The interpretation timeline

Heb 8:3

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

From the early Church Fathers to now.

5 Patristic · 1 Orthodox · 2 Catholic · 1 Reformed

Heb 8:3 · Douay-Rheims
“For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is necessary that he also should have some thing to offer.”
Patristic before A.D. 750
373
A.D.
c. A.D. 296–373
“I am very much surprised how they have ventured to entertain the idea that the Word became man in consequence of his nature. For, if this were so, the commemoration of Mary would be superfluous. For nature has no conception of a virgin bearing apart from a man. By the good pleasure of the Father, being true God, and Word and Wisdom of the Father by nature, he became man in the body for our salvation in order that, having something to offer for us he might save us all, "as many as through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." For it was not some man that gave himself up for us; since every man is under sentence of death, according to what was said to all in Adam, "earth you are and unto earth you shall return." Nor yet was it any other of the creatures, since every creature is liable to change. But the Word himself offered his own body on our behalf that our faith and hope might not be in man, but that we might have our faith in God the Word himself.”
Source
407
A.D.
John Chrysostom Patristic
A.D. 347–407
“In the next place that thou mayest understand that he used the word "minister" of the manhood, observe how he again indicates it: "For" (he says) "every high priest is ordained to offer both gifts and sacrifices, wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer." Do not now, because thou hearest that He sitteth, suppose that His being called High Priest is mere idle talk. For the former, viz. His sitting, belongs to the dignity of the Godhead, but this to His great lovingkindness, and His tender care for us. On this account he repeatedly urges this very thing, and dwells more upon it: for he feared lest the other truth should overthrow it. That is, lest the belief of His Godhead should undermine our belief in His true manhood. Therefore he again brings down his discourse to this: since some were enquiring why He died. He was a Priest. But there is no Priest without a sacrifice. It is necessary then that He also should have a sacrifice.”
Source
430
A.D.
Augustine of Hippo Patristic
A.D. 354–430
“They do not understand that not even the proudest of spirits could themselves rejoice in the honor of sacrifices unless a true sacrifice was due to the one true God in whose place they desire to be worshiped. This sacrifice cannot be rightly offered except by a holy and righteous priest, and it also must be received by those for whom it is offered. And it also has to be without fault, so that it may be offered for cleansing those with faults. This is at least what everyone does who wants a sacrifice to be offered for themselves to God. Who then is so righteous and holy a priest as the only Son of God who had no need to purge his own sins by sacrifice, neither original sins nor those that are added by human life? And what could human beings more appropriately choose to be offered for themselves than human flesh? And what could be more fitting for this immolation than mortal flesh? And what could be cleaner for cleansing the faults of mortals than the flesh born in and from the womb of a virgin without any infection of carnal desires? And what could be more acceptably offered and taken than that the flesh of our sacrifice be the body of our priest? And so, where four things are to be considered in every sacrifice—(1) to whom it is offered, (2) by whom it is offered, (3) what is offered, (4) for whom it is offered—the same one and true mediator himself, reconciling us to God by the sacrifice of peace, might remain one with him [the Father] to whom he offered, might make those one in himself for whom he offered, and he himself might be in one both the offerer and the offering.”
Source
457
A.D.
Theodoret of Cyrus Patristic
c. A.D. 393–457
“It is proper for a high priest to offer gifts to the God of all. For this reason, the only begotten, when he was made man and assumed our nature, offered it for us.”
669 years pass — nothing from this stretch is hosted yet
Scholastic c. 1100 – 1500
1126
A.D.
c. 1055–1107
“Since he said "sat down" (Heb. 8:1), lest you consider it a deception that he called Him a priest, he says that although He sat down, He did not thereby cease to be a High Priest; for everything that belongs to high priests, He possesses, and just as they offer sacrifices, so He offered Himself as a sacrifice. To sit at the right hand belongs to His dignity, while the high priesthood is a matter of great love for mankind. And furthermore, since some were asking why He died if He was truly the Son and eternal, he resolves this perplexity and says: since He was a Priest, and a priest does not exist without a sacrifice, it "was necessary that this one also have something to offer." And this was nothing other than His own body. Therefore, it was necessary for Him to die. Between "gifts" and "sacrifices," in the precise sense, there is a distinction. For sacrifices are offerings of blood and flesh, or more precisely, everything that is consumed by fire. For the word θυσία — sacrifice — properly derives from the word θύεσθαι, that is, to be burned. But gifts, such as fruits and the like, are bloodless and not burned. However, in Scripture both terms are used interchangeably, as for example: "And the Lord had regard for Abel and for his gift," although the gift was precisely from the firstborn of the sheep, "but for Cain and for his gift He had no regard," although the gift was from the fruits of the earth (Gen. 4:3–5). And if anyone attempts to reconcile this with empty arguments, which we ourselves have also heard, I still do not see how he will free himself from the charge of inattentive reading of the Scriptures. For often in other places as well these terms are used interchangeably, and I could cite an innumerable multitude of passages if I did not consider it unnecessary. However, it will suffice for us that the apostle himself further on called everything offered in sacrifice simply gifts. Now listen.”
Source
1274
A.D.
Thomas Aquinas Catholic
1225–1274
“383. – Then (v. 3) he explains in detail. In regard to this 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 (v. 4); thirdly, that He is a minister of greater things (v. 6). 384. – 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 the holies. But Christ is a high priest, as has been 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' (Heb. 5:1). The sacrifice is offered with animals; the gifts with anything else: 'They offer the burnt offerings of the Lord and the bread of their God' (Lev. 21:6). But because it was necessary that Christ have something to offer, He offered Himself. But 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' (Ex. 12:5). Furthermore, it was suitable, because it was fitting that a man should satisfy for man: 'He offered himself unspotted unto God' (Heb. 9:14). It was also fit to be immolated, because His flesh was mortal: 'God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and sin' (Rom. 8:3). Also it was the same as the one to whom it was offered: 'I and the Father are one' (Jn. 10:30). And it unites to God those for whom it is offered: 'That they may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us' (Jn. 17:21).”
Source
575 years pass — nothing from this stretch is hosted yet
Post-Reformation c. 1650 – 1900
1849
A.D.
1774–1849
“For every high priest, &c. That is, as all priests are ordained to offer up to God some gifts and sacrifices; so Christ, a priest for ever, has now in heaven something to offer to his eternal Father; to wit, the infinite merits and satisfactions of his death and passion. This he doth in heaven, and also by the ministry of his priests on earth, who offer the same in his name. (Witham) — This is the daily sacrifice of Christians, foretold plainly by Malachias, chap. i. 10. 11. This is also clearly mentioned in St. Justin Martyr, Dial. cum Tryphone.; Tertullian, co. M.[contra Marcion?] lib. iii. chap. 21.; St. Irenĉus, lib. iv. chap. 32.; St. Cyprian, lib. i. adv. Jud.; Eusebius, lib. i. Dem. Evan.; St. Chrysostom, in Psalm xcv.; St. Augustine, lib. xviii. de civ. Dei. chap. 35, &c. &c. For authorities see annotations on chapter x. of this epistle. The apostate Courayer, who pretending to remain a Catholic, ended by becoming a Socinian or Unitarian, taught that persons were at liberty to deny the real presence, and admit with Catholics a commemorative or representative sacrifice, which applies to us the merits of Christ’s death. But this system was condemned by the Gallican church, as contrary to the doctrine of the Council of Trent, which has defined the mass to be not merely a commemorative and representive sacrifice, but a true and real offering of a victim, really present, and actually offered to God by the priest. “By his last sentiments, (published by Dr. Bell) it appears, says the New Gen. Biogr. Dict. edited by Chalmers, an. 1814[A.D. 1814], vol. lxxx. art. Courayer, that although he professed to die a member of the Roman Catholic Church, he could not well be accounted a member of that, or of any other established Church. In rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity, he became nearly, if not quite, a Socinian, or modern Unitarian; he denied also the inspiration of the holy Scriptures, as to matters of fact; and as to baptism, seems to wish to confine it to adults. In 1811 a more full exposure of his sentiments was published by Dr. Bell, in a posthumous work of Courayer, on the Divinity of Jesus Christ, 8vo. a publication we have little hesitation in saying ought never to have appeared. It could not be wanting to illustrate the wavering, unsettled character of the author. The creed of innovators is never fixed; and when once they cast off the authority of the Church, they are carried about, like children, with every wind of doctrine.””
Source
1871
A.D.
1871
“For--assigning his reason for calling him "minister of the sanctuary" (Heb 8:2). somewhat--He does not offer again His once for all completed sacrifice. But as the high priest did not enter the Holy Place without blood, so Christ has entered the heavenly Holy Place with His own blood. That "blood of sprinkling" is in heaven. And is thence made effectual to sprinkle believers as the end of their election (Pe1 1:2). The term "consecrate" as a priest, is literally, to fill the hand, implying that an offering is given into the hands of the priest, which it is his duty to present to God. If a man be a priest, he must have some gift in his hands to offer. Therefore, Christ, as a priest, has His blood as His oblation to offer before God.”
Source
Undated date unknown
Oecumenius Patristic
c. A.D. 550
“"For every high priest." For he says, it is proper for the high priests to offer gifts and sacrifices (for this is why they are established), it is necessary for the Christ also to offer something, I mean sacrifices. Therefore, he took on his own flesh, which he also offered. He said this, so that no one would say, If he is a high priest forever, why did he die? Why? So that he might offer himself as a sacrifice. For without sacrifices, he would not even be a high priest. "thus it is necessary for this one also to have something to offer." Such as Christ.”
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.