¹⁸ There is, on the one hand, the abrogation of an earlier commandment because it was weak and ineffectual^(A)

³ For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and to deal with sin,^[a] he condemned sin in the flesh,^(A)

³⁹ by this Jesus^[a] everyone who believes is set free from all those sins^[b] from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses.^(A)

Another Priest, Like Melchizedek

¹¹ Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood—for the people received the law under this priesthood—what further need would there have been to speak of another priest arising according to the order of Melchizedek rather than one according to the order of Aaron?^{(A) 12} For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.

⁷ For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one.^(A)

⁸ God^[a] finds fault with them when he says:

¹³ In speaking of a new covenant, he has made the first one obsolete, and what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear.^(F)

¹⁹ (for the law made nothing perfect); there is, on the other hand, the introduction of a better hope through which we approach God.^(A)

⁹ Now, however, that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental principles?^[a] How can you want to be enslaved to them again?^(A)

⁸ for, while physical training is of some value, godliness is valuable in every way, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come.^(A)

¹⁷ My point is this: the law, which came four hundred thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.^(A)