Hebrews 8:7
A plain-spoken deep dive on this verse. Read the chapter →
For if that first covenant had been without fault, no place would have been sought for a second.
Commentaries
Excerpts gathered from published commentaries to ground the reading.
Same reasoning as in Heb 7:11. faultless--perfect in all its parts, so as not to be found fault with as wanting anything which ought to be there: answering all the purposes of a law. The law in its morality was blameless (Greek, "amomos"); but in saving us it was defective, and so not faultless (Greek, "amemptos"). should no place have been sought--as it has to be now; and as it is sought in the prophecy (Heb 8:8-11). The old covenant would have anticipated all man's wants, so as to give no occasion for seeking something more perfectly adequate. Compare on the phrase "place . . . sought," Heb 12:17.
Open source ↗In this chapter the apostle pursues his former subject, the priesthood of Christ. And, I. He sums up what he had already said (Heb 8:1, Heb 8:2). II. He sets before them the necessary parts of the priestly office (Heb 8:3-5). And, III. Largely illustrates the excellency of the priesthood of Christ, by considering the excellency of that new dispensation or covenant for which Christ is the Mediator (Heb 8:6 to the end).
Open source ↗8:7-13 The author quotes Jer 31:31-34, an Old Testament prophecy concerning the new covenant that includes a number of striking promises. Establishing the superiority of the new covenant lays a foundation for the argument in Heb 9:1–10:18 that the Son’s offering under the new covenant was superior to the offerings of the old covenant. 8:7 The first covenant, made at Sinai, was not faultless. It was not the end of God’s plan, because it didn’t solve human weaknesses (see 7:11-28; 8:9).
Open source ↗Original language
The Hebrew and Greek words behind this passage, with Strong's numbers — from openscriptures (CC BY-SA).
Cross-references
Other passages the community most often connects to this one. Tap to read.
Now if perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on this basis the people received the law), why was there still need for another priest to appear—one in the order of Melchizedek and not in the order of Aaron?
So the former commandment is set aside because it was weak and useless
Is the law, then, opposed to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come from the law.
Now, however, Jesus has received a much more excellent ministry, just as the covenant He mediates is better and is founded on better promises.