The interpretation timeline

Heb 9:18

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

From the early Church Fathers to now.

1 Patristic · 2 Reformed · 1 Methodist

Heb 9:18 · Douay-Rheims
“Whereupon neither was the first indeed dedicated without blood.”
Patristic before A.D. 750
407
A.D.
John Chrysostom Patristic
A.D. 347–407
“And he established this no longer from common custom only, but also from what happened under the old [Testament]: which especially influenced them. There was no one who died there: how then could that [Testament] be firm? In the same way (he says). How? For blood was there also, as there is blood here. And if it was not the blood of the Christ, do not be surprised; for it was a type. "Whereupon," he says, "neither was the first [Testament] dedicated without blood." What is "was dedicated"? was confirmed, was ratified. The word "whereupon" means "for this cause." It was needful that the symbol of the Testament should be also that of death.”
Source
1,364 years pass — nothing from this stretch is hosted yet
Post-Reformation c. 1650 – 1900
1771
A.D.
John Gill Reformed
1697–1771
“Whereupon neither the first testament,.... Or the first administration of the covenant of grace under the law: was dedicated without blood; or "confirmed" without it, that dispensation being a typical one; and that blood was typical of the blood of Christ, by which the new covenant or testament is ratified; see Exo 24:7.”
Source
1832
A.D.
Adam Clarke Methodist
1762–1832
“Whereupon - Ὁθεν. Wherefore, as a victim was required for the ratification of every covenant, the first covenant made between God and the Hebrews, by the mediation of Moses, was not dedicated, εγκεκαινισται, renewed or solemnized, without blood - without the death of a victim, and the aspersion of its blood.”
1871
A.D.
1871
“Whereupon--rather, "Whence." dedicated--"inaugurated." The Old Testament strictly and formally began on that day of inauguration. "Where the disposition, or arrangement, is ratified by the blood of another, namely, of animals, which cannot make a covenant, much less make a testament, it is not strictly a testament, where it is ratified by the death of him that makes the arrangement, it is strictly, Greek 'diathece,' Hebrew 'berith,' taken in a wider sense, a testament" [BENGEL]; thus, in Heb 9:18, referring to the old dispensation, we may translate, "the first (covenant)": or better, retain "the first (testament)," not that the old dispensation, regarded by itself, is a testament, but it is so when regarded as the typical representative of the new, which is strictly a Testament.”
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.