Wondering about Hebrews 8:7

Sorry about that but here it is: Nocticed in the greek interlinear at Hebrews 8:7 the word covenant does not appear yet many bibles have added it. If taken in context, this chapter is actually talking about the priesthood. If it is about the priesthood, it would again show that the old covenant was never replaced by a new one. Any comments please?

The Searcher

My reasoning on it is this: that the Mosaic Law by itself only had temporary benefits, whereas the New Covenant's would be permanent. Hence the reason why Paul said that the former was a tutor leading to the Christ. [and the New Covenant]

newsheep

To me though by adding the word covenant it is changeing the topic of the verses.

If it's about the priesthood leave it at that, why make it about the covenant? they are not interchangeble.

The Law is perfect, the priesthood was not. Which needed change?

transhuman68

It seems straight forward to me. The preceding verse is talking about a 'better covenant', using the Greek word for covenant- as does 8:10- so logically 8:7 is referring to a covenant when it uses the words 'first' & 'second'. But the Book of Hebrews has far greater mysteries in it than this...

LMAO, I'm probably totally wrong, but it's fun to make a guess.

tec

The covenant is for a priesthood.

But in any case, if one just left out the word covenant... and stuck with the word 'first'... what changes?

For if there had been nothing wrong with the first, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said:

It is only that one place that I can see that covenant is added. The rest of the chapter is about covenant, and continues to be about covenant. But i agree that there was no need to add it in; the context surrounding it makes it clear.

Peace to you,

tammy

Quirky1

Keep wondering...

jam

By R. Cole 1956 "The new covenant-Does it abolish God,s law.

We have been taught that the Old Covenant was the Ten

Commandment law- that the new covenant contains only grace

and promises, but no law. So one can argue that since the old

covenant has been abolished, God,s law has also been abolished.

This teaching would lead one to believe that the law of God was

harsh, cruel, and enslaving- that the FAULT of the old covenant

was with the law, the FAULT must have been HIS.

Later, according to this common teaching Jesus came with a new

covenant which had no law, only promises and liberty to do what

you please.

Something terribly wrong with this concept.