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. The “covenants” of the two verses are related but are not pertaining to the same meaning.
Deuteronomy 4:13 talks about the Ten Commandments as the covenant. This covenant is a thing—a two-table-of-stones.
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 declared their promises to each other.
Let’s look at the context of Hebrew 8
Heb 8:8 “For he finds fault with them… not like the covenant that I made with their fathers.. For they did not continue in my covenant..”
Here we can see that this covenant involved two parties: “them” (the Israel) and “I” (God). And even in the new covenant the two parties are still involved.
Heb 8:10 ” For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel.”
So, contextually the covenant in Heb 8:7 is not a thing (two tablets of stone). Rather, it is an agreement (actions) between God and Israel.Therefore it is not wise to connect the covenant in Heb 8:7 with the covenant in Deut 4:13 because the two verses are not pertaining to the same meaning of the word “covenant”.
Let’s get the clue from Hebrew 8:9
“..not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.”
So now this covenant “that was found as faulty” happened after the Israelites were immediately led out of Egypt. The proper verse to go to (if really necessary) is 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.”
That is the link from Hebrew 8:7 to Exodus 19. Moving on..
Exo 19:3-8 “..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.
This is the exact covenant that the author of Hebrews is talking about in 8:7. Here we can see two parties involved giving each other’s promises. Remember a covenant is generally an agreement between at least two parties.
Now let’s go back to Hebrews 8:7 and see if that event, the agreement-covenant happened in Exodus 19:1-8, is really the covenant that the author of Hebrews was talking about. Let’s read the whole passage first…
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 when he says:
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant [agreement] with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant [agreement] that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant [agreement, or can be the ten commandments (Deut4:13)], and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
For this is the covenant [agreement] that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”
Now, let’s analyze it slowly…
Heb 8:7-8 “For if that first covenant [agreement] had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second….Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant [agreement] with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah..”
Can you see, so far, any out-of-context or contradictions from our interpretation with what the author of Hebrews is actually saying? I believe none. Rather, we are actually affirming his words.
Since the first faulty covenant is an “agreement” then the covenant to be made should also be an “agreement”, as a replacement to the old agreement!
Let’s move on…
Heb 8:10-11 “For this is the covenant [agreement] that I will make with the house of Israel After those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, And on their heart also will I write them: And I will be to them a God, And they shall be to me a people….”
Any contradictions now? Again, I believe none. Rather, we are still affirming the writer’s words..that “in the new agreement, God will put His laws into their mind and heart”. Smoothly, no complications, no contradictions.
“An agreement needs the promises or words of at least two parties, but in the new covenant (Heb 8:10-11) it is God who does it all. So the word ‘covenant’ in that verse cannot be an agreement”, that’s the claim of our critics.
Our answer:
It is true that in the new covenant “God does it all”…for HIS PEOPLE. I highlighted those words to emphasize that God’s promises in the new covenant applies only for all those people who positively responded to His calling (John 3:16). The sanctification that is being carried out by the Holy Spirit in the new covenant does not apply to those who willfully, intentionally, and wholeheartedly disobey God (Eph 4:30; Matt 12:31-32).
So this means that a person should take his efforts (respond positively to God’s calling) in order for him to be part of God’s people, where “God does all the workings”. To respond positively is to say “yes” or “no”. This is where the “agreement” comes.
Therefore, the word “covenant” in Heb 8:10-11 is still applicable to “agreement” since God wants us to “agree” with His words first, instead of forcing anyone to be with Him.
Part 2 of this series gives the exact meaning of Hebrew 8:7 contextually, without the need of using outside verses from the book of Hebrew, thus ironing out the twisting of truths that our critics did. We will also expose the errors of reasoning used by our critics in interpreting Heb 8:7. We will also expose the weirdness of the end results of their interpretation of the said verse in part 3. Hope to see you there!
bernard 
on Galatians 4:9-10 And The Sabbath bernard on Galatians 4:9-10 And The Sabbath
Ricardo L. Pauig on Ang Kristiano Ba Ay Obligadong Sumunod sa 10Utos?
husto on Galatians 4:9-10 And The Sabbath
troy 
on Kasalanan Ba Sa Mga Kristiano Ang Hindi Mangilin Ng Sabbath?
j2rbkk 
on Hebrew 8:7 And The Ten Commandments Part 3
roy t. gallemit on Marcos 7:19, Nilinis Na Nga Ba?
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: