Heb 8:7 : For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.
Well, yes and no. I am also looking at this with my emphases:
But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. " [Heb 8:6]
Sure doesn't sound like the Old One was perfect! For, if it was perfect, then nothing could be better.
Your NIV version "attenuates" the statement in verse 7. The word used by the author is amemptos (blameless, faultless, without a defect).
So, let's recap: verse 6 says the new one is better and verse 7 says it was not faultless. Either God intentionally placed a fault and doomed it to failure or perhaps the people resisted God's will and failed?!
Well, luckily, the author tells us in verse 9 that this is exactly what happened: "they continued not in my covenant." It doesn't say God wanted them to fail. God puts the blame squarely on the unfaithful Hebrews. If it was according to His will, he would claim credit for it.
Since you have read all of Paul you must know that Paul NEVER presumes to criticize God
You have evidence that Hebrews was written by St. Paul?!?
Paul is noting that the first covenant was insufficient, IOW, it was preparatory
Oh please! It says faultless and the new one is better. In either case it couldn't have been perfect!
Paul lays all this out plainly in Romans. For example: Rom 5:18-19 ... This is the correct context in which Paul was comparing the covenants. Hebrews 8 says the Old Covenant was imperfect (it wasn't faultless); the unfaithful Jews made it fail. Romans 5:18-19 does not apply because Hebrews 8 makes it clear who was to be included in the New Covenant:
"I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah" [v. 8]
The new Covenant was not intended for the Gentiles! And Romans is all about Gentiles!
The first covenant did not have this part, and that was by design.
The Book of Hebrews does not predict or talk about Christ as the Book of Romans (5:18-19) does. So, why are they being compared? Let's try to find some coherent message without cutting and pasting, and mixing and matching!
But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. " [Heb 8:6]
Sure doesn't sound like the Old One was perfect! For, if it was perfect, then nothing could be better.
The Old Covenant was not "perfect" in the sense that it did not provide for perfect salvation through Jesus Christ. But then, it was never intended to do that, so it WAS perfect for its intended purpose. The New Covenant was "better" because it did include Jesus paying for all of our sins. Now man could have an unbroken relationship with God:
Heb 9:15 : For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance — now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
God did not institute the Old Covenant, then sit back to find out what happened, and then say "OOOPS, I had better make a New Covenant". That would be an extremely weak God, no better than any man going through trial and error to get what he wants.
So, let's recap: verse 6 says the new one is better and verse 7 says it was not faultless. Either God intentionally placed a fault and doomed it to failure or perhaps the people resisted God's will and failed?! Well, luckily, the author tells us in verse 9 that this is exactly what happened: "they continued not in my covenant." It doesn't say God wanted them to fail. God puts the blame squarely on the unfaithful Hebrews. If it was according to His will, he would claim credit for it.
The Old Covenant prepared the way for the New Covenant. The Old Covenant proved to the world that salvation may not be had by works (Eph. 2:8-9). The New Covenant proved that the ONLY way to be saved was by the blood of Christ. Christ came and did fulfill the Law of Moses. Since then we are not under Law but under grace, and now that can be understood by anyone. Both Covenants served their respective intended purposes perfectly.
You have evidence that Hebrews was written by St. Paul?!?
No, I have no conclusive proof. There are definitely holes in the theory. However, it was interesting to read the introduction to Hebrews in my brand new ESV Bible. Here is an excerpt:
".... But the epistle does not tell us [the author's] name, leaving a tantalizing mystery. In the Eastern church by the time of Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 150-215) and Origen (A.D. 185-253) the epistle was attributed to Paul, although both of these theologians recognized the stylistic differences between Hebrews and the Pauline epistles. In the West, Tertullian (c. A.D. 155-220) proposed Barnabas, a Levite of the Jewish Dispersion who was noted for his encouragement of others (Acts 4:36). Other early suggestions were Luke and Clement of Rome (c. A.D. 95).
From the fifth to the sixteenth centuries Paul's authorship was accepted in East and West. During the Reformation Luther proposed Apollos, a Jewish Christian from Alexandria who was skilled in speech and powerful in the Scriptures (Acts 18:24). Suggestions in the modern period have included Priscilla (but cf. 11:32, where the author refers to himself with a masculine gender participle), Epaphras (Col. 1:7), and Silas (Acts 15:22, 32, 40; 1 Pet. 5:12).
While it is difficult to rule out many of these candidates, it is equally hard to make a convincing case for any one of them. From the standpoints of early tradition, Paul has the strongest claim, but as Calvin observed, Hebrews differs from Paul in style, teaching method, and in the author's inclusion of himself among the disciples of the apostles (2:3) -- a statement at odds with Paul's characteristic claim to have received his appointment and revelation of the gospel directly from Christ (Gal. 1:1, 11, 12)
Perhaps I have been unknowingly corrupted by the tradition of old. :) But in any event, none of this alters my original statement, that Paul never criticized God, whether he wrote Hebrews or not. I just thought it was interesting.
Romans 5:18-19 does not apply because Hebrews 8 makes it clear who was to be included in the New Covenant:
"I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah" [v. 8]
The new Covenant was not intended for the Gentiles! And Romans is all about Gentiles!
Of course the New Covenant was intended for Gentiles. In the same book Paul tells us who the house of Israel includes:
Rom 9:6-13 : 6 It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8 In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."
10 Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad — in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls — she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
All of Romans 9 lays this out. There is also this:
Rom 2:28-29 : 28 A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.
Again, either God is weak and makes mistakes like the rest of us, or He planned everything to turn out just the way it did. As a Gentile, if you think God didn't really want you in the first place, do you see yourself as a second class citizen next to Christians who have Jewish heritage?
The Book of Hebrews does not predict or talk about Christ as the Book of Romans (5:18-19) does. So, why are they being compared? Let's try to find some coherent message without cutting and pasting, and mixing and matching!
That's the problem. We see the whole Bible as one coherent message. Sure, it emphasizes different things at different times, but it does not contradict itself as a whole, whether I can personally explain every little apparent contradiction or not. All have a resolution. If the Bible really was damaged goods, then I would have no idea what to believe in, and I probably would have to just pick some group of men to follow first, in front of scripture. I would be forced to believe that these men were without flaw as a group, and they could cover the flaws of God's word. As I understand the Orthodox view, the Church cannot error, but the Bible certainly can.