Hebrews Against the Roman Sacerdotal System
- Michelle Hayman
- 3 hours ago
- 45 min read
Denzinger part 72
The Blood of the Testament, and the Sacrifice No Mortal Priest Was Appointed to Re-Offer
The questions concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews preserved in Denzinger 2176–2178 initially appear to concern little more than authorship. The Pontifical Biblical Commission asks whether Catholics may doubt the Pauline origin of Hebrews, whether the differences of language and style can undermine that attribution, and finally whether Paul must be regarded as having personally given the Epistle the exact literary form in which it has come down to the Church. The final response leaves that last question open “save for a later judgment of the Church.”
That phrase deserves more attention than it normally receives, because it reveals an important assumption about ecclesiastical authority. The Church may certainly investigate the history of a biblical text. It may compare manuscripts, preserve testimony, examine ancient writers and make reasoned judgments about authorship. What it cannot do is exercise a sovereign judgment that makes a first-century historical fact become true. Either Paul personally composed the final Greek form of Hebrews or he did not. Either another writer produced the final literary form or he did not. No judgment issued centuries later can alter what actually happened.
That distinction matters even more because the Vatican itself now acknowledges that Hebrews does not identify Paul as its author. The Vatican-hosted New American Bible states that Hebrews “does not itself claim” Pauline authorship, while modern papal writings routinely refer simply to “the author of the Letter to the Hebrews.” The historical question therefore illustrates the danger of giving ecclesiastical certainty greater weight than the evidence itself will bear.
Yet the question of authorship becomes secondary once Hebrews itself is opened. The far more important issue is what this inspired book teaches about priesthood, sacrifice, mediation, the New Covenant, the blood of Christ, access to God and the relationship between the old sacerdotal order and Jesus Christ. Rome places great weight upon Hebrews as canonical Scripture, but Hebrews contains perhaps the most sustained New Testament argument against the theological necessity of the later Roman sacerdotal system.
The Roman Catholic Church agrees with Hebrews on several essential truths. It acknowledges that Christ is the unique High Priest. It acknowledges that His sacrifice is unique and was accomplished once. It acknowledges that He is the one mediator. It acknowledges that His blood is the blood of redemption. Yet Rome then adds that Christ's one priesthood is made present through an essentially distinct ministerial priesthood; that bishops and presbyters are “true priests of the New Testament”; that ordained priests act in the person of Christ; and that in the Mass they “make present again and apply” Christ's unique sacrifice. Official Catholic teaching further says that the Eucharistic sacrifice is offered through priests in an “unbloody and sacramental manner” and may be offered for the living and for the dead.
Those claims cannot simply be placed beside Hebrews and assumed to harmonise with it. They must be demonstrated from Hebrews.
The decisive issue is not whether Roman theology can construct a distinction between Christ's unique priesthood and a subordinate ministerial participation in that priesthood. It certainly can, and it does. The decisive question is whether God instituted such a New Covenant sacerdotal office in Scripture, and especially whether Hebrews, while deliberately explaining priesthood and sacrifice in extraordinary detail, ever says that mortal Christian ministers were appointed to offer Christ sacrificially to God.
It does not.
More than that, the structure of Hebrews explains why such a priesthood is unnecessary. God instituted the Aaronic priesthood under the first covenant. He then changed the priesthood. He swore the Son into another order. The Son possesses that priesthood because He lives forever. The mortality that had necessitated a succession of priests has been overcome. Christ enters the true sanctuary in heaven. He ministers there personally. He intercedes there personally. His blood establishes the testament. His death brings the testament into force. He opens the holiest to the brethren themselves. The Holy Ghost witnesses the remission accomplished through Him. The Christian sacrifices that remain are identified as praise, thanksgiving, doing good and sharing. The church leaders mentioned by Hebrews are teachers and shepherds who watch for souls, but Hebrews never turns them into a new order of sacrificial priests.
The case therefore does not rest upon one isolated statement that Christ offered Himself “once.” It rests upon the architecture of the entire Epistle.
Before Hebrews Discusses Any Human Ministry, It Places Everything Under the Son
Hebrews begins by establishing where final divine authority resides:
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.”— Hebrews 1:1–2
The climax of divine revelation is not an institution possessing an autonomous power to develop new mediatorial structures. God has spoken in the Son, whom Hebrews immediately identifies as the heir of all things, the creator of the worlds, the brightness of God's glory and the express image of His person.
The writer then says something particularly relevant to every later theology of sacrificial application:
“When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.”— Hebrews 1:3
The words “by himself” should not be hurried past. The purgation of sins is presented as Christ's own accomplishment. Hebrews does not begin with Christ providing the raw material of redemption which the Church subsequently applies by means of a sacrificing priesthood. Christ Himself purges sins and then sits down at the right hand of God.
That enthronement becomes central throughout the Epistle. Psalm 110 is introduced almost immediately:
“Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.”— Hebrews 1:13
Christ's heavenly session is not retirement from priestly work. It is the location from which His eternal priesthood operates.
Hebrews 2 extends the Son's supremacy:
“Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet.”— Hebrews 2:8
Then the writer explains the comprehensiveness of that statement:
“For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him.”— Hebrews 2:8
Every ministry, gift and work of the Church therefore remains subordinate to Christ. Nothing belongs to an independent ecclesiastical sphere over which the Son does not exercise direct authority.
Hebrews 2:4 reinforces the same divine sovereignty in another way. God confirms the apostolic witness:
“With signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will.”— Hebrews 2:4
The verse is specifically describing supernatural attestations and gifts, so it should not be forced into saying that Hebrews 2:4 itself defines every means by which saving grace is received. Nevertheless, it establishes a governing principle: the Holy Ghost gives according to His own will. Spiritual gifts are not ecclesiastical property which a sacerdotal caste possesses independently of the sovereign Spirit.
Later Hebrews will say that the Holy Ghost Himself bears witness to the remission of sins secured under the New Covenant. The Spirit who distributes according to His own will is not subordinated to a priestly institution. The institution remains subordinate to Him.
The writer then identifies Christ as the one who accomplishes salvation through suffering:
“That he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.”— Hebrews 2:9
And:
“For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.”— Hebrews 2:10
The movement is already unmistakable. Salvation comes through the Son's suffering, death and exaltation. Hebrews will spend the remainder of the Epistle explaining why this same Son is the High Priest through whom God's people now approach Him.
Hebrews Names Jesus as the Apostle and High Priest of the Christian Confession
Hebrews 3 turns directly toward priestly language:
“Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus.”— Hebrews 3:1
The writer addresses Christians as “holy brethren” and “partakers of the heavenly calling,” but when he identifies the High Priest of their confession, he names Jesus Christ.
The contrast with Moses follows:
“For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses.”— Hebrews 3:3
Moses was faithful “as a servant,” but:
“Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we.”— Hebrews 3:6
The house belongs to Christ. The people themselves constitute the house. Already there is no suggestion of a New Covenant arrangement in which ordinary Christians remain outside a sacred inner sphere controlled by an ordained sacerdotal class.
Hebrews 4 makes this more explicit. The believer's response to God's word is immediately connected with divine judgment:
“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword.”— Hebrews 4:12
The word is:
“A discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”— Hebrews 4:12
And:
“Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight.”— Hebrews 4:13
This is important when Denzinger speaks about a future “judgment of the Church.” The Church possesses genuine responsibilities of discernment, discipline and teaching, and Hebrews itself acknowledges church rulers in chapter 13. Yet ultimate judgment belongs elsewhere. God's word discerns. God sees. Later Hebrews explicitly calls Him:
“God the Judge of all.”— Hebrews 12:23
And:
“The Lord shall judge his people.”— Hebrews 10:30
The Church is therefore never the sovereign judge over revelation. The Church itself stands beneath the word and judgment of God.
Immediately after describing the penetrating word of God, Hebrews identifies the believer's High Priest:
“Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.”— Hebrews 4:14
The words are again present tense. We have a High Priest.
Christ's ascension has not left a vacancy.
His physical absence from earth has not created a need for another sacrificing man to occupy His place. The High Priest has “passed into the heavens.”
The next verse explains why believers can trust Him:
“For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities.”— Hebrews 4:15
Then comes the consequence of Christ's priesthood:
“Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.”— Hebrews 4:16
The conclusion is remarkably direct. Because we have Christ as High Priest, we come to the throne of grace.
Hebrews does not insert another sacerdotal office between those two propositions.
It does not say that because Christ is High Priest, believers must approach an ordained priest who sacramentally represents Him and dispenses access to the grace obtained by His sacrifice. It says that the existence of the heavenly High Priest is precisely what gives the brethren confidence to approach God.
That is the opposite movement from the old sanctuary system, in which the ordinary Israelite could not personally enter the holiest.
Hebrews will return to this transformation in chapters 9 and 10.
“No Man Taketh This Honour Unto Himself”: Hebrews 5 Is About God's Appointment of Christ, Not the Creation of Roman Priests
Hebrews 5 explains the former high priesthood:
“For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.”— Hebrews 5:1
This verse sounds superficially similar to later Roman descriptions of the priest, and it can therefore be detached from its argument and used as if Hebrews were defining Christian clergy.
The context will not permit that.
The writer is describing the Aaronic high priest in order to establish the divine appointment and superiority of Christ.
He says:
“And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.”— Hebrews 5:4
The question immediately becomes: who is the person whom God has now called to this priestly honour?
Hebrews answers:
“So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.”— Hebrews 5:5
And:
“As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.”— Hebrews 5:6
The writer then describes Christ's suffering, obedience and saving work:
“Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.”— Hebrews 5:8
And:
“Being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.”— Hebrews 5:9
Then Hebrews returns to the divine appointment:
“Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.”— Hebrews 5:10
The sequence is therefore exact. No man takes priestly honour to himself. Aaron was called by God. Christ was called by God. Christ is declared by divine oath and divine word to be Priest after the order of Melchizedek.
Where is the corresponding divine institution of a third sacrificial order?
Where does Hebrews say that after calling Christ God also established bishops and presbyters as sacerdotal priests authorised to offer Christ Himself?
It does not.
The Roman Catechism says that the ministerial priesthood is transmitted through Holy Orders and that an ordained priest possesses authority to act in the person of Christ. That is a major theological claim. Hebrews 5:4 makes the burden of proof greater rather than smaller because no man takes this honour unto himself. If a New Covenant sacrificing priesthood exists, God must have instituted it.
It is not enough for a later ecclesiastical institution to say that Christ instituted such a priesthood.
The institution must be shown.
The Apostles certainly appointed elders and ministers. Churches unquestionably had leadership. Hebrews itself commands Christians to remember and obey those who rule and teach them. But appointing elders to teach, shepherd and oversee Christians is not identical to instituting a sacerdotal class empowered to offer Christ sacrificially.
That additional office has to be proved.
Hebrews never proves it because Hebrews never teaches it.
Hebrews 6 Makes “Crucifying the Son of God Afresh” a Matter of Horror
Hebrews 6 contains one of the sternest warnings in Scripture. Those who have been enlightened, have tasted the heavenly gift and have been:
“Made partakers of the Holy Ghost”— Hebrews 6:4
are warned of the gravity of falling away:
“Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”— Hebrews 6:6
The direct subject here is apostasy, not the Mass, and the verse should not be misrepresented as though Hebrews 6:6 directly says, “The Eucharist is crucifying Christ again.” That would be exegetically careless.
Its importance lies in the theological gravity attached to the concept of Christ being crucified afresh. Hebrews treats His historical suffering as decisive and not as an act that belongs to an endlessly recurring sacrificial cycle.
That principle becomes explicit in Hebrews 9, where the writer directly connects repeated self-offering with repeated suffering.
Therefore the question raised by the Roman Mass cannot be answered merely by changing vocabulary from “repetition” to “re-presentation.” Rome insists that Christ is not crucified again, but it simultaneously calls the Mass a genuine sacrifice in which Christ is offered in an unbloody manner. The Compendium says the cross and Eucharist are “one and the same sacrifice,” with the manner of offering differing between the bloody cross and the unbloody Eucharist.
Hebrews must therefore be allowed to answer whether it recognises a category in which Christ continues to be sacrificially offered without another suffering.
Hebrews 9 will answer that question with remarkable precision.
Hebrews 7 Announces a Change of Priesthood, Not the Christianisation of the Old Sacerdotal System
The theological centre of the argument begins to open fully in Hebrews 7.
The writer asks:
“If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood ... what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?”— Hebrews 7:11
This is not merely a criticism of bad priests.
The old priesthood itself could not bring perfection.
Therefore another priest was required.
Then comes the decisive statement:
“For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.”— Hebrews 7:12
The priesthood is changed.
The writer does not say that the Aaronic sacerdotal principle is now transferred to Christian presbyters who will offer a new victim.
The entire basis of priesthood is transformed because the new Priest comes:
“After the similitude of Melchisedec.”— Hebrews 7:15
Christ is:
“Made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.”— Hebrews 7:16
That phrase is crucial.
Christ's priesthood rests upon endless life.
The old priesthood was transmitted from one mortal man to another because death continually removed its members.
Christ's priesthood rests upon the opposite condition.
He does not die.
Hebrews then says:
“For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.”— Hebrews 7:18
The old sacerdotal arrangement is not simply renovated.
Something is disannulled.
The law:
“Made nothing perfect.”— Hebrews 7:19
But:
“The bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.”— Hebrews 7:19
Again, notice where the argument ends.
The better priesthood results in the people drawing near to God.
The argument does not result in the people being placed under another sacrificing priesthood.
The next verses introduce the oath, and this is one of the strongest distinctions in the chapter:
“And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest.”— Hebrews 7:20
Then:
“For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.”— Hebrews 7:21
The old priests did not possess this oath.
Christ does.
The writer does not distribute the oath across a new ecclesiastical hierarchy.
Psalm 110:4 is spoken to the Son.
The singularity becomes even more obvious:
“By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.”— Hebrews 7:22
Jesus Himself becomes the surety.
Then Hebrews explains why there had been many priests previously:
“And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death.”— Hebrews 7:23
This may be one of the most damaging verses in Hebrews to the theological necessity of a continuing succession of mortal sacrificial priests.
Why were many priests required?
Hebrews tells us.
They died.
Their mortality necessitated succession.
One died; another took his office. That man died; another replaced him. The structure required many priests precisely because none of them could continue.
Then the writer deliberately contrasts Christ:
“But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.”— Hebrews 7:24
The logic is complete.
The problem that required priestly succession under the former covenant has been removed because the new Priest never dies.
Christ possesses an unchangeable priesthood because He “continueth ever.”
If His priesthood required a succession of mortal men sacrificially exercising His office on earth, the force of Hebrews' contrast would be radically weakened. Hebrews would effectively be saying that the old covenant required many mortal priests because they died, while the New Covenant also requires many mortal priests even though its Priest cannot die.
But that is not the writer's argument.
The old order had many because death interrupted them.
Christ needs no replacement because death cannot interrupt Him.
The result is:
“Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.”— Hebrews 7:25
Christ's continued life is the reason His intercession continues.
The believer comes to God by Him.
The living Christ Himself intercedes.
There is no vacancy in the priestly office for a mortal sacerdotal intermediary to fill.
Hebrews 7:26–28 Contrasts the Mortal Priesthood With the Son
Hebrews then describes the Priest believers actually need:
“For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens.”— Hebrews 7:26
The contrast with mortal priests continues:
“Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice.”— Hebrews 7:27
Why does He not need their repeated sacrificial activity?
Because:
“This he did once, when he offered up himself.”— Hebrews 7:27
The subject and object of the offering are vital.
Christ offered.
Christ was offered.
He offered up Himself.
No earthly priest offers Him in this verse.
The chapter concludes:
“For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.”— Hebrews 7:28
This is the contrast Hebrews itself establishes.
The law made mortal men high priests.
The oath makes the Son.
The Roman Catholic Catechism agrees that Christ is the unique High Priest, but then says that His priesthood is made present through a ministerial priesthood and that ordained ministers act in His person.
Hebrews never makes that next move.
After contrasting mortal priests with the Son, it does not return to mortal men and say that they have now become sacramental embodiments of the Son's priesthood.
It moves from Christ's eternal priesthood into Christ's heavenly ministry.
Hebrews 8 Says We Already Have the Priest Rome Claims Must Be Made Present Through Mortal Priests
Hebrews 8 begins with a summary:
“Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens.”— Hebrews 8:1
Again the writer does not say that because Jesus is bodily in heaven, the Church requires priests who sacramentally make His priestly action present on earth.
He says:
“We have such an high priest.”
Where is He?
At God's right hand.
What is He doing?
He is:
“A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.”— Hebrews 8:2
Christ's priestly ministry has moved into the true sanctuary.
The earthly system was shadow.
The heavenly reality is substance.
Hebrews 8:3 says that every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices and therefore Christ must also have something to offer. Yet the chapter immediately distances His priesthood from an earthly sacerdotal ministry:
“For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law.”— Hebrews 8:4
This verse is extraordinarily important.
Christ's priestly ministry is not presented as an earthly cult which needs to be perpetuated through a physical chain of sacrificing representatives.
The earthly priests:
“Serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.”— Hebrews 8:5
Christ has moved beyond shadow to heavenly reality.
Then Hebrews states:
“But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.”— Hebrews 8:6
The better ministry belongs to Him.
The mediation belongs to Him.
The covenant is established through Him.
The writer then quotes Jeremiah's New Covenant promise at length. God says:
“I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts.”— Hebrews 8:10
Then:
“I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.”— Hebrews 8:10
Then comes one of the defining differences:
“And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.”— Hebrews 8:11
This cannot mean there are no Christian teachers, because Hebrews itself is teaching and later tells Christians to honour their leaders. Its meaning is covenantal. The knowledge of God is no longer concentrated in an external sacred order standing between ordinary covenant members and God.
The covenant people themselves know Him.
Why?
“For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.”— Hebrews 8:12
The New Covenant joins direct knowledge of God with divine forgiveness.
The following verse states the consequence for the first covenant:
“In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old.”— Hebrews 8:13
The writer does not say that the old covenant's sacerdotal architecture is now recreated under Christian terminology.
The first is old.
Its earthly priestly cult belonged to the shadow.
The better covenant has another Priest and another sanctuary.
Hebrews 9 Deliberately Explains the Old Sacerdotal System Before Showing What Christ Changed
Hebrews 9 begins by describing the first covenant:
“Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.”— Hebrews 9:1
The writer describes the tabernacle and its holy places. Then he explains the priestly system:
“Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.”— Hebrews 9:6
This is a genuine sacerdotal priesthood.
God had actually instituted it.
Its priests repeatedly entered.
But:
“Into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood.”— Hebrews 9:7
The separation is crucial. The ordinary people did not enter the holiest. The high priest entered alone and under severe conditions.
Then Hebrews tells us what the Holy Ghost was teaching through this arrangement:
“The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing.”— Hebrews 9:8
This may be one of the most important verses for understanding what Christ's priesthood accomplishes.
The former sacerdotal system signified restricted access.
The existence of a separated holy place and a priest who alone could enter demonstrated that the way into the holiest had not yet been opened.
The old gifts and sacrifices:
“Could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience.”— Hebrews 9:9
They consisted in:
“Meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances.”— Hebrews 9:10
They were imposed:
“Until the time of reformation.”— Hebrews 9:10
The old sacerdotal order was therefore temporary and symbolic.
Hebrews is now about to explain the reformation.
Christ Does Not Enter an Earthly Altar System; He Enters the Greater Tabernacle
The contrast begins:
“But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle.”— Hebrews 9:11
This tabernacle is:
“Not made with hands.”— Hebrews 9:11
Then:
“Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.”— Hebrews 9:12
This verse deserves to be read slowly because almost every phrase contradicts the need for a later sacrificial mechanism.
He enters by His own blood.
He enters once.
He has obtained redemption.
The redemption is eternal.
The sentence does not say that Christ secured a reservoir of merit which an earthly sacerdotal order must subsequently activate by sacrificial presentation.
Christ obtained eternal redemption.
Rome officially teaches that priests make Christ's unique sacrifice present again and “apply” it. Hebrews 9:12 instead places the obtaining of redemption in Christ's own entry with His own blood.
The writer then reasons from lesser to greater:
“For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh.”— Hebrews 9:13
Then:
“How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”— Hebrews 9:14
This verse gives us the sacrificial action with extraordinary clarity.
Who is the victim?
Christ.
Who performs the offering?
Christ.
What does He offer?
Himself.
Through whom does He offer?
Through the eternal Spirit.
To whom is the offering made?
To God.
What is the effect?
The conscience is purged.
Hebrews does not insert a sacerdotal Christian priest into a single part of that sentence.
This is especially important because Catholic theology explicitly says that ordained priests offer the Eucharistic sacrifice and possess power received through ordination for this purpose. Paul VI described priests as having received “the power of offering sacrifice to God,” while teaching that the Mass applies the saving power of the cross.
Hebrews locates the saving offering elsewhere.
Christ through the Spirit offered Himself to God.
If Rome claims that another order of men was subsequently instituted to sacramentally offer that same Christ, Hebrews 9:14 itself does not provide the institution.
The claim must come from somewhere else.
“For This Cause He Is the Mediator”: Hebrews Does Not Create a Second Layer of Mediation
The next verse follows directly from Christ's self-offering:
“And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death ... they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.”— Hebrews 9:15
Why is Christ the mediator?
Hebrews ties His mediation to His sacrificial death.
He does not merely inaugurate a covenant and then transfer its practical mediation to a priestly corporation.
He remains its mediator.
Hebrews 8:6 has already called Him:
“The mediator of a better covenant.”
Hebrews 9:15 calls Him:
“The mediator of the new testament.”
Hebrews 12:24 will again identify:
“Jesus the mediator of the new covenant.”
The repetition is deliberate.
The New Covenant has a mediator.
Hebrews repeatedly names Him.
This agrees perfectly with:
“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”— 1 Timothy 2:5
Rome answers that its priests are not independent mediators but participate in Christ's unique mediation. That is the Catholic explanation. The difficulty is that Hebrews itself never introduces that participating sacerdotal mediation when explaining how the benefits of Christ's sacrifice reach believers.
It says that He saves those who come to God by Him because He lives to intercede.
It says His blood purges the conscience.
It says He mediates the testament.
It says the brethren enter through His blood.
It says the Holy Ghost witnesses forgiveness.
The believer is directed repeatedly to Christ Himself.
Hebrews 9:16–17: The Testament Comes Into Force Through the Death of the Testator
Hebrews then introduces one of the most important arguments in the entire Epistle:
“For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.”— Hebrews 9:16
Then:
“For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.”— Hebrews 9:17
The King James wording is particularly powerful because it allows the legal force of “testament” to stand plainly before the reader.
The New Testament is established through the death of the Testator.
Christ's words at the Supper therefore acquire their full significance:
“This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”— Luke 22:20
The blood would be shed.
The Testator would die.
The testament would come into force.
Hebrews does not teach that after the death of the Testator an ordained sacerdotal hierarchy must repeatedly make the Testator's sacrificial death present before God so that the testament continues to possess force.
The death itself gives the testament its force.
This matters deeply when Rome speaks of the Mass as a sacrifice through which the fruits of Calvary are applied. The Catechism says that the Eucharistic sacrifice is offered through ordained priests and even extends that offering to departed believers who are “not yet wholly purified.”
Hebrews gives a different sequence.
The Testator dies.
The testament comes into force.
The mediator lives.
The eternal inheritance belongs to those who are called.
The blood has been shed.
Nothing in Hebrews 9:15–17 suggests that a further priestly sacrificial act is necessary to make the testament effective for each recipient.
A testament does not need the testator to be repeatedly offered after his death.
The death has occurred.
The legal act has been accomplished.
Hebrews 9:18–22 Makes the Blood Indispensable, Not an Unbloody Offering
Hebrews continues:
“Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.”— Hebrews 9:18
Moses takes the blood of the sacrificial animals and says:
“This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.”— Hebrews 9:20
Then comes the great conclusion:
“And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.”— Hebrews 9:22
The Roman Church describes the Mass as a genuine sacrifice while simultaneously insisting that its manner is unbloody. The official Compendium states that the sacrifice of the cross and Eucharist is “one and the same sacrifice,” while distinguishing the bloody manner of Calvary from the unbloody manner of the Eucharist.
Rome's answer is that no further shedding of blood is necessary because the Mass is not a new sacrifice independent of Calvary. It sacramentally re-presents the sacrifice whose blood was shed historically.
That answer should be represented fairly.
Yet Hebrews still leaves a major unanswered question: where does inspired Scripture establish an unbloody propitiatory offering after declaring that remission is connected with blood actually shed?
Hebrews does not say that the blood was shed once so that priests may subsequently offer the Victim unbloodily to apply its benefits.
It moves immediately toward the heavenly sanctuary where Christ Himself appears before God.
The efficacy resides in the blood that was shed.
The remission rests upon the accomplished death.
The testament rests upon that death.
The addition of an unbloody sacrificial offering is not supplied by the writer.
Christ Appears in Heaven for Us; Hebrews Does Not Send Him Back to Earthly Altars
Hebrews 9:23 distinguishes the earthly copies from heavenly reality, and verse 24 then says:
“For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true.”— Hebrews 9:24
Instead:
“But into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.”— Hebrews 9:24
This is the location of Christ's priestly presentation.
He appears in God's presence for us.
The believer therefore already has a living Priest appearing before God.
The language is deeply personal. Christ does not simply deposit a sacrifice and withdraw. He Himself appears for His people.
Then the writer directly rules out repeated self-offering:
“Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others.”— Hebrews 9:25
This is the question Rome must face directly.
Hebrews explicitly says Christ is not to offer Himself often.
Catholic theology responds that the Mass is not many numerically distinct sacrifices because the same sacrifice becomes sacramentally present.
The Catechism therefore insists that the redemptive sacrifice is unique while also teaching that it is made present through the Church's Eucharistic sacrifice.
But Hebrews does not stop at saying that Christ does not offer Himself often.
It explains why.
Hebrews 9:26 Connects Repeated Offering With Repeated Suffering
The next verse says:
“For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world.”— Hebrews 9:26
The argument is extremely difficult to reconcile with the idea of a continually offered Christ.
Verse 25 speaks of Christ offering Himself often.
Verse 26 says that if He were offered often, He would have had to suffer often.
The writer therefore connects self-offering with suffering.
He does not introduce the category upon which Roman theology depends: Christ can truly be sacrificially offered innumerable times without suffering because the offering occurs sacramentally and unbloodily.
That distinction is not Hebrews' distinction.
Hebrews' own response to repeated offering is:
“For then must he often have suffered.”
Instead, the writer contrasts repetition with the historical finality of Calvary:
“But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”— Hebrews 9:26
Again, the sacrifice is the sacrifice of Himself.
Its purpose is to put away sin.
The writer then creates a deliberate parallel:
“And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.”— Hebrews 9:27
Then:
“So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.”— Hebrews 9:28
The argument possesses extraordinary force because the once-only character of Christ's offering is compared directly with the once-only character of human death.
No Catholic theologian would say that a person's one historical death becomes sacramentally re-presented thousands of times as a continuing death.
Yet Hebrews places Christ's offering in parallel with that once-only event.
Then the writer tells us what Christ's next appearing will be:
“Unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.”— Hebrews 9:28
His first appearing culminated in sacrificial sin-bearing.
His next appearing is not another sacrificial presentation for sin.
The sacrificial movement is completed.
Hebrews 10 Begins by Explaining Why Repeated Sacrifices Were Evidence of Inadequacy
Hebrews 10 makes the argument even stronger.
The law had:
“A shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things.”— Hebrews 10:1
Its repeated sacrifices could not:
“Make the comers thereunto perfect.”— Hebrews 10:1
The writer then reasons:
“For then would they not have ceased to be offered?”— Hebrews 10:2
This question deserves enormous attention.
Hebrews' own logic is that if a sacrifice had actually perfected its worshippers, the repeated offering would cease.
The persistence of repeated offerings demonstrated their insufficiency.
They contained:
“A remembrance again made of sins every year.”— Hebrews 10:3
Because:
“It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.”— Hebrews 10:4
Christ then enters the argument in words drawn from the Psalms:
“Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me.”— Hebrews 10:5
And:
“Lo, I come ... to do thy will, O God.”— Hebrews 10:7
The writer interprets this as the removal of one sacrificial order and establishment of another:
“He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.”— Hebrews 10:9
Then:
“By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”— Hebrews 10:10
Notice the subject of the offering again.
It is the body of Jesus Christ.
Notice the basis of sanctification.
It is that offering.
Notice what Hebrews says God does with the first sacrificial order.
He takes it away.
The Roman system cannot simply be equated with the Levitical system, and Catholic theology would rightly object that it does not teach a return to animal sacrifices. The deeper issue is whether Hebrews' removal of the former repeated sacerdotal structure is followed by the creation of another repeated sacerdotal offering.
The text says nothing of the kind.
The Standing Priests and the Seated Son
Hebrews then paints one of the most deliberate contrasts in the entire New Testament:
“And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.”— Hebrews 10:11
The old priest stands.
He ministers daily.
He repeatedly offers.
Then:
“But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.”— Hebrews 10:12
The contrast is visual and theological.
The former priests stand because their sacrificial ministry never reaches final completion.
Christ sits because His offering has accomplished what those sacrifices could not accomplish.
He now waits:
“Till his enemies be made his footstool.”— Hebrews 10:13
Then Hebrews explains what His offering accomplished:
“For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”— Hebrews 10:14
This is much more than a convenient “once-for-all” proof-text. It completes an argument running from chapter 7 through chapter 10.
The old priests were numerous because they died.
Christ lives forever.
The old sacrifices repeated because they could not perfect.
Christ's offering perfects.
The old high priest repeatedly entered an earthly sanctuary.
Christ enters heaven itself.
The old system maintained distance.
Christ opens the holiest.
The old sacrifices reminded of sins.
Christ puts away sin.
The old priest stood.
Christ sits.
A later system which then introduces thousands of ordained priests standing daily at altars offering Christ requires an explanation which Hebrews itself never gives.
The Holy Ghost Witnesses the Result Without an Earthly Sacrificial Priest
Hebrews then introduces the testimony of the Holy Ghost:
“Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us.”— Hebrews 10:15
The Spirit quotes the New Covenant:
“This is the covenant that I will make with them.”— Hebrews 10:16
God writes His laws:
“Into their hearts.”— Hebrews 10:16
And:
“In their minds will I write them.”— Hebrews 10:16
Then:
“And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.”— Hebrews 10:17
The conclusion is devastatingly simple:
“Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.”— Hebrews 10:18
This verse cannot simply be reduced to “there is no other sacrifice besides Christ.” The wording is stronger.
Where remission exists:
“There is no more offering for sin.”
Roman theology answers that the Mass is not another offering but the sacramental making-present of the same offering. The Roman explanation is carefully constructed to avoid directly contradicting Hebrews' affirmation of one sacrifice.
Yet Hebrews itself does not introduce that category.
It moves from remission to no more offering for sin.
The Church certainly remembers Christ's death.
The Church proclaims Christ's death.
The Church breaks bread and drinks the cup.
Paul says:
“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.”— 1 Corinthians 11:26
That is apostolic language.
The Supper proclaims the sacrifice.
Hebrews gives no apostolic instruction that the Church offers the sacrificial Victim again.
The difference is fundamental.
Hebrews 10:19 Shows What Replaces the Restricted Sacerdotal Access of the Old Covenant
The argument does not end with “no more offering.” It immediately turns to access.
“Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus.”— Hebrews 10:19
This is the reversal of Hebrews 9:8.
Under the former covenant the Holy Ghost signified that the way into the holiest was not yet manifest.
Now the brethren have boldness to enter.
Through what?
“By the blood of Jesus.”— Hebrews 10:19
The way is:
“A new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh.”— Hebrews 10:20
And because believers have:
“An high priest over the house of God.”— Hebrews 10:21
the conclusion is:
“Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith.”— Hebrews 10:22
This is one of the clearest New Covenant transformations in Hebrews.
The old system restricted access through a sacerdotal hierarchy.
The High Priest entered where the people could not.
Christ's blood opens the sanctuary.
The brethren themselves are told to enter.
Hebrews does not say that a new earthly sacerdotal priesthood now possesses the sanctuary-accessing function on behalf of the people.
The people are invited to draw near because Christ is their High Priest.
That is why the later construction of an essentially distinct ministerial priesthood raises such a serious question. The Roman Catechism teaches that the common priesthood and ministerial priesthood differ “essentially,” with the latter possessing its own sacred power.
Hebrews knows Christian leaders.
Hebrews knows the brethren.
Hebrews knows the High Priest.
What Hebrews does not describe is an ontologically distinct Christian sacerdotal caste standing between the brethren and the High Priest.
Hebrews Even Uses “No More Sacrifice” Again When Warning Against Apostasy
The severity of the finality becomes apparent in Hebrews 10:26:
“For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.”— Hebrews 10:26
The direct context concerns grave apostasy and judgment, and the verse should not be turned into a simplistic statement about every post-conversion sin. Its importance here is that Hebrews knows what it means to say that there is no alternative sacrificial provision.
A person who rejects Christ cannot retreat to another sacrifice.
There is no second victim.
There is no alternate altar.
There is no replacement blood.
Hebrews describes apostasy as:
“Trodden under foot the Son of God.”— Hebrews 10:29
And:
“Counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing.”— Hebrews 10:29
And:
“Done despite unto the Spirit of grace.”— Hebrews 10:29
Notice again the triad.
The Son.
The blood of the covenant.
The Spirit of grace.
The saving economy belongs to God.
The warning ends:
“For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me.”— Hebrews 10:30
And:
“The Lord shall judge his people.”— Hebrews 10:30
The ultimate judgment belongs to the Lord.
Hebrews 12 Brings the Believer Directly to Jesus, the Mediator, and God, the Judge
Hebrews 12 describes the reality into which believers have come:
“But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.”— Hebrews 12:22
They have come:
“To an innumerable company of angels.”— Hebrews 12:22
And:
“To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven.”— Hebrews 12:23
Then:
“And to God the Judge of all.”— Hebrews 12:23
And finally:
“And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.”— Hebrews 12:24
The picture is complete.
The Church is present.
God is Judge.
Jesus is Mediator.
The blood speaks.
Hebrews never says that the Church becomes judge over Jesus' mediation or possesses a sacrificial power necessary to reactivate His blood.
The Church is itself among those who have come to God through the mediator.
This is the proper relationship between Church and Christ.
The Church is not the source of the mediation.
The Church receives the mediation.
The Church does not create the testament.
The Church inherits the testament.
The Church does not empower the blood.
The blood brings the Church near.
Hebrews 13 Recognises Church Leaders but Never Calls Them Sacrificial Priests
This becomes particularly important near the end of the Epistle because Hebrews finally speaks directly about Christian rulers.
It says:
“Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God.”— Hebrews 13:7
Later:
“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account.”— Hebrews 13:17
These verses matter because they destroy the false choice between Roman sacerdotalism and ecclesiastical anarchy.
The New Testament Church has leaders.
Those leaders speak the word of God.
They watch over souls.
They will give account.
There is real authority.
But Hebrews never identifies these men as priests who offer Christ.
This is highly significant because Hebrews possesses an extensive sacrificial vocabulary. The author knows exactly what a priest is. He knows what a high priest is. He knows what an altar is. He knows what a victim is. He knows what an offering is. He knows the difference between the priests who serve the tabernacle and the Son who serves the heavenly sanctuary.
When he finally discusses Christian leaders, he describes them through teaching, example, oversight and accountability.
He does not say that they offer Christ.
The omission cannot simply be dismissed as accidental because priesthood is one of the central themes of the book.
If the principal New Covenant function of Christian presbyters were sacrificially offering Christ, Hebrews would be an astonishing place never to say so.
“We Have an Altar” Cannot Be Removed From “Jesus Suffered Without the Gate”
Hebrews 13:10 is sometimes appealed to as evidence for a Christian sacrificial altar:
“We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.”— Hebrews 13:10
But the very next verses explain the imagery:
“For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.”— Hebrews 13:11
Then:
“Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.”— Hebrews 13:12
Then the exhortation:
“Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.”— Hebrews 13:13
The context therefore does not lead believers back toward an earthly sacerdotal sanctuary.
It leads them outside.
The imagery comes from the Levitical sin offering. Leviticus commanded concerning a sin offering whose blood was brought into the sanctuary:
“No sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire.”— Leviticus 6:30
Hebrews deliberately invokes this pattern and applies it to Christ.
He suffered outside the gate.
His blood sanctifies the people.
The Christian response is not to reconstruct a sacred camp and place Him sacrificially upon its altars.
It is to go unto Him.
This does not abolish the Lord's Supper. Christ explicitly instituted the breaking of bread and cup, and Paul expressly commands believers to observe it. What it does challenge is the attempt to turn the Eucharist into a repeated propitiatory sin offering administered by a sacerdotal priesthood.
The Levitical pattern invoked by Hebrews is actually uncomfortable for that theology. The sin-bearing victim whose blood entered the sanctuary was taken outside the camp. Hebrews locates Christ's suffering there and directs the believer toward Him.
Its entire movement is away from the old earthly cultus and toward Christ.
Hebrews Immediately Tells Us What Christian Sacrifices Continue
If Rome wishes to argue that Christian sacrifice must continue, Hebrews agrees.
But Hebrews then identifies the sacrifices.
After describing Jesus suffering outside the gate, the writer says:
“For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.”— Hebrews 13:14
Then:
“By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.”— Hebrews 13:15
This is a continual New Covenant sacrifice.
Who offers it?
We do.
Through whom?
By Him.
What is sacrificed?
Praise.
The writer continues:
“But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.”— Hebrews 13:16
Hebrews is therefore perfectly capable of speaking of continuing Christian sacrifices after Christ's offering.
They are praise.
Thanksgiving.
Doing good.
Sharing.
Life offered to God through Christ.
The author never says that the continuing Christian sacrifice is Christ Himself being offered by an ordained priest.
That distinction is enormously important.
The Roman system later calls the Mass a sacrificial offering and speaks of the Eucharist as a sacrifice offered through ordained priests for living and dead. Hebrews, after spending chapters explaining why Christ's sacrifice supersedes the repeated old order, defines the sacrifices that now continue without placing Christ back into the category of a repeatedly presented victim.
What Rome Says Its Priesthood Does, and What Hebrews Says Christ Does
At this point the contrast can be made without caricaturing Catholic doctrine.
Rome says Christ's redemptive sacrifice is unique and once accomplished. Hebrews agrees.
Rome says Christ is the true High Priest. Hebrews agrees.
Rome says Christ is mediator. Hebrews agrees.
The disagreement arises in the additional structure Rome builds around those truths.
The Catechism says Christ's one priesthood is made present through ministerial priesthood and that the ordained priest represents Christ in a unique sacramental way. Hebrews says Christ's priesthood is unchangeable because He continues forever and personally makes intercession.
Catholic teaching describes bishops and priests as “true priests of the New Testament” and says that in the Mass they “make present again and apply” Christ's sacrifice. Hebrews says the New Covenant priesthood is changed, identifies the divinely sworn Priest as the Son, and never institutes another sacrificing order.
Rome says the Eucharistic sacrifice is offered through priests. Hebrews says Christ:
“Offered himself without spot to God.”— Hebrews 9:14
Rome speaks of the sacrifice being made present sacramentally on earthly altars. Hebrews says Christ entered:
“Into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.”— Hebrews 9:24
Rome says the Eucharist is an unbloody offering of the same sacrifice. Hebrews says:
“Nor yet that he should offer himself often.”— Hebrews 9:25
And immediately explains:
“For then must he often have suffered.”— Hebrews 9:26
Rome says the Mass applies the saving fruits of Calvary. Hebrews says Christ entered once:
“Having obtained eternal redemption for us.”— Hebrews 9:12
Rome says the Eucharistic sacrifice may be offered for departed believers who remain in need of purification. Hebrews says Christ's blood purges the conscience and that under the New Covenant God promises:
“Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.”— Hebrews 10:17
And concludes:
“There is no more offering for sin.”— Hebrews 10:18
Rome creates an essentially distinct ministerial priesthood alongside the common priesthood of believers. Hebrews gives the brethren themselves:
“Boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus.”— Hebrews 10:19
The difficulty is therefore not that Rome openly denies Hebrews. Rome repeatedly quotes Hebrews.
The difficulty is that it affirms Hebrews' language and then introduces a sacramental structure that Hebrews never institutes.
No Divine Institution of a New Sacerdotal Order Appears Anywhere in Hebrews
This point should be stated carefully because it is central.
Hebrews does not teach that Christianity has no leadership.
It does not teach that there are no appointed ministers.
It does not teach that every Christian performs every ecclesiastical function.
What it does is much more specific.
It gives an extended theological account of sacrificial priesthood, and within that account it identifies the old priests and Christ.
The old priests belong to the first covenant.
Christ belongs to the New.
The old priests are many because they die.
Christ's priesthood is unchangeable because He lives.
The old priests offer repeatedly.
Christ offered Himself.
The old high priest enters yearly.
Christ enters once.
The old sanctuary is earthly.
Christ enters heaven.
The old sacrifices cannot perfect.
Christ perfects.
The old worshippers cannot enter the holiest.
The brethren now enter through Christ's blood.
At no point in this transition does Hebrews say that Christ subsequently creates a new class of mortal sacrificial priests.
That absence is not insignificant.
If God had instituted such a priesthood, Hebrews 5:4 demands that God be its author:
“No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God.”— Hebrews 5:4
Where is God's call establishing bishops or presbyters as sacrificers of Christ?
Hebrews does not record it.
If the Roman priesthood belongs to the Melchizedek order, where does Psalm 110's divine oath fall upon them?
Hebrews applies the oath to the Son.
If their succession is necessary to continue Christ's priestly work, why does Hebrews identify death as the reason succession was needed and Christ's endless life as the reason His priesthood is unchangeable?
If their principal sacred work is offering Christ, why does Hebrews describe church rulers without once calling them sacrificers?
If their altars continue Christ's offering, why does Hebrews say Christ does not offer Himself often?
If an unbloody priestly sacrifice is necessary to apply Calvary, why does Hebrews say the Testator's death already puts the testament in force?
If sacrificial application must be mediated through a priest, why does Hebrews tell the brethren themselves to enter the holiest through Christ's blood?
The Roman sacerdotal system therefore cannot be derived naturally from Hebrews.
It must be added to Hebrews.
The Last Supper Does Not Supply What Hebrews Omits
Rome may attempt to locate the institution elsewhere, particularly in Christ's command at the Supper:
“This do in remembrance of me.”— Luke 22:19
Catholic theology interprets these words together with later tradition as instituting the Eucharistic sacrifice and ministerial priesthood.
But the words themselves say:
“This do in remembrance of me.”
Paul gives the apostolic interpretation of the repeated action:
“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.”— 1 Corinthians 11:26
The believers eat.
They drink.
They proclaim His death.
Paul never tells the Corinthians that an ordained sacerdotal priest must offer Christ to the Father as a propitiatory victim.
Indeed, when Paul addresses the disorder surrounding the Supper, his language is directed to the congregation:
“Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.”— 1 Corinthians 11:28
The Supper can therefore be fully biblical as remembrance, proclamation, fellowship and participation without turning the one who presides into a sacrificing priest.
The claim that “do this” secretly institutes a distinct sacerdotal order capable of sacrificially offering Christ demands much more than the text says.
Hebrews, which is explicitly devoted to explaining New Covenant priesthood, would be the obvious place to confirm such an institution.
Instead, Hebrews confirms Christ.
Christ Suffered Without the Gate: The Sacrificial Victim Is Not Returned to an Earthly Holy Place
The significance of Hebrews 13 deserves one final consideration because it brings the whole movement of the Epistle together.
The Old Testament sanctuary had sacred geography.
There was the camp.
There was the sanctuary.
There was the holiest.
Priests entered where others could not.
The high priest entered where ordinary priests could not.
Certain sacrifices were consumed in prescribed ways, while the bodies of the great sin offerings associated with sanctuary blood were taken outside.
Christ fulfils the pattern by suffering:
“Without the gate.”— Hebrews 13:12
The believer is told:
“Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp.”— Hebrews 13:13
This is profoundly important because later sacerdotal Christianity reconstructs sacred geography in another form: sanctuary, altar, sacrificing priest, consecrated victim, sacred access and hierarchical control over the sacrament.
Hebrews' movement is in the opposite direction.
The old tabernacle was a shadow.
Christ enters heaven.
The veil is opened.
The brethren enter.
Christ suffers outside the gate.
The believers go to Him outside the camp.
The permanent city is not here:
“For here have we no continuing city.”— Hebrews 13:14
The worshippers seek:
“One to come.”— Hebrews 13:14
The sacrifices they now offer are praise and good works.
The entire argument is eschatological and heavenly.
The Church cannot simply rebuild the old sacerdotal separation under Christian names and then claim Hebrews as its foundation.
The Church Is Under the Testament; It Does Not Administer Sovereignty Over the Testator
This brings the discussion back to the “judgment of the Church” in Denzinger 2178.
The Church certainly has authority to teach what it has received.
It has authority to discipline its members.
It has authority to reject false teachers.
It has leaders whom Hebrews says believers should obey when they faithfully watch for their souls.
But the Church is not judge over the Testator.
It did not create the testament.
It did not make Christ High Priest.
It did not give Him the oath.
It did not produce His blood.
It did not grant Him His endless life.
It did not open heaven.
It did not appoint Him mediator.
God did.
The Church exists because of those realities.
Therefore every church, council, bishop and pope must stand under them.
Hebrews says:
“Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.”— Hebrews 13:8
The constancy belongs ultimately to Christ.
The very next verse warns:
“Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines.”— Hebrews 13:9
That warning applies to every age.
Tradition does not become immune from examination merely because it has become old.
A doctrine concerning priesthood must be tested against the Priest.
A doctrine concerning sacrifice must be tested against the sacrifice.
A doctrine concerning mediation must be tested against the mediator.
A doctrine concerning the testament must be tested against the death of the Testator.
A doctrine concerning access to God must be tested against the way Hebrews says access was opened.
Hebrews Does Not Leave an Empty Priesthood for Rome to Fill
The strongest conclusion from Hebrews is not simply that Christ offered Himself once.
It is that Christ's priesthood remains occupied.
The office is not vacant.
The Priest did not die and remain dead.
The Priest did not pass His sacerdotal office to another because death prevented Him from continuing.
That was precisely the problem with the former priests.
Hebrews says:
“They truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death.”— Hebrews 7:23
Then:
“But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.”— Hebrews 7:24
The Roman system introduces a long succession of mortal men and calls them priests of the New Testament.
Hebrews' logic asks why such succession is needed when the very reason for the old succession—death—has been defeated in Christ.
The answer cannot simply be that Christ is physically absent, because Hebrews regards His heavenly presence as the strength of His priesthood rather than a weakness requiring compensation.
He is:
“Set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens.”— Hebrews 8:1
He appears:
“In the presence of God for us.”— Hebrews 9:24
He:
“Ever liveth to make intercession.”— Hebrews 7:25
His blood:
“Speaketh better things than that of Abel.”— Hebrews 12:24
The New Covenant therefore does not suffer from an absent priest.
It possesses an immortal one.
Conclusion: Hebrews Gives Us Ministers, but It Gives Us Only One New Covenant Sacrificial High Priest
The questions in Denzinger 2176–2178 are interesting because Rome was prepared to insist strongly upon the Pauline origin of Hebrews and even reserve unresolved literary questions for a possible later “judgment of the Church.” Yet the authorship question is minor beside the theological challenge Hebrews presents to Rome itself.
If Hebrews is Scripture, then its argument must be permitted to govern Christian doctrine concerning priesthood and sacrifice.
Hebrews recognises ministers and leaders. It commands believers to remember those who taught them, follow their faithful example and obey those who watch for their souls. Therefore nothing in the Epistle requires a church without structure, teachers or pastoral authority.
What Hebrews never institutes is a new sacerdotal order of mortal men whose sacred office consists in offering Christ as a sacrificial victim.
The distinction is decisive.
The old covenant possessed precisely such an earthly sacerdotal order, and Hebrews knows how to describe it. Those priests entered the tabernacle. They stood ministering. They offered sacrifices. They were many because death removed them from office.
The New Covenant changes that priesthood.
God does not simply transfer Aaron's sacrificial function to Christian presbyters. He introduces another Priest according to another order.
That Priest is Jesus Christ.
He is appointed by God.
He is established by divine oath.
He is Priest forever.
He possesses an endless life.
His priesthood is unchangeable.
He saves to the uttermost.
He continually intercedes.
He offered Himself.
He entered with His own blood.
He obtained eternal redemption.
He appears in heaven for us.
He mediates the better covenant.
His death establishes the testament.
His blood purges the conscience.
His sacrifice puts away sin.
The Holy Ghost witnesses that sins are remembered no more.
The brethren enter the holiest through His blood.
The continuing sacrifices of Christians are praise, thanksgiving, goodness and sharing.
That is Hebrews' priestly system.
The Roman system adds another layer. It says Christ's one priesthood must be made present through an essentially distinct ministerial priesthood. It identifies ordained men as priests of the New Testament. It gives them sacramental power to act in Christ's person. It says they make present again and apply His unique sacrifice. It calls the Mass an unbloody sacrificial offering through their ministry. It extends that sacrificial application to the living and the dead. These are not marginal devotional expressions; they remain explicit teachings of the contemporary Catholic Catechism.
The burden therefore rests upon Rome to show where God instituted this office.
Hebrews 5:4 says:
“No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God.”
Show the call.
Hebrews 5:6 says:
“Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.”
The text addresses the Son.
Hebrews 7:21 says:
“The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever.”
The oath belongs to Christ.
Hebrews 7:24 says:
“This man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.”
The Priest remains.
Hebrews 7:25 says:
“He ever liveth to make intercession.”
The intercessor remains.
Hebrews 8:1 says:
“We have such an high priest.”
The Church already has Him.
Hebrews 8:6 says:
“He is the mediator of a better covenant.”
The covenant already has its mediator.
Hebrews 9:12 says:
“By his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.”
The redemption has been obtained.
Hebrews 9:14 says:
“Through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God.”
The offering was Christ's self-offering.
Hebrews 9:15 says:
“He is the mediator of the new testament.”
The mediation remains His.
Hebrews 9:16 says:
“There must also of necessity be the death of the testator.”
The Testator died.
Hebrews 9:17 says:
“A testament is of force after men are dead.”
The testament is in force.
Hebrews 9:22 says:
“Without shedding of blood is no remission.”
The necessary blood was shed.
Hebrews 9:24 says:
“Christ ... into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.”
The Priest appears before God.
Hebrews 9:25 says:
“Nor yet that he should offer himself often.”
The repeated offering is denied.
Hebrews 9:26 explains why:
“For then must he often have suffered.”
Hebrews itself joins offering and suffering.
Hebrews 9:26 then says:
“Once ... hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”
The sin-bearing sacrifice has occurred.
Hebrews 9:28 says:
“Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.”
The offering corresponds to His once-only death.
Hebrews 10:2 asks whether an effective sacrifice should:
“Have ceased to be offered.”
Hebrews' own answer is yes: perfection ends repetition.
Hebrews 10:9 says:
“He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.”
The former sacrificial order is removed.
Hebrews 10:10 says:
“We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ.”
The offering sanctifies.
Hebrews 10:12 says:
“After he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down.”
The sacrificing Priest sits.
Hebrews 10:14 says:
“By one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”
The offering perfects.
Hebrews 10:15 says:
“The Holy Ghost also is a witness to us.”
The Spirit testifies.
Hebrews 10:17 says:
“Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.”
God promises remission.
Hebrews 10:18 therefore concludes:
“There is no more offering for sin.”
Then Hebrews does not tell Christians to find another altar on which Christ is sacrificially made present. It tells the brethren:
“Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus.”— Hebrews 10:19
It tells them:
“Let us draw near.”— Hebrews 10:22
Hebrews 12 brings them:
“To Jesus the mediator of the new covenant.”— Hebrews 12:24
Hebrews 13 tells them that Jesus sanctified the people:
“With his own blood.”— Hebrews 13:12
It tells them that He:
“Suffered without the gate.”— Hebrews 13:12
It commands:
“Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp.”— Hebrews 13:13
And when Hebrews finally identifies the sacrifices Christians must continually offer, it does not tell priests to offer Christ. It tells the whole people:
“Let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually.”— Hebrews 13:15
And:
“To do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.”— Hebrews 13:16
This is not an accidental silence regarding a minor doctrine. It runs through the entire argument of the Epistle.
Hebrews knows the old sacerdotal priesthood.
Hebrews explains why it could not perfect.
Hebrews announces the change of priesthood.
Hebrews identifies the new Priest.
Hebrews tells us who appointed Him.
Hebrews gives the divine oath establishing Him.
Hebrews explains why His priesthood requires no succession.
Hebrews tells us what He offered.
Hebrews tells us where He entered.
Hebrews tells us whose blood He carried.
Hebrews tells us what His death established.
Hebrews tells us who mediates the covenant.
Hebrews tells us how believers now approach God.
Hebrews tells us what sacrifices remain.
What Hebrews never tells us is that Jesus instituted a new class of mortal sacerdotal priests to continue offering Him.
For such a doctrine, silence would already be difficult.
In Hebrews, the problem is even greater than silence, because the positive argument of the book points in the opposite direction. The former order of successive sacrificing priests belonged to a covenant that could not perfect the conscience. The New Covenant has a living Priest who cannot die, a sacrifice that has accomplished what the old sacrifices could not accomplish, a testament established through the death of its Testator, and a sanctuary opened to the people through the blood of Jesus.
There is therefore no vacant sacrificial office waiting for Rome to occupy.
There is no absent High Priest requiring sacramental replacement.
There is no unfinished testament awaiting priestly activation.
There is no unoffered victim waiting upon an altar.
There is no unmediated believer requiring another mediator between himself and Christ.
There is Jesus Christ, alive forevermore, at the right hand of God, appearing for His people, interceding for them, mediating the covenant, and bringing them directly into the holiest through His blood.
That is why the question raised by Denzinger ultimately reverses itself.
The decisive issue is not whether the Church may pass judgment upon Hebrews.
The decisive issue is whether the Church will permit Hebrews to pass judgment upon its doctrine of priesthood.
If Rome accepts the inspiration of Hebrews, then it must accept the order established by Hebrews. The old sacrificing priesthood gives way to Christ. The mortal priesthood gives way to the immortal Priest. The repeated sacrifice gives way to the sacrifice of Himself. The inaccessible sanctuary gives way to bold entrance through His blood. The many mediating priests give way to the Son who lives forever and saves to the uttermost those who come unto God by Him.
The New Covenant does not leave God's people priestless.
It gives them a Priest who never dies.
And because He never dies, He never needs to be replaced.
2 Peter 2:3
“And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.”— 2 Peter 2:3
Daniel 2:43
“And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.”— Daniel 2:43
The unusual wording is exactly there: “they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men.” The verse itself does not explicitly identify who “they” are beyond the symbolism of the iron-and-clay kingdom, so any claim that this refers to non-human beings would be an interpretation rather than something Daniel explicitly states.
Matthew 7:15–16
Christ's contrast is between outward appearance and inward reality. They appear as sheep, but inwardly they are wolves; their true nature is exposed by what they produce—their “fruits.”
He repeats it in verse 20:
“Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”— Matthew 7:20
Genesis 3:15
“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed (satans offspring) and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”
This is spoken by God to the serpent. Notice the parallel structure: the serpent has a “seed,” and the woman has a “seed.” The verse itself establishes enmity between the two. In Christian interpretation, the woman's seed ultimately culminates in Christ and His victory over the serpent, but exactly what is meant by the serpent's “seed” has been interpreted in different ways; Scripture does not here explicitly define it as a biological non-human lineage.
Revelation 13:2
“And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.”— Revelation 13:2
The KJV translates the Greek word θρόνος (thronos) as “seat.” Its straightforward meaning is “throne.” So the phrase could very naturally be rendered:
“The dragon gave him his power, and his throne, and great authority.”
That makes the imagery stronger than the modern English sense of merely giving someone a “seat.” Revelation is describing delegated rulership or royal authority. The dragon possesses a thronos and gives that throne, together with his power and great authority, to the beast (his offspring?)
There is also a striking verbal connection later:
“And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness...”— Revelation 16:10
Again, “seat” is θρόνος — throne. Thus Revelation 13:2 gives the beast the dragon's throne, while Revelation 16:10 depicts God's judgment falling upon the beast's throne and kingdom.
For those unfamiliar with the ancient tradition of the fallen angels, their offspring becoming demons, and demons seeking embodiment through possession, Christ warned that “as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be” (Matthew 24:37). Look at the world now, where evil is called good and good evil. Why would “they” seek to “mingle themselves with the seed of men” (Daniel 2:43), and why would false teachers through covetousness “make merchandise of you” (2 Peter 2:3)? The days of Noah bear serious consideration. For the background to these traditions, see the further reading below.
Comments