Why Does Hebrews Call the Covenant Weak and Obsolete?
By W.R. Selvig
Hebrews 7–8 contains some of the boldest statements in the New Testament. It does not simply say that the covenant of law was fulfilled or improved. Instead, it calls the old system weak (7:18), unprofitable (7:18), and finally obsolete (8:13). The writer even declares that it was “ready to vanish away.”
This raises an uncomfortable question: If the covenant truly came from the eternal Father, why would it be described in such terms? Why would a perfect God author a covenant destined to be abolished? Hebrews does not describe a flawless Father abolishing His own eternal decree. Instead, the text suggests a temporary legal system, governed by a subordinate ruler, that was always meant to be set aside.
Hebrews 7:11–12 frames it this way: “If perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.” The law could never produce perfection. It was tied to the Levitical system, a system destined to give way to something greater.
Later the writer sharpens the point: “For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect” (Hebrews 7:18–19). Again, the words are stark: annulled, weak, unprofitable. These are not the descriptors of El Elyon’s eternal nature. They are the descriptors of a temporary covenant, a flawed governance structure, and a ruler whose authority was limited and destined to be overthrown.
And yet, many Christians read these words and assume God the Father was the source of the covenant that Hebrews calls obsolete. That creates a theological disconnect. If the Father authored something called “useless” and “annulled,” then we must conclude He intentionally gave His people a failed system. But if, as Jesus revealed, the Father is merciful, relational, and perfect, then the law could not have originated in His eternal purpose. It must have come through a delegated ruler—a servant who ruled unjustly, as Psalm 82 describes—and whose administration was temporary.
The priesthood of Melchizedek bypasses this flawed system altogether. It existed before the law, it operates outside of it, and it is fulfilled in Jesus, who restores direct access to the Father. Hebrews insists on this: Jesus did not upgrade Yahweh’s covenant; He set it aside. He revealed El Elyon’s better covenant, grounded not in law and fear but in grace and intimacy.
This is where the disconnect lies for so many Christians. We have been taught to equate Yahweh with the Father Jesus revealed. But Hebrews forces the question: why would the eternal Father establish a covenant described as weak, annulled, and obsolete? Only when we recognize that the law was never His eternal design—but the system of a subordinate ruler—does the argument in Hebrews make complete sense.
👉 Want to go deeper? Get your copy of The Yahweh Deception today and begin uncovering the truth for yourself. Buy the book here