Hebrews 8:7–13

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.

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.

Observe the order. He said that the covenant of Christ is better than the Old. And from where is this evident? From the fact, he says, that it "is established upon better promises." For if the promises and rewards are better, then it is perfectly clear that the covenant is also better, and the commandments more divine. And from where is it evident that the promises are better? From the fact, he says, that the former was abolished, and this one was introduced in its place. For the New Testament has preeminence because it is better and more perfect. "If the first covenant had been without fault," that is, if it had made people blameless, then a second covenant would not have been introduced. As we commonly say: the house is not without faults, instead of saying: it is falling into decay, it is growing old; so also concerning the Old Testament he said that it was not without fault, not as being bad, but as not having the power to make people better, as having been given to infants.

393. – Then when he says, For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second, he proves that the testament of which Christ is mediator is better for the following reason: If the first testament were faultless, another would not be sought to correct its defects. But another is sought, therefore, etc. But on the other hand it says in Romans (7:7): 'Is the law sin? God forbid.' Therefore, it is incorrect to say that it is not faultless. I answer that something can belong to the Law in two ways: either according to its end, and then it is good; or by reason of those to whom it was given, and then it is said to have a fault in two ways: first, because it did not confer the power to cleanse one's sins: 'It is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away' (Heb. 10:4). Secondly, because it did not give a helping grace to avoid sins, but merely to recognize them; hence, it was an occasion of sin: 'For I had not known concupiscence, if the law did not say: Thou salt not covet' (Rom. 7:7). And so it is said not to have been faultless, because in it men remained in their sins. But he says, there would have been no occasion for a second. For just as a body is never altogether at rest but is always changing until it reaches its due place, so, as long as something is had imperfectly, desire does not rest but always stretches beyond, until it comes to what is perfect. Therefore, the place for a second was sought by man, who desired, but much more by God, Who is said to seek because of his desire for our salvation.

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.

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.

"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.

[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.

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)

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.

He did not say: finding fault with it, that is, the covenant, but "finding fault with them," that is, the Jews, who could not be perfected through the commandments of the law.

Here he shows more clearly that the Old Testament has been abolished. For he introduces God, speaking through Jeremiah, that "I will make... a new covenant" (Jer. 31:31–34), that is, an entirely new one: not as the Jews understand it, that Ezra renewed the Scripture. For the Scripture did not become new, but remained ancient, even though it was restored by him.

394. – Then (v. 8) he proves the truth of the consequent, namely, that a place is sought for a testament; and this on the authority of Jeremiah (3:31): The days will come, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. In regard to this he does two things: first, he prefaces the authority; secondly, he argues from it. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he prefaces the prophecy about giving a new testament; secondly, he describes it (v. 9). Again, the first is divided into three parts: in the first he shows that the time for giving the New Testament was favorable; secondly, the perfection of the New Testament (v. 8b); thirdly, to whom it was given (v. 8c).

395. – He says, therefore: For the Lord finds fault, not with the Law but with them who were under the Law, and says: Behold, the days shall come and I will establish with house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant. This is the authority, which is not given in exactly those words but with a few changes. For in Jeremiah (31:31) we read: 'Behold the days shall come, says the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant I made with their fathers, in that day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt: the covenant which they made void and I had dominion over them.' Thus, it is evident that a few words were changed. He says in regard to the time being favorable: the days shall come, i.e., the time of grace, which is compared to a day and which is illuminated by the sun of justice: 'The night is passed, and the day is at hand' (Rom. 13:12).

396. – In regard to the perfection of the New Covenant he says, I will perfect a new covenant. He says, I will perfect, which implies perfection: 'Behold I make all things new' (Rev. 21:5). But that word, perfect, is not found there, but Revelation uses it to signify the perfection of the New Testament: 'The Lord shall make a consumption and an abridgement in the midst of all the land' (Is. 10:23). For the New Covenant was perfect in regard to instructing until life, and this instruction extends not only to general information about justice, but to perfect information: 'Unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven' (Mt. 5:20). Furthermore, in the Old Testament there were only figures, but in the New the truth of the figures; so the New completes and perfects the Old.

397. – In regard to the third he says, with the house of Israel and Judah. But is it given to the Jews alone? No, because 'all are not Israelites that are of Israel' (Rom. 9:6); furthermore, 'not they that are the children of the flesh are the children of God, but they that are the children of the promise, are accounted for the seed' (Rom. 9:8). They, therefore, who have obtained God's grace are Israel by faith and Judah by confession: 'With the heart we believe unto justice; but with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation' (Rom. 10:10). But he says, with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, for three reasons: first, because Christ personally preached to the Jews but not to the Gentiles: 'I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel' (Mt. 15:24). Secondly, because the Gentiles were made partakers of the New Testament as a graft inserted in a good olive tree partakes of its fatness (Rom. 11:17). Thirdly, because in the time of Rehoboam and Jeroboam the kingdom of Judah was divided from the kingdom of the ten tribes which continued in idolatry; but the kingdom of Judah clung more to God, but not altogether. Therefore, he touched both.

"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.

Lest anyone think that the covenant which was made with Abraham is being annulled, he added: "in the day when I took them by the hand." For, he says, I wish to annul the covenant spoken of in the book of Exodus, the covenant given on Mount Sinai to your fathers who cast the calf, whereas it is precisely the covenant with Abraham that received its fulfillment in Christ. For "in your seed," he says, "shall all the nations be blessed" (Gen. 22:18), that is, in Christ.

Do you see that the beginning of evil is from us? "They," he says, "did not remain," and therefore "I disregarded them." On the contrary, blessings and benefactions receive their beginning from Him. As if justifying Himself, He presents the reason why He abandons them, namely for their inconstancy.

398. – Then (v. 9) he describes the New Covenant: first, by its difference from the Old; secondly, by its own qualities. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows the distinction between the Old and New Testaments; secondly, the infirmity of the Old (v. 9b).

399. – For someone could ask: Is the New like the Old? Therefore, as though answering this he says: No, because it is not like the covenant I made with their fathers. In this he shows that the Old is not to be observed along with the New: 'Stand fast, and be not held again under the yoke of bondage' (Gal. 5:1); 'Neither do they put new wine into old bottles' (Mt. 9:27); 'so that we should serve in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter' (Ron 7:6). For if something is found in the Old which the Gentiles are supposed to observe, it must be referred to the spiritual meaning, as it says in Is (19:21): 'They shall worship him with sacrifices and offerings,' all of which is to be understood spiritually.

400. – Then (v. 9b) he shows the defect of the Old Testament: first, from the way it was delivered; secondly, from the outcome (v. 9b).

401. – For the Old Testament was delivered to servants and to the infirm: to servants, because they had at one time left their thralldom in Egypt, in regard to which he says, to lead them out of the land of Egypt: 'The one from Mount Sinai, engendering unto bondage, which is Hagar' (Gal. 4:24), and because it was a law of servile fear: 'You have not received the spirit of adoption again in fear' (Rom. 8:15). The slight difference between the Old and New Testaments is fear and love. Likewise, to the infirm, because by itself it could not help; in regard to this he says, I took them by the hand, which is proper to the infirm: 'You have held me by my right hand' (Ps. 72:23); 'For what the law could not do in that it was weak' (Rom. 8:3). But he says, with their fathers, namely, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, with whom He made a special covenant: 'He has remembered his covenant forever: The word which he commanded to a thousand generations, which he made to Abraham: and his oath to Isaac. And he appointed the same to Jacob for a law' (Ps. 104:8). But he promised carnal things to those who came out of Egypt.

402. – Then when he says, for they did not continue in my covenant, he shows the failings of the Old Testament as far as guilt was concerned. In regard to this guilt he says, because they did not continue 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 also a calf in Horeb, and they adored the graven thing' (Ps. 105:19). In regard to punishment he says, so I paid no heed to them, for a person is said not to regard something, when he permits it to perish. So he regarded them not, because He permitted them to be destroyed by the destroyer: 'You have despised all of them that fall off from your judgments' (Ps. 118:118).

God proposes the most direct norms. Hence, the Apostle and Jeremiah say: "I will put my laws into their mind, and upon their hearts I will write them." For He inscribed them first in human nature, then in industry or progress, third in grace, and fourth in glory. In every state, He puts forth His rules: wherefore by necessity He must possess them within Himself.

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.

"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.)

"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.

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.

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.

"After those days": which ones? Some say these are the days of the exodus, when the Mosaic law was given. But it seems to me that he is speaking of those days about which he said above: "behold, the days are coming." Thus, after those days have passed, I will establish such a covenant, about which you will hear further.

Let the Jew show when he received the unwritten law. For even after the return from Babylon, it was given by Ezra in written form. But the Apostles received nothing in written form; rather, they received the law of the Spirit into their hearts. Therefore Christ also said: "The Comforter... will teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance" (Cf. Jn. 14:26).

This was accomplished through the Gospel. For those who formerly served idols, having now recognized the true God, became His people.

403. – Then (v. 10) he describes the qualities of the New Testament. In regard to this he does two things: first, he describes the way it was announced; secondly, its effect (v. 10b).

404. – He says, therefore, 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, i.e., after the Law was given. For a new law should have been given after the old; just as a master is given after a pedagogue, in order that man recognize his infirmity. This, therefore, shows the fitness of the time when the New Testament was given. The manner in which it was given is twofold: in one way by externals, by proposing words suited to their understanding. This man can do; and that is the way the Old Testament was given. In another way by acting inwardly, and this is peculiar to God: 'the inspiration of the Almighty gives understanding' (Jb. 32:8). This is the way 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, for one must act. Therefore, He first enlightens the intellect to understand; hence, he says, I will put my laws into their minds. He uses the plural, because there are various precepts and counsel. This the Holy Spirit does: 'His unction teaches you' (1 Jn. 2:27); 'He will teach you all things (Jn. 14:26). Furthermore, He inclines the will to act well; hence, it is impressed on their heart. In regard to this he says, and write them on their hearts, i.e., I will write charity on their knowledge: 'Above all things have charity, which is the bond of perfection' (Col. 3:14); 'The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given to us' (Rom. 5:5). This is the epistle of which he says in 2 Cor. (3:3): 'Not in ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tablets of stone, but in the fleshly tablets of the heart.'

405. – Having mentioned the qualities of the New Testament from the way it was given, the Apostle now describes three of its effects: the first is man's perfect union with God; the second is perfect knowledge of God (v. 11); the third is the remission of sins (v. 12).

406. – In regard to the first it should be noted that the help of God's grace is required, if man 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' (Jer. 31:3): first, therefore, he touches on that union from God's side; secondly, from mans' side (v. 10c). He says, therefore: I will be their God. Now the name 'God' signifies universal providence. Therefore, He is our God, when He has a care for us and draws our hearts to Himself. Therefore, from the fact that he says, I will be their God, the effect follows that they shall be my people, i.e., they will show themselves my people. For, as Augustine says in The City of God: A people is an assembled multitude joined together by the consent of right and common utility. Therefore, when they consent to the rights of the divine law in order to be useful to each other and tend to God, then they are God's people: 'And they shall be his people; and God himself with them shall be their God' (Rev. 21:3).

"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.)

"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.

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.

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.

He here calls "learning" an instruction accompanied by labor. For behold, we see that we need a great many words for those of sound mind in order to persuade them to believe in Christ. Since the Jewish law was contained in one corner of the world, few knew it; but the voice of the apostles spread throughout all the earth (Ps. 18:5). And furthermore, since God lived on earth in the flesh, and since He deified our nature through its assumption, He kindled in the souls of all the light of the true knowledge of God, and by grace there was, as it were, implanted in human nature a certain capacity for the true knowledge of God.

407. – Then when he says, And they shall not teach every one his fellow, he lays down the second effect of the New Testament. In regard to this he does two things: first, he gives the sign of that effect; secondly, the effect itself (v. 11b).

408. – The sign of perfect knowledge is that a person does not need to be taught, because teaching is the way to the acquisition of knowledge; therefore, teaching ceases when knowledge has been perfectly acquired. But does not one person teach another in the New Testament? For according to the letter it seems not. Yet the Apostle styles himself the teacher of the Gentiles: 'Some pastors and teachers' (Eph. 4:11); 'He that teaches, in doctrine' (Rom. 12:7). I answer that what is stated here can be understood in two ways: in one way as referring to the present state, and then it is not verified universally of all, but only of 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' (Lk. 24:25). Therefore, the Apostles were made knowers perfectly and were not instructed by others, but received infused wisdom directly from Christ. In another way, as referring to the future state in heaven, to which we are brought by the New Testament but not by the Old. And so what is said here is universally true.

409. – But men in glory are equal to angels, not greater. Yet according to Dionysius one angel can teach another by enlightening him. Therefore, a man in glory can teach another one. I answer that there are two kinds of knowledge in the good angels: the one makes them beatified, namely, the knowledge of the divinity, which alone makes them beatified, as Augustine says in the Confessions: 'Blessed is he that knows you.' The other is the knowledge of anything distinct from God, such as God's effects, and this knowledge does not cause beatitude. Therefore, in regard to the first, one does not teach another, because one is not beatified by means of another, but by God directly: 'In your light we shall see the light' (Ps. 35:10). But in regard to the other, which is concerned with certain mysteries, one does teach another; and this will continue perhaps until the end of the world, as long as the execution of God's effects continues; hence he adds, know the Lord. As if to say: He does not receive God's knowledge. He says, his neighbor and brother, because even though according to Augustine all men must be loved out of charity, if you cannot benefit all, then you should benefit those who are joined to you either naturally, as blood relatives, or by some other tie, as your neighbor.

410. – 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 Jn. 3:2). But it is in this vision that beatitude consists: 'This is eternal life: That they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent' (Jn. 17:3); 'Let him that glories, glory in this, that he understands and knows me' (Jer. 9:24). And the blessed have this teaching not from one another but from God alone: 'All your children shall be taught of the Lord' (Is. 54:13). But the phrase, from the least to the greatest can be understood in two ways: in one way so that the older saints are called greater; then the greater and lesser would be taken according to the order of time. Therefore, all will know God, because each will receive his own penny (Mt. 20:10). Or he says this to show the different rewards, because although all will know, one will know more than another: 'He that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven' (Mt. 5:19). For the reward corresponds to the merit; and this is 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.'

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.

"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."

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

Washing us through baptism from the impurity of former sins, He no longer remembers them, as they have already been washed away.

411. – Then when he says, because I will be merciful to their iniquities, he states the third effect, which is the remission of guilt, which the Old Testament was unable to do: It is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away' (Heb. 10:4). He says, therefore: I will be merciful. But iniquity differs from sin, because iniquity is opposed to justice which, strictly speaking, is always toward someone else; therefore, iniquity refers to that by which one person injures another: 'Your wickedness may hurt a man that is like you' (Jb. 35:8). But a sin refers to any defect in an action, because it implies a disorder; hence, iniquity is, properly speaking, against one's neighbor, but sin against oneself. This is, strictly speaking, but in a wide sense both are the same. In regard to this he says, I will be merciful toward their iniquities, namely, in the present life by relaxing the punishment; and their sins I will remember no more, namely, in the future by punishing sins: 'I will not remember all his iniquities which he has done' (Ez. 18:22): 'Forgive us our sins for your name's sake' (Ps. 78:9); 'Remember not our former iniquities' (Ps. 78:8); 'The gifts and the call of God are without repentance' (Rom. 11:29), i.e., God does not repent that He remitted our sins here, as though to punish them again.

"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.

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.

"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)

He explains the prophetic expression and says that the very fact that he called this covenant entirely new serves as an indication that the first one ultimately turns out to be old.

Having received confidence from the prophet, he finally touches upon the law, showing that our covenant now flourishes. Thus, from the prophetic expression he took the name "old," added on his own the name of obsolescence, and further necessarily drew the conclusion that "destruction" is inevitable for the law, as if saying: it is not by chance that the New Testament abolished the Old, but because of its oldness, its antiquity, that is, by virtue of the fact that it is Old, that is, "weak and unprofitable," as he also says in another place: "the law, weakened by the flesh, was powerless" (Rom. 8:3).

412. – Then when he says, in speaking of a new covenant, he argues as though from an authority he cited. And he forms this argument: A new is said only in relation to an old. But whatever is called old is, as it were, close to cessation. Therefore, in speaking of a new covenant, he treats the first as obsolete, i.e., it gives us to understand that the former is old. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Therefore, it if it old, it should be cast out: 'The new coming on, you shall cast away the old' (Lev. 26:10). Therefore, in saying, a new, he designates the cessation of the old. But, properly speaking, nothing is ancient except what is subject to time; and things subject to time cease in time. Therefore, it is fitting that the old should cease. But he says, and becoming obsolete, in regard to inanimate things; but grows old in regard to animate things. Yet it should be noted that where we have, their sins, another version has 'sin' and then it refers to original sin, which is common to all.