Hebrews 8:7

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.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES

Heb_8:7. Faultless.—Not merely “free from defect,” but “incomplete,” unable fully to meet man’s 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 Redeemer’s 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 men’s hearts.—The laws of the old covenant were engraven on stone slabs, or written in books, to be read by men’s 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 God’s laws get into man’s will through man’s 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 men’s 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 covenant—What 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. God’s 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 God’s redemption, the Atonement is God’s 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 Lord’s 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 Father’s 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 world’s 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 God’s 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 men’s lives into prison bonds. They allowed no excuses for failure, and so bound grievous burdens on men’s 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 men’s 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 men’s 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 men’s 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 men’s iniquities, with men’s 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 goat’s 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 followed—the 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 Christ’s 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 last—the 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 is—it is God’s 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 objection—“Master, we have here five barley loaves, and two small fishes; but what are they among so many?” Yes, what are they in man’s 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.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

8:7-13 The author quotes Jer 31:31-34, an Old Testament prophecy concerning the new covenant that includes a number of striking promises. Establishing the superiority of the new covenant lays a foundation for the argument in Heb 9:1–10:18 that the Son’s offering under the new covenant was superior to the offerings of the old covenant.

8:7 The first covenant, made at Sinai, was not faultless. It was not the end of God’s plan, because it didn’t solve human weaknesses (see 7:11-28; 8:9).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Heb 8:7. Ἡ πρώτη, the first) A Metonymy; for blame (finding fault) does not fall upon a divine institution, but upon a real and personal object. Αὐτοῖς, 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.—ἐκείνη, that) The pronoun adapted to a past event.—ἐζητεῖτο, should have been sought) A suitable expression: that first covenant would have anticipated all.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Heb_8:7. Justification of the κρείττονος and κρείττοσιν, Heb_8:6.

εἰ ἦν] if it were (Heb_7:11, Heb_8:4).

ἡ πρώτη ἐκείνη] sc. διαθήκη. On the superlative, quite in keeping with the linguistic usage of the Greek, see Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 229, Obs. 1.

ἄμεμπτος] faultless (Php_2:15; Php_3:6), satisfactory, sufficient. Theodoret: τὸ ἄμεμπτος ἀντὶ τοῦ τελεία τέθεικε.

οὐκ ἂν δευτέρας ἐζητεῖτο τόπος] 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 ἐζητεῖτο τόπος is to be taken, and the form of expression in the apodosis to be explained from a mingling of a twofold mode of contemplation (οὐκ ἂν δευτέρα ἐζητεῖτο καὶ δευτέρας αὐκ ἦν ἂν τόπος: a second would not be sought by God, nor would there be any place for a second). No emphasis rests upon τόπος; on which account it is over-refining, when Bleek finds in ἐζητεῖτο τόπος 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.

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.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Heb 8:7 . εἰ γὰρ ἡ πρώτη … “For if that first had been faultless, no place would have been sought for a second.” ἡ πρώτη sc. διαθήκη . πρώτη for προτέρα 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 . οὐκ ἂν δευτέρας ἐζητεῖτο τόπος . “There would not have been as we know there was any demand for a second” (Farrar). Probably, however, ἐζητεῖτο refers to God’s purpose, [“Inquisivit Deus locum et tempus opportunum” (Herveius)] not to man’s craving; although necessarily the two must concur. τόπος is frequently used in the sense of “room” “opportunity” in later Greek, Rom 15:23 ; Luk 14:19 ; and cf. especially Rev 20:11 . τόπος οὐχ εὑρέθη αὐτοῖς . μεμφόμενος γὰρ … “For finding fault with them He says, Behold, there come days, etc.” The γὰρ obviously refers to ἄμεμπτος 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 αὐτήν , i.e. , διαθήκην , which the writer wishes to prove was not faultless, and to join αὐτοῖς with λέγει ”. 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. Ἰδοὺ , κ . τ . λ . The quotation which here occupies five verses is taken from Jeremiah 38:31 34 in LXX, Jer 31:31-34 A.V. ἡμέραι ἔρχονται is a frequent formula in Jeremiah. καὶ “The ubiquitous Hebrew and , serving here the purpose of the ὅτε which might have been expected” (Vaughan). συντελέσω , the LXX has διαθήσομαι , 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 συντελέσω 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 ἐπὶ as in the expression συντελ . τ . ὀργὴν ἐπὶ … But in the face of the occurrence in Jer 34:8 , (LXX, Jer 41:8 ) of the expression συντελέσαι διαθήκην πρὸς …, it is precarious to maintain that our author in selecting this word meant more than “complete a covenant”. ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰσραὴλ καὶ …, comprehensive of the whole people of God. Their blameworthy rupture had not severed them from God’s grace and faithfulness. διαθήκην καινήν , the expression first occurs in our Lord’s institution of the sacrament, τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τ . αἵματί μου , repeated in 1Co 11:25 . In 2Co 3:6 , the καινὴ διαθ . is contrasted with τ . παλαιᾶς διαθ . of 2Co 3:4 . The new covenant is also called νέα in Heb 12:24 ; καινή properly meaning new in character, νέα 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.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He proveth by the testimony of Jeremiah, that there is a second Testament or covenant, and therefore that the first was not perfect.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Same reasoning as in Heb 7:11.

faultless--perfect in all its parts, so as not to be found fault with as wanting anything which ought to be there: answering all the purposes of a law. 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 been sought--as it has to be now; and as it is sought in the prophecy (Heb 8:8-11). The old covenant would have anticipated all man's wants, so as to give no occasion for seeking something more perfectly adequate. Compare on the phrase "place . . . sought," Heb 12:17.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(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 inference—that 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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 ἔφυγον κακὸν εὗρον ἄμεινον—“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.

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”

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

For if that first testament had been faultless: if it had not been imperfect, and all those sacrifices and ceremonies insufficient for the justification, salvation, and redemption of mankind, there would have been no need of a second. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

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 people’s 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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for a second. "For" introduces this sentence as a reason for what has been already said; i.e. for a better covenant having been spoken of. The expression might be objected to by Hebrew readers as implying imperfection in the original Divine covenant. "Nay," says the writer, "it was imperfect, it was not faultless; for prophecy itself declares this." Should it be further objected that in the prophecy it is not the old covenant itself that is found fault with, but the people for not observing it, the answer would be that the remedy for their non-observance being the substitution of a new one that would answer its purpose better, some imperfection in the old one is implied. This is indeed the very point of this verse. If it be asked, further, how faultiness in the old covenant is compatible with the view of its Divine origin, the answer is abundantly supplied in St. Paul"s Epistles. His position constantly is that the Mosaic Law, though in itself "holy, just, and true," and adequate to its purpose, was still imperfect as a means of justification. It was but a temporary dispensation, with a purpose of its own, intervening between the original promise to Abraham and the fulfillment of that promise in Christ. Thus it is no derogation to itself or to its Author to charge it with "weakness and unprofitableness" for a purpose it was never meant to answer.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For if the first had been faultless - If that dispensation had answered all God's designs and man's wants, if it had not been weak and unprofitable unable to make anything perfect, no place would have been for a second.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

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.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 God’s 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 God’s 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 Satan’s 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 God’s 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 God’s 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.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

7. For if that first covenant. The covenant of Sinai, the Law of Moses, the Old Testament. It was faulty and could not make men perfect. See note on chapter 7:18.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

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.”

7. Εἰ γὰρ … ἄμεμπτος. Whereas it was as he has said ἀσθενής and ἀνωφελής and σαρκίνη (Heb 7:16; 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, or one of similar training to his, 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 ἔφυγον κακόν, εὗρον ἄμεινον—“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.

οὐκ ἂν ἐζητεῖτο. There would not have been—as we know there was—any demand for a second.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

7.] Argumentation, exactly as in ch. 7:11, from sayings of God, to shew the imperfection of the former covenant. So Chrys.: ὥσπερ γὰρ λέγει ὅτι εἰ ἡ τελείωσις κ.τ.λ. (7:11), οὕτω καὶ ἐνταῦθα τῷ αὐτῷ συλλογισμῷ κέχρηται. For if that first (covenant) were (or, had been. We are never sure of ἦν 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 (τὸ ἄμεμπτος ἀντὶ τοῦ τελεία τέθεικε, τουτέστιν ἀποχρῶσα πρὸς τελειότητα, ἀμέμπτους τοὺς ἐργαζομένους ἐργαζομένη. Thdrt. It is the contrary of ἀσθενὲς κ. ἀνωφελές, ch. 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 τόπος 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 τόπον εὑρίσκειν and τόπον λαμβάνειν in reff., see also τόπον διδόναι, Rom 12:19. ἐζητεῖτο must not be rendered pluperfect, as in E. V., al., but, as in vulg. above, imperf.) for a second (the emphasis is on δευτέρας).

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.