Heb 7:18  For there is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness ASV

Heb 7:18  For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. KJV

Heb 7:18  For, indeed, an annulment of the preceding command comes about because of its weakness and unprofitableness. LITV

Heb 7:18  For truly there is a putting away of the commandment which went before, because of the weakness and unprofitableness of it. MKJV
_____________________________________________________

                                    COMMENTARY

  Could words be any more clear folks? The ‘commandment’ was  -disannulled! It was "put away"! That Greek word is found in only 1 other place in the NT.  Here it is so you can see how it is used;

Heb 9:26  else must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once at the end of the ages hath he been manifested to   >put away<   sin by the sacrifice of himself.

  The words 'put away' are the same Greek word for 'disannulled'.  To disannull  the commandment then means to put it away. What happens to one's sin when the Lord Jesus Christ 'puts it away'? It's gone. Dispensationists say the commandment will come back in their millennium while Covenant Theologians say it was never put away. Both contradict the writer of Hebrews.

  The baptist commentator, John Gill tries to dodge the obvious force of such a statement by an outright denial of the word of God. I quote him;

"For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment, &c. Not the moral law; though what is here said of the commandment may be applied to that; that is sometimes called the commandment, Rom 7:12,13...   but the ceremonial law is meant, which is the commandment that respected the Levitical priesthood, and is called a carnal one,... "

  Gill attempts to escape the pressure of this verse by resorting to the hackneyed, unbiblical  'ceremonial law' argument and ends up speaking double-talk. He says it's not the moral law though what is here said of the commandment may be applied to that! Couldn't he make up his mind?  Was it or was it not the moral law folks? And if a -commandment- is "not the moral law" then what in the name of sanity is? The very passage in Romans he cites refutes such nonsense.

Rom 7:12  Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Rom 7:13  Was then that which is good made death unto me? May it never be! But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

  Paul just got finished citing the -Moral- law against coveting!!

  The question now arises, upon what authority does Gill or anybody else interject an adjective into the word of God that the Holy Spirit left out? None of the passages cited here say "ceremonial commandment". In fact the word 'ceremony' is found only once in the entire Bible. In Numbers 9:3 where the Israelites are instructed to keep the Passover. And if they failed to do "according to all the ceremonies thereof" then they were guilty of sin, verse 13. And sin is what..?  the transgression of the law. That means it was a -Moral- issue!

  So, in accord with the rest of Scripture this verse teaches that the law was put away; it was abrogated; disannulled; done away in Christ Jesus. That happened when the Lord Jesus Christ nailed it to His cross and announced... "It is Finished".

Hebrews

Main Index