Hebrews 8

Hebrews 8:1

Arethas of Caesarea: He calls the heavens “the tent” in this passage. In my opinion he seems to then call the flesh of the Lord “the true tent,” which also the Lord himself fashioned when he was not yet man, considering that immaculate flesh did not come into existence by human coupling but by the Holy Spirit. — FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE Hebrews 8.2

Basil of Caesarea: If he assigns to the Father the upper place by way of precedence, and asserts that the only begotten Son sits below, he will find that to the creature of his imagination attach all the consequent conditions of body. And if these are the imaginations of drunken delusion and phrensied insanity, can it be consistent with true religion for men taught by the Lord himself that “He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father” to refuse to worship and glorify with the Father him who in nature, in glory, and in dignity is conjoined with him? What shall we say? What just defence shall we have in the day of the awful universal judgment of all-creation, if, when the Lord clearly announces that He will come “in the glory of his Father;” when Stephen beheld Jesus standing at the right hand of God; when Paul testified in the spirit concerning Christ “that he is at the right hand of God;” when the Father says, “Sit thou on my right hand;” when the Holy Spirit bears witness that he has sat down on “the right hand of the majesty” of God; we attempt to degrade him who shares the honour and the throne, from his condition of equality, to a lower state? Standing and sitting, I apprehend, indicate the fixity and entire stability of the nature, as Baruch, when he wishes to exhibit the immutability and immobility of the Divine mode of existence, says, “For thou sittest for ever and we perish utterly.” Moreover, the place on the right hand indicates in my judgment equality of honour. Rash, then, is the attempt to deprive the Son of participation in the doxology, as though worthy only to be ranked in a lower place of honour. — On the Spirit 6.15

Cosmas Indicopleustes: We must here again observe that he (Paul) speaks of the Tabernacle which was pitched by God, namely heaven, as the true. Moreover he calls heaven that perfect Tabernacle not made with hands, as it was created by God. For he calls the Tabernacle which Moses prepared made with hands. And further in contrast with the Tabernacle prepared by Moses, he calls the other the true, because it abides for ever, while the former is dissolved. — The Christian Topography, Book 5

Cosmas Indicopleustes ((quoting John Chrysostom, Commentary on Hebrews)): Where are those who say that the heaven is in motion? Where are those who think it to be spherical? For both these opinions are here swept away. — The Christian Topography, Book 10

Cosmas Indicopleustes: We have such a high priest, who sat down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true Tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man —as if he said: the Lord Christ had been taken up into the heavens, into the true Tabernacle, that is, one which is permanent and indissoluble. For the expression true indicates that it is indissoluble, since that which was prepared by Moses was dissolved; this one as being indissoluble, by way of distinction and in contrast with the other, he calls the true—as being permanent and firm and indissoluble. — The Christian Topography, Book 7

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

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

“A minister of the sanctuary,” not simply a minister, but “a minister of the sanctuary. And of the true Tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man.” Thou seest the condescension. Did he not a little before make a separation, saying: “Are they not all ministering spirits?” (supra, i. 14) and therefore (he says) it is not said to them, “Sit thou on my right hand,” (supra, i. 13) for He that sitteth is not a minister. How is it then that it is here said, “a minister,” and “a minister of the Sanctuary”? for he means here the Tabernacle.

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

“Now” (he says) “of the things which we have spoken this is the sum.” By “the sum” is always meant what is most important. Again he brings down his discourse; having said what is lofty, henceforward he speaks fearlessly. — Homily on Hebrews 14

Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius: Let people therefore learn and understand why the Most High God willed that he should be clothed with mortal flesh, afflicted with torture and sentenced to death when he sent his ambassador and messenger to instruct mortals with the precepts of his righteousness. For since there was no righteousness on earth, he sent a teacher, as it were, a living law to found a new name and temple so that, by his words and example, he might spread throughout the earth a true and holy worship. However, in order that people might know for sure that he was sent by God, it was fitting that he should not be born as human beings are born, composed of a mortal on both sides. Rather, so that it might appear that he was heavenly even in the form of man, he was born without the office of a father. For he had a spiritual Father—God. And, as God was the Father of his spirit without a mother, so a virgin was the mother of his body without a father. He was therefore both God and man, being placed in the middle between God and man. From which the Greeks call him Mesitēs, that he might be able to lead humankind to God—that is, to immortality. For if he had been God only (as we have before said), he would not have been able to afford to people examples of goodness; if he had been man only, he would not have been able to compel people to righteousness, unless there had been added an authority and virtue greater than that of man. — DIVINE INSTITUTES 4.25

Oecumenius: “Moreover, the main point.” He always calls that which is greatest the main point. Whenever someone intends to summarize the main points briefly, he says that the discourse is made into a point; just as the head, though small, is the most important part of the body. Therefore, the apostle also says now: “Moreover, the main point of what we say is this”—that is, to say the greatest and most comprehensive, we have a God as high priest; for the priesthood belongs to no one else but God. “we have such a high priest.” This mixes the humble with the awe-inspiring in this place, so that through the humble it may prepare the way for the awe-inspiring. The humble are to be a priest and an administrator; the awe-inspiring is to sit at the right hand of God and in the heavens. “of the throne of majesty.” He calls it the throne of majesty, the paternal throne, or that majesty might also be said to belong to the Father; or simply thus, the throne of majesty, the greatest throne. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Photios I of Constantinople: When he serves and ministers, it is for this purpose: to cleanse humans from their sins and to make them holy. For it is fitting for the minister and creator of the saints to sit at the right hand of the Father as true God and his Son. — FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE Hebrews 8.1

Tertullian: For to this end had He come, that, being Himself pure from sin, and in all respects holy, He might undergo death on behalf of sinners. — On Modesty

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

Theodoret of Cyrus: By “tent” he referred to heaven, where the apostle said he was ministering as man, though being its creator. — INTERPRETATION OF Hebrews 8

Hebrews 8:2

Cosmas Indicopleustes: Isaiah again says: Thus saith the Lord, he that made the heaven and pitched it; and the Apostle in like manner says: Of the true Tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man. They both speak of the heaven as standing on and fixed on the earth, and not as revolving round it. — The Christian Topography, Book 4

Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius: Let men therefore learn and understand why the Most High God, when He sent His ambassador and messenger to instruct mortals with the precepts of His righteousness, willed that He should be clothed with mortal flesh, and be afflicted with torture, and be sentenced to death. For since there was no righteousness on earth, He sent a teacher, as it were a living law, to found a new name and temple, that by His words and example He might spread throughout the earth a true and holy worship. But, however, that it might be certain that He was sent by God, it was befitting that He should not be born as man is born, composed of a mortal on both sides; but that it might appear that He was heavenly even in the form of man, He was born without the office of a father. For He had a spiritual Father, God; and as God was the Father of His spirit without a mother, so a virgin was the mother of His body without a father. He was therefore both God and man, being placed in the middle between God and man. From which the Greeks call Him Mesites, that He might be able to lead man to God-that is, to immortality. — The Divine Institutes Book 4, Chapter XXV

Oecumenius: “a minister of the sanctuary.” The High Priest, he says, is of men who have been sanctified by him. For he is our High Priest. If he sat at the right hand of the Father, how is he a minister? For it is proper for ministers to stand and serve; but to sit is the role of God to whom the ministry is rendered. But, as has been said, the humble mingles with the awe-inspiring, so that by sitting he may show divinity, and by ministering the guardianship and humanity concerning us. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Oecumenius: For this is the ministry and this is the priesthood, to cleanse men from sins and to make them holy. For such a minister and worker of the saints must sit at the right hand of the Father as the true God and Son. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Oecumenius: “and of the true tabernacle.” Here, he refers to the heavens as the tabernacle. For they were saying, perhaps, the believers from Judea: If he is a high priest, where is the tabernacle in which he performs his priestly duties? He indicates that there is also a tabernacle, and the difference of it compared to the Jewish tabernacle, wanting to show that it was established by the Lord and not by man. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Hebrews 8:3

Athanasius of Alexandria: I am very much surprised how they have ventured to entertain the idea that the Word became man in consequence of his nature. For, if this were so, the commemoration of Mary would be superfluous. For nature has no conception of a virgin bearing apart from a man. By the good pleasure of the Father, being true God, and Word and Wisdom of the Father by nature, he became man in the body for our salvation in order that, having something to offer for us he might save us all, “as many as through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” For it was not some man that gave himself up for us; since every man is under sentence of death, according to what was said to all in Adam, “earth you are and unto earth you shall return.” Nor yet was it any other of the creatures, since every creature is liable to change. But the Word himself offered his own body on our behalf that our faith and hope might not be in man, but that we might have our faith in God the Word himself. — LETTER 61, TO MAXIMUS 3

Augustine of Hippo: They do not understand, that not even the proudest of spirits themselves could rejoice in the honor of sacrifices, unless a true sacrifice was due to the one true God, in whose stead they desire to be worshipped: and that this cannot be rightly offered except by a holy and righteous priest; nor unless that which is offered be received from those for whom it is offered; and unless also it be without fault, so that it may be offered for cleansing the faulty. This at least all desire who wish sacrifice to be offered for themselves to God. Who then is so righteous and holy a priest as the only Son of God, who had no need to purge His own sins by sacrifice, neither original sins, nor those which are added by human life? And what could be so fitly chosen by men to be offered for them as human flesh? And what so fit for this immolation as mortal flesh? And what so clean for cleansing the faults of mortal men as the flesh born in and from the womb of a virgin, without any infection of carnal concupiscence? And what could be so acceptably offered and taken, as the flesh of our sacrifice, made the body of our priest? In such wise that, whereas four things are to be considered in every sacrifice,—to whom it is offered, by whom it is offered, what is offered, for whom it is offered,—the same One and true Mediator Himself, reconciling us to God by the sacrifice of peace, might remain one with Him to whom He offered, might make those one in Himself for whom He offered, Himself might be in one both the offerer and the offering. — ON THE TRINITY 4.14.19

John Chrysostom: In the next place that thou mayest understand that he used the word “minister” of the manhood, observe how he again indicates it: “For” (he says) “every high priest is ordained to offer both gifts and sacrifices, wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.”

Do not now, because thou hearest that He sitteth, suppose that His being called High Priest is mere idle talk. For the former, viz. His sitting, belongs to the dignity of the Godhead, but this to His great lovingkindness, and His tender care for us. On this account he repeatedly urges this very thing, and dwells more upon it: for he feared lest the other truth should overthrow it. That is, lest the belief of His Godhead should undermine our belief in His true manhood. Therefore he again brings down his discourse to this: since some were enquiring why He died. He was a Priest. But there is no Priest without a sacrifice. It is necessary then that He also should have a sacrifice. — Homily on Hebrews 14

Oecumenius: “For every high priest.” For he says, it is proper for the high priests to offer gifts and sacrifices (for this is why they are established), it is necessary for the Christ also to offer something, I mean sacrifices. Therefore, he took on his own flesh, which he also offered. He said this, so that no one would say, If he is a high priest forever, why did he die? Why? So that he might offer himself as a sacrifice. For without sacrifices, he would not even be a high priest. “thus it is necessary for this one also to have something to offer.” Such as Christ. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Theodoret of Cyrus: It is proper for a high priest to offer gifts to the God of all. For this reason, the only begotten, when he was made man and assumed our nature, offered it for us. — INTERPRETATION OF Hebrews 8.3

Hebrews 8:4

John Chrysostom: And in another way; Having said that He is on high, he affirms and proves that He is a Priest from every consideration, from Melchisedec, from the oath, from offering sacrifice. From this he also frames another and necessary syllogism. “For if” (he says) “He had been on earth, He would not be a Priest, seeing that there are priests who offer the gifts according to the Law.” If then He is a Priest (as He really is), we must seek some other place for Him. “For if He were” indeed “on earth, He should not be a priest.” For how could He be? He offered no sacrifice, He ministered not in the Priest’s office. And with good reason, for there were the priests. Moreover he shows, that it was impossible that He should be a priest upon earth. For how could He be? There was no rising up against the appointed Priests, he means. — Homily on Hebrews 14

Oecumenius: “For if he were on earth.” This was the case, if he had not died, nor had he been taken up after rising. “he would not be a priest at all.” For there would be others, even a rebellion would be present. But now he has died, so that he may offer the sacrifice. Rising from the dead, he was taken up, so that he might have a place in heaven, where he must serve as a priest. To serve as a priest means to intercede for us. All these humble words were said, both because of humanity and because of the childishness of those who hear. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

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

Hebrews 8:5

Cosmas Indicopleustes: We have neither devised fictions of our own nor invented new fables; but from revelation and from what God who created the world has ordained, have beheld the pattern of the whole world—namely the Tabernacle prepared by Moses, which the New Testament consistently with this view has pronounced to be an image of the whole world; and which also by means of the vail Moses divided, and so made one tabernacle into two, just as God also in the beginning divided what was one region, extending from the earth to the highest heaven, into two regions, by means of the firmament; and just as in the tabernacle there was an outer and an inner place, so here there was a lower and an upper. Now the lower is this world, and the upper is the world to come, into which also the Lord Christ, after having risen according to the flesh from the dead, ascended the first of all, and into which the righteous shall in their turn afterwards ascend. And since from Adam to Moses, and from Moses to John, and from John all the Apostles and Evangelists, have each and all in harmony, and both by words and types spoken of these two states; and since not one of them has uttered a discordant note, either saying that there was a state before the first, or supposing that there is a third after the second; but all of them, as if inspired by the Holy Ghost, have proclaimed that there are but two states only, we, therefore, putting our confidence in the scriptures, which are truly divine, have not only sketched the figures of the whole world, but also of those very places by which you will find the Israelites made their exodus, also the mountain on which they received the law in writing, and were instructed in the knowledge of writing; also the delineation of the Tabernacle and the settlement in the Land of Promise; until he who was expected to arise from among them, and who was predicted by all the men of old and by the Prophets, did actually appear, proclaiming the future second state, which on his coming he showed in himself to us all, having entered into the inner Tabernacle, into the upper celestial region, into which at his second coming he shall call the righteous, saying: Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. — The Christian Topography, Book 1

Cosmas Indicopleustes: But the other seven stars, which they call planets, Moses obscurely represented by placing seven lamps in the candlestick, which he placed in the south, so that it cast its light upon the table towards the north, while by the lamps he signified a week of seven days, signifying by all these the days, the weeks, the months, the tropics, and the year. By the daily loaves which were each day laid down new upon the table, he indicated the days, and by the seven lamps the week, and by the number of the loaves the twelve months, and by the four corners the tropics, and by the circle the year, concerning which things the divine Apostle speaks in the Epistle to the Hebrews: Now if he were on earth he would not be a priest at all, seeing there are those who offer the gifts according to the law; who serve that which is a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, even as Moses is warned of God when he is about to make the Tabernacle: For, see, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern which was shown thee in the Mount. — The Christian Topography, Book 9

Ephrem the Syrian: Since they were in the darkness without a model, they managed their office according to a general affinity in divine matters. That is, all those ancient religious institutions were shadows and symbols of this institution of the church, which is established in its spirituality and divinity before him. And to Moses himself it was ordered, when he was about to build the tabernacle of the hour, “See that you make everything according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain.” — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

Eusebius of Caesarea: It is now time to show that the very name of Jesus, and especially that of Christ, had already been honored by the ancient God-loving prophets. Moses himself, having been the first to make known the name of Christ as being especially revered and glorious, having handed down the types and symbols of heavenly things and the mysterious images according to the oracle which said to him, “See that you make everything according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain,” and having consecrated a man high priest of God insofar as it was at all possible, calls this man Christ. That is, to this dignity of the high priesthood, which surpassed all preeminence among humans, he attaches for additional honor and glory the name of Christ. Thus, then, he indeed knew Christ as a being divine. And the same Moses by divine inspiration foresaw the name Jesus very clearly and again also endowed this with special privilege. The name of Jesus, which had never been uttered among people before it was made known to Moses, Moses applied first to this one alone, whom he knew, again as a type and a symbol, would receive the rule over all after his death. His successor … had never before used the title Jesus but had been called by another name, Hoshea, which his parents had bestowed upon him. He himself [the successor] proclaims Jesus, as a privilege of honor far greater than a royal crown, giving him the name because Jesus, the son of Nun, himself bore a remembrance to our Savior, who alone, after Moses and the completion of the symbolic worship transmitted by him, received the rule of the true and pure religion. And in this way Moses bestowed the name of our Savior Jesus Christ as a mark of the greatest honor upon the two men who in his time surpassed all the rest of the people in virtue and glory—the high priest and him who would rule after him. — ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 1.3

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

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

“Who” (he says) “serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God, when he was about to make the tabernacle, for see, saith He, that thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount.” Inasmuch as our hearing is less ready of apprehension than our sight (for the things which we hear we do not in such wise lay up in our soul, as those which we see with our very eyes), He showed him all. Either then he means this by “the example and shadow,” or else he speaks of the Temple. For, he went on to say, “See” (His words are), that “thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount.” Was it then only what concerned the furniture of the temple that he saw, or was it also what related to the sacrifices, and all the rest? Nay, one would not be wrong in saying even this; for The Church is heavenly, and is nothing else than Heaven. — Homily on Hebrews 14

Oecumenius: “who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things.” Those who are priests of the Jews, he says. And how do they serve as a copy and shadow of the heavenly things? For he says, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown to you on the mountain.” And the things shown to him were heavenly. There were also services, and prayers, and sacrifices, and the construction of the tabernacle. “just as Moses was instructed.” “He has heard, he knows.” “According to the pattern shown to you.” Since the sight is easier to learn than hearing, for this reason God showed Moses everything, not only the construction of the tabernacle, but also concerning the sacrifices and the other worship. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Origen of Alexandria: Now if we correctly understand it, this is the statement Moses writes in the beginning of his book, when he says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” For this is the beginning of all creation: to this beginning the end and consummation of all things must return. That is, that heaven and earth may be the dwelling place and rest of the pious, so that all the saints and the meek may first obtain an inheritance in that earth, for this is the teaching of the law and the prophets and the gospel. In that earth I believe there exist, the true and living forms of worship which Moses handed down under the shadow of the law. For it is said that “they serve as a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary”—that is, those who were in subjection in the law. To Moses himself it was also said, “See that you make everything according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain.” It seems to me, therefore, that on this earth the law was a kind of schoolmaster to those who by it were to be led to Christ and to be instructed and trained in order that, after the training of the law, they might more easily receive the more perfect precepts of Christ. So also that other earth, which receives into it all the saints, may first imbue and mould them by the precepts of the true and everlasting law, that they may more easily gain possession of those perfect precepts of heaven, to which nothing can be added. And in heaven there will truly be what is called the “eternal gospel” and that testament that is always new, which shall never grow old. — ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 3.6.8

Origen of Alexandria: But who could more properly speak to us about who God is than the Son? “For no one knows the Father except the Son.” We too aspire to know how God is Spirit as the Son reveals it and to worship God in the Spirit that gives life and not in the letter that kills. We want to honor God in truth and no longer in types, shadows and examples, even as the angels do not serve God in examples and the shadow of heavenly realities but in realities that belong to the spiritual and heavenly order, having a high priest of the order of Melchizedek as leader of the saving worship for those who need both the mystical and secret contemplation. — COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF John 13.146

Origen of Alexandria: The apostle says with reference to the law that they who have circumcision in the flesh “serve as the copy and shadow of heavenly things.” And in another place, “is not our life on earth a shadow?” If then both the law that is on the earth is a “shadow” and all our life that is on earth is the same, and we live among nations under the “shadow of Christ,” we must consider whether the truth of all these shadows will be learned in that revelation when, no longer “through a mirror and darkly,” but “face to face” all the saints shall be counted worthy to behold the glory of God and the causes and truth of things. And the pledge of this truth being already received through the Holy Spirit, the apostle said, “Even if we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth we know him no more. — ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 2.6.7

Origen of Alexandria: Since, however, “when he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken,” we must admit, as far as the literal meaning is concerned, that, after the Lord was raised from the dead, the disciples understood that the things said about the temple refer to his passion and resurrection, and they recalled that the saying, “in three days I will raise it up” indicated the resurrection. It was then that “they believed both the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken,” since there is no earlier testimony that they had believed the Scripture or this word which Jesus spoke. For faith is, strictly speaking, the acceptance with one’s whole soul of the object of faith at baptism. But as for the anagogical meaning, since we previously mentioned the resurrection from the dead of the whole body of the Lord, we must know that the disciples—once they were reminded through the fulfillments of the Scripture which they had not thoroughly understood when they were in this life and once it was brought before their eyes and made manifest that it contained an example and shadow of certain heavenly things—believed what they formerly did not believe, and believed the word of Jesus as he who spoke it intended, which they had not understood before the resurrection.For how can one be said to believe the Scripture in the proper sense, when one does not perceive the meaning of the Holy Spirit in it which God wants to be believed, rather than the intent of the letter? According to this, we must say that none of those who walk according to the flesh believe in the spiritual meanings of the law, whose first principle they do not even imagine. — COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF John 10.298-300

Theodoret of Cyrus: The divine apostle, by “shadow of the heavenly things” referred to the worship according to the law and confirms his statement with a scriptural testimony. — INTERPRETATION OF Hebrews 8

Hebrews 8:6

Athanasius of Alexandria: “It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.” Both in the verse before us, then, and throughout, does he ascribe the word better to the Lord, who is better and other than originated things. For better is the sacrifice through him, better the hope in him and also the promises through him, not merely as great compared with small, but the one differing from the other in nature, because he who conducts this economy, is better than things originated. — Discourses Against the Arians 1.13. [59]

John Chrysostom: “But now hath He obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also He is the Mediator of a better covenant.” Thou seest (he means) how much better is the one ministration than the other, if one be an example and type, and the other truth. But this did not profit the hearers, nor cheer them. Therefore he says what especially cheered them: “Which was established upon better promises.” Having raised them up by speaking of the place, and the priest, and the sacrifice, he then sets forth also the wide difference of the covenant, having also said before that it was “weak and unprofitable.” (See Heb. vii. 18.)

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

But (as I said) he sets down that which especially cheers them, in the words, “Which was established upon better promises.” — Homily on Hebrews 14

Oecumenius: “But now he has obtained a more excellent ministry.” Now, he says, since it is not on earth, but in heaven, a better ministry has been attained, that is, the high priest is for a better ministry. See how he engages with the humble because of the weakness of those who are listening. But if he were to say something awe-inspiring, he would immediately be dismissed, fearing that it would not be accepted. “inasmuch as he is also the mediator of a better covenant.” Thus, he says, the ministry is better than the old, as the new covenant, of which Christ is the mediator, is new, I say, the covenant of faith in Him, in which He mediated for Himself and for the Father, “which was established on better promises.” This covenant, he says, was enacted on better promises. For the old promised the good things of the earth; but the new, the kingdom of heaven. And thus the promises from this are better, because the former has been abolished. Therefore, the new triumphs, because it is better, and is given on better promises. And the better one has the promises, for it is better, is evident everywhere. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

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

Hebrews 8:7

John Chrysostom: Whence does appear? In that this the one was cast out, and the other introduced in its place: for it is therefore of force because it is better. For as he says, “If perfection were by” it, “what further need was there, that another priest should rise, after the order of Melchisedec?” (Heb. vii. 11); so also here he used the same syllogism, saying “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second”; that is, if it made men “faultless.” For it is because he is speaking of this that he did not say, “But finding fault with” it, but “But finding fault with them.”

And “faultless”; that is, useful; not as though it the old Covenant was obnoxious to any charges, but as not being sufficient. He used a familiar form of speech. As if one should say, the house is not faultless, that is, it has some defect, it is decayed: the garment is not faultless, that is, it is coming to pieces. He does not therefore here speak of it as evil, but only as having some fault and deficiency. — Homily on Hebrews 14

Oecumenius: Behold the order! He said that the covenant according to Christ is superior to the old one. And how is this evident? Because, he says, it is established on better promises. For if the promises and the recompenses are better, it is clear that the covenant is also better, and the commandments more divine. But how is it evident that the promises are better? From this, he says, that the former was set aside, but this one has taken its place. For this reason, the New covenant prevails, because it is better and more perfect. For if the former had been faultless, that is, if it had nothing lacking, if it made people blameless—then no second covenant would have been introduced. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Hebrews 8:8

Augustine of Hippo: Prophetic utterances are of three kinds: (1) some relating to the earthly Jerusalem; (2) some to the heavenly Jerusalem; (3) and some to both simultaneously. I think it proper to prove what I say by examples. The prophet Nathan was sent to convict King David of heinous sin and predict what future evils would happen to him because of his sin. Who can question that this pertains to the earthly city? There are other instances, sometimes addressed to the public at large for their safety and benefit, and sometimes addressed to someone in private who merited an utterance from God in order to know in advance about some event to guide his temporal life.The following prophecy, however, without a doubt references the heavenly Jerusalem. “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, that I will make for the house of Israel, and for the house of Judah, a new testament: not according to the testament that I settled for their fathers in the day when I laid hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my testament, and I regarded them not, says the Lord. For this is the testament that I will make for the house of Israel: after those days, says the Lord, I will give my laws in their mind, and will write them upon their hearts, and I will see to them; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.” Here, God himself is Jerusalem’s reward. Its chief and entire good is to possess him and to be possessed by him. Both cities are indicated when the city of God is called Jerusalem and when it is prophesied that the house of God shall one day be in Jerusalem. This prophecy seems to be fulfilled when King Solomon builds that most noble temple. For these things both happened in the earthly Jerusalem, as history shows, and were types of the heavenly Jerusalem. This kind of prophecy, as it were, blending both the others in the ancient canonical books devoted to historical narratives, is very common. It has exercised and continues to exercise greatly the talents of those who search holy Scripture. — City of God 17.3

Clement of Alexandria: For we find in the Scriptures, as the Lord says: “Behold, I make with you a new covenant, not as I made with your fathers in Mount Horeb.” He made a new covenant with us; for what belonged to the Greeks and Jews is old. But we, who worship Him in a new way, in the third form, are Christians. — The Stromata Book 6

John Chrysostom: “But 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.”

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

But how is it “upon better promises”? For how, tell me, can earth and heaven be equal? But do thou consider, how he speaks of promises there in that other covenant also, that thou mayest not bring this charge against it. For there also, he says “a better hope, by which we draw nigh unto God” (Heb. vii. 19), showing that a Hope was there also; and in this place “better promises,” hinting that there also He had made promises.

But inasmuch as they were forever making objections, he says, “Behold! the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.” He is not speaking of any old Covenant: for, that they might not assert this, he determined the time also. Thus he did not say simply, “according to the covenant which I made with their fathers,” lest thou shouldest say it was the one made with Abraham, or that with Noah: but he declares what covenant it was, “not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers” in the Exodus. Wherefore he added also, “in the day that I took them by the hand, to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in My covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.” Thou seest that the evils begin first from ourselves (“they” themselves first, saith he, “continued not in the covenant”) and the negligence is from ourselves, but the good things from Him; I mean the acts of bounty. He here introduces, as it were, an apology showing the cause why He forsakes them. — Homily on Hebrews 14

Leo the Great: [The Lord] ascended into the retirement of a neighboring mountain and called his apostles to him there. From the height of that mystical seat he could instruct them in the loftier doctrines, signifying from the very nature of the place and act that it was he who had once honored Moses by speaking to him. He spoke with Moses then, indeed, with a more terrifying justice, but now with a holier mercy in order that what had been promised might be fulfilled when the prophet Jeremiah says, “Behold, the days are coming when I will complete a new covenant for the house of Israel and for the house of Judah. After those days, says the Lord, I will put my laws in their minds, and in their heart will I write them.” He therefore who had spoken to Moses, spoke also to the apostles, and the swift hand of the Word wrote and deposited the secrets of the new covenant in the disciples’ hearts. There were no thick clouds surrounding him as of old, nor were the people frightened off from approaching the mountain by frightful sounds and lightning. Rather, quietly and freely his discourse reached the ears of those who stood by. In this way the harshness of the law might give way before the gentleness of grace, and “the spirit of adoption” might dispel the terrors of bondage. — SERMON 95.1

Oecumenius: If he had nothing lacking, he says, if he made men without fault, how then was he so disturbed? “For finding fault with them.” To whom? The Jews who received and were governed by the laws in the Old Testament. “Behold, the days are coming.” “After having made the new covenant better than the old in many ways above, now clearly he also mocks the removal of the old, but he does not do this of his own accord, lest he become burdensome, and he brings forth Jeremiah saying, “in the day when I took them by the hand.” (Jer. 31:32) — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

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

Hebrews 8:9

Oecumenius: “in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.” So that they do not suppose that the exodus is according to the covenant with Abraham; for it has occurred in Christ, “For to your seed,” he says, “who is Christ;” (Gal. 3:16) it brings forth what kind of covenant the exodus has become. That of the Exodus, he says, made through Moses. For to say, “not according to that covenant,” he shows it to be cast away, as if he were saying, “I will give another covenant, not such as I have already given. For that one, because of its weakness, has been cast away from me.” “because they did not continue.” As if the statement serves as a defense for God’s negligence; for He says, they did not continue My covenant. For from them began the disobedience, and thus God’s negligence followed. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Hebrews 8:10

Clement of Alexandria: Having bestowed on us the truly great, divine, and inalienable inheritance of the Father, deifying man by heavenly teaching, putting His laws into our minds, and writing them on our hearts. What laws does He inscribe? “That all shall know God, from small to great;” and, “I will be merciful to them,” says God, “and will not remember their sins.” Let us receive the laws of life, let us comply with God’s expostulations; let us become acquainted with Him, that He may be gracious. And though God needs nothing let us render to Him the grateful recompense of a thankful heart and of piety, as a kind of house-rent for our dwelling here below. — Exhortation to the Heathen

John Chrysostom: “For this,” he says, “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.” Thus He says this concerning the New covenant because His words are “not according to the covenant which I covenanted.”

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

Oecumenius: “For this is the covenant.” Which one? The New one. That is to say, “after those days.” Which days? Some say, those of the Exodus, in which the Mosaic law was given; but it seems to me that it speaks of those days mentioned above: “Behold, the days are coming.” After those days have passed, I will make such a covenant as you will hear next. “I will put my laws.” I will establish, giving my laws, “on their hearts.” For neither in letters was the new established, but through the Holy Spirit. And this is indicated by Christ speaking to the apostles. “He (that is, the Comforter) coming, will remind you and teach you all things.” (Jn. 14:26) Do you see that the new is not in letters, but through the Holy Spirit? Therefore, consider how much greater the New Covenant is. “And I will be their God.” This was accomplished through the gospel. For those who formerly worshiped idols, now having known the true God, have become His people. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Oecumenius: For this is evident. Who easily persuades someone in the ancient times to turn away from their own superstition? On the contrary, Israel was turning from the knowledge of God into error. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Theodoret of Cyrus: This does not happen in this life, but will happen in that: those still beset with the gloom of unbelief will see the truth there, and will be smitten, in keeping with the divine oracle. — INTERPRETATION OF Hebrews 8

Hebrews 8:11

John Chrysostom: “And they shall not teach” (he says) “every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know Me from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.” Behold also another sign. “From the least even to the greatest of them” (he says) “they shall know Me, and they shall not say, Know the Lord.” When hath this been fulfilled save now? For our religion is manifest: but theirs, i.e. the Jews’, was not manifest, but had been shut up in a corner.

A covenant is then said to be “new,” when it is different and shows some advantage over the old.

Here he shows that God counts us worthy of greater and of spiritual privileges: for it is said “their sound went out into all the earth and their words unto the ends of the world.” (Ps. xix. 5; Rom. x. 18.) That is the meaning of “they shall not say each man to his neighbor, Know the Lord.” And again, “the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as much water to cover the seas.” (Isa. xi. 9.) — Homily on Hebrews 14

Oecumenius: “And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor.” Here it speaks of a teaching that is more laborious. For behold, we see that there is no need for more words for those whose minds are healthy, to persuade them to believe in Christ. For all men are taught by God; for Christ has written His laws upon our hearts. “for they shall all know me.” For the Jewish knowledge and faith were confined to one corner of the world, Palestine. And few knew it; but the voice of the apostles went out to all the earth. Moreover, since God dwelt on earth in the flesh, and by taking on our nature made it divine, the light of true knowledge of God shone in all souls, and a certain ability was granted to human nature by grace to truly know God. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Tertullian: Let no one, then, flatter himself on the ground of being assigned to the “recruit-classes” of learners, as if on that account he have a licence even now to sin. As soon as you “know the Lord, you should fear Him; as soon as you have gazed on Him, you should reverence Him. — On Repentance

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

Hebrews 8:12

Bede: For what is the meaning of John’s being born to elderly parents? Was it not to indicate the earthly birth of the one who was soon to follow, since by bringing forward the hidden spiritual mysteries of the new covenant, he would teach that the fleshly observance of the law and the priesthood of the old covenant were now to be brought to an end? For “what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” And what does it mean that our Lord’s precursor came from a father who was mute, a leader of the priests of that time? Is it not that, by the time our Lord appeared, the tongue of the ancient priesthood had to a large extent become mute as regards the spiritual sense of the law’s teaching, since the scribes and those learned in the law were only concerned with teaching the keeping of the letter of the law? Moreover, in a number of instances, they were even falsifying the letter of the law by substituting their own traditions, as is proven by our Lord’s having rebuked them more than once in the Gospels. And what does it mean that he was born to a barren mother? Is it not that the law, which was ordered to beget spiritual issue for God with the help of the priestly office, led no one to perfection, undoubtedly because it was unable to open up the gates of the kingdom to its followers? The author of the law himself, born under the law, took away from the law the opprobrium of its barrenness, for he pointed out that it was to be understood spiritually; and he taught that in it was formerly prefigured and, as it were, conceived, the gift of happiness from on high which now shines out clearly in the gospel. — Homilies on the Gospels 2.20

Ephrem the Syrian: “For I will be merciful” to them, not with regard to their impurity but “toward their iniquities,” not with regard to the uncleanness of nocturnal dreams but to the sins which are performed in them through the power of the devil.Therefore in the new covenant that Jeremiah announced, “The first has become old. Now what decayed and became old is near to vanishing away.” — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

Gregory of Nyssa: The mighty Paul, knowing that the Only-begotten God, Who has the pre-eminence in all things, is the author and cause of all good, bears witness to Him that not only was the creation of all existent things wrought by Him, but that when the original creation of man had decayed and vanished away, to use his own language, and another new creation was wrought in Christ, in this too no other than He took the lead, but He is Himself the first-born of all that new creation of men which is effected by the Gospel. — AGAINST EUNOMIUS 2.8

Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius: All Scripture is divided into two Testaments. What preceded the advent and passion of Christ—that is, the law and the prophets—is called the Old [Testament]; but what was written after his resurrection is named the New Testament. The Jews make use of the Old, we of the New. Yet, they are not dissonant. The New Testament is the fulfilling of the Old, and in both there is the same testator, even Christ who suffered death for us and made us heirs of his everlasting kingdom.… When, therefore, we who were in time past as it were blind, and as it were shut up in the prison of folly, were sitting in darkness, ignorant of God and of the truth, we have been enlightened by him, who adopted us by his testament; and having freed us from cruel chains, and brought us out to the light of wisdom, he admitted us to the inheritance of his heavenly kingdom. — DIVINE INSTITUTES 4.20

Oecumenius: “For I will be merciful toward their iniquities.” To those who have gone before. Mercy is granted, having been left to us in baptism. “and I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.” For those forgiven in baptism are no longer remembered. — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews

Shepherd of Hermas: And when the Lord saw that their repentance was good and pure, and that they were able to remain in it, He ordered their former sins to be blotted out. — Shepherd of Hermas, Similitude 9

Theodoret of Cyrus: The law is suited to mortals, whereas the New Covenant guarantees us eternal life. It was therefore right for the former one to grow old, while the latter remains new forever in being associated with the ages that do not grow old. — INTERPRETATION OF Hebrews 8

Hebrews 8:13

John Chrysostom: “In calling it new” (he says), “He hath made the first old: but that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” See what was hidden, how he hath laid open the very mind of the prophet! He honored the law, and was not willing to call it “old” in express terms: but nevertheless, this he did call it. For if the former had been new, he would not have called this which came afterwards “new” also. So that by granting something more and different, he declares that “it was waxen old.” Therefore it is done away and is perishing, and no longer exists.

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

The New then has not simply caused the old to cease, but because it had become aged, as it was not any longer useful. On this account he said, “for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof” (Heb. vii. 18), and, “the law made nothing perfect” (Heb. vii. 19); and that “if the first had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.” (Heb. viii. 7.) And “faultless”; that is, useful; not as though it the old Covenant was obnoxious to any charges, but as not being sufficient. He used a familiar form of speech. As if one should say, the house is not faultless, that is, it has some defect, it is decayed: the garment is not faultless, that is, it is coming to pieces. He does not therefore here speak of it as evil, but only as having some fault and deficiency. — Homily on Hebrews 14

Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius: As the prophet Jeremiah testifies when he speaks such things: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new testament to the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not according to the testament which I made to their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; for they continued not in my testament, and I disregarded them, saith the Lord.” Also in another place he says in like manner: “I have forsaken my house, I have given up mine heritage into the hand of its enemies. Mine heritage is become unto me as a lion in the forest; it hath cried out against me, therefore have I hated it.” Since the inheritance is His heavenly kingdom, it is evident that He does not say that He hates the inheritance itself, but the heirs, who have been ungrateful towards Him, and impious. For that which He said above, that He would make a new testament to the house of Judah, shows that the old testament which was given by Moses was not perfect; but that that which was to be given by Christ would be complete. — The Divine Institutes Book 4, Chapter XX

Oecumenius: “In speaking of a new covenant.” For to call it altogether new has made the first covenant old. “And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” Now, having taken boldness from the prophet, he himself declares. This, he says, is new, but that one is old. The old is being abolished, he says. Therefore, it has been cast out and dissolved because of old age; as if he were saying: The new has not suddenly ceased the old, but because of its old age and antiquity, that is, because of its weakness and uselessness. “what the law could not do.” he says elsewhere, in that part where it “was weakened by the flesh”. (Rom. 8:3) — The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Hebrews