Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 7:18

For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

18. there is) Rather, “there occurs” or “results,” in accordance with Psa 110:4.

a disannulling ] See note on Heb 7:12. Comp. Gal 3:15.

of the commandment ] Most ancient and modern commentators understand this of the Mosaic Law in general.

for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof ] The writer here shews how completely he is of the school of St Paul, notwithstanding the strength of his Judaic sympathies. For St Paul was the first who clearly demonstrated that Christianity involved the abrogation of the Law, and thereby proved its partial, transitory, and inefficacious character as intended only to be a preparation for the Gospel (Rom 8:3). The law was only the “tutor” or attendant-slave to lead men to Christ, or train their boyhood till it could attain to full Christian manhood (Gal 3:23; Gal 3:14). It was only after the consummation of the Gospel that its disciplinary institutions became reduced to “weak and beggarly rudiments” (Gal 4:9).

going before ] Comp. 1Ti 1:18 ; 1Ti 5:24. The “commandment” was only a temporary precursor of the final dispensation.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

For there is verily a disannulling – A setting aside. The Law which existed before in regard to the priesthood becomes now abrogated in consequence of the change which has been made in the priesthood; see the note at Heb 7:12.

Of the commandment – Relating to the office of priest, or to the ceremonial rites in general. This does not refer to the moral law, as if that was abrogated, for:

(1)The reasoning of the apostle does not pertain to that, and,

(2)That law cannot be abrogated. It grows out of the nature of things, and must be perpetual and universal.

Going before – Going before the Christian dispensation and introducing it.

For the weakness and unprofitableness thereof – That is, it was not adapted to save man; it had not power to accomplish what was necessary to be done in human salvation. It answered the end for which it was designed – that of introducing a more perfect plan, and then vanished as a matter of course. It did not expiate guilt; it did not give peace to the conscience; it did not produce perfection Heb 7:11, and therefore it gave place to a better system.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 18. For there is verily a disannulling] There is a total abrogation, , of the former law, relative to the Levitical priesthood. See Heb 7:19.

For the weakness] It had no energy; it communicated none; it had no Spirit to minister; it required perfect obedience, but furnished no assistance to those who were under it.

And unprofitableness] No man was benefited by the mere observance of its precepts: it pardoned no sin, changed no heart, reformed no life; it found men dead in trespasses and sins, and it consigned them to eternal death. It was therefore weak in itself, and unprofitable to men.

The Jews, who still cleave to it, are a proof that it is both weak and unprofitable; for there is not a more miserable, distressed, and profligate class of men on the face of the earth.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before: the Spirit having proved the disannulling of the Aaronical priesthood for its imperfection, proceeds to prove the abolishing of the law or covenant annexed to it, like it for weakness and unprofitableness; is a displacing, deposing, or laying it aside as to its binding force, so as there is no obligation from it on any as to obedience or penalty; and this is so disannulled of the Law-maker, God himself, by setting up the gospel by his Son-priest, which is most certainly true.

For the weakness and unprofitableness thereof; for the Mosaical covenant and law wanted strength to bring about what the Jews sought by it, and wanted good fruit to them who made their boast of it; both which weakness and unprofitableness arose from the Hebrews abuse of it, expecting expiation and sanctification by it, without minding the promise which preceded it four hundred and thirty years, to which it should have led them, and by its neglect proved so fatal to them. For they would be justified and saved by an external obedience to this law, without any regard to Christ and his sacrifice, by whom alone it could be attained, Gal 3:17-27. It was strong and profitable to the end for which God made it, to lead to Christ; but weak and unprofitable to justify or sanctify them without him, which was the end they used it for, or rather abused it.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

18. there isGreek,“there takes place,” according to Ps110:4.

disannulingarepealing.

of the commandmentordainingthe Levitical priesthood. And, as the Levitical priesthood and thelaw are inseparably joined, since the former is repealed, the latteris so also (see on Heb 7:11).

going beforethe legalordinance introducing and giving place to the Christian, theantitypical and permanent end of the former.

weakness andunprofitablenessThe opposite of “power” (Heb7:16).

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment,…. Not the moral law; though what is here said of the commandment may be applied to that; that is sometimes called the commandment, Ro 7:12 it went before the promise of the Messiah, and the Gospel of Christ, and the dispensation of it; it is in some respects weak; it cannot justify from the guilt of sin, nor free from the power of it, nor secure from death, the punishment of it, nor give eternal life; though it has a power to command, accuse, convince, and condemn: and it is also unprofitable in the business of justification and salvation; though otherwise it is profitable to convince of sin, to show what righteousness is, and to be a rule of conversation to the saints in the hand of Christ; yet not this, but the ceremonial law is meant, which is the commandment that respected the Levitical priesthood, and is called a carnal one, and is inclusive of many others, and, which distinguishes that dispensation from the Gospel one: and this may be said to be

going before; with respect to time, being before the Gospel state, or the exhibition of the new covenant of grace; and with respect to use, as a type or shadow of good things to come; and as it was a schoolmaster going before, and leading on to the knowledge of evangelical truths: and this is now disannulled, abrogated, and made void; the middle wall of partition is broken down, and the law of commandments contained in ordinances is abolished:

for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof; the ceremonial law was weak; it could not expiate or atone for sin, in the sight of God; it could not remove the guilt of sin from the conscience, but there was still a remembrance of it; nor could it cleanse from the filth of sin; all it could do was, to expiate sin typically, and sanctify externally to the purifying of the flesh; and all the virtue it had was owing to Christ, whom it prefigured; and therefore, being fulfilled in him, it ceased: and it was “unprofitable”; not before the coming of Christ, for then it was a shadow, a type, a schoolmaster, and had its usefulness; but since his coming, who is the body and substance of it, it is unprofitable to be joined to him; and is of no service in the affair of salvation; and is no other than a grievous yoke of bondage; yea, is what renders Christ unprofitable and of no effect, when submitted to as in force, and as necessary to salvation; and because of these things, it is abolished and made null and void. The Jews, though they are strenuous assertors of the unalterableness of the law of Moses, yet sometimes are obliged to acknowledge the abrogation of the ceremonial law in the times of the Messiah; the commandment, they say r, meaning this, shall cease in the time to come; and again,

“all sacrifices shall cease in the future state, or time to come, (i.e. the times of the Messiah,) but the sacrifice of praise s.”

r T. Bab. Nidda, fol. 61. 2. s Vajikra Rabba, scct. 9. fol. 153. 1. & sect. 27. fol. 168. 4.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

A disannulling (). Late word from (alpha privative and ), to set aside (Mr 6:26), in N.T. only here and 9:26. Common in the papyri in a legal sense of making void. Involved in (change in verse 12).

Foregoing (). Present active participle of , to go before (1Ti 1:18).

Because of its weakness ( ). Neuter abstract adjective with article for quality as in verse 7 with and accusative case for reason.

Unprofitableness (). Old compound (alpha privative and ) useless, and neuter singular like . In N.T. only here and Tit 3:9.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

There is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before [ ] . Verily is superfluous. jAqethsiv only here and ch. 9 26; a very few times in LXX : The fundamental idea is the doing away of something established [] . The verb ajqetein to make void, do away with, is common in N. T. and in LXX, where it represents fifteen different Hebrew words, meaning to deal falsely, to make merchandise of, to abhor, to transgress, to rebel, to break an oath, etc. The noun, in a technical, legal sense, is found in a number of papyri from 98 to 271 A. D., meaning the making void of a document. It appears in the formula eijv ajqithsin kai ajkurwsin for annulling and canceling. Proagoushv ejntolhv rend. of a foregoing commandment. The expression is indefinite, applying to any commandment which might be superseded, although the commandment in ver. 16 is probably in the writer’s mind. Foregoing, not emphasizing mere precedence in time, but rather the preliminary character of the commandment as destined to be done away by a later ordinance. With foregoing comp. 1Ti 1:18; 1Ti 5:24.

For the weakness and unprofitableness thereof [ ] . Rend. “because of its weakness and unprofitableness.” It could not bring men into close fellowship with God. See Rom 5:20; Rom 8:3; Gal 3:21. jAnwfelhv unprofitable, only here and Tit 3:9.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “For there is verily a disannulling,” (athetesis men gar ginetai) “For there comes about abrogation, or setting aside,” putting aside like a worn out or useless garment, Col 2:14-17; Christ took the Law of Moses “out of the way,” nailing it to his cross, fulfilled its requirements, when he offered himself as a sacrifice and bore our sins in his own body on the tree, 2Co 5:21; 1Pe 2:24.

2) “Of the commandment going before,” (proagouses entoles) “Of a preceding commandment,” the one that prescribed an earthly priesthood to offer sacrifices, etc., of the carnal kind of commandment, Heb 7:16; Heb 9:10.

3) “For the weakness and unprofitableness thereof,” (dia to autes asthenes kai anopheles) “Because of the weakness and unprofitableness of it; as a projector of types, shadows, and object lessons of which Jesus Christ was and is the substance, Heb 10:3-4; Rom 8:3.

The law of sacrifices, other than typical, was unprofitable, could not remit sins, but only as a school-master pointed men to the need of a redeeming sacrifice, even to Jesus Christ, Gal 3:19-25; Gal 4:9.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

18. For there is verily a disannulling, or abrogation, etc. As the Apostle’s discourse depends on this hinge, that the Law together with the priesthood had come to an end, he explains the reason why it ought to have been abolished, even because it was weak and unprofitable. And he speaks thus in reference to the ceremonies, which had nothing substantial in them, nor in themselves anything available to salvation; for the promise of favor annexed to them, and what Moses everywhere testifies that God would be pacified by sacrifices and that sins would be expiated, did not properly belong to sacrifices, but were only adventitious to them. For as all types had a reference to Christ, so from him they derived all their virtue and effect; nay, of themselves they availed nothing or effected nothing; but their whole efficacy depended on Christ alone

But as the Jews foolishly set up these in opposition to Christ, the Apostle, referring to this notion, shows the difference between these things and Christ. For as soon as they are separated from Christ, there is nothing left in them, but the weakness of which he speaks; in a word, there is no benefit to be found in the ancient ceremonies, except as they refer to Christ; for in this way they so made the Jews acquainted with God’s grace, that they in a manner kept them in expectation of it. Let us then remember that the Law is useless, when separated from Christ. And he also confirms the same truth by calling it the commandment going before; for it is a well­known and common saying, that former laws are abrogated by the latter. The Law had been promulgated long before David; but he was in possession of his kingdom when he proclaimed this prophecy respecting the appointment of a new priest; this new Law then annulled the former.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES

Heb. 7:18. Disannulling.Setting aside from its active place and work, as that which has had its day, and is no longer efficient. It had to be superseded. A stronger word is now used than that in Heb. 7:12. Weakness, etc.See following verse. Sufficient in relation to mans spiritual needs. The Jews recognised imperfection in the Mosaic system, as they expected perfection only when Messiah should have appeared.

Heb. 7:20. Not without an oath.Sign of an immediate call. Compare the Levitical priests, who came into office by simple right of descent. See the allusion to Psa. 110:4.

Heb. 7:22. Better testament. should have been translated covenant. Heb. Berth. Of testaments the Hebrews knew nothing.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Heb. 7:18-22

The Reversion to an Older Order of Priesthood.Here was a difficulty for the bigoted Jews to explain if they could. When God proposed to call out a new priest, why did He not choose a man out of the house of Aaron, and arrange his priesthood on the Aaronic lines? The only answer that can be given is, that the Aaronic priesthood had worn itself out; its mission had only been temporary, it had now come to its end: it was an effete thing, and therefore an ineffective thing. Illustration may be taken from the king-priests of the Maccabean era, or from the Annas or Caiaphas of our Lords time. It is manifest that the Priest-saviour of a sinful world could never have come in the order of which such men were representatives. The reversion to the older order is the public declaration of the helpless inferiority of the later.

I. The inferiority is seen in its temporary character.It was a priesthood for a nation, not for the world; for a time, and not for everthe for ever of the life of humanity. The Jewish was a temporary revelation, a preparation for a fuller revelation that was to come, and be universal and permanent. The temporary is transitional, and there need be no alarm when the time comes for it to pass away. Christianity is no reformed Judaism; it is the return upon the primary principles of Gods dealing with humanity. But in one line Judaism prepared the way for it. St. Pauls teaching of the relation of Christianity to the Mosaic system should be noted.

II. The inferiority is seen in its limited range.This is only hinted at here, and further unfolded later on in the epistle. It is suggested in the sentence, the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. The range of Judaism was outward and ceremonial. It took mans conduct and relationsnot his will, heart, motivesinto its management, imposed its penalties upon disobedience, and arranged its sacrificial and ceremonial conditions of restoration to privilege. But man wants more than the ordering of his conduct: he wants a power of inward renewal, an object of love who can be to him a supreme inspiration to righteousness.

III. The inferiority is seen in its imperfect agents.Stress is laid on the fact that each priest is not, as an individual, directly called, and set apart for his office by God. There is no precise recognition of ability and fitnessno Divine consecration of each man. Consequently a Jewish priest might be a good man, or he might not. He was a priest because his father was, and not because he himself was a good and priestly man. Their imperfection as persons stands out distinctly in contrast with Melchizedek, who, by direct selection and appointment, was priest of the Most High God; and in contrast with Christ, who in Scripture is declared to be a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek, and to whom the Divine call directly came at Jordan: This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. It was an inferior covenant, administered by inferior men. Valuable enough for its time, and for its mission; but its time had passed, and its mission was done. Let it go. The greater High Priest had come, the surety of an altogether better and spiritual covenant. Cease to exaggerate the importance or authority of the Aaronic priesthood. Welcome the new Priest, the Melchizedek of the new era, on whom the most solemn Divine assurance restsyou have read it many a time in the word, you know its full significance now: Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

SUGGESTIVE NOTES AND SERMON SKETCHES

Heb. 7:18. Good Things may become Ineffective.We have always to take account of the fact that, while the animal world can repeat itself generation after generation with absolute precision, the moral world never has repeated itself, and never can repeat itself, in two succeeding generations. One generation passeth, and another, and a differently thinking, and differently circumstanced, generation cometh; but the earth abideth ever. The birds build their nests to-day exactly as the same birds built them in the trees of Paradise. The foxes make their burrowed holes just as they made them of old in the hillsides of Palestine. But man makes his house to-day altogether otherwise than Adam did when he wove tree-branches into a bower outside Eden. Moral man moves forward. He does not think to-morrow as he thought to-day. He wants something more to-morrow than he wanted to-day. And the Divine revelations to the moral being, man, must always be precisely relative to what he is, and thinks, and wants, when the revelation is given. Indeed, a revelation which, in form, can adapt itself to all the generations of humanity, is inconceivable and impossible in the very, nature of things. There are permanences in humanity; moral man has his unchanging essentials, and there is an essential in all Divine revelation which meets the essential and permanent in man, but we are not dwelling upon that feature now. If man is ever changingmoral man, intellectual man, social manand revelation must of necessity change to adapt itself to the changes, then things that are good, right, adapted, Divine, may come to be practically ineffective, and have to be put up on the shelf of history. Illustration may be taken from the work of the Puritan divines, or the Schoolmen, or the Cambridge Platonists,most valuable and effective in their day; most ineffective in our day. The worlds lumber-room is full of good things that have had their day, and have ceased to be living forces. The stamp of the Divine on the Mosaic economy in no way exempts it from the operation of the ever-working Divine laws, which are superior to any local and particular revelation. Mosaism was a good thing, but the worlds progress made it ineffective.

Heb. 7:19. Law replaced by Hope.Law is an external and authorised direction, which takes the ordering of a mans conduct and relation into its control. Strictly speaking, the range of lawcertainly of revealed lawis external: it has nothing to do with thought, or feeling, or will: it is concerned with actions, with conduct. The apostle Paul states this with great plainness and force, when he compares the righteousness which comes by the law, and the righteousness which comes by Christ. For Moses writeth that the man that doeth the righteousness which is of the law shall live thereby. But the righteousness which is of faith saith thus If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Law, as ordering of conduct, has its time and place and work; it belongs to the rudimentary stages of the moral life. It is the proper thing for the child life of individuals, of nations, and of humanity. Joubert says the great principle guiding the education of humanity is, Force till right is ready. Hope is an effective force on thought, feeling, ambition. It is the inward inspiration of effort to win righteousness. Hold something before a man, and you make the man act from himself with the view to the attainment of that which he hopes for. Here is the difference between law and hope. Law takes the man into its control, and makes the man do what it would have him do. Hope makes the man take himself into his own control, and bring himself into all obediences and goodnesses. Therefore hope is such an advance upon law, that we may say the Divine anxiety, (and the answering human anxiety) is to get the orderings of law replaced by the inspirations of hope. Christ both elevates and redeems humanity, by bringing in a hope. It is a better hope, because all the law could offer was the acceptance and reward of obedient acts; but this hope offers the acceptance of, and Divine satisfaction in, loyal, loving, obedient persons. That which is the law for the individual, the nation, and humanity, is also the law for the Christian experience. The young Christian can only begin with laws and rules for the precise shaping of Christian habits and conduct. If he grows, that law power will pass, and give place to the ennobling and sanctifying inspiration of Christian hope.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

(18, 19) The intimate connection between these two verses is obscured by the ordinary translation. They point out with greater fulness and clearness what is involved in the statement of Heb. 7:16. For there is an annulling of a preceding commandment, because of its weakness and unprofitableness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and a bringing in thereupon of a better hope, by which we draw nigh unto God. (It must be borne in mind throughout that by the commandment is meant the ordinance which created the Levitical priesthood, not the Law in general.) That Jesus was not made Priest according to a law of a carnal commandment (Heb. 7:16) involves the annulling of that commandment; in His becoming Priest according to a power of indissoluble life is involved the introduction of a better hope. This is the general meaning, but each division of the thought is expanded. The appointment of a different priest by the very authority on which the former commandment rested, the divine decree, showed that commandment to be of force no longer: as we have already seen (Heb. 7:11), this is because the commandment is weak and unprofitablebecause the priesthood it creates cannot attain the end of its institution, which is to bring men into fellowship with God. The parenthesis, for the Law made nothing perfect, points out that the weakness just spoken of corresponds to that imperfection which confessedly belongs to the earlier dispensation: even the Jew (who would have accounted a change of priestly line impossible) expected perfection only when Messiah should have appeared. When the earlier commandment is annulled, in its place there is brought in a better hope. The better hope stands connected with the better covenant (Heb. 7:22) and the better promises (Heb. 8:6). And by this (better hope) we draw nigh unto God. The end of the priesthood therefore is attained. (See Heb. 7:11.) In the Law (Lev. 10:3) the priests are those who come nigh unto God, that is, in the service of the sanctuary: with a nobler meaning this name shall now belong to all Gods people.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

18. The commandment Which established the Aaronic priesthood.

Weakness Incapacity in itself to complete our pardon and salvation.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘For there is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment because of its weakness and unprofitability, (for the law made nothing perfect), and a bringing in, as a result, of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.’

As a result the ‘foregoing’ commandment, which was weak and unprofitable, is annulled, because it failed in its purpose of achieving perfection, and is replaced by a ‘better hope’, through which we can draw near to God. There is a contrast here between ‘the disannulling of a foregoing commandment’ looking back to the past, and ‘the bringing in of a better hope’ looking forward to the future.

For in all this the old commandment that was in control before is disannulled, cancelled, because of its weakness and unprofitability, that is, because the Law in fact made nothing perfect in connection with salvation. It was unable itself to save, for its ordinances could only waive sin in a temporary fashion, as is evident from its continual repetition, and its moral requirements could only condemn sinful man. It thus could not deliver from sin. For it could not finally bring men to God in permanent forgiveness and restoration.

And thus if a solution was to be found there necessarily had to arise, as a result, a better hope, something more reliable, no, rather,  Someone  more reliable, through Whom we may draw near to God. Our hope (confident certainty) is no longer to be fixed on a failing law and its fading ordinances, but on our better Hope which is sure and certain.

Here we have the parallel idea to Paul’s ‘works’ and ‘faith’. The one disbanded, the other confident and sure. It is the idea reflected in Heb 6:18-20.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Heb 7:18-19. For there is verily a disannulling “For there is an abrogation of the former commandment, concerning the Levitical priesthood, upon account of the weakness and unprofitableness of it: For the law made nothing perfect, and consequently could not make the priesthood so, or confer those advantages which were to be expected by that office; but there is the bringing in of a better hope, by a more perfect priest, through which we Christians draw nigh to God,” See Heb 7:25.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Heb 7:18-19 . Elucidation of that which is signified by this proclamation in the psalm, of the arising of a new everlasting priest after the manner of Melchisedec (Heb 7:17 ). By virtue of that proclamation of God, the Mosaic institution of the priests, and with it the Mosaic law in general, is declared and that with good reason to be devoid of force; and, on the other hand, a better hope is brought in. Theodoret: , , , .

Heb 7:18-19 contain a single proposition, dividing itself into two halves by means of , for which forms the common verb, and in which constitutes a parenthesis. So, rightly, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, Luther, Zeger, Camerarius, Estius, Peirce, Bengel, M‘Lean, Schulz, Bhme, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Conybeare, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm ( Lehrbegr. des Hebrerbr . p. 592), Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Hofmann, Woerner, and the majority. Others construe differently, in taking each of the two verses as an independent statement in itself. They then vary as regards the interpretation of , Heb 7:19 , as this is looked upon either as predicate or as subject. As predicate it is taken by Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus ( Version ), Vatablus, Calvin, Hunnius, Jac. Cappellus, Pyle, Ebrard, and others, in supplying or , and regarding as subject thereto . According to this, the sense would be: for nothing has the law brought to perfection; but it is (or its meaning consists in this, that it is) a bringing in of a better hope. But against this argues the fact that, if was intended to form the opposition to the first half of Heb 7:19 , the author could not possibly after having placed a verb ( ) in the first half, consisting as it does only of a few words have continued in the second half otherwise than with a verb; he must have written instead of . . . Moreover, in would have remained without any reference upon the supposition of this construction. As subject is looked upon by Beza, Castellio, Pareus, Piscator, Schlichting, Owen, Seb. Schmidt, Carpzov, Whitby, Michaelis, Semler, Ernesti, Valckenaer, Heinrichs, Stuart, and others. The sense would then be: the law indeed brought nothing to perfection; but the bringing in of a better hope did lead to perfection. Against this view, however, the consideration is decisive, that in such case, inasmuch as the preceding has the article, also must have obtained the article.

The statement of Heb 7:18 is to be understood in special relation to the subject in question (not, as is done by Schlichting, Heinrichs, and others, as a truth of universal import). The article before is wanting, because the design was to express the regarding the Levitical priesthood as one which had only the character of an .

] a declaring void of force, abrogation . Comp. , Gal 3:15 . The substantive only here and Heb 9:26 .

] results , namely, in the declaration of God, Psa 110:4 .

The , the command , denotes not the whole Mosaic law (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Primasius, Calvin, Grotius, Hammond, Owen, M‘Lean, Bhme, Kuinoel, Stuart, Klee, Bloomfield), but the ordinance regarding the Levitical priesthood therein contained. Only with Heb 7:19 does the author transfer to the whole that which he here states concerning a part.

The , however, is termed (comp. 1Ti 1:18 ; 1Ti 5:24 ), because, as a constituent part of the O. T., it preceded in point of time the institution of the New Covenant. Yet, at the same time, there lies in the emphatically preposed participle, on account of its reciprocal relation to , Heb 7:19 , at least the additional indication delicately conveyed, that this , since just as a mere precursor of something future it points beyond itself, naturally bears the character of the merely temporary and consequently unsatisfactory .

] on account of its weakness and unprofitableness . The was weak , since it did not possess the strength to attain its object, namely, the reconciliation of men to God; but, because in such manner it did not fulfil the end of its existence, it became for that very reason something unprofitable and unserviceable . On , comp. Rom 8:3 ; Gal 4:9 .

] is not to be limited by means of (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Schlichting, Grotius, Carpzov, Kuinoel, Bisping), but, on the contrary, is to be left in the full universality of the neuter. Completion in general, in whatever respect, the law was not in a position to bring about.

] a doubly composite term. Literally: introduction upon or in addition to, i.e. the bringing in of something new in addition to, or over and above, an object already present (here: in addition to the , Heb 7:18 ). in corresponds therefore to the in .

] of a better hope, sc . than the was in a position to afford. [83] Better, more excellent, is the hope founded upon the newly instituted priesthood, in that this hope is certain and infallible, thus in reality leads to the desired goal.

] by means of which we draw nigh unto God (Jas 4:8 ). Comp. Heb 6:19 : , and Heb 10:19 ff. In contrast with the character of the Old Covenant, since the people were not permitted to enter the Most Holy Place, where the throne of Jehovah was. Cf. Heb 9:6 ff.

[83] We have not to explain, with Schulz: “So is then something better introduced, the hope, by virtue of which,” etc. To the same result as Schulz does Delitzsch also come, when he observes: “It is not meant that the law also afforded a hope, and that the one introduced by the word of the psalm is only by comparison better; but the , which possesses that which is truly perfected in the future, in the world beyond the grave, into which its anchor has been sunk (Heb 6:19 ), stands opposed to the in the present state of its unsatisfying praxis.” In the same manner, lastly, Alford: “The contrast is between the , weak and unprofitable, and a better thing, viz. the , which brings us near to God. This , . . ., is expressed by .”

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

Ver. 18. For there is verily a disannulling ] Gr. , an outing, cassating, expunging.

Of the commandment ] See Trapp on “ Heb 7:12 “ See Trapp on “ Heb 7:16 “

For the weakness and unprofitableness ] sc. To justify, sanctify, save,Rom 8:2Rom 8:2 ; though as a schoolmaster to Christ, and a rule of life, it is of singular use still.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

18, 19 .] These verses belong to the proof of 15 17, expanding the conclusion thence derived, and expressing it more decidedly than before in Heb 7:12 .

For moreover ( , at the same time that by the it carries on the reasoning, by the elliptic suggests some succeeding position as introduced by a . So Eurip. Med. 698, , “certainly, I concede it, thy grief was pardonable, (but ):” and in a sentence made as an example, , “for you, you will remember, were not there (but we were).” See Hartung, Partikell. ii. 414. So here we may regard the as elliptical, and pointing at an understood contrast in the permanence of the just mentioned. It is hardly possible, even with the right construction of the sentence (see below), to regard this as answering to the following : its connexion with the will not allow this. If this had been intended, we should have expected the form of the sentence to be ) there takes place ( , c.: that is, it belongs to both and see below) an abrogation ( ; , , Chrys.: , . , Thl. Though no where else found in all Greek, except in the two places in this Epistle, it is a perfectly regular word from , as , ) of the preceding commandment ( is anarthrous because the epithet is thrown strongly forward into emphasis, which emphasis would be weakened by preceding, and altogether lost in . The intended is that mentioned in Heb 7:16 , according to which the priesthood was constituted, not, as Chrys., Thdrt., c., Thl., Prim., Calv., Grot., Hamm., Kuinoel, al., the whole Mosaic law, however much that may be involved in the assertion, cf. the parenthesis in Heb 7:11 . This commandment went before not merely in time, but was an introduction to and gave way before the greater and final ordinance) on account of its weakness and unprofitableness (on the neuter concrete where the abstract substantive would rather be looked for, see Winer, edn. 6, 34. 2, and besides reff., Rom 2:4 ; Rom 9:22 ; ch. Heb 6:17 al. Rom 8:3 , as Gal 4:9 , is remarkably parallel, both in thought and mode of expression: one of those coincidences which could hardly take place where there was not community of thought and diction), for the law perfected nothing (this parenthetical clause is inserted to explain the implication contained in . . The law had not the power to bring any thing whatever to perfection, to its appointed end and excellence: perfection, in any kind, was not by the law. This assertion must not be limited by making represent a masculine, as Chrys. ( , ; , , . , . , , , . ). Similarly c. and Thl.), and ( , see above on : ‘ and ’ is the only English conjunction which will preserve the true connexion and construction of the sentence) (there takes place; belongs to this also, see below) an introduction ( , superintroductio , a bringing in besides : the law being already there, this is brought in to and upon it: see ref.) of a better hope (the contrast is between the , weak and unprofitable, and a better thing, viz. the which brings us near to God. This , , . . ., is expressed by . This seems more natural, than with Chrys., c., Thl., Prim., to suppose any comparison between the earthly hopes held out in the old covenant, and the heavenly hope of the new ( , , , , , . Chrys.)), by means of which we draw near to God (this note, of personal access to God, has been twice struck before, ch. Heb 4:16 ; Heb 6:19 , and is further on in the Epistle expanded into a whole strain of argument. See ch. Heb 9:11 ff.; Heb 10:19 ff. It is that access, which was only carnally and symbolically open to them by shedding of the blood of sacrifices, but has been spiritually and really opened to us by the shedding of Christ’s blood once for all, so that we being justified by faith can approach the very throne of God. The word is the technical term in the LXX for the drawing near of the priests in their sacrificial ministrations.

Notice the reading , found in A al., as throwing light on the famous , Rom 5:1 ). It remains to treat of the connexion of the above sentence, Heb 7:18-19 , which has been entirely mistaken by many, and among them by E. V. The ending clause, . . ., has been wrongly joined with : and that, either, 1. as subject to , as E. V., “ but the bringing in of a better hope did ” (Beza appears here, as in so many other cases, to have led our translators into error; and so also render Castellio, Parus, Schlichting, Seb. Schmidt, Michaelis, Stuart, al.): or, 2. as predicate to preceding, “ For the law perfected nothing, but was the introduction ,” &c. So Faber Stap., Erasmus (par., “Lex in hoc data est ad tempus ut nos perduceret ad spem meliorem”), Vatabl., Calvin, Jac. Cappel., Pyle, al. This latter is successfully impugned by Beza, on the ground that the law was not an at all, from the very meaning (see above) of that word. The form of the sentence is also against it, in which the first member of the predicate, . ., has a definite verb expressed, whereas the verb of the second member would have to be understood. But neither is Beza’s own connexion allowable: for first, it would be difficult to take out a positive verb and object from the clause . to supply after the subject : secondly, there is no proper opposition in the arrangement of the two clauses : as the object was thrown emphatically forward in the first, so should it be at least expressed in the second: and thirdly, the position and anarthrousness of itself are against the rendering: we should at least expect , and probably . There is a third alternative, which Calvin takes, “nihil enim lex perfecit, sed accessit introductio.” But this, though tolerable sense, is harsher than either of the others. Ebrard indeed approves it, and in his usual slashing manner calls the interpretation of Bleek &c. ein sinnloser Gedanke : but as usual also, he misunderstands the intent of that Gedanke : viz. that in these words , . . . ., there takes place both the and the a thought which, whether right or wrong, is surely not without sense.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

verily = indeed.

disannulling. Greek. athetesis. Only here and Heb 9:26. Compare Gal 1:3, Gal 1:15.

for = on account of. Greek. dia.

the weakness. See Rom 5:6.

unprofitableness. Greek. anopheles. Only here and Tit 3:9.

thereof. Omit.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

18, 19.] These verses belong to the proof of 15-17, expanding the conclusion thence derived, and expressing it more decidedly than before in Heb 7:12.

For moreover ( , at the same time that by the it carries on the reasoning, by the elliptic suggests some succeeding position as introduced by a . So Eurip. Med. 698, , -certainly, I concede it, thy grief was pardonable, (but ): and in a sentence made as an example, , -for you, you will remember, were not there (but we were). See Hartung, Partikell. ii. 414. So here we may regard the as elliptical, and pointing at an understood contrast in the permanence of the just mentioned. It is hardly possible, even with the right construction of the sentence (see below), to regard this as answering to the following : its connexion with the will not allow this. If this had been intended, we should have expected the form of the sentence to be ) there takes place ( , c.: that is, it belongs to both and -see below) an abrogation ( ; , , Chrys.: , . , Thl. Though no where else found in all Greek, except in the two places in this Epistle, it is a perfectly regular word from , as , ) of the preceding commandment ( is anarthrous because the epithet is thrown strongly forward into emphasis, which emphasis would be weakened by preceding, and altogether lost in . The intended is that mentioned in Heb 7:16, according to which the priesthood was constituted, not, as Chrys., Thdrt., c., Thl., Prim., Calv., Grot., Hamm., Kuinoel, al., the whole Mosaic law, however much that may be involved in the assertion, cf. the parenthesis in Heb 7:11. This commandment went before-not merely in time, but was an introduction to and gave way before the greater and final ordinance) on account of its weakness and unprofitableness (on the neuter concrete where the abstract substantive would rather be looked for, see Winer, edn. 6, 34. 2, and besides reff., Rom 2:4; Rom 9:22; ch. Heb 6:17 al. Rom 8:3, as Gal 4:9, is remarkably parallel, both in thought and mode of expression: one of those coincidences which could hardly take place where there was not community of thought and diction),-for the law perfected nothing (this parenthetical clause is inserted to explain the implication contained in . . The law had not the power to bring any thing whatever to perfection, to its appointed end and excellence:-perfection, in any kind, was not by the law. This assertion must not be limited by making represent a masculine, as Chrys. ( , ; , , . , . , , , . ). Similarly c. and Thl.),-and (, see above on : and is the only English conjunction which will preserve the true connexion and construction of the sentence) (there takes place; belongs to this also, see below) an introduction (, superintroductio, a bringing in besides: the law being already there, this is brought in to and upon it: see ref.) of a better hope (the contrast is between the , weak and unprofitable, and a better thing, viz. the which brings us near to God. This , , …, is expressed by . This seems more natural, than with Chrys., c., Thl., Prim., to suppose any comparison between the earthly hopes held out in the old covenant, and the heavenly hope of the new ( , , , , , . Chrys.)), by means of which we draw near to God (this note, of personal access to God, has been twice struck before, ch. Heb 4:16; Heb 6:19, and is further on in the Epistle expanded into a whole strain of argument. See ch. Heb 9:11 ff.; Heb 10:19 ff. It is that access, which was only carnally and symbolically open to them by shedding of the blood of sacrifices, but has been spiritually and really opened to us by the shedding of Christs blood once for all, so that we being justified by faith can approach the very throne of God. The word is the technical term in the LXX for the drawing near of the priests in their sacrificial ministrations.

Notice the reading , found in A al., as throwing light on the famous , Rom 5:1). It remains to treat of the connexion of the above sentence, Heb 7:18-19, which has been entirely mistaken by many, and among them by E. V. The ending clause, …, has been wrongly joined with : and that, either, 1. as subject to , as E. V., but the bringing in of a better hope did (Beza appears here, as in so many other cases, to have led our translators into error; and so also render Castellio, Parus, Schlichting, Seb. Schmidt, Michaelis, Stuart, al.): or, 2. as predicate to preceding, For the law perfected nothing, but was the introduction, &c. So Faber Stap., Erasmus (par., Lex in hoc data est ad tempus ut nos perduceret ad spem meliorem), Vatabl., Calvin, Jac. Cappel., Pyle, al. This latter is successfully impugned by Beza, on the ground that the law was not an at all, from the very meaning (see above) of that word. The form of the sentence is also against it, in which the first member of the predicate, . ., has a definite verb expressed, whereas the verb of the second member would have to be understood. But neither is Bezas own connexion allowable: for first, it would be difficult to take out a positive verb and object from the clause . to supply after the subject : secondly, there is no proper opposition in the arrangement of the two clauses : as the object was thrown emphatically forward in the first, so should it be at least expressed in the second: and thirdly, the position and anarthrousness of itself are against the rendering: we should at least expect , and probably . There is a third alternative, which Calvin takes, nihil enim lex perfecit, sed accessit introductio. But this, though tolerable sense, is harsher than either of the others. Ebrard indeed approves it, and in his usual slashing manner calls the interpretation of Bleek &c. ein sinnloser Gedanke: but as usual also, he misunderstands the intent of that Gedanke: viz. that in these words, . …, there takes place both the and the -a thought which, whether right or wrong, is surely not without sense.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Heb 7:18. , a disannulling) So , takes away, ch. Heb 10:9.-, takes place) in the psalm.- , of the commandment going before) This commandment is denoted in the abstract, Heb 7:16, and in the concrete, in conjunction with men, Heb 7:28; in the same manner as the first testament or covenant, ch. Heb 8:7-8.- , weakness and unprofitableness) So Paul uses the term, weak elements, Gal 4:9; and he also often desires and has regard to that which is profitable, ch. Heb 13:9; comp. Epistles to Timothy and Titus.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

In the twelfth verse of this chapter the apostle affirms, that the priesthood being changed, there was of necessity a change made of the law also. Having proved the former, he now proceeds to confirm his inference from it, by declaring that the priest and priesthood that were promised to be introduced were in all things inconsistent with the law. In that place he mentions only a , or change of the law. But he intended not an alteration to be made in it, so as that, being changed and mended, it might be restored unto its former use; but it was such a change of it as was an , an abrogation of it, as in these verses he doth declare.

Now this was a matter of the highest concernment unto the Hebrews, and of great importance in itself; for it included and carried along with it an alteration of the whole state of the church, and of all the solemn worship of God therein. This, therefore, was not to be done but on cogent reasons and grounds indispensable. And no doubt but the apostle foresaw what a surprisal it would be unto the generality of the Hebrews, to hear that they must quit all their concern and special interest in the law of Moses. For he had three sorts of persons to deal withal in this great cause:

1. Such as adhered unto and maintained the Mosaical institutions, in opposition unto Christ and the whole way of our coming unto God by him.

These esteemed it the greatest blasphemy imaginable, for any to affirm that the law was to be changed or abrogated. And this was the occasion of the death of the first martyr of Jesus Christ, under the accusation of blasphemy, which by the law was to be punished with death. For this they made their charge against Stephen, that he spake blasphemous words against Moses, (whom they put in the first place,) and against God, Act 6:11. And the proof of this blasphemy they lay on these words, that Jesus should change the customs which Moses had delivered to them. Accordingly, on this very account, they stirred up persecution with rage and madness against the holy apostles all the world over. The mouths of these cursed unbelievers were to be stopped; and therefore cogent reasons and unanswerable were in this case to be urged by the apostle; and they are so accordingly. And they were now to know, that notwithstanding all their rage and bluster, those that believed were not ashamed of the gospel; and they must be told that the law was to be abrogated, whether they would hear or forbear, however they were provoked or enraged thereby.

2. There were others of them who, although they received the gospel and believed in Christ, yet were persuaded that the law was still in force, and the worship prescribed in it still to be observed. And of these there were very great multitudes, as the apostle declares, Act 21:20. This error was, in the patience of God, for a while tolerated among them, because the time of their full conviction was not yet come. But those who were possessed with it began, after a while, to be very troublesome unto the church, and would not be content to observe the law themselves, but would impose the observation of it on all the Gentile converts, on the pain of eternal damnation: Act 15:1, They said and contended, that unless they were circumcised, after the manner of Moses, they could not be saved. These also were to be restrained and convinced. And those of them who were obstinate in this persuasion, not long after apostatized from the whole of Christianity. And,

3. There were sincere believers, whose faith was to be strengthened and confirmed. With respect unto them all the apostle laboureth with great diligence in this argument, and evidently proves, both that it was the will and purpose of God that the administration of the law should have an end, and also that the time was now come wherein it was to cease and be abrogated. This, therefore, he proceeds withal in these verses.

Heb 7:18-19. , . , , .

. Vulg. Lat., reprobatio; Rhem., reprobation; most improperly. Syr., mutatio, a change; which reacheth not the force of the word. Ar., abrogatio. Bez., fit irritum; that is, mandatum. is rendered, loco moveo, abrogo, abdico, irritum facio, to take out of the way, to abrogate, to disannul, to make void; and for the most part it hath respect unto a rule, law, or command, that was or is in force. Sometimes it is used of a person, who ought in duty to be regarded and honored, but is despised; Luk 10:16, Joh 12:48, where it is rendered to despise. So 1Th 4:8, Jud 1:8. Sometimes it represents things, Gal 2:21, 1Ti 5:12. But commonly it respects a law, and is applied unto them who are absolutely under the power of the law, or such in whose power the law is. The first sort are said to make void the law, when they transgress it, neglecting the authority whereby it is given, Mar 7:9, Heb 10:28. But when this word is applied unto him who hath power over the law, it signifies the abrogation of it, so far as that it shall have no more power to oblige unto its observance. is used nowhere in the New Testament but here and Heb 9:26. Here it is applied unto the law, being the taking away of its power to oblige unto obedience; there unto sin, denoting the abrogating of its power to condemn.

, quidem, equidem, enim. Syr., , autem, but. For verily.

, praecedentis mandati. The Syriae thus renders the verse, The change which was made in the first commandment was made for its weakness, and because there was no profit in it.

, propter ipsius imbecillitatem; infirmitatem; propter illud quod in eo erat infirmum aut imbecille. , et inutilitatem. Syr., and because there was no profit in it.

The Arabic changeth the sense of the place, reading to this purpose, For there is a transgression where the commandment went before, because that was weak and of little advantage.

. Syr., , non enim aliquid; that is, nihil.

. Syr., , perfecit lex; finished, perfected. Beza, consummavit. Vulg. Let., ad perfectum adduxit. Rhem., brought nothing to perfection. Others, sanctificavit. Syr., for the law did not perfect any thing.

. Vulg., introductio vero melioris spei. Beza, sed superintroducta spes potior. Others, sed erat introductio ad spem potiorem. Syr ; but there entered in the room thereof a hope more excellent than it. is supraintroductio, or postintroductio; the bringing in of one thing after another. Some supply erat here, and read the words, sed erat introductio ad spem potiorem, or spei melioris. , appropinquamus, accedimus. Vulg., proximamus. Rhem. we approach.

Our own translation fully expresseth the original in all the parts of it, only it determines the sense of verse 19, by the insertion of that word, did. [7]

[7] EXPOSITION The word commandment has been explained in reference to the law respecting the priesthood; as, in Rom 7:8, it has been limited to the particular commandment, Thou shalt not covet. But here the reason given for the annulling, namely, the weakness and uselessness of the commandment, applies to the law as a whole; and so in Romans, the commandment coming, the commandment for life, and other places of the same sort, accord best with the idea of the moral law as a whole, it is elsewhere used in this general sense, 2Pe 2:21; 2Pe 3:2. Turner. ED.

Heb 7:18-19. For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before, for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect; but the bringing in of a better hope, by which we draw nigh unto God.

1. The subject spoken of is the command.

2. Described by the time of its giving; it went before.

3. Hereof it is affirmed, that it is disannulled. And,

4. The reason thereof is adjoined, from a twofold property or adjunct of it in particular: for,

(1.)It was weak;

(2.) It was unprofitable.

5. As unto its deficiency from its general end; it made nothing perfect.

6. Illustrated by that which took its work upon itself, and effected it thoroughly; the hope brought in, by which we draw nigh unto God.

FIRST, The , or command, is of as large a signification, verse 18, as , the law, in verse 19; for the same thing is intended in both the words. It is not, therefore, the peculiar command for the institution of the legal priesthood that is intended, but the whole system of Mosaical institutions. For the apostle having already proved that the priesthood was to be abolished, he proceeds on that ground and from thence to prove that the whole law was also to be in like manner abolished and removed. And indeed it was of such a nature and constitution, that pull one pin out of the fabric, and the whole must fall unto the ground; for the sanction of it being, that he was cursed who continued not in all things written in the law to do them, the change of any one thing must needs overthrow the whole law. How much more must it do so, if that be changed, removed, or taken away, which was not only a material part of it, but the very hinge whereon the whole observance of it did depend and turn! And the whole of this system of laws is called , a command, because it consisted , in arbitrary commands and precepts, regulated by that maxim, The man that doeth these things shall live by them, Rom 10:5. And therefore the law, as a command, is opposed unto the gospel, as a promise of righteousness by Jesus Christ, Gal 3:11-12. Nor is it the whole ceremonial law only that is intended by the command in this place, but the moral law also, so far as it was compacted with the other into one body of precepts for the same end; for with respect unto the efficacy of the whole law of Moses, as unto our drawing nigh unto God, it is here considered.

SECONDLY, This commandment is described by the time of its giving: it is , it went before; that is, before the gospel as now preached and dispensed. It did not do so absolutely; for our apostle shows and proves, that as to the promise, whereby the grace of the new covenant was exhibited, and which contained the substance and essence of the gospel, it was given four hundred and thirty years before the giving of the law, Gal 3:17. Wherefore, the precedency of the law here expressed may respect the testimony produced out of David, whereby the apostle proves the cessation of the priesthood, and consequently of the law itself; for the command was given before that testimony, and so went before it. But it rather respects the actual introduction of a new priest, in the accomplishment of this promise; for hereon the whole change and alteration in the law and worship pleaded for by our apostle did ensue. The commandment going before, is the law whereby the worship of God and obedience unto him were regulated before the coming of Christ, and the introduction of the gospel.

THIRDLY, Of this command, or law, it is affirmed that there is an , and that with some earnestness: For truly, verily, certainly. This, whatever it be, came not to pass of its own accord, but it was made by him who had power and authority so to do; which must be the lawgiver.

may respect a law, as was before intimated, either on the account of the lawgiver, him that hath power over it, or of those unto whom it is given as a law, and who are under the power of it. In the latter sense, is to transgress a law, to make it void what lies in us, by contemning the authority of him by whom it is given; that use of the word was before observed, in Mar 7:9, Heb 10:28. In the first sense it is directly opposed unto , that is, the giving, presenting, and promulgating of a law, by a just and due authority, whence it hath a power and force to oblige unto obedience. is the dissolution hereof. The word, as was said even now, is once more used in the New Testament, and that by our apostle in this epistle, Heb 9:26 : Christ hath appeared to put away sin, say we, by the sacrifice of himself; that is, to the abrogation or abolishing of that power which sin hath by its guilt to bind over sinners unto punishment. So the of the law is its abrogation, in taking away all its power of obliging unto obedience or punishment. The apostle elsewhere expresseth the same act by , Eph 2:15; 2Ti 1:10.

It is therefore plainly declared, that the law is abrogated, abolished,disannulled. But we must yet further inquire,

1. How this could be done;

2. By what means it was done; and,

3. (which himself adds expressly) For what reason it was done.

The first of these seems not to be without its difficulties. For it was a law originally given unto the church by God himself, and continued therein with his approbation for many generations; and there are multiplied instances in the sacred records of his blessing them who were faithful and obedient in its observation; yea, the whole prosperity of the church did always depend thereon, as its neglect was always accompanied with severe tokens of Gods displeasure. Besides, our Savior affirmeth of himself that he came not , Mat 5:17, to dissolve or destroy the law: which upon the matter is the same with ; for if a law be disannulled or abrogated, it is totally dissolved as to its obligatory power. And our apostle removes the suspicion of any such thing from the doctrine of the gospel, Rom 3:31, Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Ans. There are two ways whereby any law may be disannulled or abrogated:

First, By taking away all authority and use from it as unto its proper end, whilst it is in its pretended force. For suppose it to be made for ever, or for a time only, its abrogation is its deprivation of all authority and use as a law. And this cannot regularly be done but on one of these accounts: 1. That the authority giving the law was not valid from the beginning, but men have been obliged unto it on a false presumption thereof.

2. That the matter of it was never good, or useful, or meet to be made the matter of law. On neither of these accounts could this law be abolished, nor ever was so by the Lord Christ or the gospel, nor is so to this day. For God himself was the immediate author of it, whose authority is sovereign and over all: and thence also it follows that the matter of it was good; for the commandment, as our apostle speaks, is holy, and just, and good,

Rom 7:12. And however there be a difference between that which is morally good in itself and its own nature, and that which is so only by divine institution, yet the revealed will of God is the adequate rule of good and evil unto us, as unto our obedience. On these accounts, therefore, it never was, nor ever could be abolished.

Secondly, A law may be abrogated, when, on any consideration whatever, its obligation unto practice doth cease or is taken away. Thus was it with this law; for, as every other law, it may be considered two ways:

1. With respect unto its main end, and directive power to guide men therein. This, in all human laws, is the public good of the community or society unto whom they are given. When this ceaseth, and the law becomes not directive or useful unto the public good any more, all rational obligations unto its observance do cease also. But yet this law differed also from all others. All that any other law aimeth at, is obedience unto itself, and the public good which that obedience will produce. So the moral law in the first covenant had no other end but obedience unto it, and the rewardableness thereon of them that did obey it. So was it an entire instrument of our living to God, and of eternal rewards thereon. But as, in its renovation, it was made a part of the law here intended, it came with it to be of another nature, or to have another use and end. For the whole scope and design of this law was to direct men, not to look after that good which was its end, in obedience unto itself, but to something else that it directed unto by that obedience. The end it directed unto was righteousness before God. But this could never be attained by an obedience unto it; nor was it ever intended that so it should do. This the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, Rom 8:3. And therefore those who pursued and followed after it with the most earnestness for this end, never attained thereunto, Rom 9:31-32. This end, therefore, is principally to be considered in this law; which when it is attained, the law is established, although its obligation unto obedience unto itself doth necessarily cease. Now this end of the law was Christ and his righteousness, as the apostle expressly declares: For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth, Rom 10:4. And therefore this whole law was our schoolmaster to Christ, Gal 3:24; Gal 2:5. This is called by our Savior, , to fulfill the law; and is opposed unto the destroying of it, Mat 5:17, I came not , to destroy or dissolve the law, but to fulfill it. That is, not to abrogate it, or take it away, as that which either wanted a just authority or was not good or useful, the common reasons of the abrogation of any law in force; but I came to bring in and accomplish the whole end which it aimed at, and directed unto;whereon it would cease to oblige unto a further practice. And this the apostle calls , to establish the law: Do we then make void the law through faith? yea, we establish the law, Rom 3:31. That is, we declare how it hath its end and full accomplishment;which is the greatest establishment that any law is capable of. And if the fulfilling of the law, both as unto what it requires in a way of obedience, and what also in its curse for sin, be not imputed unto us, we do not by faith establish the law, but make it void.

2. The law may be considered with respect unto the particular duties that it required and prescribed. And because the whole law had its end, these were appointed only until that end might be, or was attained. So saith our apostle, They were imposed until the time of reformation, Heb 9:10. Wherefore two things did accompany this law in its first institution:

(1.) That an obedience unto its commands would not produce the good which it directed unto, as formally respecting the law itself.

(2.) That the duties it required had a limited time for their performance and acceptance allotted unto them. Wherefore, without the least disparagement unto it, as unto the authority whereby it was given, or as unto its own holiness and goodness, it might be disannulled as unto its actual obligation unto practice and observance of its commands; for the end of. it being fully accomplished, it is no less established than if the observance of it had been continued unto the end of the world.

It was therefore established by Christ and the gospel as unto its end, use, and scope; it was disannulled as unto its obligatory power unto the observance of its commands. For these two are inconsistent, namely, that a law as unto all its ends should be fulfilled, and yet stand in force in its obligatory power unto obedience. Secondly, We must inquire how this was done, or how this law was abrogated as to its obligatory power and efficacy. And this was done two ways:

First, Really and virtually. This was done by Christ himself in his own person. For the fulfilling and accomplishing of it. was that which really and virtually took away all its obligatory power. For what should it oblige men unto? An answer is ready unto all its demands, namely, that they are fulfilled; and as unto what was significative in its duties, it is all really exhibited: so that on no account can it any more oblige or command the consciences of men. This the apostle sets out in a comparison with the relation that is between a man and his wife, with the obligation unto mutual duties that ensues thereon, Rom 7:1-6 : Whilst the husband is alive, the wife is obliged unto all conjugal duties towards him, and unto him alone; but upon his death that obligation ceaseth of itself, and she is at liberty to marry unto another. So were we obliged unto the law whilst it was alive, whilst it stood in its force and vigor; but when, through the death of Christ, the law was accomplished, it died as to the relation which was between it and us, whereon all its obligation unto observance was disannulled. This was that whereby the law was really and virtually abrogated. Its preceptive part being fulfilled, and its significative being exhibited, it was of no more force or efficacy as a law. The reason why it was thus to have an end put unto it, is declared in the close of the verse.

Secondly. It was so abrogated declaratively, or the will of God concerning its abrogation was made known four ways:

1. In general, by the promulgation and preaching of the gospel, where the accomplishment and cessation of it was declared. For the declaration made that the Messiah was come, that he had finished his work in the world, and thereby made an end of sin, bringing in everlasting righteousness, whereby the law was fulfilled, did sufficiently manifest its abrogation. The apostles, I confess, in their first preaching to the Jews, spake not of it expressly, but left it to discover itself as an undeniable consequent of what they taught concerning the Lord Christ and the righteousness of God in him. This for some while many of them that believed understood not, and therefore were zealous of the law; which God in his patience and forbearance did graciously tolerate, so as not to impute it unto them. It was indeed great darkness and manifold prejudices that hindered the believing Jews from seeing the necessary consequence unto the abolition of the law from the promulgation of the gospel; yet this was God pleased to bear with them in, that we might not be too fierce, nor reflect with too much severity on such as are not able in all things to receive the whole truth as we desire they should.

2. It was so by the institution and introduction of new ordinances of worship. This was wholly inconsistent with the law, wherein it was expressly enacted that nothing should be added unto the worship of God therein prescribed. And if any such addition were made, by the authority of God himself, as was inconsistent with any thing before appointed, it is evident that the whole law was disannulled. But a new order, a new entire system of ordinances of worship, was declared in the gospel; yea, and those, some of them especially, as that of the Lords supper, utterly inconsistent with any ordinances of the law, seeing it declares that to be done and past which they direct us unto as future and to come.

3. There was a determination made in the case by the Holy Ghost, upon an occasion administered thereunto. Those of the apostles who preached the gospel unto the Gentiles, had made no mention unto them of the law of Moses; as knowing that it was nailed unto the cross of Christ, and taken out of the way. So were they brought unto the faith and obedience of the gospel without any respect unto the law, as that wherein they were not concerned, now it had received its accomplishment. But some of the Jews who believed, being yet persuaded that the law was to be continued in force, and its observation imposed on all that were proselyted by the gospel, occasion was given unto that solemn determination which was made by the apostles, through the guidance of the Holy Ghost, Acts 15. And the substance of that determination was this: That the gospel, as preached unto the Gentiles, was not a way or means of proselyting them unto Judaism, but of bringing them into a new church-state, by an Interest in the promise and covenant of Abraham, given and made four hundred and thirty years before the giving of the law. Whilst the law stood in its force, whoever was proselyted unto the truth, he was so unto the law; and every Gentile that was converted unto the true God was bound to be circumcised, and became obliged unto the whole law. But that being now disannulled, it is solemnly declared, that the Gentiles converted by the gospel were under no obligation unto the law of Moses, but being received into the covenant of Abraham, were to be gathered into a new church-state erected in and by the Lord Christ in the gospel. 4. As unto those of the Hebrews who yet would not understand these express declarations of the ceasing of the obligatory power of the law, to put an end unto all disputes about his will in this matter, God gave a dreadful or abolition unto it, in the total, final, irrevocable destruction of the city and temple, with all the instruments and vessels of its worship, especially of the priesthood, and all that belonged thereunto.

Thus was the law disannulled, and thus was it declared so to be.

Obs. 1. It is a matter of the highest nature and importance, to set up or take away, to remove any thing from or change any thing in, the worship of God. Unless the authority of God interpose, and be manifested so to do, there is nothing for conscience to rest in, in these things. And,

Obs. 2. The revelation of the will of God, in things relating unto his worship, is very difficultly received, where the minds of men are prepossessed with prejudices and traditions. Notwithstanding all those ways whereby God had revealed his mind concerning the abolition of the Mosaical institutions, yet those Hebrews could neither understand it nor receive it, until the whole seat of its worship was destroyed and consumed.

Obs. 3. The only securing principle, in all things of this nature, is to preserve our souls in an entire subjection unto the authority of Christ, and unto his alone.

Thirdly, The close of the verse gives an especial reason of the disannulling or abrogation of the command, taken from its own nature and efficacy: For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before, : the adjective in the neuter gender put for a substantive, which is emphatical; as on the contrary it is so, when the substantive is put for the adjective, as 1Jn 2:27, , , Is true, and is not a lie; that is, mendax, false or lying. And , its own, is added, to show that the principal cause of disannulling the law was taken from the law itself.

I have proved before that the commandment in this verse is of equal extent and signification with the law in the next. And the law there doth evidently intend the whole law, in both the parts of it, moral and ceremonial, as it was given by Moses unto the church of Israel. And this whole law is here charged by our apostle with weakness and unprofitableness; both which make a law fit to be disannulled. But it must be acknowledged that there is a difficulty of no small importance in the assignation of these imperfections unto the law. For this law was given by God himself; and how can it be supposed that the good and holy God should prescribe such a law unto his people as was always weak and unprofitable. From this and the like considerations the blasphemous Manichees denied that the good God was the author of the Old Testament; and the Jews continue still upon it to reject the Gospel, as not allowing the least imperfection in the law, but equalling it almost with God himself. We must therefore consider in what sense the apostle ascribes these properties unto the law.

First, Some seek for a solution of this difficulty from Eze 20:11, compared with Eze 20:25. Eze 20:11, God saith, I gave them my statutes, and showed them my judgments; which if a man do, he shall live in them.

But Eze 20:25, I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live. The first sort of laws, they say, was the decalogue, with those other judgments that accompanied it; which were given unto the people as Gods covenant, before they broke it by making the golden call These were good in themselves, and good unto the people, so as if they did them they should live therein. But after the people had broken the covenant in making of a golden calf, God gave them that whole system of ordinances, institutions, and laws, which ensued. These, they say, in that place of Ezekiel God calls statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live, as being imposed on the people in the way of punishment. And with respect unto these they say it is that the apostle affirms the commandment was weak and unprofitable.

But as the application of this exposition unto this passage in the apostles discourse is not consistent with the design of it, as will afterwards appear, so indeed the exposition itself is not defensible. For it is plain, that by the laws and statutes mentioned Eze 20:11, not any part of them, but the whole system of ordinances and commandments which God gave by Moses, is intended. And the two words in the text, and , do express the whole law ceremonial and judicial. And it was not from this or that part, but from the whole law, that the people, as far as they were carnal, looked for righteousness and salvation, Rom 10:5; Gal 3:12. And as those laws and statutes mentioned Eze 20:11 contained the whole law given by Moses, so those intended Eze 20:25, whereof it is said that they were not good, nor could they live in the keeping of them, cannot be the laws and statutes of God considered in themselves. For it is inconsistent with the holiness, goodness, and wisdom of God, to give laws which, in themselves and their own nature, should not be good, but evil Nor, on supposition that he had given them statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live, could he plead, as he doth, that his ways were equal, and that their ways were unequal. For in these laws he evidently promised that those who did them should live therein. Where is the equality, equity, and righteousness, if it were otherwise? Wherefore if the statutes of God be intended in the place, it must be with respect unto the people, their unbelief and obstinacy, that it is said of them, that they were not good; being made useless unto them by reason of sin. In that sense the apostle says, that the commandment which was ordained to life, he found to be unto death, Rom 7:10. But I rather judge, that having charged the people with neglect and contempt of the laws and judgments of God, which were good, Gods giving them up judicially unto ways of idolatry and false worship, which they made as laws and judgments unto themselves, and willingly walked after the commandment, as Hos 5:11, is here so expressed. But there is no ground for such a distinction between the laws and judgments of God in themselves, that some of them should be good, and some of them should be not good; that in some of them men might live, but not in others.

Secondly, I answer, that the whole law may be considered two ways:

1. Absolutely in itself.

2. With respect,

(1.) Unto the end for which it was given;

(2.) Unto the persons unto whom it was given:

In itself, no reflection can be made upon it, because it was an effect of the wisdom, holiness, and truth of God. But in the respects mentioned it manifests its own weakness and unprofitableness; for they were sinners unto whom it was given, and both defiled and guilty antecedently unto the giving of this law, being so by nature, and thereon children of wrath. Two things they stood in need of in this condition:

1. Sanctification by an inherent purity and holiness, with a complete righteousness from thence. This the moral law was at first the rule and measure of, and would have always effected it by its observance. It could never, indeed, take away any defilement of sin from the soul, but it could have prevented any such defilement. But now, with respect unto the persons unto whom it was given, it became weak and unprofitable unto any such end. It became so, saith the apostle, by reason of the flesh, Rom 8:3. For although in itself it was a perfect rule of righteousness, Rom 10:5, Gal 3:12; Gal 3:21, yet it could not be a cause or means of righteousness unto them who were disenabled, by the entrance of sin, to comply with it and fulfill it. Wherefore the moral law, which was in itself efficacious and useful, was now become unto sinners, as unto the ends of holiness and righteousness, weak and unprofitable; for by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified.

2. Sinners do stand in need of the expiation of sin; for being actually guilty already, it is to no purpose to think of a righteousness for the future, unless their present guilt be first expiated. Hereof there is not the least intimation in the moral law. It hath nothing in it, nor accompanying of it, that respects the guilt of sin, but the curse only. This, therefore, was to be expected from the ceremonial law, and the various ways of atonement therein provided, or no way at all But this of themselves they could not effect. They did, indeed, represent and prefigure what would do so, but of themselves they were insufficient unto any such end. For it is not possible, as our apostle speaks, that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin,

Heb 10:4. And this law may be considered three ways:

(1.) In opposition unto Christ, without respect unto its typical signification; under which notion it was now adhered unto by the unbelieving Hebrews. This being no state of it by divine appointment, it became thereby not only of no use unto them, but the occasion of their ruin.

(2.) In competition and conjunction with Christ; and so it was adhered unto by many of these Hebrews who believed the gospel. And this also was a state not designed for it, seeing it was appointed only until the time of reformation; and therefore was not only useless, but noxious and hurtful.

(3.) In subordination unto Christ, to typify and represent what was to be obtained in him alone; so during its own season it was of use unto that end, but yet could never effect the thing which it did represent. And in this state doth the apostle pronounce it weak and unprofitable, namely, on a supposition that atonement and expiation of sin was actually to be made, which it could not reach unto. But it may be yet further inquired, why God did give this law unto the people, which, although it was good in itself, yet, because of the condition of the people, it could not attain the end which was intended. The apostle gives so full an answer unto this inquiry, as that we need not further to insist upon it. For he giveth two reasons why God gave this law.

1. He saith, It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made, Gal 3:19. It had a manifold necessary respect unto transgression: as,

(1.) To discover the nature of sin, that the consciences of men might be made sensible thereof.

(2.) To coerce and restrain it, by its prohibition and threatenings, that it might not run out into such an excess as to deluge the whole church.

(3.) To represent the way and means, though obscurely, whereby sin might be expiated. And these things were of so great use, that the very being of the church depended on them.

2. There was another reason for it, which he declares in the same place, verses 23, 24. It was to shut up men under a sense of the guilt of sin, and so with some severity drive them out of themselves, and from all expectation of a righteousness by their own works, that so they might be brought unto Christ, first in the promise, and then as he was actually exhibited.

This brief account of the weakness and unprofitableness of the law, whereon it was disannulled and taken away, may at present suffice. The consideration of some other things in particular will afterwards occur unto us. Only in our passage we may a little examine or reflect on the senses that some others have given unto these words.

Schlichtingius, in his comment on the next verse, gives this account of the state of the law:

Lex expiationem concedebat leviorum delictorum, idque ratione poenae alicujus arbitrariae tantum: gravioribus autem peccatis quibus mortis poenam fixerat, nullam reliquerat veniam, maledictionis fulmen vibrans in omnes qui gravius peccassent.

But these things are neither accommodated unto the purpose of the apostle nor true in themselves. For,

1. The law denounced the curse equally unto every transgression, be it small or great: Cursed is he who continueth not in all things.

2. It expiated absolutely no sin, small or great, by its own power and efficacy; neither did it properly take away any punishment, temporal or eternal. That some sins were punished with death, and some were not, belonged unto the polity or the government erected among that people. But,

3. As unto the expiation of sin, the law had an equal respect unto all the sins of believers, great and small; it typically represented the expiation of them all in the sacrifice of Christ, and so confirmed their faith as to the forgiveness of sin; but farther it could not proceed.

And Grotius on the place:

Non perduxit homines ad justitiam illam veram et internam, sed intra ritus et facts externa constitit. …… Promissa terrestria non operantur mortis contemptum, sed eum operatur spes melior vitae aeternae et coelestis.

Which is thus enlarged by another: The Mosaical law got no man freedom from sin, was able to give no man strength to fulfill the will of God, and could not purchase pardon for any that had broken it. This, therefore, was to be done now afterwards by the gospel; which gives more sublime and plain promises of pardon of sin, which the law could not promise; of an eternal and heavenly life to all true penitent believers: which gracious tenders, now made by Christ, give us a freedom of access unto God, and confidence to come and expect such mercy from him.

Ans. 1. What is here spoken, if it intend the law in itself, and its cardinal ordinances, without any respect unto the Lord Christ and his mediation, may in some sense be true; for in itself it could neither justify nor sanctify the worshippers, nor spiritually or eternally expiate sin. But,

2. Under the law, and by it, there was a dispensation of the covenant of grace, which was accompanied with promises of eternal life; for it did not only repeat and re-enforce the promise inseparably annexed unto the law of creation, Do this, and live, but it had also other promises of spiritual and eternal things annexed unto it, as it contained a legal dispensation of the first promise or the covenant of grace. But, 3. The opposition here made by the apostle is not between the precepts of the law and the precepts of the gospel, the promises of the law and the promises of the gospel, outward righteousness and inward obedience; but between the efficacy of the law unto righteousness and salvation, by the priesthood and sacrifices ordained therein, on the one hand, and the priesthood of Christ, with his sacrifice, which was promised before and now manifested in the gospel, on the other. And herein he doth not only show the preference and dignity of the latter above the former, but also that the former of itself could do nothing unto these ends; but whereas they had represented the accomplishment of them for a season, and so directed the faith of the church unto what was future, that now being come and exhibited, it was of no more use nor advantage, nor meet to be retained.

Thus, then, was the law disannulled; and it was so actually by the means before mentioned. But that the church might not be surprised, there were many warnings given of it before it came to pass: as,

1. A mark was put upon it from the very beginning, that it had not a perpetuity in its nature, nor inseparably annexed unto it: for it had no small presignification in it, that immediately upon the giving of it as a covenant with that people, they brake the covenant, in making the golden calf in Horeb; and thereon Moses brake the tables of stone wherein the law was written. Had God intended that this law should have been perpetual, he would not have suffered its first constitution to have been accompanied with an express emblem of its disannulling.

2. Moses expressly .foretells, that after the giving of the law, God would provoke them to anger by a foolish nation, Deu 32:21, Rom 10:19; that is, by the calling of the Gentiles, whereon the wall of partition that was between them, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances, was of necessity to be taken out of the way.

3. The prophets frequently declared that it was of itself utterly insufficient for the expiation of sin, or the sanctification of sinners, and thereon preferred moral obedience above all its institutions; whence it necessarily follows, that seeing God did intend a , or state of perfection, for his church, this law was at last to be disannulled.

4. All the promises concerning the coming of Christ as the end of the law, did declare its station in the church not to be perpetual; especially that insisted on by our apostle, of his being a priest after the order of Melchisedec.

5. The promises and predictions are express, that a new covenant should be established with the church, unto the removal of the old; whereof we must treat in the next chapter. By all these ways was the church of the Hebrews forewarned that the time would come when the whole Mosaical law, as to its legal or covenant efficacy, should be disannulled, unto the unspeakable advantage of the church. And we may hence observe,

Obs. 4. The introduction into the church of what is better and more full of grace, in the same kind with what went before, doth disannul what so preceded; but the bringing in of that which is not better, which doth notcommunicate more grace, doth not do so. Thus our apostle expressly disputes that the bringing in of the law four hundred years after the giving of the promise, did not evacuate or any way enervate the promise. And the sole reason hereof was, because the promise had more grace and privilege in it than the law had. But here, the bringing in of another priesthood, because it was filled with more effectual grace and mercy, utterly disannulled that which was instituted before. And as we may hence learn the care and kindness of God unto the church, so also our own duty in adhering with constant obedience unto the institutions of Christ. For this must be so, until something else more full of grace and wisdom than they are be appointed of God in the church. And indeed this is that which is pretended by those by whom they are rejected; for they tell us that the ordinances of the gospel are weak and unprofitable, and are disannulled by that dispensation of the Spirit which hath ensued after them. But the truth is, to fancy a dispensation of the Spirit without, against, or above the ordinances of Christ, who alone doth dispense Him, and that in the ways of his own appointment, is to renounce the whole gospel.

Obs. 5. If God would disannul every thing that was weak and unprofitable in his service, though originally of his own appointment, because it was not exhibitive of the grace he intended, he will much more condemn any thing of the same kind that is invented by men. I could never yet understand why God should abolish those ordinances of worship which himself had appointed, because they were weak, and approve of such as men should find out of themselves, which cannot have the least efficacy or signification towards spiritual ends; such as are multiplied in the Papacy.

Obs. 6. It is in vain for any man to look for that from the law, now it is abolished, which it could not effect in its best estate; and what that is the apostle declares in the next verse.

Heb 7:19. For the law made nothing perfect; but the bringing in of a better hope, whereby we draw nigh unto God. [8]

[8] TRANSLATION. Different renderings of this passage have been proposed. 1. Scholefield suggests, But was the bringing in of a better hope; and Turner, to the same effect, referring in support of this view to Erasmus, Zuingle, Tyndale, and Cranmer, translates thus: The law perfected nothing, but was (merely) the introduction of a better hope. So also Ebrard. According to this view, the Mosaic system is the introduction to the Christian. 2. Schlichting, Michaelis, Semler, and Ernesti, supply to ; the bringing in of a better hope made perfect. To this view Owen accedes, and the rendering of the authorized version agrees with it. According to it, the Christian system, in its efficacy to bring to perfection, is contrasted with the Mosaic, which could not. 3. Conybeare and Howson regard the A. V. as wrong; and ascribe the error to an oversight of the connection of in verse 18 with in verse 19. Their translation is as follows: On the one hand, an old commandment is annulled, because it was weak and profitless (for the law perfected nothing); and on the other hand, a better hope is brought in, whereby we draw near unto God. This view in the main has the support of Theodoret, Luther, Gerhard, Bengel, Tholuck, Bleek, Olshausen, Bloomfield, and Craik. It contrasts not the Christian system as a whole with the Mosaic as a whole, but the abolition of the latter with the introduction of the former. ED.

FOURTHLY, The disannulling or abolition of the law was laid down in the precedent verse, as a necessary consequent of its being weak and unprofitable. For when a law hath been tried, and it is found liable unto this charge, it is equal, and even necessary, that it should be disannulled; if the end aimed at be necessary to be attained, and there be any thing else to be substituted in its room whereby it may so be. This therefore the apostle declares in this verse, giving the reasons in particular of what he had before asserted in general. So the causal connection, , for, doth intimate. And,

1. He gives an especial instance, wherein it was evident that the law was weak and unprofitable.

2. He declares what was to be introduced in the room thereof, which would attain and effect the end which the law could not reach unto, by reason of its weakness.

3. He expresseth what that end was. The first he doth in these words, , For the law made nothing perfect. The subject spoken of is , the law; that is, the whole system of Mosaical ordinances, as it was the covenant which God made with the people in Horeb. For the apostle takes the commandment and the law for the same in this chapter; and the covenant, in the next, for the same with them both. And he treats of them principally in the instance of the Levitical priesthood; partly because the whole administration of the law depended thereon; and partly because it was the introduction of another priesthood, whereby the whole was disannulled.

Of this law, commandment, or covenant, it is said that , it made nothing perfect. , nothing, for , no man, say expositors generally; it made no man perfect. So the neuter is put for the masculine. So it is in those words of our Savior, Joh 6:37, , All that the Father giveth me cometh unto me; that is, every one. So is , as here, put for , verse 63: , The flesh profiteth nothing; that is, say some, no man. But I am not satisfied with this exposition, but rather judge that the apostle did properly express his intention. It made nothing, that is, none of the things which we treat about, perfect. It did not make the church-state perfect, it did not make the worship of God perfect, it did not perfect the promises given unto Abraham, in their accomplishment, it did not make a perfect covenant between God and man; it had a shadow, an obscure representation of all these things, but it made nothing perfect.

What the apostle intends by , and so consequently by in this place, we have discoursed at large before on verse 11; so that we shall not here again insist upon it.

But it may be inquired why, if the law made nothing perfect, it was instituted or given by God himself. He had designed a state of perfection unto the church, and seeing the law could not effect it, nay, seeing it could not be introduced whilst the law was in force, unto what end served the giving of this law?

Ans. This doubt was in part solved before, when we showed the ends for which the law was given, although it was weak and unprofitable as unto some other. But yet there are some other reasons to be pleaded, to represent the beauty and order of this dispensation. For,

1. In all these things the sovereignty of God is to be submitted unto; and, unto humble souls, there is beauty in divine sovereignty. When the Lord Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and thanked his heavenly Father that he had revealed the mysteries of the gospel unto babes, and hid them from the wise and prudent, he assigns no other reason but his sovereignty and pleasure, wherein he rejoiced: Even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight, Luk 10:21. And if we cannot see an excellency in the dispensations of God, because they are his, who gives no account of his matters, we shall never delight in his ways. So our apostle gives no other reason of this legal dispensation, but that God had provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect, Heb 11:40. Therefore did he give them this law for a season, which made nothing perfect; even so it seemed good in his sight. It is the glory of God to be gracious to whom he will be gracious, and that at what time he will, and unto what degree and measure he pleaseth. And in this glory of his are we to acquiesce.

2. Mankind having wofully prevaricated and apostatized from God, it was just and equal that they should not be at once re-instated, in their reparation. The suddenness of it might have taken off from its greatness. Wherefore, as God left the generality of the world without the knowledge of what he intended, so he saw good to keep the church in a state of expectancy as to the perfection of liberty and deliverance intended. He could have created the world in an hour, or a moment; but he chose to do it in the space of six days, that the glory of his work might be distinctly represented unto angels and men And he could immediately after the fall have introduced the promised Seed, in whose advent the church must of necessity enjoy all the perfection whereof it is capable in this world; but to teach the church the greatness of their sin and misery, and to work in them an acknowledgment of his unspeakable grace and mercy, he proceeded gradually in the very revelation of him, as we have showed on Heb 1:1, and caused them to wait, under earnest desires, longings, and expectations, many ages for his coming. And during this season it was of necessity that they should be kept under a law that made nothing perfect. For, as our apostle speaketh, if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, Rom 4:14; and if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain, Gal 2:21; and

if there had been a law given which could havegiven life, verily righteousness should have been by the law, Gal 3:21.

Wherefore, until the actual exhibition of the promised Seed, it was absolutely necessary that the church should be kept under a law that made nothing perfect.

3. That people unto whom the law was peculiarly to be given, and by whom God would accomplish his further design, were a stubborn, earthy, hard hearted people, that stood in need of a yoke to burden and subdue them unto the will of God. So obstinate they were in what they had once received, and so proud of any privilege they enjoyed, that whereas their privileges were very many and very great, they would never have had any thought of looking out after another state, but have foregone the promise, had they not been pinched, and burdened, and disappointed in their expectation of perfection by this law, and the yoke of it.

4. God had designed that the Lord Christ should in all things have the pre- eminence. This was due unto him, on the account of the glory of his person and the greatness of his work. But if the law could have made any thing perfect, it is evident that this could not have been.

Secondly, Perfection being thus denied unto the law, it is added, . The words are elliptical, and without a supplement give no certain sense. And this may be made two ways: First, by the verb substantive , and so the whole of what is asserted is an effect of the law. It made nothing perfect, but it was the bringing in of a better hope, or an introduction unto a better hope, as some render the words. It served as Gods way and method unto the bringing in of our Lord Jesus Christ; unto this end it was variously serviceable in the church. For as its institutions, promises, instructions, and types, did represent him unto the faith of believers; so it prepared their minds unto an expectation of him, and longing after him. And the conjunction , which is adversative, seems to intimate an opposition in what the law did, unto what it is said before that it did not. It did not make any thing perfect, but it did bring in a better hope; and we know in how many things it was a preparatory introduction of the gospel. Wherefore this sense is true, though not, as I judge, directly intended in these words.

Beza first observed that was put for in this place, as it is unquestionably in sundry others. If so, not an assignation of a contrary effect unto the law unto what was before denied is intended, but the designation and expression of another cause of the effecting of that which the law could not effect. And the defective speech is to be supplied by , made perfect; as we do it by did, that is, did make all things perfect. To the same purpose the apostle expresseth himself in other words, Rom 8:3. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. For the words are so to be supplied, What the law could not do, that God did;which what it was, and how God did it, the following words declare. Thus, God had designed to bring the church into a better state, a state of comparative perfection in this world. This the law was not a means or instrument suited unto: wherefore another way is fixed on to that end; which being completely effective of it, the law was laid aside and disannulled, as unprofitable.

This the word doth lead unto: for it is as much as postintroductio, or superintroductio; the introduction of one thing after or upon another. This was the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, which were brought in after the law, upon it, in the room of it, to effect that which the law could not do. This our apostle further argues and confirms, Heb 10:1-10.

This, therefore, is the sense of the words, The introduction of the better hope, after and upon the law, when a sufficient discovery had been made of its weakness and insufficiency as unto this end, did make all things perfect, or bring the church unto that state of consummation which was designed unto it.

Thirdly, It remaineth only, therefore, that we show what this better hope is, whereunto this effect is ascribed. Whatever it be, it is called better with respect unto the law, with all things that the law contained or could effect, somewhat of more power and efficacy to perfect the church-state. This neither was nor could be any thing but Christ himself and his priesthood. For we are complete in him, Col 2:10; and by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified, Heb 10:14; the heavenly things themselves being purified thereby.

Hope, therefore, is used here metonymically, to design the thing hoped for. From the giving of the first promise, and throughout under the dispensation of the law, Christ and his coming into the world were the hope of all believers, the great thing which they desired, longed and hoped for. Hence was he called the Desire of all nations, Hag 2:7; that which the secret desires of the whole race of mankind worked towards. And in the church, which enjoyed the promises, they rejoiced in the foresight of it, as did Abraham; and desired to see his day, as did the prophets, diligently inquiring into the time and season of the accomplishment of those revelations which they had received concerning him, 1Pe 1:11-12. It is not, therefore, the doctrine of the gospel, with its precepts and promises, as some suppose, which is here intended, any otherwise but as it is a declaration of the coming of Christ, and the discharge of his office; for without a respect hereunto, without virtue and efficacy thence alone derived, the outward precepts and promises of the gospel would no more perfect the church-state than the law could do.

Obs. 7. When God hath designed any gracious end towards the church, it shall not fail, nor his work cease for want of effectual means to accomplish it. All means, indeed, have their efficacy from his designation of them unto their end. His wisdom makes them meet, and his power makes them effectual. Whatever, therefore, seems to be a means in the hand of God unto any end, and doth not effect it, was never designed thereunto; for he fails in none of his ends, nor do his means come short of what he aims at by them. Wherefore, although God designed a perfect state of the church, and after that gave the law, yet he never designed the law to accomplish that end. It had other ends, as we have already declared. But men were very apt to take up with the law, and to say of it, Surely the LORDS anointed is before us. Wherefore God by many ways and means discovered the weakness of the law, as unto this end. Then were men ready to conclude that the promise itself, concerning this perfect church-state, would be of none effect. The mistake lay only herein, that indeed God had not as yet used that only means for it which his infinite wisdom had suited for, and his infinite power would make effectual unto, its attainment. And this he did in such a way, as that those who would not make use of his means, but would as it were impose that upon him which he never intended to make use of in that kind, perished in their unbelief. Thus was it with the generality of the Jews, who would have perfection by the law, or none at all.

Wherefore the promises of God concerning the church, and to it, must be the rule and measure of our faith. Three things do deeply exercise the church, as unto their accomplishment:

1. Difficulties rendering it wholly improbable.

2. Long and unexpected procrastinations.

3. Disappointment of appearing means of it.

But in this instance, of the introduction of a perfect church-state in and by the person of Jesus Christ, God hath provided a security for our faith against all objections which these considerations might suggest. For

1. What greater difficulties can possibly lie in the way of the accomplishment of any of the promises of God which yet are upon the sacred record unaccomplished, as suppose, the calling of the Jews, the destruction of antichrist, the peace of the church, and prosperity of it in the plentiful effusion of the Spirit, but that as great, and greater, lay in the way of the fulfilling of this promise? All the national provocations, sins, and idolatries, that fell out in the posterity of Abraham; all the calamities and desolating judgments that overtook them; the cutting down of the house of David, until there was only a root of it left in the earth; the unbelief of the whole body of the people; the enmity of the world, acted by all the craft and power of Satan; were as mountains in the way of the accomplishment of this promise: but yet they all of them became at length a plain before the Spirit of God. And if we should compare the difficulties and oppositions that at this day lie against the fulfilling of some divine promises, with those that rose up against this one of perfecting the church- state in Christ, it would, it may be, abate our forwardness in condemning the Jews for incredulity, unless we found ourselves more established in the faith of what is to come than for the most part we are.

2. Long and unexpected procrastinations are trials of faith also. Now this promise was given at the beginning of the world, nor was there any time allotted for its accomplishment. Hence it is generally supposed, from the words there used in the imposition of the name of Cain on her first-born, that Eve apprehended that the promise was actually fulfilled. The like expectations had the saints of all ages; and they were continually looking out after the rising of this bright morning Star. Many a time did God renew the promise, and sometimes confirmed it with his oath, as unto Abraham and David; and yet still were their expectations frustrated, so far as confined unto their own generations. And though God accepted them in their cries, and prayers, and hopes, and longing desires, yet nearly four thousand years were expired before the promise received its accomplishment. And if we do believe that the faith and grace of the new testament do exceed what was administered under the old, and that we do enjoy that pledge of Gods veracity in the accomplishment of his promises which they attained not unto, shall we think it much if we are exercised some part of that season (as yet but a small time) in looking after the accomplishment of other promises?

3. Disappointment of appearing means is of the same nature. Long after the promise was given and renewed, the law is in a solemn and glorious manner delivered unto the church, as the rule of their worship and the means of their acceptance with God. Hence the generality of the people did always suppose that this was it which would make all things perfect.

Something, indeed, they thought might be added unto its glory, in the personal coming of the Messiah; but the law was still to be that which was to make all things perfect. And we may easily apprehend what a surprisal it was unto them, when it was made manifest that the law was so far from effecting this promised state, that there was a necessity for taking it out of the way, as a thing weak and unprofitable, that the better hope, perfecting the state of the church, might be introduced. Such appearances are sometimes presented unto us of means highly probable for the delivery of the church, which after a while do utterly disappear, and things are rolled into a posture quite contrary unto the expectations of many. When there is an appearance of what God hath promised, of what believers have prayed for, it is no wonder if some do earnestly embrace it.. But when God hath laid aside any means, and sufficiently declared that it is not his holy pleasure to use it in such a way, or unto such a length as we would desire, for the fulfilling of his promises, it is not duty, but obstinacy and selfishness, to adhere unto it with any such expectation.

Obs. 8. Believers of old, who lived under the law, did not live upon the law, but upon the hope of Christ, or Christ hoped for. Christ is the same (that is, unto the church) yesterday, to-day, and for ever. If justification, if salvation could be had any other way, or by any other means, then was his coming needless, and his death in vain. It was the promise of him, and not of the law which he had broken, which was the relief and salvation of Adam. This being the first thing that was proposed unto fallen man, as the only means of his restoration, justification, and salvation, if any thing were afterwards added unto the same purpose, it would declare this to be insufficient; which would be an impeachment of divine wisdom and grace. On the same promise of Christ, which virtually contained and exhibited unto believers all the benefits of his mediation, as it was frequently renewed and variously explained, did all the saints live under the old testament. And the obscurity of the revelations of him in comparison of that by the gospel, respected only the degrees, but not the essence of their faith.

Obs. 9. The Lord Christ, by his priesthood and sacrifice, makes perfect the church, and all things belonging thereunto, Col 2:10.

FIFTHLY, In the last place, the apostle illustrates the work wrought through the introduction of the better hope, by the effect of it in them that do believe: , By which we draw nigh unto God. , by which, may refer either to the remote antecedent, , the introduction or bringing in; or unto the next, which is , the hope; being both of the same gender. By the introduction of the better hope we draw nigh to God; or, By which hope we draw nigh to God. Both come to the same, for the substance of the sense; but the application is more natural to the next antecedent, By which hope we draw nigh unto God. It remaineth only that we inquire what it is thus to draw nigh to God.

is a word belonging unto the sacerdotal office, denoting the approach of the priests unto God in his worship. So the LXX. for the most part render , the general term for all access unto God with sacrifices and offerings. And this doth the apostle intend. Under the Levitical priesthood, the priests in their sacrifices did draw nigh unto God. The same now is done by all believers, under the sacerdotal ministration of Jesus Christ. They now, all of them, draw nigh unto God. And in all their worship, especially in their prayers and supplications, they have by him an access unto God, Eph 2:18. There is a similitude in these things, and an allusion in the one unto the other; yet so as that the one doth far excel the other, as to grace and privilege. For,

1. Under the law it was the priests alone who had this privilege of drawing nigh unto God, in the solemn worship of the temple and tabernacle. The people were kept at a distance, and might never come near the sacred services of the holy place. But all believers being made a royal priesthood, every one of them hath an equal right and privilege, by Christ, of drawing nigh unto God.

2. The priests themselves did draw nigh only unto outward pledges, tokens, and symbols of Gods presence. Their highest attainment was in the entrance of the high priest once a-year into the most holy place. Yet was the presence of God there only in things made with hands, only instituted to represent his glory. But believers do draw nigh to God himself, unto the throne of his grace, as the apostle declares, Heb 10:19-22.

It may therefore be granted that there is this intention in the words. For as, by the law of old, the priests in the solemn worship of the church did draw nigh to God in those visible pledges of his presence which he had appointed; and this they did by virtue of the Aaronical priesthood and the law of its institution, which was the utmost that could be attained in their imperfect state; so now, upon the introduction of the better hope, and by virtue thereof, believers in all their solemn worship do draw nigh unto God himself and find acceptance with him.

And there are two reasons for the admission of this interpretation. For,

1. One part of the apostles design is to manifest the glory and pre- eminence of gospel-worship above that of the law. And the excellency hereof consists, not in outward forms and pompous ceremonies, but in this, that all believers do therein draw nigh unto God himself with boldness.

2. Whereas it is peculiarly the priesthood of Christ, and his discharge of that office in his oblation and intercession, which he intends by the better hope, as he fully declares himself towards the end of the chapter, they are those which we have a peculiar respect unto, in all our approaches unto God in our holy worship. Our entrance unto the throne of grace is through the veil of his flesh as offered. Our admission is only by virtue of his oblation, and our acceptance depends on his intercession. Herein, therefore, in a peculiar manner, by this better hope, we draw nigh unto God.

But yet there is a more extensive signification of this expression in the Scripture, which must not be here excluded. By nature all men are gone far off from God. The first general apostasy carried mankind to a most inconceivable distance from him. Though our distance from him by nature, as we are creatures, be infinite, yet this hinders not but that, in his infinite goodness and condescension, we may have intercourse with him, and find acceptance before him. But the distance which came between us by sin cuts off all communion of that kind. Wherefore our moral distance from God, as our nature is corrupted, is greater, with respect unto our relation unto him, than our essential distance from him, as our nature is created. Hence, being far off is the expression of this state of nature: Eph 2:13, Ye were sometimes far off And whatever accompanieth that state, in wrath and curse upon men; in fear, bondage, and power of sin, and enmity against God within them; in obnoxiousness unto misery in this world, and to eternal destruction hereafter, is comprised in that expression. It is to be far from the love and favor of God, from the knowledge of him, and obedience unto him. Wherefore, our drawing nigh unto God denotes our delivery and recovery from this estate. So it is expressed in the place above named:

But now in Christ Jesus, ye who sometimes were far off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ. To represent this, all the acts of solemn worship, which respected the sacrifice of Christ, were called approximations.

And hereunto, unto this drawing nigh to God, or that we may so do, two things are required:

1. A removal of whatever kept us at a distance from God. And the things of this nature were of two sorts:

(1.) What was upon us from God, for our Sin and apostasy. This was his wrath and curse; and these were declared in the publishing of the law on mount Sinai, with the terrible appearances and dreadful voices that accompanied it. This made the people stand afar off, Exo 20:21; as an emblem of their condition with respect unto the law.

(2.) Guilt within, with its consequences of fear, shame, and alienation from the life of God. Unless these things, of the one sort and the other, those upon us and those within us, be taken away and removed, we can never draw nigh unto God. And to secure our distance, they were enrolled in a hand-writing, as a record against us, that we should never, on our own account, so much as endeavor any access unto him, Eph 2:14, Col 2:14. How they were removed by the bringing in of the better hope, that is, by the priesthood of Christ, the apostle declares in this epistle, as we shall see, God willing, in our progress, This neither was nor could be done by the law or its ordinances; neither the moral preceptive part of it nor the ceremonial, in all its rites and sacrifices, could of itself expiate sins, make atonement for our apostasy, turn away the wrath of God, or take away guilt, fear, bondage, and alienation, out of the minds of men.

2. There is moreover required hereunto, that, upon the justification and acceptation of our persons, we have faith, liberty, boldness, confidence and assurance, given unto us, in our coming unto God. And this cannot be without the renovation of our natures into his image, the quickening of our souls with a new principle of spiritual life, and ability unto all duties of acceptable obedience. All these things are required unto our drawing nigh unto God, or unto a state of reconciliation, peace, and communion with him. And we may observe,

Obs. 10. Out of Christ, or without him, all mankind are at an inconceivable distance from God. And a distance it is of the worst kind; even that which is an effect of mutual enmity. The cause of it was on our part voluntary; and the effect of it, the height of misery. And however any may flatter and deceive themselves, it is the present condition of all who have not an interest in Christ by faith. They are far off from God, as he is the fountain of all goodness and blessedness, inhabiting, as the prophet speaks, the parched places of the wilderness, and shall not see when good cometh, Jer 17:6; far from the dews and showers of grace or mercy; far from divine love and favor, cast out of the bounds of them, as Adam out of paradise, without any hope or power in themselves to return. The flaming sword of the law turns every way, to keep them from the tree of life. Yet are they not so far from God but that they are under his wrath and curse, and whatever of misery is contained in them. Let them flee whither they please; wish for mountains and rocks to fall on them, as they will do hereafter; hide themselves in the darkness and shades of their own ignorance, like Adam among the trees of the garden; or immerge themselves in the pleasures of sin for a season; all is one, the wrath of God abideth on them. And they are far from God in their own minds also; being alienated from him, enemies against him, and in all things made up with Satan, the head of the apostasy. Thus is it, and inconceivably worse, with all that embrace not this better hope, to bring them nigh unto God.

Obs. 11. It is an effect of infinite condescension and grace, that God would appoint a way of recovery for those who had wilfully cast themselves unto this woful distance from him. Why should God look after such fugitives any more? He had no need of us or our services in our best condition, much less in that useless, depraved state whereinto we had brought ourselves. And although we had transgressed the rule of our moral dependence on him in the way of obedience, and thereby done what we could to stain and eclipse his glory, yet he knew how to repair it unto advantage, by reducing us under the order of punishment. By our sins we ourselves come short of the glory of God; but he could lose none by us, whilst it was absolutely secured by the penalty annexed unto the law. When, upon the entrance of sin, he came and found Adam in the bushes, wherein he thought foolishly to hide himself, who could expect (Adam did not) but that his only design was to apprehend the poor rebellious fugitive, and give him up to condign punishment? But quite otherwise, above all thoughts that could ever have entered into the hearts of angels or men. After he had declared the nature of the apostasy, and his own indignation against it, he proposeth and promiseth a way of deliverance and recovery! This is that which the Scripture so magnifies, under the names of grace, and love of God, which are beyond expression or conception, Joh 3:16. And it hath also this lustre frequently put upon it, that he dealt not so with the angels that sinned; which manifests what condition he might have left us in also, and how infinitely free and sovereign that grace was from whence it was otherwise. Thence it was that he had a desire again unto the works of his hands, to bring poor mankind near unto him. And whereas he might have recalled us unto himself, yet, so as to leave some mark of his displeasure upon us, kept us at a greater distance from him than that we stood at before, as David brought back his wicked Absalom to Jerusalem, but would not suffer him to come into his presence, he chose to act like himself, in infinite wisdom and grace, to bring us yet nearer unto him than ever we could have approached by the law of our creation. And as the foundation, means, and pledge hereof, he contrived and brought forth that most glorious and unparalleled effect of divine wisdom, in taking our nature into that inconceivable nearness unto himself, in the union of it unto the person of his Son. For as all things, in this bringing of us nigh to God who were afar off, are expressive effects of wisdom and grace; so that of taking our nature into union with himself is glorious unto astonishment. And as we are thereby made inconceivably more nigh to God in our nature than we were upon our first creation, or than angels shall ever be; so by virtue thereof are we in our persons brought in many things much nearer to God than ever we could have been brought by the law of creation. O LORD, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens! Psa 8:1.

It is in the admiration of this unspeakable grace that the psalmist is so ravished in the contemplation of God, as hath been declared in our exposition on the second chapter of this epistle.

Obs. 12. All our approximation unto God in any kind, all our approaches unto him in holy worship, is by Him alone who was the blessed hope of the saints under the old testament, and is the life of them under the new. These things must be afterwards spoken unto.

Fuente: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews

a disannulling: Heb 7:11, Heb 7:12, Heb 8:7-13, Heb 10:1-9, Rom 3:31, Gal 3:15, Gal 3:17

the weakness: Heb 7:19, Heb 8:7, Heb 8:8, Heb 9:9, Heb 9:10, Heb 10:1-4, Heb 13:9, Act 13:39, Rom 8:3, Gal 4:9, Gal 4:21, 1Ti 4:8

Reciprocal: Num 25:13 – an everlasting Job 40:8 – disannul Gal 2:16 – but Gal 3:24 – the law Col 2:14 – the handwriting Heb 8:13 – he hath Heb 10:9 – He taketh

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Heb 7:18. To disannul signifies to cancel the force of the law which went before. God declared that such an act would be done by changing the priesthood and also the commandment (law of Moses). The reason for this annulling was the weakness and un-profitableness thereof. This weakness was not through any failure of God. for it was not brought into the world with the idea of its being final and complete. (See Gal 3:18-25.)

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Heb 7:18-19. These verses summarize the argument of the previous verses.

For what takes place is on the one hand an annulling of the former commandment (concerning the priesthood) on account of what in it was weak and unprofitable (for the law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand [there is] a bringing in over the law of a better hopesuch a bringing in as supplies the deficiencies of the law and practically supersedes it.

By means of which hope we draw nigh to God. What in it was weak is the expression the writer employs, not the wider expression, the weakness thereof. He simply calls attention to what in it has that quality. The law made nothing perfect; it finished nothing; it created hope, but failed to satisfy it; it awakened a consciousness of the need of an atonement, but provided no sacrifice; it set up the ideal of a holy life, but failed to give the strength needed to realize the ideal; it created longings for closer fellowship with God, but opened no way whereby we could draw nigh. We draw nigh, and not priests only. The access to God is free to all who believe. The Holy of Holies has still to the eye of flesh its veil; but Christ has entered for us, and so to the eye of faith it has no veil at all. The title and the fitness to enter there is the perfection which the law could never give. This note has been struck already (Heb 4:16, Heb 6:19); by and by it swells into a whole strain of impassioned argument (Heb 9:24, Heb 10:19-25).

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Now the apostle comes to declare, that the Levitical priesthood being abolished, and the ceremonial law abrogated, the whole state of the church, and of the solemn worship of God therein, must necessarily be changed also. This he foresaw would be a mighty surprisal to the generality of the Hebrews, to hear that they must quit all their concern and special interest in the law of Moses; and therefore he assigns a double reason for the abrogation and disannulling of that law; namely, the weakness and unprofitableness thereof, ver. . There is a disannulling of the commandment, for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. Not that the law was weak in itself, or unprofitable to the end for which God made it; namely, to lead them to Christ; but weak and unprofitable for justification and salvation. They expected expiation of sin, sanctification, and holiness by it, without any regard to Christ and his sacrifice, by whom alone it could be obtained. Those things the law could not effect in its best estate; how vain was it then for the Jews to expect them when it was abolished?

Observe next, How the apostle proves the law to be weak and unprofitable; namely, because it made nothing perfect. The law, that is, the whole system of Mosaical ordinances, the legal covenant, made nothing perfect; that is, no person, how strictly soever he observed, could be justified and saved by it: It could not of itself cleanse from sin, reconcile us to God, justify our persons, sanctify our natures, and procure salvation for us.

Observe, lastly, Though the ceremonial law made nothing perfect, yet the gospel law, called here a better hope, because the promises of it are a good ground of hope, has efficacy, power, and virtue, to do all those things for us, and by it we have freedom of access to God. The law made nothing perfect, yet the gospel law, called here a better hope, because the promises of it are good ground of hope, has efficacy, power, and virtue, to do all those things for us, and by it we have freedom of access to God. The law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope, whereby we draw nigh to God.

Learn hence, 1. That the law could not justify or sanctify any person, nor make him perfect, by reconciling him to God, and procuring salvation for him.

Learn, 2. That believers of old, who lived under the law, did not live upon the law, but upon the hope of Christ, or Christ hoped for; could justification and salvation have been had any other way, or by any other means, Christ’s coming had been needless, and his death in vain.

Learn, 3. That the introduction of a better hope by the gospel, after a sufficient discovery made of the weakness and insufficiency of the law, did make all things perfect, or bring the church to that state of consummation, which was designed unto it.

Learn, 4. That when all mankind were at an inconceivable distance from God, it was infinite condescension and grace to appoint his own Son, who was the blessed hope of the saints under the Old Testament, to be the only way and mean of our approaching unto him. When the law made nothing perfect, the bringing in of a better hope did, by which we draw nigh unto God.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Heb 7:18-19. For there is verily Implied in this new and everlasting priesthood, and in the new dispensation connected therewith; a disannulling of the preceding commandment An abrogation of the Mosaic law; for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof In comparison of the new priesthood and dispensation. See on Rom 8:3. For the law The dispensation of Moses, taken by itself, separate from the light and grace of the gospel: made nothing perfect Either as to the state of Gods church, (which was then in its minority, Gal 4:1-3,) or the religion of its members. The institutions of divine worship were imperfect, being mere shadowy representations of good things to come; the promises made to Abraham were but imperfectly fulfilled, and divine revelation was very incomplete, and in many respects obscure. Therefore that dispensation did not perfect the illumination of the people of God in things spiritual or divine, but they were still in comparative darkness as to divers particulars of great importance. See on Luk 1:76; Luk 1:79. It did not perfect their justification and reconciliation with God, or remove their guilt before God, or a sense of it in their own consciences; it only did this typically and figuratively, Heb 9:9; Heb 10:1-4. It did not perfect their sanctification and conformity to God, Rom 7:5, &c. For the truths, precepts, and promises which it revealed, were chiefly of a worldly and carnal nature, and not calculated to sanctify the minds and hearts of those that received them, or to render them heavenly and holy. And the sanctifying Spirit, and the salvation consequent thereon, were not so largely given as under the gospel, Joh 7:37-38; 1Pe 1:10-12. But the bringing in of a better hope The Christian dispensation, or the priesthood of Christ and the promises of the gospel, which afford more solid grounds for hope, did, or does; making full provision both for our justification and sanctification, and for our living in the practice of universal holiness and righteousness, and therefore furnishing us with a title to, and a meetness for, eternal life. Promissa terrestria non operantur mortis contemptum, sed eum operantur spes melior vit etern, atque celestis. Inde tam crebra martyria. Earthly promises do not produce a contempt of death, but the better hope of a heavenly and eternal life produces it. Hence so many martyrdoms, namely, in the first church. Grotius. The word , rendered the bringing in, literally means, the introduction of a thing after, or upon, another. The priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, and the dispensation thereupon, were brought in after the law, upon it, in the room of it, to effect what the law could not do. This, therefore, says Dr. Owen, is the sense of the words: The introduction of the better hope after and upon the law, when a sufficient discovery had been made of its weakness and insufficiency as to this end, made all things perfect, or hath brought the church to that state of consummation which was designed for it. It is called better with respect to the law, and all it contained, or could effect. By which we draw nigh unto God Have free liberty to draw nigh in faith and prayer, through the sacrifice and intercession of our ever-living and glorious High-Priest and Mediator. It is an expression, says Grotius, properly sacerdotal, denoting the approach of the priests to God and his worship. Under the Levitical priesthood the priests, in their sacrifices and solemn services, drew nigh to God: the same liberty is now granted to all true believers, under the sacerdotal ministration of the Lord Jesus; through him they have access by one Spirit unto the Father, at all times, and particularly in their prayers and praises, and all acts of worship; and may draw so nigh as to become one spirit with him, which is true Christian perfection.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Verse 18

The commandment going before; the former commandment,–that is, the Mosaic law.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

7:18 {9} For there is verily a disannulling of the {h} commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

(9) Again, that no man object that the last priesthood was added to make a perfect one by joining them both together, he proves that the first was made void by the later as unprofitable, by the nature of them both. For how could those material and transitory things sanctify us, either by themselves, or by being joined with another?

(h) The ceremonial law.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

These verses summarize the argument that God has superseded the Levitical priesthood and the Mosaic Law (Covenant). He has replaced the old system with a system that can do what the old one could not do, namely, bring us into intimate relationship with God.

"The term athetesis, ’annulment,’ is a stronger term than metathesis, ’alteration’ (Heb 7:12)." [Note: Lane, p. 185.]

The "better hope" we have is the assurance that this relationship is now possible for us to experience thanks to our great High Priest.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)