Hebrews 8:7

Why ought we to “give more earnest heed to the things which we have heard”? were not those former things of God, as well as these? Either then he meaneth “more earnest” than [to] the Law, or “very earnest”; not making comparison, God forbid. For since, on account of the long space of time, they had a great opinion of the Old Covenant, but these things had been despised as yet new, he proves (more than his argument required) that we ought rather to give heed to these. How? By saying in effect, Both these and those are of God, but not in a like manner. And this he shows us afterwards: but for the present he treats it somewhat superficially, but afterwards more clearly, saying “For if that first covenant had been faultless” ( c. viii. 7 ), and many other such things: “for that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” ( c. viii. …

But (as I said) he sets down that which especially cheers them, in the words, “Which was established upon better promises.” 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 ( ver. 7 ) “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 ( ver. …

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.

There is too something else which he indicates, when he says this, “which [was] a figure for the time then present,” that is, became the Type. “In which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience.” Thou seest now what is [the meaning of] “The Law made nothing perfect,” ( Heb. vii. 19 ,) and “If that first [covenant] had been faultless.” ( Heb. viii. 7 .) How? “As pertaining to the conscience.” For the sacrifices did not put away the defilement from the soul, but still were concerned with the body: “after the law of a carnal commandment.” ( Heb. vii. 16 .) For certainly they could not put away adultery, nor murder, nor sacrilege. Seest thou? Thou hast eaten this, Thou hast not eaten that, which are matters of indifference. …