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(THR); “as a legal technical term, annulment, setting aside as being no
longer in force (Heb 7.18)” (FRB).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)
