Hebrews 8:7Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Above the Apostle said, "If perfection were through the Levitical priesthood, for under it the people received the law. What further need was there that another priest should arise according to the order of Melchizedek?" So here too he uses the same reasoning: "For if the first covenant had been faultless, no place would have been sought for another." That is, if it had had no defect, if it had made men blameless. To see that this is what he means, listen to what follows: "For finding fault with them, He says..."

Observe the order. He said that Christ's covenant is better than the Old. How is this evident? From the fact, he says, that it was established on better promises.

For if the promises and rewards are better, then it is perfectly clear that the covenant is also better, and that the commandments are more divine.

How, then, is it evident that the promises are better? From the fact, he says, that the former covenant was annulled, and this one was introduced in its place.

The New Covenant has superiority because it is better and perfect. If the first covenant had been without fault, that is, if it made men blameless, then a second covenant would not have been introduced.

For if that first covenant had been blameless, no place would have been sought for a second. Its defect was that it condemned outward bodily defects. Because of such defects, which do not depend on our will, it rejected people who were righteous in their deeds.

"For if the first" tabernacle "had been blameless, no place would have been sought" for a second. The Apostle used "blameless" in the sense of perfect, that is, sufficient for perfection. It made those who used it blameless. Since this was enough to strike those who held to the way of life under the law, he calls the prophet Jeremiah as witness to what has been said and says:

As concerning the priesthood under the law the Apostle says that, if perfection had been attained through it, what need would there have been for a new priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek? So now he reasons that if that first covenant had been blameless, that is, without defects and able to make men perfect, there would have been no need for another.

What, then, is the Apostle's final word concerning the fate of that covenant, in comparison with which Christ's covenant proved better throughout the preceding arguments? First comes Jeremiah's prophecy (Jer 31:31-34). To soften for the feeling and hearing of the Hebrews the severe judgment concerning the old covenant, the holy Apostle first cites in deliberate detail the words of the prophet Jeremiah about the coming of the desired times of the New Testament. Then he concludes delicately and gently: "By the prophetic words about the new covenant, the Lord showed the oldness of the first. And what is becoming old and aging is near to vanishing away."

That the New Covenant is higher than the old is explained at once by the Apostle. For a time he leaves aside the comparison of Christ and the Levitical priests with respect to ministry.

If the first covenant had attained its purpose, the Apostle says, God would not have taken care to establish a new one.

Yet God was plainly preparing a place for this new covenant, as may be concluded, for example, from Jeremiah's prophecy about the new covenant (31:31-34).

The Prophet had already proclaimed the insufficiency of the covenant made at Sinai. He spoke of a new covenant, which would not be something external for the people of God, like commandments written on tablets of stone.