Transcription
Let's talk about the logic of sacrifice. As I said before, some sacrifices, it wasn't enough to kill the animal and also eat it. Because many of you might be hearing this and saying, "Okay, does sound from the old and the New Testament evidence and from the early Christian evidence that we're supposed to be offering weekly sacrifice, but what about Jesus's sacrifice being once for all?" And maybe a second question you could ask is why did none of the early converts to Christianity raise that objection when they heard other Christians talking this way? And I'm going to venture a theory that the early converts from Judaism and from paganism knew about how sacrifice worked in a way that none of us do today because none of us came from animal sacrificing backgrounds. I think that's safe to say.
So with animal sacrifice, take the Passover. On the Passover, 14th day of the month of Nissan, you have what's sometimes called preparation day. You have the killing of the lamb. That is not the end of the sacrifice. It is from the lamb's perspective. But on the 15th day of the month, you then have the Passover meal. The death of the lamb is applied to your life in part by the smearing of the blood on the doorpost and in part by eating the lamb. So if the 14th day of the month, preparation day, corresponds to Good Friday, as John tells us in his gospel, how is the blood applied to us? Well, in the Passover context, which is what we're supposed to understand Christ's death through in 1 Corinthians 5, St. Paul refers to Jesus as our Passover lamb. Verse 7. What then happens with the Passover lamb? Well, you had to eat it. Now, you might hear that language, "Do this in remembrance of me." But that language of anomnesis, that's the Greek word there, actually has sacrificial connotations. The only other time it's used in the New Testament is in Hebrews, talking about the memorial sacrifice. It's not just, "Oh, hey, remember Jesus?" That's not what's going on. This is a memorial sacrifice. And like the Passover sacrifice of old, we participate in the sacrifice by eating the sacrificial victim. So Christ's death happens once for all. Our participation is ongoing. Like if you went to the Passover meal, let's say you're a Jewish family and it's the Passover. When you go and eat the Passover lamb, are you rekilling the lamb? Of course not. It's as dead as it's ever going to be. You're participating in a death that's already happened.
So, what we just heard from my friend Joe Heshmire is a very common Roman Catholic argument, one that seeks to support the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass in the pattern of the Old Testament Passover. Now, one of the things I actually appreciate about this argument is that it seeks to build its case from the Bible. It's an attempt to understand the Eucharist in light of the larger story of redemption. And in his debate with James White on the Mass, this typology really was the center of gravity that Joe kept bringing everything back to. So I don't think Protestants should shrug this off. Joe is a smart guy. And if this argument works, it actually changes a lot of things for Protestants. But if it doesn't, then we need to be able to say why from the text without caricature. Meaning that Protestants need to understand this argument on its own terms. So in this video, I want to do two things. First, I'm going to lay out Joe's argument on its strongest terms. That way, we're not shadow boxing. And then second, I'm going to show why I don't find the argument persuasive, especially once you place it under the weight of Hebrews and the logic of Christ's own priesthood. But before we get into it, welcome to Canon and Creed. My name is Miles and this is the channel where we are bullish on exploring historic Protestant faith, practice, and piety all in a digestible manner. So, if that sort of thing interests you, hit subscribe and come along for the ride.
So Joe was kind enough to send me his book, *The Eucharist is Really Jesus*, where he puts forward the same argument in a very clear and straightforward way. He writes, "The Passover sacrifice consists of two parts. On the 14th day of the month of Nissen, the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs. This killing of the lambs is what the Apostle John calls the day of preparation of the Passover. That is, this isn't the complete sacrifice. As strange as this may sound to us today, it wasn't enough for the Passover lamb to be slaughtered. It had to also be eaten. These two halves, the slaying of the lamb and the eating of the lamb, make up one sacrifice, not two. The Bible uses the Passover sacrifice to refer both to the killing and the eating. This preparation day, the killing of the pastoral lamb, foreshadowed Good Friday. And that happened once for all on Calvary, never to be repeated. But the Passover meal was a foreshadowing of something else, the Last Supper and every subsequent Mass throughout history. The meaning is clear. Christ is instituting a new Passover in which he himself is the meal."
So to make sure we understand the argument on its strongest possible terms, the logic is as follows:
1. The original Passover consisted of two essential acts: the slaughtering of the lamb and the eating of the lamb. And scripture treats these not as two sacrifices but as two parts of one unified sacrificial act.
2. Because both acts belong to one sacrifice, the Passover is not complete unless the lamb is both killed and eaten.
3. Christ as the true Passover lamb fulfills this same two-part structure. His death on Good Friday fulfills the slaughter, and the Eucharist fulfills the sacrificial meal.
4. Therefore, in this framework, the Eucharist is not a new sacrifice or a repetition of Calvary, but a participation in the one Passover sacrifice of Christ, analogous to how the eating of the lamb participates in the slaughter within the original Passover.
5. And because the Passover meal foreshadowed both the Last Supper and, as Joe writes, "every subsequent Mass throughout history," the Mass is the ongoing sacrificial meal of that one Passover sacrifice that Christ fulfills.
Now, before I lay out my objections, let me be very clear about what I am not saying in this video and define a key term. I'm not claiming that Roman Catholics believe that Christ dies again or that his blood is shed over and over again in the Mass. They explicitly deny that. I'm not denying that scripture can use the word "sacrifice" in broader, non-propitiatory ways, such as thanksgiving, memorial, or covenantal participation. I'm not denying that believers truly participate in and receive the benefits of Christ's once-for-all sacrifice throughout history. And I'm not denying Christ's ongoing heavenly intercession. My objections are more specific and center on one key point: Hebrews draws a hard line around the act of propitiatory offering. I'm going to say this again: My objections in this video are more specific, and they center on one key point. Hebrews draws a hard line around the act of propitiatory offering. Once Christ offers himself, enters heaven, and sits down, scripture does not permit that propitiatory act to be continued, represented, or relocated in an ongoing earthly priestly action, regardless of whether that action is described as unbloody, sacramental, instrumental, or even *in persona Christi*. And when I use the key word "propitiation," I'm using it the way that the Bible consistently does: a priestly action of sacrificial offering accomplished through the shedding of blood by which guilt is removed and divine judgment is turned away.
So, with that clarified, here's where I find that this typology runs into major problems, and there are five in particular, some of which contain subpoints.
1. The Passover typology can't bear the weight that Roman Catholicism puts on it.
2. The Council of Trent's "same sacrifice" claim collapses.
3. The typology treats the two acts of death and eating inconsistently.
4. In the Passover, the blood saves by being shed and applied.
And failure number five is the crescendo because Hebrews is explicit: Christ's one sacrifice finished the work of dealing with sin.
So let's walk through each of these now and see how, when taken together, I believe they show the historic Protestant framework is actually more consistent with the biblical data and this typology.
So failure number one, the Passover typology cannot bear the weight that Roman Catholicism puts on it. For this typology to work, the Passover itself has to function as a propitiatory sacrifice. Not merely a sacred meal or covenant sign, but an atoning act that deals with sin, because that's what's claimed about the Mass. But when you step into the biblical world of propitiation, you step into a very specific category. In the Torah, propitiation is inseparable from priestly action, bloodshed, and altar-based atonement. It is never abstract. It is life given for life. Bloodshed to deal with guilt. This is why God says in Leviticus that blood is what makes atonement on the altar. And it's why Hebrews can summarize the entire system by saying that "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins." And Exodus 12 simply doesn't frame the Passover in that category. The Passover is not presented as a Levitical type sin offering. There is no altar, no priestly administration, no guilt removal, right? The blood was applied as a sign of deliverance, and then judgment passed over, and only then does the meal follow as covenant participation in a salvation already accomplished. And that distinction matters because someone could say, "Right, but it averted judgment," and then try to call that propitiation in a loose sense. But the category that Roman Catholicism needs for the Mass is much stricter: a priestly, altar-administered, guilt-removing sin offering. And Exodus just never treats the Passover like that. The Passover was substitutionary and protective, but it didn't remove guilt, atone for sin, or function like the sin and guilt offerings of Leviticus 4-5. It was a household rite, not a sanctuary sacrifice. So, the failure here is simple but decisive: You can't build an ongoing propitiatory sacrificial system on a type that never operated in the category of propitiation to begin with.
Failure number two, the same sacrifice claim collapses under its own weight. So even if we momentarily grant the Passover typology, the argument still collapses at a deeper level because of the foundation that the typology requires, because of how the Mass itself is defined. According to the Council of Trent, three claims are held together at once: The Mass is the same sacrifice as Calvary, involving the same victim, and it is truly propitiatory. And yet Trent also insists that this sacrifice is represented and offered in an unbloody manner, without any shedding of blood, with the bloody immolation said to be merely represented. Which creates a problem that can't be avoided by appealing to typology. Because in biblical propitiatory logic, a sacrifice is not defined merely by who is offered, but by how the offering takes place. Propitiatory sacrifice is inseparable from death, bloodshed, and immolation. Remove those, and you've actually removed the defining act that makes a sacrifice propitiatory in the first place. As Swiss reformer Hinrich Bullinger points out, "Christ has not died more than once. Therefore, he's not been offered more than once. And therefore, by a single offering, he has made atonement for all the sins of the entire world. And hence the sacrifice of Christ is an exclusively single and perpetual sacrifice. But though Rome says that Christ is offered mystically and spiritually, everyone now recognizes that this fabrication rests on mere verbal juggling. In the case of any sacrifice that is fit to atone for sins, it is necessary for blood to be shed and death to take place. This is proved by Paul's words: 'Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness.' And wherever there is a testament, the death of the testator must take place. But in the Mass, no blood is shed, nor does Christ die. Thus, the Mass is not a sacrifice for sin."
Now, Roman Catholics will often respond that the immolation is sacramental rather than bloody. And right, that's exactly the move being disputed, though, because if the manner alone changes in a way that removes the defining act of sacrifice, then that same sacrifice is being identified, apart from what makes it a sacrifice at all in biblical terms, which is why this language comes across more like verbal slide of hand, resting on a verbal distinction that scripture itself simply never makes. So failure number two is: Even if we grant the Passover typology for the sake of argument, you still can't remove the act that makes a propitiatory sacrifice what it is and then continue to call it the same sacrifice.
Failure number three, the typology treats death and eating inconsistently. So at the center of this argument is the very specific claim: Let's remind everyone that the Passover sacrifice is one sacrifice composed of two essential acts: the slaughter of the lamb and the eating of the lamb. And that the Eucharist is the ongoing sacrificial meal of that one Passover. Well, if that's the structure, then the logic has to be consistent because if both acts are essential to one sacrifice, then both acts must be carried over into the new covenant with the same structural logic, especially when moving from type to antitype. But that's not what happens in this typology. In the Roman Catholic system, the meal is carried over in a direct, one-to-one way. It's repeated, ongoing, embodied, and central to the liturgy. The death act, however, is not. Rather than being acknowledged as structurally non-repeatable like Hebrews insists, the death is redefined into something that can be represented in an unbloody manner, while Christ's priestly act is said to continue sacramentally through earthly priests. So, the typology does something very strange. The meal continues very straightforwardly, yet the death does not. And yet, both are still called one sacrificial action. That's not symmetry, and it actually results in a category shift, which is exactly where the Roman Catholic typology runs into more trouble because it requires the opposite structure: a sacrificial act that continues in history through the hands of earthly priests and remains propitiatory, at which point the typology completely breaks down. Not because typology always requires perfect symmetry, but because this specific argument depends on the two-act structure to justify ongoing sacrificial action. Once the death act is no longer an act in history, but only a sacramental mode, the two-act foundation stops doing the work it was introduced to do.
And failure number four flows out of that. The Passover blood saved by being shed and applied, not by being consumed. So when you go back to the actual mechanics of the Passover, one thing becomes immediately clear: Salvation occurs through bloodshed and application, and then the meal follows after as participation in a salvation already accomplished. And this matters because the typology requires the eating of the lamb to function as the mechanism by which the sacrifice is applied to the believer. In other words, it makes eating a propitiatory action. But this again is not how the Passover worked in Exodus. Not in its language, not in its ritual sequence, and not in its theology. Notice the order of four key things:
1. The lamb is slain.
2. The blood is applied to the doorposts and lintel.
3. And then God gives us the interpretive key: "The blood shall be a sign for you, and when God sees the blood, he'll pass over you." Notice it doesn't say that when you eat the lamb, I will pass over you. Or when you consume the flesh, your sins will be forgiven. Or when you participate in the meal, wrath is propitiated. None of that is in the text. And there's nothing here about propitiatory eating.
4. And then four, only after the saving act is completed do they eat.
So the logic is unambiguous: Blood averts judgment, and the meal commemorates the deliverance already accomplished by the blood. Nothing in the narrative treats the eating as a sacrificial act. And nothing treats it as the moment when atonement, forgiveness, or propitiation is applied. So it isn't enough for the eating to simply come after the sacrifice. The eating, for this typology to work, must complete or apply the sacrifice as a propitiatory act. But the Passover was not propitiation by eating. And Exodus 12 never treats the meal as the saving act. The blood averts judgment. The blood is the sign that God sees. And the blood does the saving work. But the meal does not propitiate. It doesn't remove guilt. It doesn't avert wrath. It actually presupposes that all of that has already happened. Furthermore, also notice this about the order: The Passover structure was blood, salvation, meal. But the Roman Catholic structure in this typology would have to be meal, application of sacrifice, salvation. Which means that this typology reverses the order, the meaning, and the function of the Passover itself. A sound typology cannot assign sacrificial or propitiatory meaning to the antitype's meal when the type's meal never carried that meaning to begin with. But the irony is that the reformed framework actually fits the Passover cleanly without forcing any categories. The lamb is slain once. The blood is applied once. Judgment is averted once. And only then does the meal follow as covenant participation. And the Supper is a covenant meal grounded in that already completed atonement, not a propitiatory act that completes it, continues it, or reoffers it. Ongoing participation in Christ does not require an ongoing propitiatory sacrifice. That's not required to receive Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist. So in short, failure number four is that in the Passover, blood accomplished salvation, and the meal was a divinely appointed means of participation in what the blood had already accomplished, not a propitiatory act that affects it like the Mass is said to do.
And failure number five, Hebrews says that Christ's one sacrifice and offering finished the work of dealing with sin. So if you follow the arc of Hebrews carefully, you'll notice the author is building an entire theological world. And that world is structured around repeated, deliberate contrasts: repetition versus completion, standing versus sitting, many offerings versus one offering, and priests who continue versus a single priest who finishes. And the book makes one controlling distinction: A priesthood marked by ongoing propitiatory offering belongs to the old, unfinished system. Whereas Christ's priesthood is defined by a single sacrifice that concludes, perfects, and therefore never repeats, only being offered one time. Unlike those priestly orders, Christ offers himself once. He then puts away sin once, and then enters God's presence once, and then sits down and remains in that presence to intercede. So while Roman Catholicism doesn't claim that Christ's priesthood is Levitical in origin, its model necessarily requires that the antitypical priesthood of Christ function in the very way that Hebrews 7-10 contrasts with the Levitical system: through ongoing propitiatory action and repetitious offering. So the Passover typology only works if Hebrews is wrong about what repetition means. For example, at the climax of the author's argument in Hebrews 10:11-12, we read, "And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God." So standing signals unfinished work, and sitting signals completion. The Levites always stood because the work of dealing with sin was never done. Christ, however, sits not only because he's a king, but because his priestly offering is finished. As John Chrysostom points out regarding the seated posture of Christ, "He needeth not daily, as the high priest, to offer up sacrifices for his sins. For this he did once for all when he offered up himself. Do not then, having heard that he is a priest, suppose that he is always executing the priest's office. For he executed it once, and then forward sat down, lest thou suppose that he is standing on high, and is a minister. He shows that the matter is part of a dispensation or economy. For as he became a servant, so also he became a priest and a minister. But as after becoming a servant, he did not continue a servant. So also, having become a minister, he did not continue a minister. For it belongs not to a minister to sit, but to stand. For indeed on this account he repeats it over and over, saying, 'One priest, one sacrifice,' lest anyone supposing that there are many sacrifices should sin without fear."
So like the reformers after him, Chrysostom also read Hebrews as explicitly warning against imagining Christ's priestly work as something that continues in sacrificial form. He ties together "one priest, one sacrifice, one offering" followed by Christ sitting down, which signifies completion, not continuation. But Hebrews sharpens this further, just two verses later, by saying that "by one offering Christ has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified," which raises a key question: What is meant by the word "perfected"? Notice John Owen on this: "It is not an absolute subjective virtual internal perfection of grace that is intended. The word signifies not such a perfection made perfect, nor is ever used to that purpose. Nor is it the perfection of glory. For he treats of the present church state of the gospel in this world. But it is a state in condition of that grace and those privileges which the law priests and sacrifices could never bring them unto. He hath by his one offering wrought and procured for them the complete pardon of sin and peace before God thereon, that they should have no more need of the repetition of sacrifices. Prescribing unto them a holy worship to be performed with boldness in the presence of God by an entrance into the holy places. He hath brought them into the last and best church state, the highest and nearest relation unto God, that the church is capable of in this world. And this he hath done forever."
Now, it's important to note here that John Owen was a Greek grammarian. He's not just giving flowery devotional thoughts here; he's dealing with the Greek grammar. And that word "perfected" is doing far more work than people often realize. Hebrews is not saying that believers are already morally flawless. It's saying that by a single sacrifice and offering, Christ has brought his people into a finished, Godward standing, sins fully dealt with, conscience cleansed, and access to God secured. And that directly collides with the doctrine of the Mass. Why? Because the Mass is said to be the same sacrifice of Christ, represented and applied again and again. Yet the Mass does not perfect in the Hebrew sense. It's presented as an offering that must continue. It doesn't complete forgiveness. It doesn't secure final peace with God. And it must continue precisely because perfection has not been achieved. But Hebrews says the opposite: "By one offering, Christ has perfected his people for all time," which means the sacrifice itself accomplished what repeated offerings never could. And if the sacrifice has already perfected, there's no remaining place for an ongoing propitiatory act because the very thing propitiation aims to secure has already been achieved.
But notice something else important that Owen points out: "Had he not made an end of sin, had he not absolutely been freed from it, he could not have thus appeared with confidence and boldness in the presence of God. It is such an act and duty of our high priest as supposeth the offering of himself, a sacrifice for sin antecedently therein. For it was with the blood of the expiatory sacrifices offered before on the altar that the high priest entered into the holy place. He returned not unto him. He appeared not in the presence of him that sent him until he had fulfilled it." Now, we need to slow down here and really digest what Owen points out because this is vital. Hebrews tells us that before Christ could enter God's presence at the Ascension, the propitiatory sacrificial work had to be finished, because the Day of Atonement in the Old Testament was the pattern. On that day, the high priest did not enter into the holy place to continue the sacrifice. He entered after the blood had already been shed, carrying in with him a completed atonement. That presentation did not extend the propitiatory sacrifice; it presupposed that was already finished. Scripture never describes Christ as continually offering himself, but as continually interceding on the basis of what he has already offered once for all time. Like the high priest, Christ appears in God's presence on the basis of blood already shed. But unlike the Levitical high priest, he doesn't leave and return to repeat the work the following year. He remains and he sits, and that sitting, like we saw, matters. The Levites were never priest-kings. Christ is. His ongoing priesthood is royal and intercessory, not sacrificial. Hebrews never treats Christ's Ascension as a second stage of sacrifice, but as divine confirmation that the sacrifice and offering is complete and cannot continue.
So, with that in mind, pay close attention to another objection that Joe repeatedly raised in his debate with James White.
>> I got to tell you something. When I talk to people and ask them when they got saved, you know what answer I've never once heard. No one's ever said to me, "Good Friday." And I think that's actually a good sign that Catholics and Protestants alike recognize that the work of salvation Jesus accomplished on the cross on Good Friday still has to be applied to our life in some way. And that's what we're going to explore tonight. How do you go from the teaching of the New Testament that we just looked at in Hebrews chapter 10 that says that there is a once-for-allness to that sacrifice to what I assume that you agree with the uh with the quotation that I read?
>> Politics.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, so it is a perpetuation
>> of the sacrifice of Christ
>> throughout
>> perpetuation of the once-for-all sacrifice in the same way that like everyone in here who was ever saved by the blood of Jesus, Jesus didn't have to die again for them,
>> the blood of Christ was applied in our temporal setting. So, one of the mistakes you're making is you're reading Hebrews once-for-all sacrifice as referring to Good Friday when if you read the passage both times it talks about not Good Friday, but Christ's ascension into heaven 43 days later. We can go through that if you'd like.
>> I I I don't understand what you're saying. But,
>> and it's extremely unfortunate that James White didn't understand what was being said here because that's where we run into a major category collapse. Like with the Passover typology, Joe argues that the once-for-all sacrifice includes two acts. Act one is death. Act two is application. And because Hebrews speaks of Christ entering heaven, Joe treats the Ascension as part of the sacrificial act. And from there concludes that the offering must be ongoing, pressing James White again that Protestants errantly stop at act one. But that's the confusion. Ongoing intercession is not ongoing propitiatory sacrifice and offering. Furthermore, it's really important for Joe and others to understand that formal Protestant theology does affirm a second movement beyond Calvary, but it's not sacrificial. We call it redemption accomplished versus redemption applied. Redemption accomplished is the once-for-all historical work of Christ where propitiation belongs. Redemption applied is the Spirit's ongoing work of applying the benefits of that finished work. These are not two stages of sacrifice, but they are two distinct categories. As reformed theologian John Murray explains, "When we think of the application of redemption, we must not think of it as one simple and indivisible act. It comprises a series of acts and processes: calling, regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification. These are all distinct, and not one of these can be defined in terms of the other. Each has its own distinct meaning, function, and purpose in the action and grace of God." Which means Protestant theology doesn't stop at Good Friday. We affirm ongoing intercession and application. What we deny is that those things are propitiatory.
And missing this distinction actually exposes an even deeper problem for the Roman Catholic view because Hebrews tightens the argument even further. Moving from the question of perfection to the deeper claim that sin itself has already been put away. In Hebrews 9:24-28 we read, "For Christ has entered not into holy places made with hands which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own. For then he would have had to have suffered repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear the second time, not to deal with sin, but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him."
So, I just have to note, notice how the author ironically repeatedly tells us that Christ's sacrifice is only offered once, not ongoing like in the Mass. But once again, we have to ask the question: What exactly does it mean that Christ put away sin? After all, don't we still see sin in the world? Looking at Owen again, highlighting the grammar, he notes, "The end of this appearance of Christ was to put away sin. And we must inquire both what is meant by sin and what by the putting of it away. Wherefore by sin the apostle intends the whole of its nature and effects, in its root and fruits, in its guilt, power, and punishment. Sin absolutely and universally. Sin as it was an apostasy from God, as it was the cause of all distance between God and us, as it was the work of the devil. Sin in all that it was and all that it could affect or all the consequence of it. Sin in its whole empire and dominion as it entered by the fall of Adam, invaded our nature in its power, oppressed our persons with its guilt, filled the whole world with its fruits, gave existence and right unto death and hell, with power to Satan to rule in and over mankind. Sin that rendered us obnoxious under the curse of God and eternal punishment. In the whole extent of sin, he appeared to put it away. That is with respect unto the church, that is sanctified by his blood and dedicated unto God." Which means no remaining guilt needing further propitiation, no remaining fracture between God and man, and no remaining barrier that an earthly priest must continue to address.
So if the Mass continues propitiatory offering, even if you call it Christ's same single sacrifice, that would mean that sin is not put away yet in the way that Hebrews says it is. And it's why I said in the beginning, the real issue is about the actual act of offering propitiatory sacrifice. And I think it's important to highlight that it isn't really a matter of not understanding or being aware of the Roman Catholic reading of this text. As Owen points out, "these words 'by the sacrifice of himself' may be referred either unto the putting away of sin or unto what is manifest that follows after. In the first way, the sense is, he was manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. In the latter, he appeared by the sacrifice of himself to put away sin, which confines his appearance unto his sacrifice, which sense is expressed by the vulgar translation. 'He appeared by his own host,' say the Remis. But the former reading of the words is evidently unto the mind of the apostle, for his appearance was what he did in general with respect unto the end mentioned, and the way whereby he did it." In other words, he highlights the move. They try and tie Christ's sacrifice to an ongoing appearance rather than to the once-for-all historical act by which sin was abolished. And Owen retorts, "Not according to the grammar." And that matters because that's what determines whether Christ's appearing should be read as a completed historical act or an ongoing sacrificial action. The author is not saying that Christ continues to offer himself or be offered repeatedly by earthly priests. He's saying that Christ appeared once in history by his sacrifice to abolish sin entirely.
And all of this directly ties back to Owen's earlier observation that Christ's entrance into the true Holy of Holies presupposes that the work of dealing with sin is finished. Which actually brings us to yet another problem for Roman Catholicism. Hebrews also tells us that while repetitive sacrificial ministry continues, the way into God's presence remains closed for the believer. In Hebrews 9:6-9, we read, "These preparations having thus been made, the priests go regularly into the first section, performing their ritual duties, but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people. By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy place is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing, which is symbolic for the present age."
So this is a massive theological point. Continual sacrificial ministry meant that the way into God's presence remained closed. Sin still stood as a barrier. Access to God was restricted. Only the high priest could enter God's presence once a year briefly and only with blood, but then he had to leave and come back the next year. The entire system presupposed unfinished propitiation. But notice what we're also told in the next chapter in 10:19-22. We read, "Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is through his flesh. And since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water."
So, who caught it? While ongoing propitiatory sacrificial work is going on, we're told that the way into God's presence was closed off to everyone but the high priest once a year. But then Hebrews 10 clarifies good news in response to that. The curtain is opened now by a new and living way, which is why believers in Christ can enter with confidence and draw near with full assurance, which is incompatible with Roman Catholic theology. Here's a syllogism:
Premise 1: Hebrews says ongoing propitiatory sacrifice belongs to a system where access is not yet open to the believer.
Premise 2: Hebrews says that Christ's once-for-all sacrifice has opened permanent access to God.
Premise 3: The Mass is claimed to be a continuing propitiatory sacrifice.
Conclusion: The Mass reintroduces the very conditions that Hebrews says belong only to an unfinished system. You can't affirm both. Where propitiatory sacrifice continues, the way into the holy places is not yet opened. Where propitiatory sacrifice is finished, access is opened.
But Hebrews presses even further. It doesn't merely say Christ put away sin. And it doesn't merely say that his sacrifice perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. And it doesn't merely say the way is now opened. It tells us something else unique about his priesthood. As Owen again points out, "unchangeable priesthood is a priesthood that doth not pass from one to another. He received his priesthood from none, and he hath none to succeed him, nor can have added or joined unto him in his office. The whole office of the priesthood of the covenant is confined unto his person. The expositors of the Roman church are greatly perplexed in the reconciling of this passage of the apostle unto the present priesthood of their church. And they may well be so, seeing they are undoubtedly irreconcilable." And this is not to be confused with the priesthood of all believers, but has everything to do with propitiatory offering. If the offering that puts away sin is truly propitiatory, Hebrews locates it exclusively in Christ's own priestly act, not merely as principal cause, but as sole actor. Meaning another cannot act in his place, even if it's said that the one acting is only representing Christ's sacrifice. Which is why Owen says that Rome's position unintentionally turns priests into successors and not participants. He writes, "It is pretended that the Roman priests have no other priesthood but what Christ had, nor did they offer any other sacrifice than what he offered, as these priests pretend to offer the same sacrifice that Christ did. For the principal act of the sacraodal office of Christ consisted in his oblation or his offering himself a sacrifice of a sweet smelling savor unto God. This he did once and ceased forever from doing so anymore. But these priests are assigned to offer him in sacrifice every day as partakers of the same priesthood with him, which is indeed not to be his substitutes, but his successors, and to take his office out of his hands as if he were dead, and could henceforth discharge it no more. For the Roman Catholics do not appoint priests to intercede in his room, because they grant, he continueth himself so to do, but to offer sacrifice in his stead, because he doth so no more. Wherefore, if that be an act of priesthood, and of their priesthood, as is pretended, it is unavoidable that his priesthood is passed from him unto them. Now this is a blasphemous imagination and directly contrary both unto the words of the apostle and the whole design of his argument."
And that's the final pressure point. Hebrews does not deny ongoing ministry. It denies the ongoing act of propitiatory sacrifice. So when Roman Catholic theology reintroduces sacrificing priests, even if it's said that they only represent what Christ accomplished, you drag Christ's once-for-all sacrifice back into the system of repetition that the author spends an entire three chapters killing.
But stepping back after all five, you can now see why this Roman Catholic typology, even if it appeals to scripture, isn't convincing for me. And taken together, these are not peripheral disagreements. They strike at the very foundation that Hebrews uses to explain why Christ's sacrifice is better, final, and finished. Which is why I remain committed to where I am. But I'm curious to hear your guys' thoughts down below. Because according to Hebrews, repetition belongs to unfinished altars, but thanksgiving belongs to finished ones.