Wednesday, March 27, 2024

Robert Sungenis (RC) on Hebrews 7:18-24 and Supersessionism

  

Hebrews 7:18-24

 

18 On the one hand, a former commandment is annulled because of its weakness and uselessness, 19 for the law brought nothing to perfection; on the other hand, a better hope is introduced through which we draw near to God. 20 And to the degree that this happened not without the taking of an oath—for others became priests without an oath, 21 but he with an oath, through the one who said to him: “The Lord has sworn, and he will not repent: ‘You are a priest forever’”—22 to that same degree has Jesus (also) become the guarantee of an (even) better covenant. 23 Those priests were many because they were prevented by death from remaining in office, 24 but he, because he remains forever, has a priesthood that does not pass away.

 

The Hebrew writer refers to “the commandment” or “the law” as “annulled.” Some claim that the “commandment” in Hebrews 7:18 is set aside, not the Covenant, and that the “commandment” concerns the priesthood. But the word “commandment” is a metonymy for the Mosaic law in the next verse, Hb 7:19: “For the law made nothing perfect,” hence the Mosaic law is said to be “annulled,” which is the Greek αθετησις, which the lexicons define as: “abolish” (THR); “as a legal technical term, annulment, setting aside as being no longer in force (Heb 7.18)” (FRB).

 

The equivalence of “commandment” and “law” with the Mosaic covenant is certainly implied, especially by the clause in verse 22: “Jesus also became the guarantee of a better covenant.” Obviously, if Jesus brings a “better covenant” then it must be “better” than a previous covenant, otherwise it would be out of place to make a comparison between covenants. The contrast is obviously between a “better covenant” and an imperfect and temporary covenant. The imperfect covenant necessarily includes the “former commandment” and “the law,” neither of which “brought anything to perfection.”

 

To recap, Hebrews 7 places “commandment” (vr. 18) alongside “law” (vr. 19) and “covenant” (vr. 22) because they are all referring to the same thing. In fact, since vr. 22 says that the covenant in Christ is a “better covenant,” and that contrast necessarily means that the “commandment” and “law” were an inferior covenant. The writer can’t build a contrast between two covenants unless he has two covenants to contrast. Thus tone cannot claim that the ”commandment in particular is about the priesthood” since the Levitical priesthood came from the Mosaic law. The Levitical priesthood cannot be abolished without abolishing the Mosaic law. How could the priesthood be annulled without also annulling the Mosaic covenant? One cannot arbitrarily rip out parts of a covenant and yet pretend it is the same covenant. (Robert Sungenis, Supersessionism is Irrevocable: Facing the Ambiguities, Compromises, and Heresies in Recent Catholic Documents Regarding the “Old Covenant” [State Lina, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2024], 428-30)