Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?  Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?

Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?  Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?  Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?  Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?

Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?  Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?  Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?  Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?

Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?  Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?  Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?  Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?

Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?  Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? 

Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?  Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?  Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again.