Shared ground

These verses present the reason a “new covenant” is needed and the source of that claim: God’s own words in Scripture. The writer says God “found fault with them,” then quotes the Lord announcing “days” when he will make “a new covenant” (covenant) with “the house of Israel” and “the house of Judah” (Hebrews 8:8–9).

The new covenant is explicitly contrasted with the earlier covenant made at the exodus, when God led the ancestors out of Egypt. The stated reason for the contrast is that “they didn’t continue in my covenant,” followed by God’s response: “I disregarded them.”

Where interpretation differs

Who are “them” (the ones God found fault with)?

• Some take “them” mainly as the people: the covenant partner who failed to keep the covenant.
• Others argue the phrasing leaves room for fault in the covenant arrangement as well (because the quotation is introduced to support why something “new” is necessary), even though v. 9 directly names the people’s noncontinuance.

What does “I disregarded them” mean?

• Some read it as God’s decisive rejection of the unfaithful generation/people under that covenant.
• Others read it as relational distance and withdrawal of covenant favor without implying that God’s larger purposes for Israel and Judah are canceled.

How broad are “house of Israel” and “house of Judah”?

• Some read the phrase in its most direct sense: it names ethnic Israel (including the divided kingdoms) as the stated covenant partner.
• Others infer a widened scope in light of Hebrews’ wider argument: the promise to Israel/Judah is fulfilled in a way that gathers in others, while still being spoken in Israel’s own covenant language.

Why the disagreement exists The passage is a quotation framed by the author’s argument that a “better arrangement” is needed (see the lead-in at 8:6). That creates a question of emphasis: is the “fault” primarily located in the people’s failure (v. 9 says they didn’t continue), or also in the limitations of the earlier covenant arrangement (suggested by the need for something “new”)? Similarly, “disregarded” can describe anything from a serious rupture to a disciplinary withdrawal, and the text itself does not spell out the duration or final outcome of that response.

What this passage clearly contributes Explicitly, the text ties the new covenant promise to (1) God’s initiative (“I will make”), (2) a future time (“days are coming”), (3) specific covenant partners (“Israel” and “Judah”), and (4) a concrete reason for change: the exodus-era covenant did not endure because the people did not remain in it. The writer uses this as evidence that Scripture itself anticipates a covenantal change rather than treating it as a later invention.