The interpretation timeline

Heb 8:13

How this passage has been read — the sources, oldest to newest.

From the early Church Fathers to now.

2 Patristic · 1 Catholic · 1 Reformed

Heb 8:13 · Douay-Rheims
“Now in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end.”
Patristic before A.D. 750
317
A.D.
c. A.D. 240–317
“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.”
Source
407
A.D.
John Chrysostom Patristic
A.D. 347–407
“"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.”
Source
1,442 years pass — nothing from this stretch is hosted yet
Post-Reformation c. 1650 – 1900
1849
A.D.
1774–1849
“In calling this testament a new one, he hath made the former old. This is to put the Hebrews in mind that the former law, as to its ceremonies and sacrifices, is now to be laid aside, and the new law or testament to be received and complied with. (Witham) — Thus the first alliance was to end according to the testimony of Scripture itself, and make place for the second, which is infinitely more perfect. To be fully satisfied of this, it is merely necessary to compare the one with the other. (Bible de Vence.)”
Source
1871
A.D.
1871
“he--God. made . . . old--"hath (at the time of speaking the prophecy) antiquated the first covenant." From the time of God's mention of a NEW covenant (since God's words are all realities) the first covenant might be regarded as ever dwindling away, until its complete abolition on the actual introduction of the Gospel. Both covenants cannot exist side by side. Mark how verbal inspiration is proved in Paul's argument turning wholly on the one word "NEW" (covenant), occurring but once in the Old Testament. that which decayeth--Greek, "that which is being antiquated," namely, at the time when Jeremiah spake. For in Paul's time, according to his view, the new had absolutely set aside the old covenant. The Greek for (Kaine) New (Testament) implies that it is of a different kind and supersedes the old: not merely recent (Greek, "nea"). Compare Hos 3:4-5. Next: Hebrews Chapter 9”
Source
Modern · 1953 →

The in-app commentary runs from the Fathers to the early-modern record, then stops — that's where the public-domain sources end, not where the reading does. For the modern reading, follow the sources directly.