Thomas Aquinas Commentary Hebrews 8

Having proven the excellence of Christ’s priesthood over the Levitical priesthood regarding the person of the priest, the Apostle now proves the same regarding the priesthood itself. In this regard he does two things: first, he shows in general terms that Christ’s priesthood is more excellent than that of the Old Law; secondly, he does so in detail (chapter 9). The first part is divided into two sections: first, he states his thesis; secondly, he explains it (verse 3). Regarding the first, he does two things: first, he states the way in which he will present his teaching; secondly, he introduces what he intends to say (verse 1b).

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

Then (verse 1b) he introduces what he intends to say: first, the dignity of this priesthood; secondly, its office (verse 2).

Its dignity is that we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven. The throne signifies judicial power, which is fitting for certain persons as ministers of God, such as all kings—All the kings of the earth will adore him (Psalms 71:11)—and all prelates: Let a man so account of us as of Christ’s ministers (1 Corinthians 4:1).

Therefore, because Christ has judicial power, he is said to sit: For the Father has given all judgment to the Son (John 5:22). But because he has this power in the most excellent manner after God, he sits at the right hand of majesty in the heavens—that is, in the most prominent goods: He sits on the right hand of the majesty on high (Hebrews 1:3).

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

Then when he says, a minister of the sanctuary, he shows the dignity of Christ's office. He is the minister of the holy precincts, that is, of the sanctuary. For the ministers of old received the ministry of guarding sacred things and serving the tabernacle. But Christ had this in a more excellent manner, because he is a minister not insofar as he is God—for then he is the author—but insofar as he is a man: And passing he will minister unto them (Luke 12:37). The humanity of Christ is an instrument of the divinity. Therefore, he is the minister of the holy things because he administers the sacraments of grace in the present life and of glory in the future.

He is also the minister of the true tent that cannot be removed (Isaiah 33:20); Lord, who shall dwell in your tabernacle? (Psalms 14:1). The man Christ is a minister because all the goods of glory are dispensed by him. The author says it is the true tent for two reasons. First, to differentiate it from the old one, which was a figure of it: Now all these things happened to them in figure (1 Corinthians 10:11). The New Covenant, therefore, is the truth of the former. It is true, that is, containing the truth in relation to the figure.

Secondly, the former tabernacle was made by a man, but the other—namely, that of grace and glory—is made by God alone: The Lord will give grace and glory (Psalms 83:12); The grace of God, life everlasting (Romans 6:23). Hence, the Apostle says it is a tent which is set up not by man but by the Lord. As it is written, We know, if our earthly house of this habitation be dissolved, that we have a building of God not made with hands, eternal in heaven (2 Corinthians 5:1).

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

He forms the following argument: Every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices, and in this respect he is called a minister of holy things. But Christ is a high priest, as was stated above. Therefore, it is necessary that he have something to offer: Every priest taken from among men is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that He may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sin (Hebrews 5:1). A sacrifice is offered with animals; gifts are offered with anything else: They offer the burnt offerings of the Lord and the bread of their God (Leviticus 21:6).

Because it was necessary that Christ have something to offer, he offered himself. It was a clean oblation, because his flesh had no stain of sin: And it shall be a lamb without blemish, a male, of one year (Exodus 12:5). Furthermore, it was suitable, because it was fitting that a man should make satisfaction for humanity: He offered himself unspotted unto God (Hebrews 9:14).

It was also suitable for sacrifice, because his flesh was mortal: God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and sin (Romans 8:3). Also, he was the same as the one to whom he was offered: I and the Father are one (John 10:30). And he unites to God those for whom he is offered: That they may be one, as you, Father, in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us (John 17:21).

Then (verse 4) he shows that Christ is not a minister of the sacrifices of the Law. In this regard he does three things: first, he presents a consequence; secondly, he gives the reason for it (verse 4b); thirdly, he proves it with a scriptural authority (verse 4c).

The consequence is this: If he were on earth (this is the antecedent), he would not be a priest at all (this is the consequent). Hence, the consequence is a single conditional proposition. It is read in a number of ways. First, according to a gloss: “if that which is offered were on earth, he would not be a priest.” This can be understood in two ways.

In one way, the sense would be: If that which is offered were something earthly, Christ would not be a priest. As if to say: There would be no need for such a priesthood, because there would be many to offer such things. But was not the flesh of Christ earthly? I answer that materially speaking it was earthly: The earth is given into the hand of the wicked (Job 9:24). But it is said not to be earthly because of the union: He that comes from heaven is above all (John 3:31)—that is, the Son of God, who united it to himself. It is also not earthly because of the active power of the Holy Spirit, who formed it, and because of its fruit, for his oblation is not ordained for obtaining something earthly: You are of this world; I am not of this world (John 8:23). This is the first and better explanation.

The second way of understanding it is this: “Even if,” that is, although that which is offered “is on earth”—because it is necessary that something be offered—“he would not be a priest,” but someone worthy, because no one could be found worthy to offer it.

There are three other readings in which the focus is on the one who offers. First, in general, the sense is this: If there were another earthly priest who could offer heavenly things, Christ would not be a priest. Second, specifically about Christ: If Christ were an earthly priest, the right of the priesthood would not belong to him, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. Third, the following: If Christ were still on earth, in the sense that he had not yet ascended, he would not be a priest, because he would not have completed his priesthood.

But according to the first explanation, the reading continues in the following way: There would be many who, according to the law, would offer such gifts, namely, those who serve a copy and shadow of heavenly things. The sacraments of the Old Law were figures of other things in two respects: first, regarding knowledge, and second, regarding fulfillment. Regarding knowledge, he says exemplar, because in the Old Law, as in an exemplar, one could read that to which our knowledge should be led.

But it seems that he is speaking in an improper sense, for an exemplar is prior to that of which it is an example. Heavenly things, however, are prior and were not made in the likeness of the Old Law; rather, the reverse is true. I answer that something is said to be prior in two ways: in one way, in an absolute sense, which is what the objection assumes; in another way, in relation to its purpose, and then it is true that those things are not prior. Regarding the second respect, he says a shadow, because just as a shadow represents a body without ever becoming a body, so those things represented the New Testament: For the Law, having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things (Hebrews 10:1).

Then he proves the reasoning behind the consequence when he says that, as when Moses was about to erect the tabernacle, he was instructed by God, who said, See that you make everything according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain (Exodus 25:40), because inferior things naturally tend toward a likeness of superior things. For the Lord wished to lead us by sensible things to intelligible and spiritual things: Do you know the order of heaven, and can you set down the reason of it on the earth? (Job 38:33).

Having proved that Christ is a high priest and therefore a minister of holy things—but not according to the Old Law—the Apostle now shows that He is a minister of greater and better things. In this regard, he does three things:

1. He prefaces his intent.
2. He assigns its cause (Hebrews 8:6b).
3. He proves his point (Hebrews 8:7).

The Apostle says, therefore, that Christ does not have anything earthly to offer. Instead, now, in the time of grace, He has obtained—that is, received by lot—a better ministry, which is a worthier priesthood. Christ’s priesthood is called a ministry because it belongs to Him only in the sense that He was a minister as a man: I say that Christ Jesus was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God (Romans 15:8).

He says Christ has obtained this ministry, meaning He received it by lot, because what is obtained by lot is awaited from the Lord: My times are in your hand (Psalms 31:15). Therefore, all things that happen according to the arrangement of divine decree are said to be given by lot, and such are the effects of grace: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated (Ephesians 1:11), that is, by divine election. When human judgment fails, people consult God’s choice and arrangement by casting lots, as happened in the selection of Matthias (Acts 1:26). Thus, it says in Proverbs (16:33): The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD. Christ, indeed, obtained that ministry by lot—that is, by divine arrangement.

Next, when the Apostle says, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, he explains why this ministry is greater. Every priest is a mediator, but Christ is the mediator of a better covenant between God and humanity, because through Him we are made partakers of the divine nature, as it says in 2 Peter 1:4. He also offers our gifts to God; therefore, the Apostle says, He is the one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5).

In the Old Testament, temporal things were promised: If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land (Isaiah 1:19). But here, heavenly things are promised. Therefore, this covenant is better in what it promises. Furthermore, the Old Law had ceremonial precepts for the worship of God and moral precepts for correct conduct. The moral precepts continue, but the others do not. In the New Law, however, counsels are added to the precepts for the perfect, who are capable of spiritual things. Consequently, while the precepts remain, the promises are different. In the Old Covenant they were a figure, but here they are the truth expressed by the figure. Therefore, this covenant is better in every way.

Then, when he says, For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second (Hebrews 8:7), he proves that the covenant of which Christ is mediator is better. The reasoning is as follows: If the first covenant were faultless, another would not be sought to correct its defects. But another is sought; therefore, the first had a fault.

On the other hand, it says in Romans 7:7, Is the law sin? God forbid. Therefore, it seems incorrect to say the law is not faultless. I answer that something can be said of the Law in two ways. According to its purpose, it is good. But by reason of those to whom it was given, it is said to have a fault in two ways:

1. It did not confer the power to cleanse sins: For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins (Hebrews 10:4).
2. It did not give helping grace to avoid sins, but only to recognize them. Hence, it was an occasion of sin: For I had not known concupiscence, if the law had not said, You shall not covet (Romans 7:7).

And so the Law is said not to have been faultless, because under it people remained in their sins. The Apostle says, no place would have been sought for a second. For just as a body is never completely at rest but is always changing until it reaches its proper place, so also, as long as something is held imperfectly, desire does not rest but always stretches beyond until it comes to what is perfect. Therefore, a place for a second covenant was sought by humanity, who desired it, but much more by God, who is said to seek it because of His desire for our salvation.

Then, in verse 8, the Apostle proves the truth of his conclusion—that a place is sought for a new covenant—using the authority of Jeremiah (31:31): Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. In this section, he first presents the authoritative prophecy and then argues from it. The presentation of the prophecy itself has three parts: first, he shows that the time for giving the New Covenant was favorable; second, he shows the perfection of the New Covenant; and third, he shows to whom it was given.

The Apostle says, therefore, For finding fault with them, he says: Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. This is the authority, which is not quoted with the exact same words but with a few changes. For in Jeremiah 31:31-32 we read: Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, that 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 that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband to them, says the Lord. Thus, it is evident that a few words were changed. Regarding the favorable time, he says, the days are coming, that is, the time of grace, which is compared to a day illuminated by the sun of justice: The night is far spent, the day is at hand (Romans 13:12).

Regarding the perfection of the New Covenant, he says, I will make a new covenant. The Greek word for "make" here implies perfection, as in Revelation 21:5: Behold, I make all things new. The New Covenant was perfect in its instruction leading to life, and this instruction extends not only to general information about justice but to perfect information: For I say to you, that unless your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:20). Furthermore, in the Old Testament there were only figures, but in the New there is the reality of those figures. Thus, the New completes and perfects the Old.

Regarding the third point, he says it is made with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. But is it given to the Jews alone? No, because they are not all Israel, which are of Israel (Romans 9:6). Furthermore, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed (Romans 9:8). Therefore, those who have obtained God’s grace are Israel by faith and Judah by confession: For with the heart man believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation (Romans 10:10).

But he says it is with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah for three reasons:

1. Christ personally preached to the Jews but not to the Gentiles: I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24).
2. The Gentiles were made partakers of the New Covenant as a graft inserted into a good olive tree partakes of its richness (Romans 11:17).
3. In the time of Rehoboam and Jeroboam, the kingdom of Judah was divided from the kingdom of the ten tribes, which continued in idolatry. The kingdom of Judah clung more to God, but not completely. Therefore, he addressed both.

Then, in verse 9, he describes the New Covenant, first by its difference from the Old, and second by its own qualities. Regarding the first point, he shows the distinction between the two covenants and then explains the weakness of the Old Covenant.

Someone could ask: Is the New Covenant like the Old? The Apostle answers this by saying no, because it is not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers. In this he shows that the Old Covenant is not to be observed along with the New: Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage (Galatians 5:1); Neither do men put new wine into old bottles (Matthew 9:17); that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter (Romans 7:6). If something is found in the Old Testament that Gentiles are supposed to observe, it must be referred to its spiritual meaning, as it says in Isaiah 19:21: they shall vow a vow unto the LORD, and perform it. All of this is to be understood spiritually.

Then he shows the defect of the Old Testament, first from the way it was delivered, and second from its outcome.

The Old Testament was delivered to people who were like servants and who were weak. It was for servants, because they had at one time left their bondage in Egypt, about which he says, in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt. It was a law of servile fear: For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear (Romans 8:15). A key difference between the Old and New Covenants is fear versus love.

It was also delivered to the weak, because by itself it could not help. In this regard he says, I took them by the hand, which is what one does for the weak: You have held me by my right hand (Psalms 73:23); For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh (Romans 8:3). But he says it was made with their fathers, namely, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with whom God made a special covenant: He has remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law (Psalms 105:8–10). But to those who came out of Egypt, He promised carnal things.

Then, when he says, because they continued not in my covenant, he shows the failings of the Old Testament regarding the matter of guilt. He explains this guilt by saying, because they continued not in my covenant, namely, because it was not written on their hearts. Hence, right after the Law was given, they made a golden calf: They made a calf in Horeb, and worshipped the molten image (Psalms 106:19). Regarding punishment, he says, and I regarded them not, for a person is said not to regard something when he permits it to perish. So God disregarded them because He permitted them to be destroyed by the destroyer: You have trodden down all them that err from your statutes (Psalms 119:118).

Then, in verse 10, he describes the qualities of the New Covenant. He does this first by describing the way it was announced, and second by describing its effect.

He says, For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days. "Making" implies a suitable order; hence, he says, after those days, that is, after the Law was given. A new law should have been given after the old, just as a master is given after a tutor, so that humanity might recognize its weakness. This, therefore, shows the appropriateness of the time when the New Covenant was given.

The manner in which it was given is twofold. One way is externally, by proposing words suited to human understanding. This is what people can do, and that is how the Old Testament was given. The other way is by acting inwardly, and this is unique to God: the inspiration of the Almighty gives them understanding (Job 32:8). This is how the New Testament was given, because it consists in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, who instructs inwardly.

But it is not enough to know; one must also act. Therefore, God first enlightens the intellect to understand; hence, he says, I will put my laws into their mind. He uses the plural "laws" because there are various precepts and counsels. This the Holy Spirit does: the same anointing teaches you of all things (1 John 2:27); he shall teach you all things (John 14:26).

Furthermore, God inclines the will to act rightly; hence, the law is impressed on their heart. In this regard he says, and write them in their hearts. This means, "I will write love upon their knowledge": And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness (Colossians 3:14); the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us (Romans 5:5). This is the letter of which the Apostle speaks in 2 Corinthians 3:3: written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

Having mentioned the qualities of the New Testament based on how it was given, the Apostle now describes three of its effects. The first is a person’s perfect union with God; the second is perfect knowledge of God (v. 11); and the third is the remission of sins (v. 12).

Regarding the first effect, it should be noted that the help of God’s grace is required if a person is to be united with God, because one’s own power is not capable of this: I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore, have I drawn you, taking pity on you (Jeremiah 31:3). First, therefore, the Apostle touches on this union from God’s side, and second, from the human side (v. 10c).

He says, therefore, I will be their God. The name “God” signifies universal providence. Therefore, He is our God when He cares for us and draws our hearts to Himself. From His statement, I will be their God, the effect follows that they shall be my people—that is, they will show themselves to be His people. For, as Augustine says in The City of God, a people is an assembled multitude joined together by common consent to law and a shared purpose. Therefore, when they consent to the laws of the divine law in order to be useful to each other and draw near to God, then they are God’s people: And they shall be his people; and God himself with them shall be their God (Revelation 21:3).

Next, when the Apostle says, And they shall not teach every one his fellow, he presents the second effect of the New Testament. In this regard, he does two things: first, he gives the sign of that effect, and second, the effect itself (v. 11b).

The sign of perfect knowledge is that a person does not need to be taught, because teaching is the path to acquiring knowledge; therefore, teaching ceases when knowledge has been perfectly acquired. But does one person not teach another in the New Testament? Taken literally, it seems not. Yet the Apostle calls himself the teacher of the Gentiles: Some pastors and teachers (Ephesians 4:11); He that teaches, in doctrine (Romans 12:7).

I answer that what is stated here can be understood in two ways. In one way, it refers to the present state. In this case, it is not true for everyone, but only for the original founders of the New Testament—namely, the Apostles, who were instructed immediately by God when he opened their understanding that they might understand the scriptures (Luke 24:25). Therefore, the Apostles were made perfectly knowledgeable and were not instructed by others, but received infused wisdom directly from Christ. In another way, it refers to the future state in heaven, to which the New Testament—but not the Old—brings us. In this sense, what is said here is universally true.

But people in glory are equal to angels, not greater. Yet according to Dionysius, one angel can teach another by enlightening him. Therefore, a person in glory can teach another. I answer that there are two kinds of knowledge in the good angels. The first is what makes them blessed: namely, the knowledge of the divine nature, which alone makes them blessed, as Augustine says in the Confessions: “Blessed is he that knows you.” The second is the knowledge of anything distinct from God, such as God’s works, and this knowledge does not cause blessedness.

Therefore, regarding the first kind of knowledge, one does not teach another, because a person is not made blessed by means of another, but directly by God: In your light we shall see the light (Psalms 35:10). But regarding the other kind, which concerns certain mysteries, one does teach another. This will perhaps continue until the end of the world, as long as the carrying out of God’s works continues. This is why the Apostle adds, know the Lord. This is as if to say that one does not receive knowledge of God from another person. He says, his neighbor and brother, because, according to Augustine, even though all people must be loved out of charity, if you cannot benefit everyone, you should then benefit those who are joined to you, either naturally as blood relatives or by some other tie, such as being your neighbor.

For all shall know me from the least to the greatest of them. This is the reason why one will not teach another: because all will know the Lord. We shall see him as he is (1 John 3:2). And it is in this vision that blessedness consists: This is eternal life: That they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent (John 17:3); Let him that glories, glory in this, that he understands and knows me (Jeremiah 9:24). The blessed receive this teaching not from one another but from God alone: All your children shall be taught of the Lord (Isaiah 54:13).

The phrase from the least to the greatest can be understood in two ways. In one way, the older saints are called “greater,” so that “greater” and “lesser” would be understood according to the order of time. Therefore, all will know God, because each will receive his own penny (Matthew 20:10). Alternatively, he says this to show the different rewards, because although all will know God, one will know Him more than another: He that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19). For the reward corresponds to the merit. This stands against those who say that all punishments and all merits will be equal and, consequently, all rewards. But against this opinion, 1 Corinthians 15:41 states: Star differs from star in glory.

Next, when the Apostle says, because I will be merciful to their iniquities, he states the third effect, which is the remission of guilt, something the Old Testament was unable to do: It is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away (Hebrews 10:4). He says, therefore, I will be merciful.

But iniquity differs from sin. Iniquity is opposed to justice, which, strictly speaking, is always directed toward someone else; therefore, iniquity refers to an act by which one person injures another: Your wickedness may hurt a man that is like you (Job 35:8). A sin, however, refers to any defect in an action, because it implies a disorder. Hence, iniquity is, properly speaking, against one’s neighbor, but sin is against oneself. This is the strict definition, but in a broader sense, both are the same.

In this regard, he says, I will be merciful toward their iniquities—that is, in the present life by remitting the punishment—and their sins I will remember no more—that is, in the future, by not punishing them. I will not remember all his iniquities which he has done (Ezekiel 18:22); Forgive us our sins for your name’s sake (Psalms 78:9); Remember not our former iniquities (Psalms 78:8). The gifts and the call of God are without repentance (Romans 11:29); that is, God does not regret having forgiven our sins here, as if He would punish them again later.

Finally, when the Apostle says, in speaking of a new covenant, he argues from the authority he has just cited. He forms this argument: Something is called “new” only in relation to something “old.” But whatever is called old is, by definition, near its end. Therefore, by speaking of a new covenant, he treats the first one as obsolete; that is, he gives us to understand that the former covenant is old. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Therefore, if it is old, it should be cast out: The new coming on, you shall cast away the old (Leviticus 26:10).

Therefore, by saying a new, he indicates the end of the old. Properly speaking, only what is subject to time can be ancient, and things subject to time eventually cease. Therefore, it is fitting that the old covenant should cease. The Apostle says becoming obsolete in regard to inanimate things, but growing old in regard to living things. It should also be noted that where our text has their sins, another version reads “sin” in the singular. In that case, it would refer to original sin, which is common to all.