How does Hebrews 7:18 challenge the necessity of the Old Testament law? Key Text “Thus a former commandment is set aside because it was weak and useless” (Hebrews 7:18). Immediate Context Hebrews 7 contrasts the Levitical priesthood with the priesthood “according to the order of Melchizedek” (7:11). Verse 18 summarizes the argument: the Mosaic ordinance that established priests from Aaron’s line has been “set aside” (Greek: athetēsis, a legal annulment). The surrounding verses (7:11–19) explain that the Levitical system could never “perfect” (teleioō) the worshiper; therefore, a “better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God” (7:19). Meaning of “Set Aside” Athetēsis appears only here and in Hebrews 9:26. It denotes a formal nullification. The author is not attacking God’s earlier revelation but declaring its fulfillment and replacement in Christ’s superior priesthood. The term signals a covenantal transition, not a moral vacuum. Why the Old Testament Law Was Insufficient 1. Inability to perfect (Hebrews 7:11, 18). 2. Temporality built into the Torah itself (Exodus 29:9 calls Aaronic priesthood “perpetual” only “throughout their generations,” implying a terminus). 3. The sacrificial blood was “incapable of taking away sins” (Hebrews 10:4). 4. The law functioned as a “guardian” (paidagōgos) until Christ (Galatians 3:24-25). Christ’s Superior Priesthood • Rooted in an indestructible life (Hebrews 7:16), validated historically by the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-8; Habermas, Minimal-Facts). • Guaranteed by divine oath (Psalm 110:4). • Eternal, thus never passing the priestly baton (Hebrews 7:24). • Able to “save completely” (Hebrews 7:25), establishing the law’s pedagogical but not salvific role. Continuity and Discontinuity Continuity: The moral character of God revealed in the law is unchanging (Leviticus 19:2; 1 Peter 1:16). Discontinuity: The ceremonial and civil components tied to the temple, sacrifices, dietary boundaries, and Aaronic mediation are rendered obsolete (Colossians 2:16-17; Ephesians 2:15). Canonical Harmony • Jeremiah 31:31-34 foretells a “new covenant” with internalized law. • Jesus declares, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood” (Luke 22:20). • Paul writes, “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness” (Romans 10:4). • Acts 15:10-11: the Jerusalem council refuses to saddle Gentile believers with Mosaic yoke. Archaeological Corroboration • 11Q13 (Melchizedek Scroll) from Qumran (c. 100 BC) shows Second-Temple Jews pondering a coming Melchizedekian deliverer, providing cultural backdrop for Hebrews 7. • Temple-complex excavations display blood-drainage channels, illustrating the continual sacrifices Hebrews calls insufficient. Philosophical and Behavioral Implications Observationally, rites without relational transformation foster external compliance but internal estrangement (Isaiah 29:13). Behavioral research on ritualism confirms temporary guilt-alleviation without sustained moral change; Hebrews diagnoses this accurately, offering a once-for-all cure. Purpose of the Law After Calvary 1. Reveals sin (Romans 7:7). 2. Restrains evil through civil use (1 Timothy 1:8-10). 3. Guides believers morally when filtered through Christ’s commands (Matthew 22:37-40). Practical Applications • Assurance: Believers need not oscillate between self-effort and sacrifice; Christ’s finished work secures access (Hebrews 4:16). • Worship: Focus shifts from temple rituals to living sacrifice of praise (Romans 12:1; Hebrews 13:15). • Ethics: Moral imperatives persist, but motivation is gratitude, not earning favor. Common Objections Answered Objection: “Jesus said He didn’t abolish the law” (Matthew 5:17). Response: He “fulfilled” (plēroō)—bringing prophecy, typology, and moral intent to completion, then inaugurating the new covenant. Objection: “Setting aside the command undermines God’s immutability.” Response: God’s character is unchanging; His redemptive plan unfolds progressively (Hebrews 1:1-2). Covenant change is consistent with divine immutability when foreordained. Conclusion Hebrews 7:18 declares the annulment of the Levitical command because it was never meant to be ultimate. The verse challenges the necessity of the Old Testament law by exposing its provisional nature and directing faith to the resurrected, eternal High Priest, Jesus Christ, whose once-for-all sacrifice accomplishes what the law pointed toward but could not achieve. |
    |