Many are connecting Hebrews 8:7 to Deuteronomy 4:13 to prove that the “faulty covenant” is the Ten Commandments, thus, the Ten Commandments were made obsolete and are no longer binding in the Christian era.
I watched and heard this teaching from Mr. Eliseo Soriano, the Filipino preacher and leader of the Members of the Church of God International commonly known as The Old Path (Ang Dating Daan), who boasts of being a sensible preacher. You can watch him elaborating his interpretation of Hebrew 8:7 (starting after 6 minutes and onwards, or better yet watch the whole series from that link.), or read his articles on these links.
He even mocks us by asking “Where is baptism in the Ten Commandments? Where is the law against sniffing cocaine and watching x-rated films in the Ten Commandments?” Sure enough, these kinds of reasoning support his claim that the Ten Commandments lack so many laws. And unsurprisingly he used exactly Hebrew 8:7 and Deuteronomy 4:13 to come up with his deceiving crafts.
Another group that adheres to this kind of reasoning is from this website. If you read the first paragraphs of their article you’ll clearly see that they too used Hebrews 8:7 and connected it with the verses in the Old Testament that point to the Ten Commandments as the “covenant” (Exodus 34:27-28).
Let’s read the verses again:
Heb 8:7-13 “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second…”
Deu 4:13 “And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. “
Exo 34:27-28 “And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.”
Well, if somebody will stop here, it seems that our critics are correct. After all, those verses are talking on the same word “covenant”.
The main problem of our critics’ argument is that the “covenant” in Heb 8:7 is not the same “covenant” in Deut 4:13.
Yes it is true that Deuteronomy 4:13 talks about the Ten Commandments as a “covenant”. This covenant is a thing—a two-table-of-stones.
Another “covenant” that Mr. Soriano is intentionally ignoring is the meaning of “covenant” as an agreement, an event.
Hebrew 8:7 talks about a covenant in a broader perspective. It is not a thing that we can touch by our bare hands. It is an agreement, an event where God and Israel (two parties) declared their promises to each other.
Let’s look at the context of Hebrew 8 and see which covenant was made obsolete.
Heb 8:10 ” For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel…I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts…”
Notice that the verse never said “I will create a new set of laws, or I will amend my laws.” In this new covenant, we cannot see any hint that God will make His Moral Law obsolete and will make a new one, or amend the existing Moral Law. If God’s Moral Law was not made obsolete then there is no need to create a new set of Moral Laws since there is an existing perfect Moral Law made by a perfect God. And that is exactly what we can read from the next verses. Instead of making the Ten Commandments obsolete, He will even write it in our hearts and minds.
So from this point, we can logically say that the old covenant that was made obsolete is not the “covenant as a thing-two tables of stone”; rather we are left with the other option: the “covenant as an agreement between God and Israel”–an event.
Remember that a covenant–an agreement should have at least two parties involved with each stating their promises. Let’s read Exodus 19 and see if we can find two parties stating their words which then makes up a covenant–agreement.
Exodus 19:1-8 and onwards:
“On the third new moon after the people of Israel had gone out of the land of Egypt, on that day they came into the wilderness of Sinai. They set out from Rephidim and came into the wilderness of Sinai, and they encamped in the wilderness.”
“..while Moses went up to God. The LORD called to him out of the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel: You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”
So Moses came and called the elders of the people and set before them all these words that the LORD had commanded him. All the people answered together and said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do.” And Moses reported the words of the people to the LORD.
We can clearly see the two parties here: God and the Israel; and they both stated their words. That event that happened as recorded in Exodus 19:1-8 is a covenant–an agreement. This is exactly the “faulty covenant” that the author of Hebrews is pertaining to in 8:7.
When you asked Mr. Soriano regarding this question he will easily put the blame to the Ten Commandments. He boastfully reason out that God’s Moral Law – the Ten Commandments are not enough because “obviously it is only ten”. “There is no provision against illegal drugs in the Ten Commandments!” is his arrogant words. Unfortunately, he views the Ten Commandments in letters only; just like the Pharisees and most of the Jews in Jesus’ time. But if we will go back to the verses it will give us a clear answer why the Old Covenant–the agreement became faulty.
Heb 8:7 “For if that first covenant [agreement] had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them ….because they continued not in my covenant..”
It is the people that fall short of their promise, and not the Ten Commandments. “All that the LORD has spoken we will do” is the promise that people failed to do. That is why the old covenant, the old agreement became faulty and needs a replacement.
Yes, there is no need to look for other books in the Bible to get the real message of Hebrew 8:7-13. If one can’t get the message for a particular verse, try to read the surrounding verses, or other books written by the same author first before using other books in the Bible.
What our critics did is that they read Hebrew 8:7-onwards and immediately jumped to Deut 4:13 or Exodus 34:27-28 to add their crafted teaching! If only they adhere to the real message of Hebrew 8:7 (and onwards) it would not be necessary to look for and use other books from the Bible.
The chapters of Hebrew 7-10 are enough to get the real meaning of Hebrew 8 :7, and we can summarize it this way:
“That the old covenant was flawed because of the people’s laxity in fulfilling their promise (8:7). That is why there’s a need to renew the covenant so that humanity can still have the hope of salvation (8:8, 10). The ceremonies in the earthly sanctuary were symbols used so that men can grasp God’s way of salvation. When the new covenant came these symbols were taken over by the real ones (7:12; 9:1).
So now in the new covenant we have a High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary and that is no other than Jesus Christ. He is now the Lamb that was sacrificed once and for all (7:27; 9:12). His blood completed that covenant (9:14). In this new covenant it is the same law that God wants us to follow. He even wrote it in our minds and hearts instead of putting it away (8:10).”
It is clear now that the Old Covenant that became faulty is the Covenant-Agreement-Event, and not the Covenant-Thing-Two Tables of Stones. And it became faulty not because of God’s Laws but because of the people. They failed to do their part in their agreement with God. That is why in the New Covenant, God will make another agreement–a better covenant with the people. In that new covenant, He will not make a new set of laws but rather write the same law in our hearts and minds.
j2rbkk 
on Kasalanan Ba Sa Mga Kristiano Ang Hindi Mangilin Ng Sabbath?
deyb 
on Kasalanan Ba Sa Mga Kristiano Ang Hindi Mangilin Ng Sabbath?
Karen 
on Should Christians Celebrate Christmas? Karen on Pandaraya ng PMCC (4th Watch) part 1 Karen on Kasalanan Ba Sa Mga Kristiano Ang Hindi Mangilin Ng Sabbath? Karen on Kasalanan Ba Sa Mga Kristiano Ang Hindi Mangilin Ng Sabbath? Karen on Kasalanan Ba Sa Mga Kristiano Ang Hindi Mangilin Ng Sabbath?
Juan says...
from Philippines
on March 26, 2010
Hi,
Very well explained but I have something to clarify. As per your statement, the covenant mentioned to be faulty in Hebrews 8:7 is actually an agreement made In Exodus 19:5 “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine,” how sure are you that the covenant mentioned in Exodus 19:5 is just an agreement and not the 10 Commandments?
Thanks
[Reply]
j2rbkk says...
from Thailand
on March 26, 2010
Firstly, I did not say that the word “covenant” in Exo19:5 is absolutely the agreement. Some may interpret it as the covenant-Ten Commandments, or the agreement-covenant between God and Israel. Either is not a problem with me.
The covenant-agreement that I’m pertaining to is the whole event happened in Exo 19:1-8, where both parties (God and Israel) gave their promises to each other.
A covenant is an agreement in its deepest and most valued sense.
Thanks for the question. God bless!
[Reply]
Ian says...
from United States
on May 5, 2010
@juan: Hi bro, you may want to refer to the following link to clarify your doubts:
http://www.amazingfacts.org/FreeStuff/OnlineLibrary/tabid/106/ctl/ViewMedia/mid/447/IID/40/LNG/en/7/Why-the-Old-Covenant-Failed/SC/R/Default.aspx
[Reply]
bryan says...
from United States
on May 26, 2010
I red the first phrase of this article and found so many misinterpretations.The question here is,if the “covenant”in Heb.8:8-9 was not the 10 commandment,was there any other covenant given by God after the Israel exiled?This is the true issue here,unfortunately SDA has not answered this relevant question yet!
[Reply]
ian says:
from United States
on June 1st, 2010
@bryan: hi, bro! your question is trying to imply that the Ten Commandments and the covenant mentioned in Hebrews 8 are of both the same nature by asking with the phrase “…was there any other…” though the Ten Commandments is involved in establishing the Old Convenant.
I believe that the question was asked standing in the wrong premise. As what j2rbkk has said, what we are trying to compare here when we say covenants are the events. If you would assume that the Old Covenant is the Ten Commandments, you would end up with tons of inconsistencies.
But for the sake of our discussion, let’s assume that the covenants were both laws. The Old Covenant is the Ten Commandments and the New Covenant was the laws that were put in the hearts. If there was any fault with the Ten Commandments, what was it as what was said in the Heb 8? And, what are the laws that were put in the hearts? I suggest that instead of reading part of the article, kindly read the entire article so you would understand the whole message of it.
[Reply]
deyb says:
from Philippines
on June 18th, 2010
kulang ang 10 commandments pag iaapply mo ngaun.. helloooo.. brod, magisip k nmn ng konti.. 10 commandments nga lang eh.. eh ang dami ng naimbento ng tao na kalokohan eh, na nde masasakop ng batas sa 10 commandments… gaya ng shabu, marijuana, ecstacy, .. wala nmn sa 10 commandments na bawal mag drugs eh, sigarilyo, etc.. wala din nmn sa 10 commandments ang utos na bautismo, saka ang utos sa 10 commandments utos na pang laman.. ex.. igalang mo ang iyong ama at ina… un ang utos! meron bang utos na igalang mo ung ama ng kapitbahay mo?? wala nmn d b?? kaya binago un ni Kristo sa panahong kristyano, ang sabi ni Pedro sa II Pedro 2:17 – Igalang nyo lahat ng Tao… d b mas maganda utos ni Kristo?? wag kang bulag brod.. wag mo ipilit gusto mo, maging open minded ka at makikita mo ung pagkakaiba ng utos sa luma at utos sa bagong tipan..
[Reply]
ian says:
from United States
on June 28th, 2010
@deyb: where in the Bible did Christ SPECIFICALLY forbid drug abuse such as cocaine and marijuana?
[Reply]
deyb says:
from Philippines
on July 7th, 2010
@ian..
kung naghahanap ka ng verbatim, parang niloloko mo sarili mo, ang salitang “marijuana” at “cocaine” bagong mga salita, naimbento lang ito tapos ng isulat ang biblia, pero me nakasulat sa “I juan 3:3 – sabi,…. naglilinis ng kanyang sarili”, cguro naman nde ka tutol na nakadudumi yang mga bagay na yan, sinabi rin yan ni apostol san pablo sa gal 5:19-21 ” ….. at mga katulad nito” aling katulad? katulad ng paglalasing, kalayawan, etc.. ano mga iyon, d b iyon ay mga bisyo?… yan mga utos na yan ay wala sa matandang tipan, kaya pinatutunayan ko na nde na applicable ung mga utos sa matandang tipan ngaung panahon ng Kristianismo..
[Reply]
j2rbkk says:
from Thailand
on July 8th, 2010
Ang hina po ng basis nyo, deyb. Sigurado po ba kayo na ang “paglalasing” ay hindi pa kinamumuhian ng Biblia sa lumang tipan o “wala pa sa lumang tipan”? Pki-review na lang po muna ng later part ng buhay ni Noah.
Iisa lang po ang napatunayan natin sa comment mo: na kelangan pa lang gamitin at i-apply ang “spirit” ng law sa pag-uunawa ng 10utos..na porke’t hindi naisulat ng letra-por-letra ay ii-interpret agad na “hindi pa daw utos sa matandang tipan”.
Tulad nga po ng sinabi nyo na “kung maghahanap ng verbatim ay parang niloloko ang sarili”. Tama po yun.
Kaya nga kung paiiralin ang “spirit” ng law at hindi ung “verbatim” ay mauunawaan natin na ang pagsa-shabu ay pwedeng pasok sa “Hwag kang papatay”.
ian says:
from United States
on July 21st, 2010
@deyb: then why are you looking for “forbidding of drug abuse” from the 10 Commandments?
jun3_paras says:
from Philippines
on December 18th, 2010
ang pagsashabu daw ay pwedeng ipasok sa “huwag kang papatay”, ah papaano naman po ang utos na bautismo? saan po siya under?
j2rbkk says:
from Thailand
on December 19th, 2010
[ah papaano naman po ang utos na bautismo? saan po siya under?]
kung paiiralin ang diwa o spirit ng kautusan ay pwede yan sa una at ikapat na utos ng 10utos, dahil ang pagbautismo ay pagpapasakop sa iisang Dios..pagkilala sa nag-iisang tunay na Dios.
[Reply]
ian says...
from United States
on July 9, 2010
@deyb: You were the first to argue that the Decalougue did not specifically mentioned drug abuse so I just want to throw back to you your own premise. And now you are admitting that forbidding of drug abuse is based on the principle of Galatians 5. So it is with all the evil things a man can invent. All these are judged according to the principle of the Ten Commandments or should I say the Spirit of the Law. 50 years from now, there will be lots of evil things that will spring up from a human heart and today, no one is writing/adding books in the Bible. So how are you going to deal with the newly invented evil things? Would you agree that the Law Giver of the New Testament already foresaw those?
[Reply]
bryan says...
from United States
on October 1, 2010
@ian, thank you for admitting in between the lines that there’s no answer to my question about Heb.chapter 8. But I’d like to challenge you,I don’t have to read all of your explanation,this topic has been discussed countless time before.Let me challenge you,in Heb.8:7,just give me a hint in this verse that the one being mentioned here is not only the 10 commandments.
[Reply]
j2rbkk says...
from Thailand
on October 2, 2010
@bryan
Like i mentioned in this article, the “covenant” in Heb8:7 WILL NEVER be the 10comm. The author of Hebrews never said that…that the covenant he is referring to is the 10comm. It is only the wrong chaining or linking of verses that others led to believe that the covenant in Heb8:7 is the 10comm.
The reasons why it cant be the 10comm are already written in the 3 series of this article.
———————–
since bryan’s challenge is expected to be lengthy, i encourage bryan to post his challenge in the Forum. We will be glad to answer all misunderstandings and issues regarding that. Thank you and God bless.
http://angtinigsailang.org/forums/index.php
[Reply]
roman says...
from Philippines
on December 26, 2010
Para po sa akin, hindi lang naman ang sampung utos ang utos ng ating Diyos eh kasi ang itinuro sa amin, may health law pa at iba pa. May ceremmonial law din na hindi na dapat sundin…
[Reply]
If you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
IMPORTANT NOTE
Comments are moderated to ensure a positive Christian atmosphere.
If you have any major disagreement with the author please email the author or use our Forum instead.
Please keep the following in mind, comments will not be approved if: