Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 8:7
For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
7. if that first covenant had been faultless ] Whereas it was as he has said “weak” and “unprofitable” and “earthly” (Heb 7:18). The difference between the writer’s treatment of the relation between Christianity and Judaism and St Paul’s mode of dealing with the same subject consists in this: to St Paul the contrast between the Law and the Gospel was that between the Letter and the Spirit, between bondage and freedom, between Works and Faith, between Command and Promise, between threatening and mercy. All these polemical elements disappear almost entirely from the Epistle to the Hebrews, which regards the two dispensations as furnishing a contrast between Type and Reality. This was the more possible to Apollos because he regards Judaism not so much in the light of a Law as in the light of a Priesthood and a system of worship. Like those who had been initiated into the ancient mysteries the Christian convert from Judaism could say “I fled the bad, I found the better;” not that Judaism was in any sense intrinsically and inherently “ bad ” (Rom 7:12), but that it became so when it was preferred to something so much more divine.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
7 13. Threefold superiority of the New to the Old Covenant, as prophesied by Jeremiah; being a proof that the “promises” of the New Covenant are “better”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For if that first covenant had been faultless – see the note on Heb 7:11. It is implied here that God had said that that covenant was not perfect or faultless. The meaning is not that that first covenant made under Moses had any real faults – or inculcated what was wrong, but that it did not contain the ample provision for the pardon of sin and the salvation of the soul which was desirable. It was merely preparatory to the gospel.
Then should no place have been sought for the second – There could not have been – inasmuch as in that case it would have been impossible to have bettered it, and any change would have been only for the worse.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Heb 8:7
If that first covenant had been faultless
The imperfection of the first covenant
Observe here
1.
What is charged on the first covenant, and that is faultiness, by which we are not to understand any sinful faultiness, but defectiveness and imperfection only; for it was not faulty in the matter and substance of it, as it was instituted and ordained by God, but therefore called faulty because it was obscure, was not so surely ratified, and not attended with that virtue, power, and efficacy which the new covenant is accompanied with.
2. Wherein consisteth that defectiveness and imperfection of the first covenant which is here complained of.
(1) In its ability to justify and save us, because of our inability, through the weakness of the flesh, to answer the demands of it (Rom 8:3). The law was not properly weak to us, bat we were weak to that.
(2) The legal covenant required exact obedience, but afforded no spiritual assistance for the performance of what is required: but the covenant of grace, the new covenant, is called a ministration of the Spirit; and under the gospel we are said not to serve in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the Spirit. Now, says the apostle (Heb 8:8), Almighty God finding fault with the Jews for the breach of the former covenant, declared by the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 31:31), that the covenant He would make with all true Israelites for time to come should vet be like that which He made with their fathers in Egypt, which they continued not in the observation of (wanting those assistances from the Holy Spirit to enable them thereunto, which are procured for us by Christ); accordingly I regarded them not, saith the Lord, but gave them up for their sins into the hands of their enemies.
3. How Almighty God makes the imperfection of the old covenant, and the Israelites instability therein, the reason of His making a new covenant with us, in which grace and assistance is offered to enable us to obey and persevere in obedience.
From the whole note
1. That the grace and glory of the new covenant are much set off and manifested by comparing it with the old.
2. That nothing but effectual grace from Christ will secure our covenant obedience one moment: what greater motives or stronger outward obligations to obedience could any people under heaven have than the Israelites had? But they quickly turned out of the way; therefore, in the new covenant, is this grace promised in a peculiar manner. (W. Burkitt, M. A.)
The two covenants
A covenant is properly an agreement between two parties, who bind themselves by certain conditions with the view of attaining some object. A covenant may be between equals, as that between Abraham and Abimelech (Gen 21:32), or between parties of whom one is superior to the other, as that between Joshua and the Gibeonites (Jos 9:1-27.). The covenant relation between God and men is of the latter kind, for God imposes the covenant (Heb 8:8-10). None the less both parties lay themselves under obligations and contemplate an object by the covenant. A covenant between God and men cannot possibly have any other meaning than that He will be their God and they His people Heb 8:10). The Epistle contemplates religion or the relation of God and men under this aspect of a covenant. It distinguishes two covenants, that made at Sinai (Heb 8:9), and that made through Christ (Heb 9:15). The former is called the first covenant Heb 8:7; Heb 9:1; Heb 9:18); it is not named the old covenant, although it is said that God, in announcing a new covenant, has made the first old Heb 8:13). The latter is called a seceded (Heb 8:7), a better (Heb 7:22; Heb 8:6), a new as having different contents Heb 8:8; Heb 9:15), and also new as being recent (Heb 12:24), and an eternal covenant (Heb 13:20, comp. Heb 7:22). The first covenant was not faultless–so mildly does the author express Himself (Heb 8:7); the second is enacted upon better promises (Heb 8:6; Heb 8:10-12). The Epistle does not speak of a covenant with Abraham, as the Pauline epistles do (Gal 3:15; Gal 3:17); it knows of promises to Abraham (Heb 6:13; Heb 7:6), which the first covenant was ineffectual to realise (Heb 11:39), which, however, are realised through the second (Heb 9:15). The covenant relation is not its own end. It is rather a relation within which the people are being matured for that final blessedness which God has destined for them. No doubt this maturing of them always more fully realises the covenant relation, and this of itself is a great and blessed end. But it is chiefly regarded as the means to that which lies beyond, which is the bringing of the people to a sphere of existence that shall fully correspond to their capacities and needs. This end is variously described: it is inheriting the promises (Heb 6:12), or receiving the promise of the eternal inheritance (Heb 9:15); reaching the heavenly country Heb 11:16), or the city that hath the foundations (Heb 11:10); or, receiving the kingdom that cannot be shaken (Heb 12:28); or entering into the rest of God (Heb 3:4); or, having the world to come ,put into subjection to them (Heb 2:5, &c.). The covenants are means adopted for realising promises and gracious purposes, the announcement of which was prior to both of them. The new covenant is only a more effectual means of accomplishing the same object pursued in the first. A covenant between God and men is a state of relation in which He is their God and they His people. By being His people is meant that they are dedicated to His service (Heb 9:14). that they ale His worshipping people. And the means by which they are translated into this relation of fit worshippers is important. The term that expresses this change is sanctify (Heb 2:11; Heb 10:10; Heb 10:29; Heb 13:12). Having a conscience defiled by sin, they felt debarred from free access to God so as to serve Heb 9:9; Heb 9:14; Heb 10:2; Heb 10:22), and for the same reason of their defilement God could not permit Himself to be approached. This defilement of sin is purified away by sacrifice, the blood of which is the blood of the covenant (Heb 9:14; Heb 9:18; Heb 10:29; Heb 13:20), and thus the people are sanctified for the service of God. As the end had in view and the covenant itself, which is the means towards it, are alike due to the grace of Heb 2:9), the sacrifice which effects the sanctification of the people is no less an institution of His provision. Though within the covenant, the people are not supposed to be sinless. They err and are out of the way; they are compassed with infirmity and labour under various ignorances (Heb 5:2; Heb 7:28; Heb 9:7 : comp. Heb 4:15). Such errors, though sins and transgressions (Heb 9:15), and interruptions of the covenant relation, are not absolutely incompatible with its maintenance, provided they are taken away. A means of removing such sins of infirmity was provided in the sacrificial system. This is the meaning of this system. It was appointed of God for removing sins committed within the covenant. The Epistle does not speculate how it is that men in covenant still continue to sin; it accepts the fact without referring it to any principle such as the flesh of St. Paul. Its distinction of sins of infirmity and wilful sins is unknown to the latter apostle, to whom all sins are deadly and infer the curse (Gal 3:10). This is revolved in His mode of regarding the law as a commandment of works to be obeyed in order to justification. Any transgression of it is its breach in principle, and makes an end of all pretensions on mans part to be righteous before God. The condition of the continuance of the covenant was the keeping of the law. But here a double defect manifested itself in the first covenant. On the one hand, the people abode not in it (Heb 8:9), and on the other hand, its institutions could not remove the transgressions done under it Heb 9:15; Heb 10:4). In the new covenant God promises to write His law on the peoples heart (Heb 8:10), as on the other hand the death of Christ redeems the transgressions under the first covenant Heb 9:15), and God remembers them no more (Heb
10:17). Though in the new covenant the law be written on the peoples heart, their wills are still practically regarded as mutable; they may sin wilfully (Heb 10:26), and fall away from the living God Heb 3:12), and they need all the safeguards which their own patient endurance (Heb 6:12), the example of those who have gone before (Heb 6:12; Heb 12:1; Heb 13:7), mutual exhortation Heb 3:13; Heb 10:24), memory of past attainments (Heb 10:32, &c.), and the throne of grace (Heb 2:18; Heb 4:14; Heb 7:23-25) can afford, to enable them to hold fast the beginning of their confidence from unto the end. Thus the first covenant failed, and God caused to arise upon the people the light of the promise of a new covenant. The first covenant indeed was conscious of its own Imperfection; hence it gave forth fro,, within itself the promise of another priest (Psa 110:4; Heb 7:14), of a better sacrifice (Psa 40:7; Heb 9:23; Heb 10:9), and even of a new covenant (Jer 31:31; Heb 8:8). The structure of the Tabernacle was a perpetual witness to the inability of its ministry to open the way for the worshippers into the presence of God, a witness borne by the Holy Ghost (Heb 9:8). And the very continual repetition of the sacrifices year by year was a constant remembrance of sin, and proclamation of their inefficacy to take it Heb 10:3). The Epistle is a detailed contrast between the two covenants showing that in all those points where the first failed the second realises the purpose of the covenant. That which gives eternal validity or absoluteness to the new covenant is the person, the Son of God, who in all points carries it through–who reveals, mediates, and sustains it. As initiating the covenant through His blood (Heb 9:20; Heb 10:29), He is the mediator of a new covenant (Heb 9:15); and as sitting at the right hand of God, before His face, for ever, as high-priestly representative of the people, He is the surety of it (Heb 7:22). the Old Testament holy places and all the vessels of the ministry were made according to the pattern showed in the mount (Heb 8:5), and are thus the copies of the things in the heavens (Heb 9:23). Again, the law had a shadow of the good things that were to come (Heb 10:1; Heb 10:9; Heb 10:11). Thus the first covenant lay, as a sphere of dim representations, between two regions filled with realities–heaven, the region of the true things themselves, on the one side, and the new covenant, realising the very image of the good things that were to come, on the other. These two regions correspond to one another (Heb 12:22). Yet the first covenant having a shadow of the good things that were to come was in truth the introduction of the new covenant, though in a shadowy form. Hence the second covenant, though called new, is new only in a modified sense. The promises on which it was enacted are virtually nothing more than the promise truly to realise the great objects aimed at in the first covenant (see Heb 8:6). It contemplates the same end with the first, the bringing of men into the rest of God and the promised inheritance Heb 9:15; Heb 4:3). And it was made with the same persons as the first. These are the people (Heb 2:17; Heb 13:12), the people of God Heb 4:9, comp. Heb 7:27), or, the seed of Abraham Heb 2:16). It is by no means easy to understand what is said in the Epistle in regard to the relations of the two covenants. Two points may be alluded to.
1. The author speaks in a very disparaging way of the Old Testament sacrifices, saying that they could never take away sins (Heb 10:11), nor perfect those offering them as to the conscience (Heb 9:9; Heb 10:1; Heb 01:2), and that they were carnal ordinances and useless Heb 7:18): His language implies that Old Testament saints were burdened with a conscience of sin (Heb 9:9; Heb 9:14; Heb 10:2; Heb 10:22), consequently that they were oppressed by the sense of the inefficacy of their sacrifices to remove sin, from which it seems to follow that they ha.! no clear light as to any connection of these sacrifices with another the virtue of which they conveyed. To the same effect is the view that the transgressions under the first covenant were left outstanding and only removed by the sacrifice of Christ (Heb 9:15). All this, however, bears directly only on the question before him of the value of the Old Testament sacrifices in themselves, and whether they effected a true objective atonement. Old Testament saints felt they could not do so, and hence they were burdened with a sense of sin which, among ether things, manifested itself in a bondage from the fear of death (Heb 2:15).
2. Again, when the author says that blood of bulls could never take away Heb 10:4), and on the other hand that it sanctified in reference to the purity of the flesh (Heb 9:13), it is certainly very far from being his intention to draw a distinction between one class of offences called sins to which the Old Testament sacrifices were inapplicable, and another class that might be named ceremonial defilements which they did remove, and so to erect a general theory of the Old Testament constitution to the effect that it consisted of two spheres, one of ceremonial observances and external government, within which sacrifices had a real validity, and another the sphere of true spiritual relations to God, within which they had no force. The sacrifices were offered for sins Heb 5:1; Heb 5:3; Heb 9:7; Heb 10:8; Heb 1:11), and if they could have effected the purpose for which they were offered, the worshipper would have had no more conscience of sins (Heb 10:2), a condition which the offering of Christ brings about (Heb 9:14; Heb 10:17). The Old Testament sacrifices could not go further than to purify the flesh. (A. B.Davidson, LL. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 7. If that first had been faultless] This is nearly the same argument with that in Heb 7:11. The simple meaning is: If the first covenant had made a provision for and actually conferred pardon and purity, and given a title to eternal life, then there could have been no need for a second; but the first covenant did not give these things, therefore a second was necessary; and the covenant that gives these things is the Christian covenant.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This proves the gospel covenant better than the Mosaical, for if it had not, there would have been no second.
For if that first covenant had been faultless: that first covenant, of which Moses was the mediator, as to the administration of it, (as to the matter of it, it was the same from Adam throughout all ages), was faulty; not because God made it, though it was a less perfect good than what succeeded it; it was able to save those who would rightly use it, and come unto Christ by it, Gal 3:24; but accidentally, by reason of the priests faults, and peoples sinfulness, it became wholly ineffectual to them for saving them; therefore the blame and fault of it is charged on them, Heb 8:8.
Then should no place have been sought for the second: the question here is vehemently assertive; if that covenant in its Mosaical administration had reached effectually its end, brought all that were under it to Christ, to be saved by him, no place nor room was there, that then being so perfect, for another to succeed it, God would have rested there; but his excellent wisdom and counsel determined to put in being the second, and to set it in the place of the first, that was faulty, and which was to be abrogated by it, Gal 3:21.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
7. Same reasoning as in Heb7:11.
faultlessperfect inall its parts, so as not to be found fault with as wantinganything which ought to be there: answering all the purposes of alaw. The law in its morality was blameless (Greek,“amomos“); but in saving us it was defective,and so not faultless (Greek, “amemptos“).
should no place have beensoughtas it has to be now; and as it is sought in the prophecy(Heb 8:8-11). The oldcovenant would have anticipated all man’s wants, so as to give nooccasion for seeking something more perfectly adequate.Compare on the phrase “place . . . sought,” Heb12:17.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For if that first covenant had been faultless,…. Not the covenant of works; that was made in paradise, this on Mount Sinai; that was made with Adam and his posterity, this with the Jews only; that had no mediator, this had one, Moses; that was not dedicated with blood, this was; that had no forgiveness of sin in it, this had; under that saints are not, but they were under this; to be under that was no privilege, but to be under this it was, as to the Israelites, who on this account were preferable to all other nations: nor is the pure covenant of grace as administered under the Gospel, meant; for though that was first made, yet is the second in administration; that includes the elect of God among the Gentiles, this only the Jews; that is made only with them, and is made known to them whom God calls by his grace in time, this was made with good and bad; that was of pure grace, this required works in order to life and the enjoyment of its blessings; that is an everlasting covenant, this is done away; and the one is manifestly distinguished from the other in this chapter: but the covenant here designed is the covenant of grace, as administered under the legal dispensation, and which was a typical one; the people with whom it was made were typical of the true Israel of God; the blessings promised in it were shadows of good things to come; the works it required were typical of Christ’s obedience to the law, in the room and stead of his people, by which he fulfilled it; the sacrifices on which it was established were types of the sacrifice and death of Christ; the mediator of it. Moses, was a type of Christ, the Mediator of the new covenant; and it was confirmed by the blood of beasts, which was typical of the blood of Christ: this covenant was not “faultless”, but was faulty or blameworthy; not that there was anything sinful and criminal in it, but it was deficient; there was a weakness in it; its sacrifices could not make men perfect, nor take away sin; there wanted a larger supply of the grace of the Spirit to write the law of God upon the heart, and to enable men to keep it; there was not in it so full a revelation of the mind and will of God, and of his love and grace, as has since been made; nor did it exhibit a free and full pardon for all sins, unclogged of every condition; the persons that were under it were faulty; hence it follows, that God found fault with them, they could not answer the requirements and end of it: had it been faultless,
then should no place have been sought for the second; the covenant of grace unveiled in the Gospel dispensation, called the better testament, the better covenant, and the new covenant; in order to, introduce which, the first was removed, that this might succeed it; just as because there was no perfection by the Levitical priesthood, it became necessary that another priest should arise, of another order.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
That first covenant ( ). The word (covenant) is not expressed, but clearly meant by the feminine gender .
Faultless (). Old compound adjective for which see Luke 1:6; Phil 2:15. The condition is second class and assumes that the old covenant was not “blameless,” apparently a serious charge which he hastens to explain.
For a second (). Objective genitive with understood. The conclusion with and the imperfect passive indicative () is clearly a second-class condition. See a like argument in 7:11.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
The statement that a better covenant was enacted upon better promises is justified by the very existence of that second covenant. “If that first covenant had been faultless, there would no place have been sought for a second.” The argument is like that in ch. 7 11 (see note). Notice the imperfect tense ejxhteito, lit. would have been being sought. A search would not have been going on. This implies a sense of dissatisfaction while the old covenant was still in force, and a looking about for something better. This hint is now expanded. It is to be shown that the Levitical system answered to a covenant which was recognized as imperfect and transitory by an O. T. prophet, since he spoke of a divine purpose to establish a new covenant.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “For if that first covenant had been faultless,” (ei gar he prote ekein en amenptos) “For if that first (covenant) was (had been, existed) faultless,” and it did not, Rom 8:3; Heb 7:11. There was weakness and unprofitableness in it, for it could not remit sins, Heb 7:18; Gal 4:9, speaks of the law-covenant as having “weak and beggarly elements.”
2) “Then should no place have been sought for the second; (ouk an deuteras ezeteito) “Then a second place (for a covenant) would not have been sought.” There would not have been a need for a new covenant, Heb 9:13; Heb 10:9, asserts that “he taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.”
The message of his redemptive covenant has been specifically and restrictedly committed to the custodial and administrative charge or care of his church, which he has purchased with his blood, which he indwells with his Holy Spirit, and promises to be with always, Mat 28:18-20; Joh 20:21; Act 1:8; Act 20:28; Eph 1:20-23; Eph 3:21; Eph 5:15; Joh 14:16-17.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
7. For if that first, etc. He confirms what he had said of the excellency of the covenant which God has made with us through Christ; and he confirms it on this ground, because the covenant of the Law was neither valid nor permanent; for if nothing was wanting in it, why was another substituted for it? But another has been substituted; and from this it is evident that the old covenant was not in every respect perfect. To prove this he adduces the testimony of Jeremiah, which we shall presently examine.
But it seems hardly consistent to say, that after having said that no place would have been sought for the second covenant, had the first been faultless, he should then say that the people were at fault, and that for this cause the new covenant was introduced as a remedy; and thus it appears unjust, that if the blame was in the people it should be transferred to God’s covenant. Then the argument seems not valid, for though God might have a hundred times blamed the people, yet the covenant could not on that account be deemed faulty. The answer to this objection may be easily given. Though the crime of violating the covenant was justly imputed to the people, who had through their own perfidy departed from God, yet the weakness of the covenant is also pointed out, because it was not written in their hearts. Then, to render it perfect and valid, God declares that it needed an amendment. It was not, therefore, without reason that the Apostle contended that a place was to be sought for a second. (132)
(132) This apparent inconsistency is avoided by some by rendering the 8 th verse differently, “But finding fault,” that is, with the first covenant, “he” Chrysostom, Beza, Doddridge, our own version, as well as Calvin and the Vulgate, connect “them” with “finding fault with,” and more correctly too; for the Israelites are blamed in the very passage that is quoted. There was a double fault or defect, which is explained in Rom 8:3, “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,” etc. This double fault or weakness more fully sets forth the excellency of the new covenant. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES
Heb. 8:7. Faultless.Not merely free from defect, but incomplete, unable fully to meet mans case. The old system was complete enough for its limited sphere and purpose: fault was found with its limitations. No place have been sought.There would have been no occasion for introducing another. The ground would have been covered. It may be said, Why then did not God make Judaism fully efficient? The answer may be given in the words of St. Paul, That is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual. The spiritual always has to be prepared for.
Heb. 8:8. He saith.See Jer. 31:31-34. I will make.Lit. I will cut; cutting a covenant was a familiar phrase, referring to the custom of slaying victims at the sealing of a covenant.
Heb. 8:9. Not according to.But different from; having a different central idea. The proved infirmity of men called for some alteration of the covenant terms. They needed to be dealt with in another way.
Heb. 8:10. Covenant, etc.This is the term of the new covenant; in it God undertook to inspire hearts, and not merely to guide conduct. Into their mind.Deeply infix. This is fulfilled in Christ. His love is the best of all persuasions to righteousness. Contrast law and love as motive-powers; or obedience rendered from fear or from affection. Notice how fully the writer brings out the moral value of the Redeemers work.
Heb. 8:11. Not teach, etc.This describes generally the contrast between the time when a difficult law covered conduct, and the time when the love of Christ constrained. We need not press this beyond the proprieties of the figure. See Isa. 54:13.
Heb. 8:13. A new.The writer fixes attention on this word. It involved the former covenant taking its place among things old and done with. If the new has come, and it is manifestly a fuller display of the Divine love and power, then the old is superseded. It is ready to vanish like a shadow. Let it go. Ready to vanish away.Lit. Now that which is becoming antiquated, and waxing aged, is near obliteration. R.V. But that which is becoming old, and waxeth aged, is nigh unto vanishing away. What is very old is near dissolution. Observe that this writer could not have thus expressed himself after the final Roman siege of Jerusalem, which resulted in the sweeping away of the formal Mosaic system.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Heb. 8:7-13
The Spirituality of the New Covenant.Here is an important fact, which the Jewish Christians are called to face. They boasted of the old covenant. They clung to it tenaciously. They were even tempted by the bigoted party to return to their older form of allegiance to it; and yet their own Scriptures declared that God was dissatisfied with it, and with what had been accomplished by means of it, and had promised to establish with His people a new and better covenant. Already this writer had spoken of the older covenant as weak, unprofitable, and earthly (Heb. 7:18). It is a great addition to his argument to be able to add, that Scripture declares God Himself to have been dissatisfied with its working. In support of his position the passage Jer. 31:31-34 is quoted. There is an important difference between the way in which the old system is dealt with in this epistle and in the recognised Pauline epistles. To St. Paul the contrast between the law and the gospel was that between the letter and the spirit, between bondage and freedom, between works and faith, between command and promise, between threatening and mercy. All these polemical elements disappear almost entirely from the epistle to the Hebrews, which regards the two dispensations as furnishing a contrast between type and reality. This was the more possible to Apollos (if he was the writer), because he regards Judaism not so much in the light of a law as in the light of a priesthood, and a system of worship. In three respects, according to the promise given to Jeremiah, the new covenant would be better than the old. And each respect is an advantage on the spiritual side.
I. The laws of the new covenant were to be written on mens hearts.The laws of the old covenant were engraven on stone slabs, or written in books, to be read by mens eyes; and a thousand things would blind them to, or hinder them from, reading and obeying. And the obedience offered to outward and written law need only be formal and perfunctory. In the new covenant Gods laws get into mans will through mans love. The persuasion of I ought is changed into the sweet constraint of I wish to. Christ, the ministrant of the new covenant, gets His power in mens hearts, and sways motives and will to an obedience which is a holy joy.
II. The privileges of the new covenant will be universally enjoyed.A covenant that is spiritual is free from all local, national, or race restrictions. It is something for man as a spiritual being, and therefore something for universal man. Exclusiveness was characteristic of the Mosaic dispensation; it was a necessary feature, because the covenant was formal, and the terms purely material privilege. All barriers between Jew and Gentile, bond and free, male and female, are removed when God graciously makes spiritual covenant with spiritual beings.
III. The working of the new covenant involves free forgiveness of the sins of the older covenant.This difficulty might come to the minds of those who were called to enter into the new and spiritual covenantWhat is to be done with the penalties which rest on us because of the breaking of the old? The promise of Jehovah through Jeremiah is, that when men come into the new covenant, their sins and inquities shall be remembered no more. When men are brought into right relations with God, their past can be dealt with in a way of free forgiveness. Their sins can be blotted out. As the application of his point the writer urges, that to call the former covenant old implies that it had done its work, had become effete, and was ready to be put aside. The old covenant did not match the new times. Nobody need regret the putting aside of that old covenant, if they would enter fully into all the high spiritual privileges of the new. What is very old is near dissolution. If nigh unto vanishing at the time when Jeremiah wrote, well might it now be believed to have passed away. Accept fully the new covenant, which pledges on your part the obedience of love.
SUGGESTIVE NOTES AND SERMON SKETCHES
Heb. 8:10. Gods Side in the New Covenant.Called of God a high priest. One of the grave perils of the evangelical setting of the redemption truths lies in the misapprehension of its teaching which men only too readily make. Fixing such exclusive attention on what Christ suffered and did, many persons are found to cherish the notion that the Atonement is something which Christ devised and carried through, if not in opposition to God, yet in some way to get over difficulties which, for some inscrutable reason, God could not surmount Himself. Notions of appeasing wrath, and uncareful settings of the idea of propitiating, tend to nourish such untrue and unworthy notions. It is the absolutely primary and essential truth of Christianity that the Redemption is Gods redemption, the Atonement is Gods own providing, and the Sacrifice is God Himself in sacrifice. There is no ground whatever for separating God from Christ in the work of the Atonement, either in the Scriptures, or in the doctrine of the Church. What has to be dealt with is the cherished sentiment of many persons, and the evil influence of undisciplined and enthusiastic teachers. It may therefore be shown
1. That throughout our Lords life, and as a marked characteristic of all His teachings, He put Himself in the second place, and the Father-God first. His supreme idea was to get men to think well of God. It is to dishonour Christ to attempt to put Him in a place which He wholly refused to occupy. This kind of thing He asserted continually: The Fathers who sent Me; Thou hast sent Me.
2. The apostles, in their teaching, carefully keep Christ in the ministerial and mediatorial place, and ascribe all the glory of the worlds redemption to God. One passage may guide the Bible student to many. St. Peter, speaking of Christ, says, Who by Him do believe in God, who raised Him up from the dead.
3. A redemption for man could not be satisfactory unless it were Gods devising. This may be shown by the figure of a covenant. It were of little account to us if God were forced, by something Christ did, to enter into covenant with us. The persuasion is on us to enter into covenant, because God so graciously offers it, and provides the Person for negotiating it.
Heb. 8:12. The Considerateness of the New Covenant.For I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins will I remember no more. This is part of the anticipative description of the covenant that was to be made in the latter days; and it gives the supreme point of interest in that covenant. In a sense the old covenant of works had in it no considerateness. It demanded an absolute and perfect formal obedience to formal rules, and took no account whatever of human frailties. Its terms concerned conduct; every man was assumed to be able to order his conduct; and he must order it so as to secure a perfect obedience, or he must endure the punishment that must come on the disobedient. How inconsiderate of human infirmity the old covenant of works was comes into full view when the Pharisees try to translate that covenant for their day, and exaggerate its characteristics. They elaborated its demands until they put mens lives into prison bonds. They allowed no excuses for failure, and so bound grievous burdens on mens shoulders beyond their power to bear. The sin of Rabbinism lies in its exaggeration of the inconsiderateness of the formal covenant of works. Or the weakness of the old covenant, and the superiority of the new, may be seen from another point of view. It dealt with mens legal offences, not with their moral conditions. It dealt with their sins against rules, but not with their sins against God. It did not take into its consideration the iniquities which burdened mens consciences, but did not find expression in acts which disturbed relations. The considerateness of the new covenant is seen in its contrast with the old in both these respects. It does take account of mens frailties. It seeks a response of good-will from men, and is pitiful and compassionate when the good-will is thwarted from adequate expression by human infirmities. Nay, in view of human frailty, it proposes to be a power in men. The method of the kingdom is to have the law written on the heart. Thereby the keeping of all that is essential is effectually provided for. And the covenant does deal with mens iniquities, with mens sins before God, assuring a full Divine forgiveness for the things which burden the conscience and oppress the heart.
Heb. 8:13, taken with Heb. 10:9. The True Sacrifice.Simply a theological expression of the unvarying and unvaried process of all things pertaining to human life. From the embryo to the decaying time of life, all constitutions of men everywhere obey this law. As soon as life comes, it begins to grow, grows to greatness, and then passes on to decay. The writer distinctly states that these tables of stone, written by the finger of God, the goats hair, and the rams skins dyed red, and the badgers skins, and all these things, said to be ordered by God, are worn out. Finding fault with them, he tells us that they are no longer of any possible utility; that though asserted to be of Divine origin, yet they were human in their conditions, and when they got down to earth they were subject to moth, rust, and decay. And, holding up the old covenant as a worn-out vesture, he says, it is ready to vanish away. Necessity has ordered it so, that all things shall seem Divine to men which are accepted as such by the wisest men of the time; and, on the other hand, nothing ought to be Divine to any man except the soul of the wisest sees it to be so. Do we really believe that God instituted these sacrifices? The conception of God which led to sacrifice was like most of our thoughts about God. It was born in the human heart. It was of humanity. It is impossible that man can conceive of any God except in his own likeness. The thought of sacrifice proceeds out of sinful hearts, addresses itself to sinful souls, and it belongs to the morning-time of the world, when men were unable to think of a restoration to favour without a material guarantee. Those who are weak require the crutch of Forms. Man grows slowly out of the childish trappings of a time when only through these outward things could be made visible the unseen. The prophets arose, and cast scorn upon the useless system of sacrifices. The people still clung to it, because they thought that all this outward business was a very good substitute for inward repentance and purity; but their wise men knew that there can be no sacrifice of any avail without a penitent soul and a sad heart. Now in this manner of religion you can have habits and forms without any true religion at all; skeletons without any life; substitutes for thought. And the mere observances of such outward forms, things that are done from mere habit, are done at the expense of the soul. Men come to fast without caring or fearing, to bow without reverence, to sing without enthusiasm. Isaiah scorned the Sodom-apple of outward purity when there was no heart of reality within. At last these forms came to be looked upon as dead. Then began the bloodless religion. Wheresoever Paul went, there the knife was sheathed, the fire died down, the beast ceased to be offered up. Wheresoever Christ was preached, and the religion of Christ was introduced, this wonderful effect always followedthe ascending smoke of the sacrifice on the altar was for ever done away with. Even in the Romish Church, they do not offer sacrifice, but only a bloodless offering, in memory of a sacrifice. The orthodox belief touching the death of Jesus Christ is the sublimest progress that man has ever made, up to the time when, through the very sublimity of this progress, it became necessary to go much further. What a wonderful difference there is in the spiritual conception of sacrifice! When the beast died, he died unwillingly; but when the Divine sacrifice was made, it was the sacrifice of Christs own will. To come forth freely to save the people is one thing, but to be the unwilling victim of the sacrificing priest is quite another. Therefore the whole thought of the death of Christ, as a free-will offering laid down by Himself in the midst of perfect power to refuse, is an amazing gain, a wonderful improvement in spiritual conception. If we look at it from the other side of it, what a gain! In the old times man supplied the victim; in the new times, God. In the old days the sinner found the sacrificial lamb; in the new days the God against whom man had sinned found the Lamb of God. This was the greatest gain that ever theology made, and so complete was it that man dare not afterwards offer his little pitiful sacrifices. God had sent a sacrifice, and it was impossible after that to be offering rams and lambs and bulls. When a man has been sacrificed, when for sinning man the only begotten Son, the beloved of God, has been sacrificed, when He has died, man sees at once that all other sacrifices now are dust and ashes. After the Son of God had been given, what could come? After this great High Priest had sacrificed His own life, after this Son of man had entered into the Holy of Holies and sacrificed Himself, the knife must be sheathed for ever, and the altar become cold. There remaineth now no more sacrifice for sin. Doth God require any sacrifice before He can forgive? There is the life of Christ, and there is the death of Christ. That throws light upon the old Jewish history. He is perfect manhood filled with Divineness, who laid down His own will in order that the will of God might be all in all. From what direction shall we gather the light in which we are to view the death of Christ? Shall the light be borrowed from Paganism, Judaism, and the old world, or developed from the whole life and spirit of Christ Himself? The Atonement is the reconcilement in a man of the Divine and the human so perfectly, that men following its laws are necessarily redeemed? In them the hostility between heaven and earth has ceased; the will of God has been perfectly done; and therefore all the ends at which religion has ever aimed have been attained, and the supreme victory won at lastthe victory of the Spirit over the flesh, of duty over pleasure, of the will of God over the weak wishes and desires of man.George Dawson, M.A.
ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 8
Heb. 8:11. From the Least to the Greatest.Why this order, from the least to the greatest? We might have expected the gospel to come into the world as the sun begins to shine, first tipping with gold the summits of the loftiest hills, and thence finding its way down to the depths of the valleys. No, it is from the least to the greatest, as if that were the natural way for Christianity to work. And so it isit is Gods way. He chooses the weak things of the world to confound the mighty, and out of the mouths of babes and sucklings perfects His praise. And this, by the way, affords an answer to an objection which may be made to our Sabbath-school operations abroad. It may be said, What good can your little work do there? This is the old objectionMaster, we have here five barley loaves, and two small fishes; but what are they among so many? Yes, what are they in mans hands? We know what they were in the hands of our Lord. From the least even to the greatest, that is the history of Christianity. It is the little grain of mustard seed dropped into the ground, which indeed is the least of seeds, but afterwards becomes a tree affording shelter for the birds of the air: it is like the pebble from the brook, which once felled the Philistine giant; it is like the stone cut from the mountain, which destroyed the great image, and filled the whole earth.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
(7) For the second.Rather, for a second. This verse connects itself with the words, a better covenant in Heb. 8:6. The form of expression used clearly points to the intended inferencethat covenant was faulty, and a place was sought for a second; this makes plain the connection with Heb. 8:8. The failure of the first covenant was manifest (Heb. 7:11; Heb. 7:18) to God, who, whilst the first still existed, sought and found place for a second.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
7. That first covenant, however the Hebrews may honour and cling to it, was by its own Old Testament prophetic confession a defective one. No place, or room, would have been recognised for a second, if the first had been faultless.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘For if that first covenant had been faultless, then would no place have been sought for a second.’
And this replacement of the first covenant was clearly as necessary as was the changing of the priesthood (Heb 7:11), as is seen by the fact that Jeremiah in Scripture had declared the making of a new covenant (Jer 31:31-34). For if such a new covenant was Scripturally required it openly demonstrated that the old covenant was lacking. Had it not been so, no new covenant would have been required. Thus the writer now quotes the new covenant in detail, mainly but not fully as per LXX. He may well have been paraphrasing LXX from memory. It also closely follows the Hebrew text.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Heb 8:7. Mr. Peirce is of opinion, that what follows, to the end of this chapter, is a digression, or an argument brought in by the apostle incidentally, upon his having said that Christ had obtained a more excellent ministry than the priests under the law. It was a natural inference, that if his ministry was more excellent than theirs, the covenant of which he was Mediator was more excellent than that under which they ministered. But the thing being of great importance to his subject, he does not content himself with the bare mention of the inference, but expatiates in the distinct proof and confirmation of it; shewing that God, during that covenant, spoke of it as very defective, and of another more perfect which was to succeed it.
For if that first covenant had been faultless, “For if the former Sinai covenant had been free from all defects, as to its establishment, light, grace, and efficacy for perfecting the state of the church, which indeed it never was designed for, however good it was in itself, and however fit to answer its particular ends, to which undoubtedly it was well suited, as Godhimself was the author of it: if, I say, it had not been insufficient to answer all the ends of his grace towards his faithful people in their church-state upon earth, then there certainly would have been no occasion for the wisdom of God to have contrived, nor for his people to have desired, another more spiritual and complete administration of the covenant of grace upon earth; nor would there have been any room for introducing it under the gospel state, as it was plain there was.” Instead of had been faultless, Dr. Heylin reads, had been imperfec
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Heb 8:7 . Justification of the and , Heb 8:6 .
] if it were (Heb 7:11 , Heb 8:4 ).
] sc . . On the superlative , quite in keeping with the linguistic usage of the Greek, see Winer, Gramm. , 7 Aufl. p. 229, Obs. 1.
] faultless (Phi 2:15 ; Phi 3:6 ), satisfactory, sufficient . Theodoret: .
] place would not have been sought ( sc . by God, in the O. T., or in the passage of Scripture immediately adduced) for a second (covenant); i.e. it would not have been expressed by God Himself, that a second covenant is to come in beside the first, and replace it. In this general sense is to be taken, and the form of expression in the apodosis to be explained from a mingling of a twofold mode of contemplation ( : a second would not be sought by God, nor would there be any place for a second). No emphasis rests upon ; on which account it is over-refining, when Bleek finds in the reference that to the New Covenant, according to Heb 8:10 , the place was assigned in the hearts of men, while the Old was written upon tables of stone.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Heb 8:7-13 . Evidence from Scripture that the New Covenant rests upon better promises than the Old, and consequently is a better covenant than that . God Himself has, by the fact of His having promised a new covenant, pronounced the former one to be growing obsolete.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
(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 neighbor, 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.
In order to have a clear apprehension of what is here said, it will be necessary to attend to the words of scripture, simply as they are. When the Holy Ghost speaks, as in this place, of a first covenant, and a second; and of a new covenant, and an old; the Reader must not suppose is meant, that the one differed from the other in substance, or that any change had taken place in the mind of God. Not so. There hath been from everlasting in reality but one and the same covenant, namely, the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the sole covenant of the people. Neither can his Gospel be called a new revelation, differing from the Old Testament in sum and substance, for the Gospel was preached to Abraham, Gal 3:8 . I have shewn this, I hope, very clearly, in the Preface to this Poor Man’s Commentary. But the meaning of this most beautiful passage (which is taken from the prophecy of Jeremiah, Jer 31:31-34 ), is the spiritual illustration of God’s covenant in Christ, in which the several agencies of each glorious person of the Godhead, are blessedly shewn In the Father’s electing, pardoning, justifying, accepting love; God the Son’s betrothing, redeeming grace; and God the Spirit’s quickening, sanctifying, sealing mercy. And the blessed effects arising from the whole are also here displayed, in the spiritual knowledge which the whole Church of God in Christ shall derive from the latter-day dispensation. So much of divine light, and divine knowledge, shall be diffused by the openly tabernacling of the Son of God in our nature, that from the highest to the lowest, and from the least to the greatest, all the children shall know the Lord; and that not in an hearsay or speculative apprehension of God, but a personal, spiritual, soul-enjoyment of Him. God shall be known in his threefold character of Person, in the Father’s love, the Son’s grace, and the Spirit’s fellowship, and in such a blessed way and manner, as shall refresh the whole Church, and raise up a revenue of glory to the Lord, Isa 54:13 ; Joh 14:23-27
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Ver. 7. Had been faultless ] Such as had not been weak and unprofitable, Heb 7:18 ; see the note there. If the people could have performed it, and have been perfected by it. If it could have conveyed grace, as Heb 8:10 . The law may chain up the wolf, the gospel only changeth him; the one stops the stream, the other heals the fountain; the one restrains the practice, the other renews the principles. God therefore gave the law after the promise, Gal 3:19 , to advance the promise.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
7 .] Argumentation , exactly as in ch. Heb 7:11 , from sayings of God, to shew the imperfection of the former covenant . So Chrys.: . . . ( Heb 7:11 ), . For if that first ( covenant ) were (or, had been. We are never sure of in such sentences, seeing that it is both imperfect and aorist. I prefer here the imperfect, seeing that the first covenant, in its ceremonial part, was yet observed. Bleek, after the vulg. (“si culpa vacasset, non locus inquireretur”), prefers the aorist) blameless ( , , . Thdrt. It is the contrary of . , ch. Heb 7:18 ), a place would not be sought (i. e. space opened, viz. in the words of the following prophecy, which indicate the substitution of such a covenant for the old one. Bleek gives a rather far-fetched interpretation, that the is the place in men’s hearts, as distinguished from the tables of stone on which the first covenant was written; referring to 2Co 3:3 for a similar distinction. But it is far better to understand it of a place in history , and regard the expression as and in reff., see also , Rom 12:19 . must not be rendered pluperfect, as in E. V., al., but, as in vulg. above, imperf.) for a second (the emphasis is on ).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Heb 8:7-13 . A justification of the establishment of a better covenant, on the grounds (1) that the first covenant was not faultless; (2) that Jeremiah had predicted the introduction of a new covenant ( a ) not like the old, but ( b ) based upon better promises; and (3) that even in Jeremiah’s days the first covenant was antiquated by the very title “new” ascribed to that which was then promised.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Heb 8:7 . “For if that first had been faultless, no place would have been sought for a second.” sc. . for as in Act 1:1 ; 1Co 15:47 , and this epistle passim . The covenant did not accomplish the purpose for which it was enacted; it did not bring men into spiritual and permanent fellowship with God. Cf. Heb 7:11 ; Heb 7:19 ; Gal 3:20 . . “There would not have been as we know there was any demand for a second” (Farrar). Probably, however, refers to God’s purpose, [“Inquisivit Deus locum et tempus opportunum” (Herveius)] not to man’s craving; although necessarily the two must concur. is frequently used in the sense of “room” “opportunity” in later Greek, Rom 15:23 ; Luk 14:19 ; and cf. especially Rev 20:11 . . “For finding fault with them He says, Behold, there come days, etc.” The obviously refers to and justifies it, “For it is with fault finding, etc.” But now the object of the blame is slightly changed. “There is a subtle delicacy of language in the insensible shifting of the blame from the covenant to the people. The covenant itself could hardly be said to be faultless, seeing that it failed to bind Israel to their God; but the true cause of failure lay in the character of the people, not in the law, which was holy, righteous and good” (Rendall). This is the simplest construction and agrees with the ascription of blame in Heb 8:9 . Thayer says “it is more correct to supply , i.e. , , which the writer wishes to prove was not faultless, and to join with ”. No doubt this would be more logically consistent, but the question is, What did the writer say? He seems not to distinguish between the covenant and the people who lived under it. The old covenant was faulty because it did not provide for enabling the people to live up to the terms or conditions of it. It was faulty inasmuch as it did not sufficiently provide against their faultiness. , . . . The quotation which here occupies five verses is taken from Jeremiah 38:31 34 in LXX, Jer 31:31-34 A.V. is a frequent formula in Jeremiah. “The ubiquitous Hebrew and , serving here the purpose of the which might have been expected” (Vaughan). , the LXX has , and Augustine ( De Spir. et Lit . xix.) thinks this word (consummabo) is chosen for the sake of emphasising the sufficiency of the New Covenant. So Delitzsch: “Our author seems here to have purposely selected the to express more clearly the conclusive perfecting power of the new covenant of the gospel.” So, too, Weiss, who also calls attention to the fact that it is followed by as in the expression . . But in the face of the occurrence in Jer 34:8 , (LXX, Jer 41:8 ) of the expression , it is precarious to maintain that our author in selecting this word meant more than “complete a covenant”. , comprehensive of the whole people of God. Their blameworthy rupture had not severed them from God’s grace and faithfulness. , the expression first occurs in our Lord’s institution of the sacrament, . , repeated in 1Co 11:25 . In 2Co 3:6 , the . is contrasted with . . of 2Co 3:4 . The new covenant is also called in Heb 12:24 ; properly meaning new in character, young or new in date. As in Heb 8:7 the condemnation of the old implied a promise of the new; so in Heb 8:13 , the promise of the new is considered as involving the condemnation of the old.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
faultless. Greek. amemptos. See Php 2:15.
should = would.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
7.] Argumentation, exactly as in ch. Heb 7:11, from sayings of God, to shew the imperfection of the former covenant. So Chrys.: … (Heb 7:11), . For if that first (covenant) were (or, had been. We are never sure of in such sentences, seeing that it is both imperfect and aorist. I prefer here the imperfect, seeing that the first covenant, in its ceremonial part, was yet observed. Bleek, after the vulg. (si culpa vacasset, non locus inquireretur), prefers the aorist) blameless ( , , . Thdrt. It is the contrary of . , ch. Heb 7:18), a place would not be sought (i. e. space opened, viz. in the words of the following prophecy, which indicate the substitution of such a covenant for the old one. Bleek gives a rather far-fetched interpretation,-that the is the place in mens hearts, as distinguished from the tables of stone on which the first covenant was written; referring to 2Co 3:3 for a similar distinction. But it is far better to understand it of a place in history, and regard the expression as and in reff., see also , Rom 12:19. must not be rendered pluperfect, as in E. V., al., but, as in vulg. above, imperf.) for a second (the emphasis is on ).
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Heb 8:7-13. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 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: 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. 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: and they shall not teach 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. 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.
So the old covenant has vanished away, with all its types, and symbols, and sacrifices. As the morning mists dissolve upon the rising of the sun,- as darkness flies away when the light shines,-so has the covenant of works departed for ever; and, in its place, stands out the everlasting covenant of Gods unmerited mercy to the most guilty and vile of the sons and daughters of men. May he graciously grant to us the privilege of having an interest in that covenant, for his dear Sons sake. Amen.
This exposition consisted of readings from Jer 31:31-34; Eze 36:25-32; and Heb 8:7-13
Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible
Heb 8:7. , the first) A Metonymy; for blame (finding fault) does not fall upon a divine institution, but upon a real and personal object. , with them, is said Heb 8:8; from which it is plain, that not only the New Testament itself was faultless, but also its people.-, that) The pronoun adapted to a past event.-, should have been sought) A suitable expression: that first covenant would have anticipated all.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
, .
For if that first [covenant] had been blameless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
In this verse, and so also in those that follow unto the end of this chapter, the apostle designeth a confirmation of what he had before asserted and undertaken to prove. And this was, that there is a necessity of a new and better covenant, accompanied with better promises and more excellent ordinances of worship than the former. Hereon it follows that the first was to be disannulled and abolished: which was the main thesis he had to prove. And there are two parts of his argument to this purpose. For first he proveth, that on the supposition of another and better covenant to be introduced, it did unavoidably follow that the first was to be abolished, as that which was not perfect, complete, or sufficient unto its end; which he doth in this verse. Secondly, he proves that such a new, better covenant was to be introduced, in the verses following.
What he had before confirmed in sundry particular instances, he summarily concludes in one general argument in this verse, and that built on a principle generally acknowledged. And it is this, All the privileges, all the benefits and advantages of the Aaronical priesthood and sacrifices, do all belong unto the covenant whereunto they were annexed, a chief part of whose outward administrations consisted in them.This the Hebrews neither could nor did question. The whole of what they pleaded for, the only charter and tenure of all their privileges, was the covenant that God made with their fathers at Sinai. Wherefore that priesthood, those sacrifices, with all the worship belonging unto the tabernacle or temple, were necessarily commensurate unto that covenant. Whilst that covenant continued, they were to continue; and if that covenant ceased, they were to cease also. These things were agreed between the apostle and them.
Hereon he subsumes, But there is mention of another covenant to be made with the whole church, and to be introduced long after the making of that at Sinai.Neither could this be denied by them. However, to put it out of controversy, the apostle proves it by an express testimony of the prophet Jeremiah. In that testimony it is peculiarly declared, that this new covenant, that was promised to be introduced in the latter days, should be better and more excellent than the former, as is manifest from the promises whereon it is established; yet in this verse the apostle proceeds no further but unto the general consideration of Gods promising to make another covenant with the church, and what would follow thereon.
From this supposition the apostle proves that the first covenant is imperfect, blamable, and removable. And the force of his inference depends on a common notion or presumption, that is clear and evident in its own light, And it is this, when once a covenant is made and established, if it will serve unto and effect all that he who makes it doth design, and exhibit all the good which he intends to communicate, there is no reason why another covenant should be made. The making of a new for no other ends or purposes but what the old was every way sufficient for, argues lightness and mutability in him that made it. Unto this purpose doth he argue, Gal 3:21,
If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Could the first covenant have perfected and consecrated the church, could it have communicated all the grace and mercy that God intended to indulge unto the children of men, the wise and holy author of it would have had no thought about the introduction and establishment of another. It would have been no way agreeable unto his infinite wisdom and faithfulness so to do. Wherefore the promise hereof doth irrefragably prove, that both the first covenant and all the services of it were imperfect, and therefore to be removed and taken away.
Indeed this promise of a new covenant, diverse from that made at Sinai, or not like unto it, as the prophet speaks, is sufficient of itself to overthrow the vain pretences of the Jews wherein they are hardened to this day. The absolute perpetuity of the law and its worship, that is, of the covenant at Sinai, is the principal, fundamental article of their present faith, or rather unbelief. But this is framed by them in direct opposition unto the promises of God. For let it be demanded of them, whether they believe that God will make another covenant with the church, not according to the covenant which he made with their fathers at Sinai. If they shall say they do not believe it, then do they plainly renounce the prophets, and the promises of God given by them. If they do grant it, I desire to know of them with what sacrifices this new covenant shall be established; by what priest, with what worship, it shall be administered. If they say that they shall be done by the sacrifices, priests, and worship of the law, they deny what they granted before, namely, that it is a new and another covenant; for the sacrifices and priests of the law cannot confirm or administer any other covenant, but that which they belong and are confined unto. If it be granted that this new covenant must have a new mediator, a new priest, a new sacrifice, as it is undeniable it must, or it cannot be a new covenant, then must the old cease and be removed, that this may come into its place. Nothing but obstinacy and blindness can resist the force of this argument of the apostle.
The general design of the apostle in this verse being cleared, we may consider the words more particularly. And there are two things in them:
1. A positive assertion, included in a supposition, If the first covenant had been blameless, had not been defective; that is, it was so.
2. The proof of this assertion: If it had not been so, place would not have been sought for the second; which that there was, he proves in the following verses:
1. In the first part of the words there is,
(1.) A causal conjunction, rendering a reason; for.
(2.) The subject spoken of: That first covenant.
(3.) What is affirmed of it, as the affirmation is included in a negative supposition: It was not blameless, it is not blameless:
(1.) The conjunction, , for, showeth that the apostle intends the confirmation of what he had before discoursed. But he seems not to refer only unto what he had immediately before affirmed concerning the better promises of the new testament, but unto the whole argument that he hath in hand. For the general reason which here he insists upon, proves all that he had before delivered concerning the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood, and the whole worship of the first covenant depending thereon.
(2.) The subject spoken of is , that first; that is, , that former covenant: the covenant made with the fathers at Sinai, with all the ordinances of worship thereunto belonging, whose nature and use we have before declared.
(3.) Hereof it is said, . Vulg. Lat., si culpa vacasset. And so we, if it had been faultless. I am sure the expression is a little too harsh in our translation, and such as the original word will not bear, at least doth not require. For it seems to intimate, that absolutely there was something faulty or blameworthy in the covenant of God. But this must not be admitted. For besides that the author of it, which was God himself, doth free it from any such charge or imputation, it is in the Scripture everywhere declared to be holy, just, and good. There is, indeed, an intimation of a defect in it; but this was not with respect to its own particular end, but with respect to another general end, whereunto it was not designed. That which is defective with respect unto its own particular end whereunto it is ordained, or which it is designed to accomplish, is really faulty; but that which is or may be so with respect unto some other general end, which it was never designed to accomplish, is not so in itself. This the apostle discourseth concerning, Gal 3:19-22. We must therefore state the signification of the word from the subject-matter that he treats about in this place; and this is the perfection and consummation, or the sanctification and salvation of the church. With respect hereunto alone it is that he asserts the insufficiency and imperfection of the first covenant. And the inquiry between him and the Hebrews was, not whether the first covenant was not in itself holy, just, good, and blameless, every way perfect with respect unto its own especial ends; but whether it was perfect and effectual unto the general ends mentioned. This it was not, saith the apostle; and proves it undeniably, from the promise of the introduction of another general covenant for the effecting of them. Whereas, therefore, to be not , is either to have some fault or vice accompanying any thing and adhering unto it, whereby it is unsuited unto or insufficient for its own proper end; or it is that whereunto somewhat is wanting with respect unto another general end which is much to be desired, but such as it was never designed to accomplish; as the art of arithmetic, if it be perfectly taught, is sufficient to instruct a man in the whole science of numeration; if it be not, it is faulty as unto its particular end; but it is no way sufficient unto the general end of making a man wise in the whole compass of wisdom, a thing far to be preferred before its particular end, be it never so perfect in its own kind; it is in the latter sense only that the apostle affirms that the first covenant was not , or blameless. If it had been such as unto which nothing more was required or needful perfectly to complete and sanctify the church, which was the general end God aimed at, it had been absolutely perfect. But this it was not, in that it never was designed for the means of it. To the same purpose he argues, Heb 7:11; Heb 7:19. And with respect unto this end it is said that the law was weak, Rom 8:3; Gal 3:21; Act 13:38-39.
In brief, that which the apostle designeth to prove is, that the first covenant was of that constitution, that it could not accomplish the perfect administration of the grace of God unto the church, nor was ever designed unto that end; as the Jews then falsely, and their posterity still foolishly also imagine it to have done.
2. The ensuing words in this verse include the general proof of his assertion concerning the insufficiency of the first covenant unto the ends of God towards the church: .
His argument is plainly this: The promise of a new covenant doth unavoidably prove the insufficiency of the former, at least unto the ends for which the new one is promised. For otherwise unto what end serves the promise, and covenant promised?But there is some difficulty in the manner of the expression: The place of the second had not been sought; so the words lie in the original. But the place of the second is no more but the second taking place; the bringing in, the introduction and establishment of it. And this is said to be sought; but improperly, and after the manner of men. When men have entered into a covenant which proves insufficient for some end they do intend, they take counsel and seek out after other ways and means, or an agreement and covenant on such other terms as may be effectual unto their purpose. Wherefore this signifies no alteration, no defect in the wisdom and counsel of God, as unto what is now to be done, but only the outward change which he would now effect in the introduction of the new covenant. For as such changes among men are the issue of the alteration of their minds, and the effect of new counsels for the seeking out of new means for their end, so is this outward change, in the taking away of the old covenant and introduction of the new, represented in God; being only the second part of his counsel or purpose which he had purposed in himself before the foundation of the world. And we may hence observe,
Obs. 1. That whatever God had done before for the church, yet he ceased not, in his wisdom and grace, until he had made it partaker of the best and most blessed condition whereof in this world it is capable. He found out place for this better covenant.
Obs. 2. Let those unto whom the terms of the new covenant are proposed in the gospel take heed to themselves that they sincerely embrace and improve them; for there is neither promise nor hope of any further or fuller administration of grace.
Fuente: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews
After This
It is necessary for us to realize the importance of the Book of Hebrews. Here the Holy Spirit shows us how that all things relating to the carnal, ceremonial, outward, legal aspects of Jewish worship were both fulfilled and forever abolished by the gospel, by the coming of Christ, the accomplishment of redemption by his death at Calvary, his enthronement and exaltation as Gods King upon his holy hill of Zion, and the outpouring of His Holy Spirit upon the nations of the world.
That is what this eighth chapter of Hebrews is about. In these 13 verses the Holy Spirit declares that God has abolished the old covenant by fulfilling its types and shadows, by bringing in the new. All the carnal, earthly priests of the Old Testament, all the laws given to Israel, and all the ceremonies of legal worship in the Mosaic age were ordained for and served only one purpose. They pointed to Christ! They had no other function!
In this gospel day, the Lord Jesus Christ has obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises (Heb 8:6). Our all-glorious Christ is the Mediator of a better covenant, established upon better promises. That better covenant, established upon better promises, is the covenant of grace, the new covenant.
Why was this new covenant necessary? That question is answered in Heb 8:7-13.
The Old Covenant
The old covenant had to be replaced by a new covenant, because the old covenant was faulty (Heb 8:7). That first covenant was the covenant of the Levitical priesthood. It was a covenant made with physical Israel and delivered to that nation by Moses. It was a typical covenant, only typical and altogether typical (Heb 7:11; Heb 7:18).
The people with whom the old covenant of the law was made were typical of the true Israel of God, the church of Gods elect. The blessings promised in it were shadows, types and pictures, of good things to come. The sacrifices of it were pictures of Christ and his one great sacrifice for sin. The priests, the mediators of that covenant, were typical of Christ, our great High Priest.
That old covenant was faulty, deficient, non-saving, non-effectual. It was weak and faulty simply because it was only typical. Its priests were all sinful men. Its sacrifices were only animals. Its offerings could never put away sin. If this covenant, its priests and sacrifices, laws and ceremonies, commandments and ordinances, could have redeemed and saved, there would have been no reason for Christ to come (Heb 10:1-4; Heb 10:9).
The New Covenant
The new covenant (Heb 8:8) of this Gospel age is the covenant of grace promised back in Jeremiah 31. Finding fault with the people, the priests, the sacrifices, and the ceremonies of the old covenant of the law, the Lord God said, Behold, the days come, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. This is a direct quotation from Jer 31:31-34. This prophetic passage is referred to again in precisely the same way in Heb 10:15-17.
This covenant of grace is not called a new covenant because it is newly made, or of a new origin. We know that because this covenant is elsewhere called the everlasting covenant. It is a covenant made with Christ our covenant Surety before the foundation of the world (Heb 13:20; Rev 13:8).
It is called a new covenant because it is newly revealed in this Gospel age. — That which is revealed second was made first. It is called a new covenant, because it is always new and fresh. — It will never grow old, or give place to another. It is called a new covenant, because it gives the believer a new record, a new heart, a new nature, and a new spirit. Indeed, for those who are in Christ, those who are partakers of this new covenant, all things are new (2Co 5:17).
Covenant of Grace
This new, everlasting covenant is a covenant of pure, free, immutable grace in Christ. This is the covenant which gave David hope and confidence on his death bed (2Sa 23:5). This new, everlasting covenant is immutable and sure, its blessings are all infallibly secured to Gods elect, because this is a one-way covenant. It was made between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit before the worlds were made. In that sense it is a bilateral covenant. However, in so far as we are concerned, it is a unilateral covenant. Its blessings are secured by the will of God alone.
This is what the Lord God declared from old eternity that he would do for all his people in this Gospel day by his free, sovereign, saving grace in Christ: –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 peopleI will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more (Heb 8:9-12). Rejoice!
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
had: Heb 8:6, Heb 7:11, Heb 7:18, Gal 3:21
Reciprocal: Deu 29:14 – General Heb 9:1 – the first Heb 9:15 – the first Heb 9:18 – the first Heb 10:9 – He taketh
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Heb 8:7. A part of the fault of which the Lord complained was concerning the shortcomings of the people. They did not do even as well as they could with the system which God had given them. However, God has always been inclined to give His creatures every opportunity for developing a desirable character. In view of this, He regarded the old law as not the best that could be accomplished in the future, and in that sense He would not consider the old covenant to be faultless.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Heb 8:7. For … the better promises implied in what follows are themselves a proof of the inferiority of the old covenantno place would have been sought, i.e in the development of the Divine purpose, in the plan of redemption.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Observe here, 1. What is charged on the first covenant, and that is faultiness: By which we are not to understand any sinful faultiness, but defectiveness and imperfection only: For it was not faulty in the matter and substance of it, as it was instituted and ordained by God, but therefore called faulty because it was obscure, was not so surely ratified, and not attended with that virtue, power, and efficacy, which the new covenant is accompanied with.
Observe, 2. Wherein consisteth that defectiveness and imperfection of the first covenant which is here complained of, namely,
1. In its inability to justify and save us, because of our inability, through the weakness of the flesh, to answer the demands of it, Rom 8:3. The law was not properly weak to us, but we were weak to that.
2. The legal covenant required exact obedience, but afforded no spiritual assistance for the performance of what is required: But the covenant of grace, the new covenant, is called a ministration of the Spirit: and under the gospel we are said not to serve in the oldness of the latter, but in the newness of the spirit.
Now, says the apostle, ver. . Almighty God finding fault with the Jews for the breach of the former covenant, declared by the prophet Jeremiah, Jer 31:31. That the covenant he would make with all true Israelites for time to come, should not be like that which he made with their fathers in Egypt, which they continued not in the observation of, (wanting those assistances from the Holy Spirit to enable them thereunto, which are procured for us by Christ); and accordingly, I regarded them not, saith the Lord, but gave them up for their sins, into the hands of their enemies.
Observe, lastly, How Almighty God makes the imperfection of the old covenant, and the Israelites instability therein, the reason of his making a new covenant with us, in which grace and assistance is offered to enable us to obey and persevere in obedience: Finding fault with them; that is, for the breach of the former, he saith, Behold the days come that I will make a new covenant with them.
From the whole, Note, 1. That the grace and glory of the new covenant are much set off and manifested by comparing it with the old.
Note, 2. That nothing but effectual grace from Christ will secure our covenant-obedience one moment: What greater motives, or stronger outward obligations to obedience could any people under heaven have, than the Israelites had? But they quickly turned out of the way: therefore, in the new covenant, is this grace promised in a peculiar manner, as we shall see in the next verse.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
The Need For A New Covenant
When fault was found with the first covenant, a new covenant was promised by the grace of God. The old covenant could not change those people who remained stubborn in their disobedience. A quotation from Jer 31:31-34 clearly demonstrates a new covenant was promised. Of course, both covenants come out of the one covenant made with Abraham, as recorded in Gen 12:1-3 . Milligan suggests that the old covenant was a fulfillment of the physical elements of that promise, while the new is a fulfillment of the spiritual elements ( Heb 8:7-8 ).
God determined He would no longer deal with the people who wanted to come to Him through the covenant made at Sinai, or the fleshly fulfillment of the covenant with Abraham. He could not deal with man through that covenant because man continually broke it. In breaking the covenant they rejected Him as Lord. Once they had rejected Him, God was forced to reject them as His people ( Heb 8:9 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
ARGUMENT 6
THE TWO COVENANTS
Pursuant to the great double experimental salvation of the gracious economy, everything in the Bible is double. Suntheekee means a covenant of man with man. Diatheekee means a covenant of God with man. This latter word is injudiciously translated testament. Instead of calling Gods book the Old and New Testament, we should say the Old and New Covenant, as that is the correct meaning of both the Hebrew and the Greek. The Mosaic is the old covenant, and being the most conspicuous transaction of the former dispensation, it gave name to Gods book. Hence we call it the Old Testament or, as we should say, the Old Covenant. The covenant of redemption made by the divinity and humanity of Christ is the great transaction of the New Testament. Hence it gives name to that wonderful book which should be called the New Covenant. These two covenants are unanswerable confirmations of the two works of grace wrought in the heart by the Holy Ghost, in the consummation of experimental salvation. Since the new covenant is the plan of salvation, of course it was inaugurated in heaven, about the time of the fall, when the Son of God espoused the lost cause. Abel and all of the antediluvian saints, as well as the postdiluvian patriarchs, were saved under the new covenant. It is called new in contradistinction to the covenant of probation which collapsed in Eden on Satans invasion. The adjective new has a further and deeper signification in the purely and transcendently gracious character of that covenant. Old conveys the idea of decay, dilapidation and evanescence. God, angels and redeemed spirits are eternally new. The grace of God is always new, bright, vital and heavenly. Hence when we receive the glorious experience of Christian perfection, pursuant to the wonderful provisions of the new covenant, our experience is no longer stale and old, but ever fresh, bright and buoyant. It is an effectual fortification against old age. Sanctified old people have the spiritual freshness and vigor of youth. The Mosaic covenant is called old, because it is a reminiscence of the primary probationary covenant, forfeited by Adam and Eve in the fall. Again it is called old because of its destined decay and transiency consequent upon its imperfection. The Edenic covenant once forfeited could never he regained. Under the omnipotent intervention of the new covenant, through the vicarious atonement of the eternal Son, the Edenic state is regained in the human soul in entire sanctification, and in the world in the millennium. Hence, as Paul says, the old covenant, or the law, is a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. The great signification of the law dispensation through its copious bloody rites and ceremonies, is to teach the world the great work of Christ, through the atoning and cleansing blood, and that of the Holy Ghost in regeneration and sanctification, emblematized by water, blood, fire and oil. The old covenant gives great prominence to the material phases of religion, i.e. the robed priest officiating and interceding, and bleeding birds and beasts, purifying ablutions and paying tithes, while the new covenant in its transcendent prominence of spiritualities throws all materialities into eternal eclipse.
7. This verse declares the imperfection of the Mosaic covenant, i.e., the justified experience.
8-10. These verses indisputably settle the question confirming the identity of the old covenant with the Mosaic, and at the same time certifying its insufficiency. Where your English says, I will make a new covenant, the Greek says, I will complete a new covenant. Hence the idea that the new covenant was a de novo transaction in the days of Christ on the earth, is untrue and untenable. When Christ came He perfected the new covenant of redemption, projected in heaven when He espoused the rescue of this fallen world, the same covenant He sealed with His blood when He died on the cross.
10. This is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; putting my laws in their mind, truly I will write them on their heart: and I will be unto them a God, and they shall be unto me a people. Here God clearly defines and lucidly expounds the differentia of the new covenant. It is peculiarized by His putting His laws in our minds, and writing them in our hearts, so we have nothing to do but read them, the Holy Spirit giving us all the help we need to discern and understand them.
11. And they may not teach each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, Know ye the Lord because all shall know me from their small even unto the greatest. These verses clearly and unequivocally define the character and privilege of the new covenant. When we enter that covenant the Holy Spirit writes the laws of God in our minds, and superscribes them in our hearts, so that all, great and small, have a personal acquaintance with God, so clear, full and satisfactory, as to preclude the necessity of human teaching. The illiterate Hottentot, when fully saved, and filled with the Spirit, knows his duty to God each fleeting moment, and has at his command all the grace requisite to do Gods will. Hence you see the citizens of the new covenant are neither subject to, nor dependent on, human leaders and teachers. The Holy Ghost has become the Teacher and Leader of all, great and small, educated and illiterate. Unconverted people follow Satan only. Unsanctified Christians follow the Lord in a measure, but very largely do they follow human leaders. People who are sanctified wholly follow the Lord alone, enjoying the perfect freedom of God himself, which is full liberty to do everything good and nothing bad. This is the glorious freedom of God, angels and redeemed saints, which makes heaven so sweet. The new covenant was gloriously inaugurated by the baptism of the Holy Ghost and fire on the day of Pentecost, consuming all the debris of original sin out of the heart, and sweeping away all the rubbish of Levitical rites and ceremonies. No wonder the carnal clergy in all ages have fought Christian perfection, because it interferes with their plan of ruling the people. Sanctified Moses was delighted when God raised tip seventy elders to share with him the labor and responsibility of leading Israel. When his and-holiness friends interposed and asked him to shut their mouths, lest they supersede him in his official majesty, in the chagrin of his righteous soul he shouted aloud, Would to God that every man in Israel did prophesy! Sanctified preachers are delighted with the relief from care and responsibility which legitimately supervenes upon the sanctification of their members. The poor deluded pastors fret and chafe, paralyze their nerves, get old prematurely and die before their time, because the care, labor and responsibility of leading their people is more than they can bear. If they were only sanctified they would let Jesus the Omnipotent Sanctifier bear all their burdens, cares, labors and responsibilities. How sad to see the Gospel Church in all lands toiling and sweating in legal bondage. They have not only resumed the laws of Moses, but they have made a thousand more and added to their burdens, already intolerable. The people work night and day and still fall far short of their duty, incurring the galling yoke of a guilty conscience in addition to insuperable toils of legal bondage. All this was apologetical during the dispensation of Moses. But since the Omnipotent Christ has forever superseded Moses and Aaron, triumphantly fulfilling the law by paying its full penalty, it is lamentable to see the ecclesiastical world again staggering under the law dispensation. This has postponed the millennium eighteen hundred years.
Truly I say unto you that there are certain ones of those standing here who may not taste death till they may see the Son of man coining in His kingdom. (Mat 16:28)
We see clearly from this declaration of the Savior the glorious possibility of getting the world ready for the Lord to ride down on His millennial throne before the death of the Pentecostal generation. The Greek subjunctive shows the human contingency involved, which verily came to pass, i.e., the apostasy from the Pentecostal experience postponed the coming kingdom, by defeating the evangelization of the world. Consequently, the Lord is still waiting for sanctification to furnish a sufficiency of charter members to set up His kingdom. The glory of the millennial reign obtains largely in the fact that every subject, great and small, rich and poor, cultured and ignorant, will have the laws of God written in his heart and superscribed in his understanding. This will be the secret of universal harmony. It is true now with all who are wholly and really sanctified. Regardless of race, color, nationality, country, language, costume, sect or creed, they are a perfect unit and a universal brotherhood. What unutterable relief from the perplexity, ambiguity, incertitude and consummate bewilderment of human creeds, sectarian jargon, and autocratic despotism, to have the laws of God inscribed in our minds and written in our hearts, so we know our duty every moment of our existence, have all the grace we need to perform it, and are so delighted in doing the sweet will of God that we actually enjoy a heaven in which to go to heaven. What delectable relief from legal bondage! No wonder two hundred millions of martyrs died rather than surrender this glorious freedom. Reader, are you in the new covenant of glorious spiritual light and liberty, or plodding along in the old covenant, two thousand years behind the age, your necked galled with the yoke of legal bondage?
12. Truly the glorious liberty of the new covenant settles the sin problem and keeps it settled forever. Omnipotent grace manages that vexed question.
13. We see from this verse that Gods plan was for the old covenant to vanish eternally before the splendors of Pentecostal glory and the triumphs of the millennial reign. Oh, how sad the apostasy of the Apostolic Church back into the law dispensation Humanity has always been a failure. It failed in Eden. It failed in the antediluvian dispensation. It failed in postdiluvian patriarchy. It failed in the Mosaical and prophetical ages. But the saddest failure of all is the collapse from the Pentecostal victories and glories of the new covenant, and the glorious privileges of the Melchisedec priesthood back into the burdensome drudgery of the moonlit dispensation.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Heb 8:7-13. The promises associated with the old covenant are described in the classical passage of Jeremiah (Jer 31:31-34), which is now quoted at length. But attention is first called to the fact that another covenant was found to be necessary. A place was sought for iti.e. God so modified His design as to bring it inbecause the original covenant had proved defective. In three points, as the quotation from Jer. shows, the new covenant was grander and more satisfying than that which it displaced. (a) It ensured that mans obedience to God should be a matter of inward choice, not merely of a law imposed from without. By their spontaneous obedience to God, men were to be recognised as indeed His children. (b) Their knowledge of God was to be immediate and personal, no longer dependent on what they had learned from others. (c) They were to receive the assurance that all their sins were forgiven. The covenant that carries with it these great promises is described in the prophetic passage as a new one (Heb 8:13). This implies that even in Jeremiahs day the first covenant could be regarded as old. It may be assumed, therefore, that in the interval which had elapsed since then it had faded altogether into a thing of the past.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Verse 7
Faultless; complete and sufficient for the salvation of men.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
8:7 {7} For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
(7) He proves by the testimony of Jeremiah that there is a second Testament or covenant, and therefore that the first was not perfect.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
As with the priesthood (Heb 7:11-12), so it is with the covenant and its promises. Had the first been adequate God would not have promised a second. Add "and its promises" after "covenant," which the translators have supplied, in this verse since "them" in Heb 8:8 is plural.