obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also He is the Mediator of a better covenant." You see (he means) how much better is the one ministration than the other, if one be an example and type, and the other truth [reality]. But this did not profit the hearers, nor cheer them. Therefore he says what especially cheered them: "Which was established upon better promises." Having raised them up by speaking of the place, and the priest, and the sacrifice, he then sets forth also the wide difference of the covenant, having also said before that it was "weak and unprofitable." [See Hebrews 7:18]

And observe what safeguards he lays down, when intending to find fault with it. For in the former place after saying, "according to the power of an endless life" [Hebrews 7:16], he then said that "there is a disannulling of the commandment going before" [Hebrews 7:18]; and then after that, he set forth something great, saying, "by which we draw near unto God." [Hebrews 7:19] And in this place, after leading us up into Heaven, and showing that instead of the temple, we have Heaven, and that those things were types of ours, and having by these means exalted the Ministration [of the New Covenant], he then proceeds suitably to exalt the priesthood.

Source: Homily 14 on Hebrews
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Hebrews 8:6-9
Prophetic utterances are of three kinds: (1) some relating to the earthly Jerusalem; (2) some to the heavenly Jerusalem; (3) and some to both simultaneously. I think it proper to prove what I say by examples. The prophet Nathan was sent to convict King David of heinous sin and predict what future evils would happen to him because of his sin. Who can question that this pertains to the earthly city? There are other instances, sometimes addressed to the public at large for their safety and benefit, and sometimes addressed to someone in private who merited an utterance from God in order to know in advance about some event to guide his temporal life.The following prophecy, however, without a doubt references the heavenly Jerusalem. “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, that I will make for the house of Israel, and for the house of Judah, a new testament: not according to the testament that I settled for their fathers in the day when I laid hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my testament, and I regarded them not, says the Lord. For this is the testament that I will make for the house of Israel: after those days, says the Lord, I will give my laws in their mind, and will write them upon their hearts, and I will see to them; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.” Here, God himself is Jerusalem’s reward. Its chief and entire good is to possess him and to be possessed by him.
Both cities are indicated when the city of God is called Jerusalem and when it is prophesied that the house of God shall one day be in Jerusalem. This prophecy seems to be fulfilled when King Solomon builds that most noble temple. For these things both happened in the earthly Jerusalem, as history shows, and were types of the heavenly Jerusalem. This kind of prophecy, as it were, blending both the others in the ancient canonical books devoted to historical narratives, is very common. It has exercised and continues to exercise greatly the talents of those who search holy Scripture.

Source: City of God 17.3
[AD 461] Leo the Great on Hebrews 8:6-9
[The Lord] ascended into the retirement of a neighboring mountain and called his apostles to him there. From the height of that mystical seat he could instruct them in the loftier doctrines, signifying from the very nature of the place and act that it was he who had once honored Moses by speaking to him. He spoke with Moses then, indeed, with a more terrifying justice, but now with a holier mercy in order that what had been promised might be fulfilled when the prophet Jeremiah says, “Behold, the days are coming when I will complete a new covenant for the house of Israel and for the house of Judah. After those days, says the Lord, I will put my laws in their minds, and in their heart will I write them.” He therefore who had spoken to Moses, spoke also to the apostles, and the swift hand of the Word wrote and deposited the secrets of the new covenant in the disciples’ hearts. There were no thick clouds surrounding him as of old, nor were the people frightened off from approaching the mountain by frightful sounds and lightning. Rather, quietly and freely his discourse reached the ears of those who stood by. In this way the harshness of the law might give way before the gentleness of grace, and “the spirit of adoption” might dispel the terrors of bondage.

Source: SERMON 95.1
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 8:7-9
But (as I said) he sets down that which especially cheers them, in the words, "Which was established upon better promises." Whence does appear? In that this the one was cast out, and the other introduced in its place: for it is therefore of force because it is better. For as he says, "If perfection were by" it, "what further need was there, that another priest should rise, after the order of Melchisedec?" [Hebrews 7:11]; so also here he used the same syllogism, saying [Hebrews 8:7] "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second"; that is, if it made men "faultless." For it is because he is speaking of this that he did not say, "But finding fault with" it, but [ver. 8, 9] "But finding fault with them, He says, Behold, the days come, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt: because they continued not in My covenant, and I regarded them not, says the Lord."

Yea, verily. And whence does it appear that [the first Covenant] came to an end? He showed it indeed also from the Priest, but now he shows more clearly by express words that it has been cast out.

But how is it "upon better promises"? For how, tell me, can earth and heaven be equal? But do thou consider, how he speaks of promises there [in that other covenant] also, that you may not bring this charge against it. For there also, he says "a better hope, by which we draw near unto God" [Hebrews 7:19], showing that a Hope was there also; and in this place "better promises," hinting that there also He had made promises.

But inasmuch as they were forever making objections, he says, "Behold! The days come, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." He is not speaking of any old Covenant: for, that they might not assert this, he determined the time also. Thus he did not say simply, "according to the covenant which I made with their fathers," lest you should say [it was] the one made with Abraham, or that with Noah: but he declares what [covenant it was], "not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers" in the Exodus. Wherefore he added also, "in the day that I took them by the hand, to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in My covenant, and I regarded them not, says the Lord." You see that the evils begin first from ourselves ("they" themselves first, says he, continued not in [the "covenant"]) and the negligence is from ourselves, but the good things from Him; I mean the [acts] of bounty. He here introduces, as it were, an apology showing the cause why He forsakes them.

Source: Homily 14 on Hebrews
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on Hebrews 8:8
"For we find in the Scriptures, as the Lord says: "Behold, I make with you a new covenant, not as I made with your fathers in Mount Horeb."
[AD 220] Tertullian on Hebrews 8:8
For, as the carnal circumcision, which was temporary, was in wrought for "a sign" in a contumacious people, so the spiritual has been given for salvation to an obedient people; while the prophet Jeremiah says, "Make a renewal for you, and sow not in thorns; be circumcised to God, and circumcise the foreskin of your heart: " and in another place he says, "Behold, days shall come, saith the Lord, and I will draw up, for the house of Judah and for the house of Jacob, a new testament; not such as I once gave their fathers in the day wherein I led them out from the land of Egypt." Whence we understand that the coming cessation of the former circumcision l then given, and the coming procession of a new law (not such as He had already given to the fathers), are announced: just as Isaiah foretold, saying that in the last days the mount of the Lord and the house of God were to be manifest above the tops of the mounts: "And it shall be exalted," he says, "above the hills; and there shall come over it all nations; and many shall walk, and say, Come, ascend we unto the mount of the Lord, and unto the house of the God of Jacob," -not of Esau, the former son, but of Jacob, the second; that is, of our "people," whose "mount" is Christ, "prµcised without concisors' hands, filling every land," shown in the book of Daniel.

Source: An Answer to the Jews
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on Hebrews 8:10-11
[He bestows] on us the truly great, divine and inalienable inheritance of the Father, deifying us by heavenly teaching, putting his laws into our minds and writing them on our hearts. What laws does he inscribe? “That all shall know God, from small to great”; and, “I will be merciful to them,” says God, “and will not remember their sins.” Let us receive the laws of life, let us comply with God’s exhortations; let us become acquainted with him, that he may be gracious. And though God needs nothing, let us give him the grateful compensation of a thankful heart and of a holy life as a kind of rental payment for our dwelling here below.

Source: EXHORTATION TO THE HEATHEN 11
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 8:10
5. [Hebrews 8:10] "For this," he says, "is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord; I will put My laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts, and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to Me a people." Thus He says this concerning the New [covenant] because His words are "not according to the covenant which I covenanted."

But what other difference is there beside this? Now if any person should say that "the difference is not in this respect, but in respect to its being put into their hearts; He makes no mention of any difference of ordinances, but points out the mode of its being given: for no longer" (he says) "shall the covenant be in writings, but in hearts;" let the Jew in that case show that this was ever carried into effect; but he could not, for it was made a second time in writings after the return from Babylon. But I show that the Apostles received nothing in writing, but received [it] in their hearts through the Holy Ghost. Wherefore also Christ said, "When He comes, He will bring all things to your remembrance, and He shall teach you." [John 14:26]

Source: Homily 14 on Hebrews
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 8:10-11
“No longer,” he says, “shall the covenant be in writings, but in hearts.” Let the Jew, in that case, show if this was ever carried into effect, but he could not, for it was made a second time in writings after the return from Babylon. But I show that the apostles received nothing in writing, but received it in their hearts through the Holy Ghost. Therefore also Christ said, “When he comes, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

Source: ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 14.5
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Hebrews 8:10-11
This does not happen in this life, but will happen in that: those still beset with the gloom of unbelief will see the truth there, and will be smitten, in keeping with the divine oracle.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 8
[AD 990] Oecumenius on Hebrews 8:10-11
For that this is the case is clear from this reason: Who would have easily persuaded someone in the Old Testament to withdraw from the proper religion? To the contrary Israel, being full of unbelief, changed their knowledge of God for error.

Source: FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 8.10
[AD 1274] Thomas Aquinas on Hebrews 8:10
390. - Having proved that Christ is a high priest and, consequently, a minister of holy things, but not according to the Old Law, the Apostle now shows that He is a minister of greater and better things than they had been. In regard to this he does three things: first, he prefaces his intent; secondly, he assigns its cause (v. 6b); thirdly, he proves (v. 7).

391. - He says, therefore: I say that He does not have anything earthly to offer; but now, i.e., in the time of grace, he has obtained, i.e., received by lot, a better ministry, i.e., a worthier priesthood. The priesthood of Christ is called a ministry, because it does not belong to Him except in the sense that He was a minister as a man: ‘I say that Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision for the truth of God’ (Rom. 15:8). But he says, he has obtained, i.e., received by lot, because what is obtained by lot is awaited from the Lord: ‘My lots are in your hands’ (Ps. 30:16). Therefore, all things that happen according to the dispensation of divine decree are said to be given by lot; and such are the effects of grace: ‘In whom we also are called by lot’ (Eph. 1:11), i.e., by divine election, because when human judgment fails, men consult God’s choice and arrangement by casting lots, as happened in the choice of Matthias (Ac. 1:26). Hence it says in Proverbs (16:33): ‘Lots are cast into the lap, but they are disposed of by the Lord.’ Christ, indeed, obtained that ministry by lot, i.e., by divine dispensation.

392. - Then when he says, which is as much more excellent than the Old as the covenant he mediates is better, he assigns the cause why this ministry is greater. For every priest is a mediator. But He is the mediator of a better covenant, namely, of man to God, because by Him we are made partakers of the divine nature, as it says in 2 Pt. 1:4). He also offers our gifts to God; therefore, the Apostle says: ‘The mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus’ (1 Tim. 2:5). In the Old Testament temporal things were promised: ‘If you be willing, and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land’ (Is. 1:19); but here heavenly things. Therefore, this one is better in regard to what it promises men. Also, in the Old Law there were precepts pertaining to the worship of God, namely, the ceremonial precepts, and some that pertained to correct conduct, namely, the moral precepts, which continue; but the others do not. But in the New Law counsels are added to the precepts and they are given to the perfect, who are capable of spiritual things. Consequently, the precepts remain the same, but the promises are different, because there they were a figure, but here the truth expressed by the figure. Therefore, this testament is better throughout.

393. - Then when he says, For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second, he proves that the testament of which Christ is mediator is better for the following reason: If the first testament were faultless, another would not be sought to correct its defects. But another is sought, therefore, etc. But on the other hand it says in Romans (7:7): ‘Is the law sin? God forbid.’ Therefore, it is incorrect to say that it is not faultless. I answer that something can belong to the Law in two ways: either according to its end, and then it is good; or by reason of those to whom it was given, and then it is said to have a fault in two ways: first, because it did not confer the power to cleanse one’s sins: ‘It is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away’ (Heb. 10:4). Secondly, because it did not give a helping grace to avoid sins, but merely to recognize them; hence, it was an occasion of sin: ‘For I had not known concupiscence, if the law did not say: Thou salt not covet’ (Rom. 7:7). And so it is said not to have been faultless, because in it men remained in their sins. But he says, there would have been no occasion for a second. For just as a body is never altogether at rest but is always changing until it reaches its due place, so, as long as something is had imperfectly, desire does not rest but always stretches beyond, until it comes to what is perfect. Therefore, the place for a second was sought by man, who desired, but much more by God, Who is said to seek because of his desire for our salvation.

394. - Then (v. 8) he proves the truth of the consequent, namely, that a place is sought for a testament; and this on the authority of Jeremiah (3:31): The days will come, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. In regard to this he does two things: first, he prefaces the authority; secondly, he argues from it. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he prefaces the prophecy about giving a new testament; secondly, he describes it (v. 9). Again, the first is divided into three parts: in the first he shows that the time for giving the New Testament was favorable; secondly, the perfection of the New Testament (v. 8b); thirdly, to whom it was given (v. 8c).

395. - He says, therefore: For the Lord finds fault, not with the Law but with them who were under the Law, and says: Behold, the days shall come and I will establish with house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant. This is the authority, which is not given in exactly those words but with a few changes. For in Jeremiah (31:31) we read: ‘Behold the days shall come, says the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant I made with their fathers, in that day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt: the covenant which they made void and I had dominion over them.’ Thus, it is evident that a few words were changed. He says in regard to the time being favorable: the days shall come, i.e., the time of grace, which is compared to a day and which is illuminated by the sun of justice: ‘The night is passed, and the day is at hand’ (Rom. 13:12).

396. - In regard to the perfection of the New Covenant he says, I will perfect a new covenant. He says, I will perfect, which implies perfection: ‘Behold I make all things new’ (Rev. 21:5). But that word, perfect, is not found there, but Revelation uses it to signify the perfection of the New Testament: ‘The Lord shall make a consumption and an abridgement in the midst of all the land’ (Is. 10:23). For the New Covenant was perfect in regard to instructing until life, and this instruction extends not only to general information about justice, but to perfect information: ‘Unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt. 5:20). Furthermore, in the Old Testament there were only figures, but in the New the truth of the figures; so the New completes and perfects the Old.

397. - In regard to the third he says, with the house of Israel and Judah. But is it given to the Jews alone? No, because ‘all are not Israelites that are of Israel’ (Rom. 9:6); furthermore, ‘not they that are the children of the flesh are the children of God, but they that are the children of the promise, are accounted for the seed’ (Rom. 9:8). They, therefore, who have obtained God’s grace are Israel by faith and Judah by confession: ‘With the heart we believe unto justice; but with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation’ (Rom. 10:10). But he says, with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, for three reasons: first, because Christ personally preached to the Jews but not to the Gentiles: ‘I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel’ (Mt. 15:24). Secondly, because the Gentiles were made partakers of the New Testament as a graft inserted in a good olive tree partakes of its fatness (Rom. 11:17). Thirdly, because in the time of Rehoboam and Jeroboam the kingdom of Judah was divided from the kingdom of the ten tribes which continued in idolatry; but the kingdom of Judah clung more to God, but not altogether. Therefore, he touched both.

398. - Then (v. 9) he describes the New Covenant: first, by its difference from the Old; secondly, by its own qualities. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows the distinction between the Old and New Testaments; secondly, the infirmity of the Old (v. 9b).

399. - For someone could ask: Is the New like the Old? Therefore, as though answering this he says: No, because it is not like the covenant I made with their fathers. In this he shows that the Old is not to be observed along with the New: ‘Stand fast, and be not held again under the yoke of bondage’ (Gal. 5:1); ‘Neither do they put new wine into old bottles’ (Mt. 9:27); ‘so that we should serve in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter’ (Ron 7:6). For if something is found in the Old which the Gentiles are supposed to observe, it must be referred to the spiritual meaning, as it says in Is (19:21): ‘They shall worship him with sacrifices and offerings,’ all of which is to be understood spiritually.

400. - Then (v. 9b) he shows the defect of the Old Testament: first, from the way it was delivered; secondly, from the outcome (v. 9b).

401. - For the Old Testament was delivered to servants and to the infirm: to servants, because they had at one time left their thralldom in Egypt, in regard to which he says, to lead them out of the land of Egypt: ‘The one from Mount Sinai, engendering unto bondage, which is Hagar’ (Gal. 4:24), and because it was a law of servile fear: ‘You have not received the spirit of adoption again in fear’ (Rom. 8:15). The slight difference between the Old and New Testaments is fear and love. Likewise, to the infirm, because by itself it could not help; in regard to this he says, I took them by the hand, which is proper to the infirm: ‘You have held me by my right hand’ (Ps. 72:23); ‘For what the law could not do in that it was weak’ (Rom. 8:3). But he says, with their fathers, namely, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, with whom He made a special covenant: ‘He has remembered his covenant forever: The word which he commanded to a thousand generations, which he made to Abraham: and his oath to Isaac. And he appointed the same to Jacob for a law’ (Ps. 104:8). But he promised carnal things to those who came out of Egypt.

402. - Then when he says, for they did not continue in my covenant, he shows the failings of the Old Testament as far as guilt was concerned. In regard to this guilt he says, because they did not continue in my covenant, namely, because it was not written on their hearts. Hence, right after the Law was given, they made a golden calf: ‘They made also a calf in Horeb, and they adored the graven thing’ (Ps. 105:19). In regard to punishment he says, so I paid no heed to them, for a person is said not to regard something, when he permits it to perish. So he regarded them not, because He permitted them to be destroyed by the destroyer: ‘You have despised all of them that fall off from your judgments’ (Ps. 118:118).

403. - Then (v. 10) he describes the qualities of the New Testament. In regard to this he does two things: first, he describes the way it was announced; secondly, its effect (v. 10b).

404. - He says, therefore, This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days. Making implies a suitable order; hence, he says, after those days, i.e., after the Law was given. For a new law should have been given after the old; just as a master is given after a pedagogue, in order that man recognize his infirmity. This, therefore, shows the fitness of the time when the New Testament was given. The manner in which it was given is twofold: in one way by externals, by proposing words suited to their understanding. This man can do; and that is the way the Old Testament was given. In another way by acting inwardly, and this is peculiar to God: ‘the inspiration of the Almighty gives understanding’ (Jb. 32:8). This is the way the New Testament was given, because it consists in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, Who instructs inwardly. But it is not enough to know, for one must act. Therefore, He first enlightens the intellect to understand; hence, he says, I will put my laws into their minds. He uses the plural, because there are various precepts and counsel. This the Holy Spirit does: ‘His unction teaches you’ (1 Jn. 2:27); ‘He will teach you all things (Jn. 14:26). Furthermore, He inclines the will to act well; hence, it is impressed on their heart. In regard to this he says, and write them on their hearts, i.e., I will write charity on their knowledge: ‘Above all things have charity, which is the bond of perfection’ (Col. 3:14); ‘The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given to us’ (Rom. 5:5). This is the epistle of which he says in 2 Cor. (3:3): ‘Not in ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tablets of stone, but in the fleshly tablets of the heart.’
[AD 220] Tertullian on Hebrews 8:11
Let no one, then, flatter himself on the ground of being assigned to the "recruit-classes" of learners, as if on that account he have a licence even now to sin. As soon as you "know the Lord, you should fear Him; as soon as you have gazed on Him, you should reverence Him.

Source: On Repentance
[AD 220] Tertullian on Hebrews 8:11
If there dwelt upon earth a faith as great as is the reward of faith which is expected in the heavens, no one of you at all, best beloved sisters, from the time that she had first "known the Lord," and learned (the truth) concerning her own (that is, woman's) condition, would have desired too gladsome (not to say too ostentatious) a style of dress; so as not rather to go about in humble garb, and rather to affect meanness of appearance, walking about as Eve mourning and repentant, in order that by every garb of penitence she might the more fully expiate that which she derives from Eve,-the ignominy, I mean, of the first sin, and the odium (attaching to her as the cause) of human perdition.

Source: On the Apparel of Women Book I
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 8:11-12
6. "And they shall not teach" (he says) "every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know Me from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." Behold also another sign. "From the least even to the greatest of them" (he says) "they shall know Me, and they shall not say, Know the Lord." When has this been fulfilled save now? For our [religion] is manifest: but theirs [i.e. the Jews'] was not manifest, but had been shut up in a corner.

[A covenant] is then said to be "new," when it is different and shows some advantage over the old. "Nay surely," says one, "it is new also when part of it has been taken away, and part not. For instance, when an old house is ready to fall down, if a person leaving the whole, has patched up the foundation, straightway we say, he has made it new, when he has taken some parts away, and brought others into their place. For even the heaven also is thus called 'new,' when it is no longer 'of brass,' but gives rain; and the earth likewise is new when it is not un fruitful, not when it has been changed; and the house is likewise new, when portions of it have been taken away, and portions remain. And thus, he says, he has well termed it 'a New Covenant.'"

If then I show that that covenant had become "Old" in this respect, that it yielded no fruit? And that you may know this exactly, read what Haggai says, what Zechariah, what the Messenger, when the return from the Captivity had not yet fully taken place; and what Esdras charges. How then did [the people] receive him? And how no man enquired of the Lord, inasmuch as they [the priests] themselves also transgressed, and knew it not even themselves? Do you see how your [interpretation] is broken down, while I maintain my own: that this [covenant] must be called "New" in the proper sense of the word?

And besides, I do not concede that the words "the heaven shall be new" [Isaiah 65:17], were spoken concerning this. For why, when saying in Deuteronomy "the heaven shall be of brass," did he not set down this in the contrasted passage, "but if you hearken, it shall be new."

And further on this account He says that He will give "another Covenant, because they did not continue in the first." This I show by what he says ("For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh," Romans 8:3; and again, "Why do you tempt God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" [Acts 15:10]) But "they did not continue therein," he says.

Here he shows that [God] counts us worthy of greater and of spiritual [privileges]: for it is said "their sound went out into all the earth and their words unto the ends of the world." [Psalm 19:5; Romans 10:18] That is [the meaning of] "they shall not say each man to his neighbor, Know the Lord." And again, "the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as much water to cover the seas." [Isaiah 11:9]

Source: Homily 14 on Hebrews
[AD 160] Shepherd of Hermas on Hebrews 8:12
And when the Lord saw that their repentance was good and pure, and that they were able to remain in it, He ordered their former sins to be blotted out.

Source: Shepherd of Hermas Similitude Ninth
[AD 325] Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius on Hebrews 8:12-13
All Scripture is divided into two Testaments. What preceded the advent and passion of Christ—that is, the law and the prophets—is called the Old [Testament]; but what was written after his resurrection is named the New Testament. The Jews make use of the Old, we of the New. Yet, they are not dissonant. The New Testament is the fulfilling of the Old, and in both there is the same testator, even Christ who suffered death for us and made us heirs of his everlasting kingdom.… When, therefore, we who were in time past as it were blind, and as it were shut up in the prison of folly, were sitting in darkness, ignorant of God and of the truth, we have been enlightened by him, who adopted us by his testament; and having freed us from cruel chains, and brought us out to the light of wisdom, he admitted us to the inheritance of his heavenly kingdom.

Source: DIVINE INSTITUTES 4.20
[AD 373] Ephrem the Syrian on Hebrews 8:12-13
“For I will be merciful” to them, not with regard to their impurity but “toward their iniquities,” not with regard to the uncleanness of nocturnal dreams but to the sins which are performed in them through the power of the devil.Therefore in the new covenant that Jeremiah announced, “The first has become old. Now what decayed and became old is near to vanishing away.”

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
[AD 395] Gregory of Nyssa on Hebrews 8:12-13
Mighty Paul knew that the only begotten God, who has the preeminence in all things, is the author and cause of everything that is good. Paul witnesses to the fact that the creation of all that exists was formed by the only begotten God. On top of this he also testifies that when the original creation of man had decayed and vanished away (to use his own language), and another new creation was formed in Christ, in this too no other than he [the only begotten God] took the lead. But he is himself the firstborn of all that new creation of human beings which is effected by the gospel.

Source: AGAINST EUNOMIUS 2.8
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 8:12-13
So then we also are new, or rather we were made new, but now have become old; therefore we are “near to vanishing away,” and to destruction. Let us scrape off this old age. It is indeed no longer possible to do it by washing, but by repentance it is possible here in this life. If there be in us anything old, let us cast it off; if any “wrinkle,” if any stain, if any “spot,” let us wash it away and become fair, that “the king may desire our beauty.”

Source: ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 14.8
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 8:12-13
A covenant might be said to be “new” when it is different and shows some advantage over the old. Surely one might say it is new also when part of it has been taken away and part not. For instance, when an old house is ready to fall down, if a person, leaving the whole, has patched up the foundation, we say he has made it new when he has taken some parts away and brought others into their place. For even the heaven also is thus called “new,” when it is no longer “of brass” but gives rain; and the earth likewise is new when it is not unfruitful, not when it has been changed; and the house is likewise new, when portions of it have been taken away and portions remain.… But, do you see how this interpretation breaks down? I maintain that this covenant must be called “new” in the proper sense of the word. … In calling it new, Paul says, “he treats the first as obsolete, and what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” … Therefore it is done away with and is perishing and no longer exists.Paul here used a familiar form of speech, as if one should say, the house is not faultless; that is, it has some defect, it is decayed. The garment is not faultless, that is, it is coming to pieces. He does not, therefore, here speak of the old covenant as evil, but only as having some fault and deficiency.

Source: ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 14.6-7
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 8:12-13
How does it happen that wickedness is transcended in forgetfulness? From the remembrance of good things, from the remembrance of God. If we continually remember God, we cannot remember those things also. For, the psalmist says, “When I remembered you upon my bed, I thought upon you in the morning dawn.” We ought then to have God always in remembrance, but then especially, when thought is undisturbed and when by means of that remembrance one is able to condemn himself, when one can retain things in memory. For in the daytime, indeed, if we do remember, other cares and troubles, entering in, drive the thought out again; but in the night it is possible to remember continually, when the soul is calm and at rest; when it is in the harbor and under a serene sky. “The things which you say in your hearts are grieved for on your beds,” the psalmist says. For it were indeed right to retain this remembrance through the day also. But inasmuch as you are always full of cares and distracted amidst the things of this life, at least then remember God on your bed. At the morning dawn meditate upon God. If at the morning dawn we meditate on these things, we shall go forth to our business with much security. If we have first made God propitious by prayer and supplication, going forth thus we shall have no enemy. Or if you should, you will laugh him to scorn, having God propitious. There is war in the marketplace; the affairs of every day are a fight, they are a tempest and a storm. We therefore need arms, and prayer is a great weapon. We need favorable winds; we need to learn everything, so as to go through the length of the day without shipwrecks and without wounds. For every single day the rocks are many, and oftentimes the boat strikes and is sunk. Therefore have we especially need of prayer early and by night.

Source: ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 14.9
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Hebrews 8:12-13
The law is suited to mortals, whereas the New Covenant guarantees us eternal life. It was therefore right for the former one to grow old, while the latter remains new forever in being associated with the ages that do not grow old.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 8
[AD 735] Bede on Hebrews 8:12-13
For what is the meaning of John’s being born to elderly parents? Was it not to indicate the earthly birth of the one who was soon to follow, since by bringing forward the hidden spiritual mysteries of the new covenant, he would teach that the fleshly observance of the law and the priesthood of the old covenant were now to be brought to an end? For “what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” And what does it mean that our Lord’s precursor came from a father who was mute, a leader of the priests of that time? Is it not that, by the time our Lord appeared, the tongue of the ancient priesthood had to a large extent become mute as regards the spiritual sense of the law’s teaching, since the scribes and those learned in the law were only concerned with teaching the keeping of the letter of the law? Moreover, in a number of instances, they were even falsifying the letter of the law by substituting their own traditions, as is proven by our Lord’s having rebuked them more than once in the Gospels. And what does it mean that he was born to a barren mother? Is it not that the law, which was ordered to beget spiritual issue for God with the help of the priestly office, led no one to perfection, undoubtedly because it was unable to open up the gates of the kingdom to its followers? The author of the law himself, born under the law, took away from the law the opprobrium of its barrenness, for he pointed out that it was to be understood spiritually; and he taught that in it was formerly prefigured and, as it were, conceived, the gift of happiness from on high which now shines out clearly in the gospel.

Source: Homilies on the Gospels 2.20
[AD 325] Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius on Hebrews 8:13
A new testament to the house of Judah, shows that the old testament which was given by Moses was not perfect;
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Hebrews 8:13
7. "In calling it new" (he says), "He has made the first old: but that which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away." See what was hidden, how he has laid open the very mind of the prophet! He honored the law, and was not willing to call it "old" in express terms: but nevertheless, this he did call it. For if the former had been new, he would not have called this which came afterwards "new" also. So that by granting something more and different, he declares that "it was waxen old." Therefore it is done away and is perishing, and no longer exists.

Having taken boldness from the prophet, he attacks it more suitably, showing that our [dispensation] is now flourishing. That is, he showed that [the other] was old: then taking up the word "old," and adding of himself another [circumstance], the [characteristic] of old age, he took up what was omitted by the others, and says "ready to vanish away."

The New then has not simply caused the old to cease, but because it had become aged, as it was not [any longer] useful. On this account he said, "for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof" [Hebrews 7:18], and, "the law made nothing perfect" [Hebrews 7:19]; and that "if the first had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." [Hebrews 8:7] And "faultless"; that is, useful; not as though it [the old Covenant] was obnoxious to any charges, but as not being sufficient. He used a familiar form of speech. As if one should say, the house is not faultless, that is, it has some defect, it is decayed: the garment is not faultless, that is, it is coming to pieces. He does not therefore here speak of it as evil, but only as having some fault and deficiency.

8. So then we also are new, or rather we were made new, but now have become old; therefore we are "near to vanishing away," and to destruction. Let us scrape off this old age. It is indeed no longer possible to do it by Washing, but by repentance it is possible here [in this life]. If there be in us anything old, let us cast it off; if any "wrinkle," if any stain, if any "spot," let us wash it away and become fair [Ephesians 5:27]: that "the King may desire our beauty." [Psalm 45:11]

It is possible even for him who has fallen into the extremest deformity to recover that beauty of which David says that the King shall desire your beauty. "Hearken, O daughter, and consider; forget also your own people and your father's house: so shall the King greatly desire your beauty." [Psalm 45:10-11] And yet forgetting does not produce beauty. Yea, beauty is of the soul. What sort of forgetting? That of sins. For he is speaking about the Church from among the Gentiles, exhorting her not to remember the things of her fathers, that is [of] those that sacrificed to idols; for from such was it gathered.

And he said not, "Go not after them," but what is more, Do not admit them into your mind; which he says also in another place, "I will not mention their names through my lips." [Psalm 16:4] And again, "That my mouth may not talk of the deeds of men." [Psalm 17:3-4] As yet is this no great virtue; nay, rather, it is indeed great, but not such as this [which is here spoken of]. For what does he say there? He says not; "Talk not of the things of men, neither speak of the things of your fathers"; but, neither remember them, nor admit them into your mind. You see to how great a distance he would have us keep away from wickedness. For he that remembers not [a matter] will not think of it, and he that does not think, will not speak of it: and he that does not speak of it, will not do it. Do you see from how many paths he has walled us off? By what great intervals he has removed us, even to a very great [distance]?

9. Let us then also "hearken and forget" our own evils. I do not say our sins, for (He says) "Remember first, and I will not remember." [Isaiah 43:26 Septuagint] I mean for instance, Let us no longer remember rapacity, but even restore the former [plunder]. This is to forget wickedness, and to cast out the thought of rapacity, and never at any time to admit it, but to wipe away also the things already done amiss.

Whence may the forgetfulness of wickedness come to us? From the remembrance of good things, from the remembrance of God. If we continually remember God, we cannot remember those things also. For (he says) "When I remembered You upon my bed, I thought upon You in the morning dawn." [Psalm 63:6] We ought then to have God always in remembrance, but then especially, when thought is undisturbed, when by means of that remembrance [a man] is able to condemn himself, when he can retain [things] in memory. For in the daytime indeed, if we do remember, other cares and troubles entering in, drive the thought out again: but in the night it is possible to remember continually, when the soul is calm and at rest; when it is in the haven, and under a serene sky. "The things which you say in your hearts be ye grieved for on your beds," he says. [Psalm 4:4, Septuagint] For it were indeed right to retain this remembrance through the day also. But inasmuch as you are always full of cares, and distracted amidst the things of this life, at least then remember God on your bed; at the morning dawn meditate upon Him.

If at the morning dawn we meditate on these things, we shall go forth to our business with much security. If we have first made God propitious by prayer and supplication, going forth thus we shall have no enemy. Or if you should, you will laugh him to scorn, having God propitious. There is war in the market place; the affairs of every day are a fight, they are a tempest and a storm. We therefore need arms: and prayer is a great weapon. We need favorable winds; we need to learn everything, so as to go through the length of the day without shipwrecks and without wounds. For every single day the rocks are many, and oftentimes the boat strikes and is sunk. Therefore have we especially need of prayer early and by night.

10. Many of you have often beheld the Olympic games: and not only have beheld but have been zealous partisans and admirers of the combatants, one of this [combatant], one of that. You know then that both during the days of the contests, and during those nights, all night long the herald thinks of nothing else, has no other anxiety, than that the combatant should not disgrace himself when he goes forth. For those who sit by the trumpeter admonish him not to speak to any one, that he may not spend his breath and get laughed at. If therefore he who is about to strive before men, uses such forethought, much more will it befit us to be continually thoughtful, and careful, since our whole life is a contest. Let every night then be a vigil, and let us be careful that when we go out in the day we do not make ourselves ridiculous. And would it were only making ourselves ridiculous. But now the Judge of the contest is seated on the right hand of the Father, hearkening diligently that we utter not any false note, anything out of tune. For He is not the Judge of actions only, but of words also. Let us keep our vigil, beloved; we also have those that are eager for our success, if we will. Near each one of us Angels are sitting; and yet we snore through the whole night. And would it were only this. But many do even many licentious things, some indeed going to the very brothels, and others making their own houses places of whoredom by taking courtesans there. Yes most certainly. For is it not so? They care well for their contest. Others are drunken and speak amiss; others make an uproar. Others keep evil vigil through the night weaving, and worse than those who sleep, schemes of deceit; others by calculating usury; others by bruising themselves with cares, and doing anything rather than what is suited to the contest. Wherefore, I exhort you, let us lay aside all [other] things, and look to one only, how we may obtain the prize, [how we may] be crowned with the Chaplet; let us do all by which we shall be able to attain to the promised blessings. Which may we all attain in Christ Jesus our Lord, with whom to the Father and also to the Holy Ghost be glory, might, honor, now and for ever and world without end. Amen.

Source: Homily 14 on Hebrews
[AD 1274] Thomas Aquinas on Hebrews 8:13
405. - Having mentioned the qualities of the New Testament from the way it was given, the Apostle now describes three of its effects: the first is man’s perfect union with God; the second is perfect knowledge of God (v. 11); the third is the remission of sins (v. 12).

406. - In regard to the first it should be noted that the help of God’s grace is required, if man is to be united with God, because one’s own power is not capable of this: ‘I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore, have I drawn you, taking pity on you’ (Jer. 31:3): first, therefore, he touches on that union from God’s side; secondly, from mans’ side (v. 10c). He says, therefore: I will be their God. Now the name ‘God’ signifies universal providence. Therefore, He is our God, when He has a care for us and draws our hearts to Himself. Therefore, from the fact that he says, I will be their God, the effect follows that they shall be my people, i.e., they will show themselves my people. For, as Augustine says in The City of God: A people is an assembled multitude joined together by the consent of right and common utility. Therefore, when they consent to the rights of the divine law in order to be useful to each other and tend to God, then they are God’s people: ‘And they shall be his people; and God himself with them shall be their God’ (Rev. 21:3).

407. - Then when he says, And they shall not teach every one his fellow, he lays down the second effect of the New Testament. In regard to this he does two things: first, he gives the sign of that effect; secondly, the effect itself (v. 11b).

408. - The sign of perfect knowledge is that a person does not need to be taught, because teaching is the way to the acquisition of knowledge; therefore, teaching ceases when knowledge has been perfectly acquired. But does not one person teach another in the New Testament? For according to the letter it seems not. Yet the Apostle styles himself the teacher of the Gentiles: ‘Some pastors and teachers’ (Eph. 4:11); ‘He that teaches, in doctrine’ (Rom. 12:7). I answer that what is stated here can be understood in two ways: in one way as referring to the present state, and then it is not verified universally of all, but only of the original founders of the New Testament, namely, the Apostles, who were instructed immediately by God when ‘he opened their understanding that they might understand the scriptures’ (Lk. 24:25). Therefore, the Apostles were made knowers perfectly and were not instructed by others, but received infused wisdom directly from Christ. In another way, as referring to the future state in heaven, to which we are brought by the New Testament but not by the Old. And so what is said here is universally true.

409. - But men in glory are equal to angels, not greater. Yet according to Dionysius one angel can teach another by enlightening him. Therefore, a man in glory can teach another one. I answer that there are two kinds of knowledge in the good angels: the one makes them beatified, namely, the knowledge of the divinity, which alone makes them beatified, as Augustine says in the Confessions: ‘Blessed is he that knows you.’ The other is the knowledge of anything distinct from God, such as God’s effects, and this knowledge does not cause beatitude. Therefore, in regard to the first, one does not teach another, because one is not beatified by means of another, but by God directly: ‘In your light we shall see the light’ (Ps. 35:10). But in regard to the other, which is concerned with certain mysteries, one does teach another; and this will continue perhaps until the end of the world, as long as the execution of God’s effects continues; hence he adds, know the Lord. As if to say: He does not receive God’s knowledge. He says, his neighbor and brother, because even though according to Augustine all men must be loved out of charity, if you cannot benefit all, then you should benefit those who are joined to you either naturally, as blood relatives, or by some other tie, as your neighbor.

410. - For all shall know me from the least to the greatest of them. This is the reason why one will not teach another, because all will know the Lord: ‘We shall see him as he is’ (1 Jn. 3:2). But it is in this vision that beatitude consists: ‘This is eternal life: That they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent’ (Jn. 17:3); ‘Let him that glories, glory in this, that he understands and knows me’ (Jer. 9:24). And the blessed have this teaching not from one another but from God alone: ‘All your children shall be taught of the Lord’ (Is. 54:13). But the phrase, from the least to the greatest can be understood in two ways: in one way so that the older saints are called greater; then the greater and lesser would be taken according to the order of time. Therefore, all will know God, because each will receive his own penny (Mt. 20:10). Or he says this to show the different rewards, because although all will know, one will know more than another: ‘He that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt. 5:19). For the reward corresponds to the merit; and this is against those who say that all punishments and all merits will be equal and, consequently, all rewards. But against this opinion 1 Corinthians (15:41) states: ‘Star differs from star in glory.’

411. - Then when he says, because I will be merciful to their iniquities, he states the third effect, which is the remission of guilt, which the Old Testament was unable to do: It is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away’ (Heb. 10:4). He says, therefore: I will be merciful. But iniquity differs from sin, because iniquity is opposed to justice which, strictly speaking, is always toward someone else; therefore, iniquity refers to that by which one person injures another: ‘Your wickedness may hurt a man that is like you’ (Jb. 35:8). But a sin refers to any defect in an action, because it implies a disorder; hence, iniquity is, properly speaking, against one’s neighbor, but sin against oneself. This is, strictly speaking, but in a wide sense both are the same. In regard to this he says, I will be merciful toward their iniquities, namely, in the present life by relaxing the punishment; and their sins I will remember no more, namely, in the future by punishing sins: ‘I will not remember all his iniquities which he has done’ (Ez. 18:22): ‘Forgive us our sins for your name’s sake’ (Ps. 78:9); ‘Remember not our former iniquities’ (Ps. 78:8); ‘The gifts and the call of God are without repentance’ (Rom. 11:29), i.e., God does not repent that He remitted our sins here, as though to punish them again.

412. - Then when he says, in speaking of a new covenant, he argues as though from an authority he cited. And he forms this argument: A new is said only in relation to an old. But whatever is called old is, as it were, close to cessation. Therefore, in speaking of a new covenant, he treats the first as obsolete, i.e., it gives us to understand that the former is old. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Therefore, it if it old, it should be cast out: ‘The new coming on, you shall cast away the old’ (Lev. 26:10). Therefore, in saying, a new, he designates the cessation of the old. But, properly speaking, nothing is ancient except what is subject to time; and things subject to time cease in time. Therefore, it is fitting that the old should cease. But he says, and becoming obsolete, in regard to inanimate things; but grows old in regard to animate things. Yet it should be noted that where we have, their sins, another version has ‘sin’ and then it refers to original sin, which is common to all.