The theme of the Epistle to the Hebrews is Christ as our High Priest. As such, the \u201cpriestly\u201d verses are very numerous (for example, 2:17, 3:1, 4:14-16, 5:1-10, 6:20, 7:1-28, 8:1-6, 9:11-15, 24-28, 10:19-22). The teaching here acquires much more meaning within Catholic Eucharistic theology, whereas, in evangelical, non-sacramental Protestant interpretation, it is necessarily \u201cspiritualized\u201d away. For nearly all Protestants, Jesus Christ is a Priest only insofar as He dies sacrificially as the \u201cLamb\u201d and does away with the Old Testament notion of animal sacrifice. This is not false but it is a partial truth. Generally speaking, for the Catholic, there is much more of a sense of the ever-present Sacrifice of Calvary, due to the nature of the Mass, rather than considering the Cross a past event alone.<\/span><\/p>\nIn light of the repeated references in Hebrews to Melchizedek as the prototype of Christ\u2019s priesthood (5:6,10, 6:20, 7:1-3,17,20), it follows that this priesthood is perpetual (for ever<\/i>), not one time only. For no one would say, for example, that Christ is King (present tense) if in fact He were only King for a short while in the past. This (Catholic) interpretation is borne out by explicit evidence in Hebrews 7:24-25:<\/span><\/p>\nHe holds his priesthood\u00a0permanently<\/i>, because he continues for ever.\u00a0Consequently<\/i>\u00a0he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he\u00a0always<\/i>\u00a0lives to make intercession for them.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nIf Jesus perpetually\u00a0intercedes<\/i>\u00a0for us, why should He not also\u00a0permanently<\/i>\u00a0present Himself as Sacrifice to His Father? The connecting word,\u00a0consequently<\/i>, appears to affirm this scenario. The very notion, fundamental to all strains of Christian theology, that the Cross and the Blood are efficacious here and now for the redemption of sinners, presupposes a dimension of \u201cpresentness\u201d to the Atonement.<\/span><\/p>\nGranting that premise, it only remains to deny that God could, would, or should truly and actually\u00a0re-present\u00a0<\/i>this one Sacrifice in the Mass. God certainly\u00a0can<\/i>\u00a0do this, since He is omnipotent. He\u00a0wills<\/i>\u00a0to do this because Jesus commanded the observance of the Lord\u2019s Supper (Luke 22:19). Lastly, one can convincingly contend that He\u00a0should<\/i>\u00a0do this in order to graphically \u201cbring home\u201d to Christians His Passion, Crucifixion, and Resurrection, and to impart grace in a real and profound way in Communion. The One Propitiatory Atonement of Calvary is a past event, but the\u00a0appropriation<\/i>\u00a0of its spiritual benefits to Christians is an ongoing process, in which the Mass plays a central role.<\/span><\/p>\nThe Sacrifice of the Mass, like the Real Presence in the Eucharist, is an extension of the Incarnation. Accordingly, there is no rational\u00a0a priori\u00a0<\/i>objection (under monotheistic premises) to the concept of God transcending time and space in order to present Himself to His disciples. Nor is there any denying that the Sacrifice of Calvary is always present to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, God the Son. How then, can anyone deny that God could make the Cross sacramentally present to us as well?<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nNow let\u2019s examine Mr. White\u2019s reading of Hebrews 8 (his words will be in<\/span> blue<\/span>; to read his statement by itself, follow the above link; I have moved the footnotes to where they occur in the text).<\/span><\/p>\nJames White, introductory exegetical comments prior to deeper exegesis of Hebrews 8:6ff.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe immediately preceding argument, leading to the key presentation of the new covenant in Heb. 8:6-13, flows from the identification of Christ with the superior priesthood of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4, cited in Heb. 7:17, 21), leading to the description of Christ as the e;gguoj (<\/span>guarantee\/guarantor<\/i>)[1]<\/span><\/p>\n[1] e;gguoj is a\u00a0<\/span>hapax legomena\u00a0<\/i>in the NT, appearing only in the Apocryphal books of Sirach and 2 Maccabees prior to this. It has semantic connections to avrrabw.n (<\/span>down payment<\/i>) in Eph. 1:14, for in common secular usage it refers to providing security or a guarantee, normally in a financial or business transaction. The\u00a0<\/span>guarantee<\/i>\u00a0then of the\u00a0<\/span>better<\/i>\u00a0covenant is introduced here within the context of Christ\u2019s superior priesthood, His indestructible life, and divine ability to save to the uttermost (7:24-35).<\/span><\/p>\nNothing to quibble with here . . .<\/span><\/p>\nof the\u00a0new covenant<\/i>, and also bringing the first use of krei,ttonoj diaqh,khj, better covenant, in 7:22, \u201cso much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.\u201d Heb. 7:23-8:5 comprises a demonstration of the basis for the apologetic assertion that the new covenant is, in fact, a\u00a0better<\/i>\u00a0covenant (part and parcel of the purpose of the letter), one that flows from the priestly nature of Christ\u2019s work. 7:23-25 proves this by the contrast of the mortal priests with the one priest, Jesus Christ; and 7:26-28 does so in light of the sinfulness of the many priests and hence their repeated sacrifices versus the singular sacrifice of the innocent, undefiled Christ.<\/span><\/p>\nThis is uncontroversial as well (as far as it goes). But of course White does not here deal with my own particular argument, that Jesus holds a perpetual priesthood (\u201cHe holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever\u201d \u2014 7:24; not just a one-time priestly sacrifice of Himself that has no application to His priesthood beyond the time it occurred in history).<\/span><\/p>\nYes, we agree that Jesus sacrificed Himself once on the Cross (7:27). But that is a one-time act, in history. Why, then, does 7:26 continue to refer to Jesus as a \u201chigh priest\u201d in the present tense, \u201cexalted above the heavens\u201d? It is this paradoxical interplay between the one act and the \u201cpresent-ness\u201d of Jesus\u2019 priesthood that suggests a timeless nature of the sacrifice: precisely what Catholics claim is occurring at the Mass: the one-time sacrifice is being made present to us, because Jesus is a priest \u201cforever.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n8:1-6, then, provides first a summary statement of the preceding arguments (i.e., our one high priest has entered into the heavenlies) and then provides the thesis statement for the description of the superiority of the new covenant from Jeremiah 31 with the assertion that Christ has obtained \u201ca more excellent ministry\u201d than that of the old priests, that He is the mediator (in contrast, in context, to Moses, v. 5, Gal. 3:19, John 1:17) of a \u201cbetter covenant\u201d enacted on \u201cbetter promises.\u201d Some brief comments should be offered exegetically on these texts.<\/span><\/p>\nAgain, no significant disagreement, if at all.\u00a0Of course\u00a0<\/i>the new covenant is better, and Jesus surpasses Moses, etc.<\/span><\/p>\nFirst, Christ\u2019s role as\u00a0singular<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0never dying<\/i>\u00a0high priest,\u00a0and the resulting assurance of the perfection of His work<\/i>, is seen by the writer as part of the demonstration of why the covenant of which He is the guarantee is \u201cbetter\u201d (7:23-25). While our English translations normally say something like, \u201cThe\u00a0former<\/i>\u00a0priests existed in greater numbers\u201d at 7:23, the literal reading is simply, \u201cthe priests,\u201d contrasting[2]<\/span><\/p>\n[2] Using the common me.n\/de. form translated \u201con the one hand\/on the other hand.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nthe plural with the singular \u201che\u201d (oi` vs. o`) in v. 24. The work of the many priests is, of necessity, imperfect, for they are \u201cprevented by death\u201d from \u201ccontinuing\u201d or \u201cabiding.\u201d But, in contrast, He \u201cabides forever,\u201d He is no longer subject to death. Hence, He, unlike the old priests under the old covenant, holds His priesthood (which has been shown to be superior in the preceding arguments) avpara,baton,\u00a0permanently<\/i>, or, in some sources,\u00a0without successor<\/i>. Both translations fit the context, for He never lays aside this priesthood, hence, it is \u201cpermanent\u201d in contrast to the former priests. But likewise He has no successor in His office. The entire concept is meant to be in contrast to the old priests and their inherently temporary nature. As a result of the permanence of His priestly position,[3]<\/span><\/p>\n[3] o[qen, \u201cfor which reason.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nSure, but this doesn\u2019t rule out the Catholic claim with regard to Jesus\u2019 priesthood. It makes little sense to me to keep referring to Jesus as a \u201cpriest\u201d in the present tense when He is (according to most Protestants) no longer doing at all what a priest does (sacrifice). Jesus sacrificed Himself as the Lamb of God. That was His priestly act (this is stated explicitly in 7:27, so it cannot be doubted).<\/span><\/p>\nBut if that was strictly a past tense and not perpetual, why keep calling Him a priest after He is glorified in heaven? It would seem much more sensible to refer to His one-time\u00a0priestly act<\/i>, rather than continuing to call Him something denoting a characteristic activity that He is no longer performing.<\/span><\/p>\nChrist has an ability the old priests did not possess. He is\u00a0able to save<\/i>. The profundity of the words may deflect proper attention. The permanence of His life and position as high priest grants to Him the ability to save. He is active in saving, and He is capable of so doing.<\/span><\/p>\nIf He is actively saving men \u2014 present and future tense \u2014 (as is undoubtedly true), but is doing so as\u00a0a priest\u00a0<\/b>then He is presently saving by the sacrifice of Himself (i.e., the priestly act) which is an act made eternally \u201cnow\u201d. Thus we are right to the heart of the Sacrifice of the Mass, which is the same concept. Jesus saves us as a priest. The sacrifice is of both an ongoing and salvific nature. This is the Mass! It\u2019s heartening to see that James White can present it so clearly from the Bible despite his own lack of belief in it.<\/span><\/p>\nAs noted above, the soteriological content of the superiority of Christ\u2019s work as high priest\u00a0and of the new covenant\u00a0<\/i>cannot be dismissed or overlooked.<\/span><\/p>\nI agree 100% That\u2019s why I go to Mass every Sunday and partake of the body and blood of the once-for-all-sacrificed Lamb of God, my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, made sacramentally present by the sublime miracle of transubstantiation, because this sacrifice is my salvation. It\u2019s not often that I get excited about the Mass based on the arguments of an anti-Catholic Baptist who detests the very concept. :-)<\/span><\/p>\nThe\u00a0extent<\/i>\u00a0of His salvific work is noted by the phrase eivj to. pantele.j, which can be translated \u201cforever\u201d in the sense of\u00a0permanence<\/i>, or \u201cto the uttermost\u201d in the sense of\u00a0completely<\/i>, similar, in fact, to avpara,baton above. Owen noted the propriety of seeing\u00a0both<\/i>\u00a0senses in the text:<\/span><\/p>\n[John Owen] \u201cTake the word in the first sense, and the meaning is, that he will not effect or work out this or that part of our salvation, do one thing or another that belongs unto it, and leave what remains unto ourselves or others; but \u2018he is our Rock, and his work is perfect.\u2019 Whatever belongs unto our entire, complete salvation, he is able to effect it. The general notion of the most that are called Christians lies directly against this truth\u2026.That this salvation is durable, perpetual, eternal\u2026 and there is nothing hinders but that we may take the words in such a comprehensive sense as to include the meaning of both these interpretations. He is able to save completely as to all parts, fully as to all causes, and for ever in duration.\u201d[4]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n[4] John Owen,\u00a0An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Hebrews 6:1-7:28<\/i>, in\u00a0The Works of John Owen<\/i>, William Goold, ed. (Ages Digital Library, 2000), pp. 646-647.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nOf course Jesus is \u201cable to save completely.\u201d We Catholics adhere to\u00a0sola gratia\u00a0<\/i>just as much as Protestants do. But that doesn\u2019t mean that the Eucharist is irrelevant as a sacramental means to receive this salvation that was accomplished at the cross. Jesus showed this when He gave His exposition recorded in John 6. He makes it clear that what He means by \u201cbread\u201d is His body:<\/span><\/p>\n. . . the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. (John 6:51)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nIn this verse, even White has to concede that bread = flesh. Otherwise, it would mean that what won our salvation on the cross was literally a chunk of bread, rather than the precious body of our Savior and Redeemer. So He means this quite literally: the bread\u00a0is<\/b>\u00a0His body. That\u2019s why He states two verses later:<\/span><\/p>\n. . . unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life . . . (John 6:53-54)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nAnd four verse later, He reverts back to speaking of \u201cbread\u201d as His body:<\/span><\/p>\nThis is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died [i.e., not merely natural bread]; he who eats this bread will live for ever. (John 8:58)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nIt\u2019s very clear (it could not be any\u00a0clearer<\/i>\u00a0than it is):<\/span><\/p>\n1. Bread = Jesus\u2019 flesh (Jn 6:51)<\/span>
\n2. Eating Jesus\u2019 flesh and blood gives eternal life (Jn 6:53-54)<\/span>
\n3. Bread = Jesus\u2019 body; which, partaken, causes one to live forever (Jn 8:58)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nSo the equation of Jesus\u2019 body and the bread is stated outright (Jn 6:51) and then by inexorable simple deduction:<\/span><\/p>\nA. Jesus\u2019 Flesh and Blood give eternal life.<\/span>
\nB. Bread gives eternal life.<\/span>
\nC. Therefore, Bread = Jesus\u2019 Flesh and Blood (for how can mere bread cause one to attain eternal life?).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nJust as the Father\u2019s will for the Son revealed in John 6:38-39 demands\u00a0perfection<\/i>\u00a0in His role as Savior, so too here the very same soteriological perfection and completion is central to the work of the eternal high priest. This is brought out with strong force in the rest of the verse, for the author indicates both the\u00a0object<\/i>\u00a0of the salvific work and the\u00a0basis<\/i>\u00a0thereof, and both are intensely \u201cpriestly\u201d statements. The singular priest saves \u201cthose who draw near to God through Him.\u201d This clearly harkens back to the people who drew near in worship to God in the temple, and their representative, the high priest on the day of atonement. There is\u00a0specificity<\/i>\u00a0to the salvific work of the priest. He does not make a general plan of salvation\u00a0available<\/i>, He saves a\u00a0specific people\u00a0<\/i>(cf. Matt. 1:21). And secondly, \u201cHe always lives to make intercession for them\u201d points to the same perfection of the high priest. His indestructible life means He never lays aside His priestly role, hence, since the high priest\u00a0interceded<\/i>\u00a0(evntugca,nein, Rom 8:34) for those for whom He offered sacrifice, Christ ever lives to make intercession for those who draw near to God through Him, resulting in the perfection of their salvation.\u00a0The work of intercession guarantees the salvation of a specific people<\/i>\u00a0in this passage. This is vital to remember as we look at the key text in Hebrews 8.<\/span><\/p>\nNo quibble here; Jesus saves utterly as a result of His sacrifice on the cross.<\/p>\n
Similar themes appear in 7:26-28, including the perfect character of the high priest (v. 26), which establishes another element of His supremacy over the old priests, for He does not have to offer sacrifice for His own sins, and then the sins of the people. But here also appears a concept that will be expanded upon greatly at a later point, for the author says, \u201cbecause this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.\u201d Self-offering is yet another aspect of what sets the priesthood of Christ apart, for obvious reasons, from the priesthood of old. The high priest presents the offering in His own body, a concept expanded upon in chapter nine. But He did so \u201conce for all.\u201d The sacrifice is a singularity in time, for the author uses the temporal adverb, evfa,pax, to strongly emphasize this concept. The old priests sacrificed often for themselves, while Christ offered one sacrifice (Himself) for the people.<\/span><\/p>\nNo disagreement to speak of here. The sacrifice was once and for all, historically-speaking. But for God, it is still \u201cnow\u201d and there is a sense expressed in the Bible that it is constantly made \u201cpresent\u201d to us. It was intended to be a perpetual rite and remembrance, because Jesus commanded us to observe the Lord\u2019s Supper. Paul, too, recounts a eucharistic tradition that he \u201creceived\u201d and \u201cdelivered\u201d (1 Cor 11:23). He noted that Jesus said, \u201cThis cup is the new covenant in my blood\u201d (1 Cor 11:24; cf. Lk 22:20, Mk 14:24, Matthew 26:28). Martin Luther made an excellent exegetical argument pertaining to these verses:<\/span><\/p>\n[T]his spirit will not believe what the Word of God says, but only what he sees and feels. What a fine faith . . . The text is too clear and too powerful . . . For this word more forcefully and powerfully than any before requires that the blood is in the sacrament . . . this word of Luke and Paul is clearer than sunlight and more overpowering than thunder. First, no one can deny that he speaks of the cup, since he says, \u201cThis is the cup.\u201d Secondly, he calls it the cup of the new testament. This is overwhelming, for it could not be a new testament by means and on account of wine alone.<\/span><\/p>\n(Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments<\/i>, 1525; Luther\u2019s Works<\/em> [LW], 40, 216-217)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nIn the same work, Luther makes a fascinating argument that a symbolic Eucharist turns the sacrament into a futile work of man rather than a grace and blessing from God:<\/span><\/p>\nHe thinks one does not see that out of the word of Christ he makes a pure commandment and law which accomplishes nothing more than to tell and bid us to remember and acknowledge him. Furthermore, he makes this acknowledgment nothing else than a work that we do, while we receive nothing else than bread and wine.<\/span><\/p>\n(Ibid.<\/i>, LW, 40, 206)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nJesus\u2019 sacrifice is not only present to us on earth, but also in heaven. In the next section of the same chapter in my book, I noted that an \u201caltar\u201d is mentioned as in heaven, in the book of Revelation many times (6:9, 8:3,5, 9:13, 11:1, 14:18, 16:7). Why is this, if altars and priesthood ceased with the one sacrifice of Jesus? This is after Jesus\u2019 resurrection and ascension. Nor is it just Jesus at this altar in heaven. We are told that the \u201cprayers of the saints\u201d are being offered there (5:8-9, 8:3-4). Altars are also mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament.<\/span><\/p>\nSt. Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:14-22, in an explicitly eucharistic passage, uses language suggesting that he sees the Eucharist as a sacrifice involving an altar (hence priesthood, hence the Sacrifice of the Mass): He mentions the \u201caltar\u201d of the Old Covenant in 10:18 and makes a direct analogy with the altar of the new covenant in 10:21:<\/span><\/p>\nYou cannot drink of the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nEven Baptists like James White (and many other Protestants) have not completely avoided the language of priestly sacrifice, since they still speak of the \u201cLord\u2019s table\u201d and even an \u201caltar call.\u201d\u00a0What<\/i>\u00a0altar? That is the language of priesthood and sacrifice. So even non-sacramental Protestants can\u2019t help retaining a remnant of New Testament eucharistic and sacrificial, priestly talk. Hebrews 13:10 states that \u201cwe have an altar.\u201d Again, why, if the old system of priesthood is gone and the only priesthood of the New Covenant is that of Christ at Calvary? This is the New Covenant!<\/span><\/p>\nLastly, I will close with the final words of the chapter here considered, from my first book, showing, I think, that the Sacrifice of the Mass is in perfect accord with the New Testament indications, and that James White has a lot of explaining to do.<\/span><\/p>\nHe is welcome to do so. I have agreed with much of his presentation because it does not conflict with Catholic teaching (it is simply\u00a0incomplete<\/i>; purged of all clear-as-day New Testament sacramentalism). But he would disagree with much of my exposition above. We don\u2019t know\u00a0why<\/i>\u00a0he would unless he tells us.<\/span><\/p>\n[T]he climactic scene of this entire glorious portrayal of heaven occurs in Rev 5:1-7. Verse 6 describes\u00a0a Lamb standing as though it had been slain<\/i>. Since the Lamb (Jesus, of course) is revealed as sitting\u00a0in the midst of\u00a0<\/i>God\u2019s throne (5:6, 7:17, 22:1,3; cf. Matthew 19:28, 25:31, Hebrews 1:8), which is in front of the\u00a0golden altar\u00a0<\/i>(8:3), then it appears that the presentation of Christ to the Father as a Sacrifice is an ongoing (from God\u2019s perspective, timeless) occurrence, precisely as in Catholic teaching. Thus the Mass is no more than what occurs in heaven, according to the clear revealed word of Scripture. When Hebrews speaks of a sacrifice made\u00a0once<\/i>\u00a0(7:27), this is from a purely human, historical perspective (which Catholicism acknowledges in holding that the Mass is a \u201cre-presentation\u201d of the one sacrifice at Calvary). However, there is a transcendent aspect of the Sacrifice as well.<\/span><\/p>\nJesus is referred to as the\u00a0Lamb<\/i>\u00a028 times throughout Revelation (compared to four times in the rest of the New Testament: John 1:29,36, Acts 8:32, 1 Peter 1:19). Why, in Revelation (of all places), if the Crucifixion is a past event, and the Christian\u2019s emphasis ought to be on the resurrected, glorious, kingly Jesus, as is stressed in Protestantism (as evidenced by a widespread disdain for, crucifixes)? Obviously, the heavenly emphasis is on Jesus\u2019 Sacrifice, which is communicated by God to John as present and \u201cnow\u201d (Revelation 5:6; cf. Hebrews 7:24). The very notion of\u00a0lamb<\/i>\u00a0possesses inherent sacrificial and priestly connotations in the Bible.<\/span><\/p>\nIf this aspect is of such paramount importance even in the afterlife, then certainly it should be just as real and significant to us. The Sacrifice of the Mass bridges all the gaps of space and time between our Crucified Savior on the Cross and ourselves. Therefore, nothing at all in the Mass is improper, implausible, or unscriptural, which is why this doctrine was virtually unanimously accepted until the 16th century.<\/span><\/p>\nIn conclusion, then, it is, I think, evident that the Book of Hebrews and the scenes in heaven in the Book of Revelation are suffused with a worldview and \u201catmosphere\u201d which is very \u201cCatholic.\u201d The Mass, rightly understood, fulfills every aspect of the above passages, most particularly in the sense of Christ as the ultimate Priest for whom the earthly priest \u201cstands in,\u201d and in the timeless and transcendent character of the Sacrifice \u201cmade present\u201d at Mass, but never deemed to be an addition to, or duplication of, the one bloody Sacrifice of our Lord at Calvary.<\/span><\/p>\n(p. 71 in 1stBooks edition; pp. 99-100 in Sophia edition)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"(31 March 2004) * * * Reply to a post from\u00a0James White\u2019s website. * * * * * \u201cA Comparison of Exegesis\u201d Bishop\u00a0James White quoted from my book,\u00a0A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\u00a0(first edition, published by 1stBooks Library, 2001, from Chapter Five: \u201cThe Sacrifice of the Mass: \u2018A Lamb . . . Slain’\u201d), pp. 69-70 (pp. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":6085,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[58,1068],"tags":[416,595,418,1463,2366,384,417,2337,385],"class_list":["post-6082","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-eucharist-liturgy","category-james-white","tag-catholic-mass","tag-consecration","tag-eucharistic-sacrifice","tag-eucharistic-theology","tag-james-white","tag-real-presence","tag-sacrifice-of-the-mass","tag-the-mass","tag-transubstantiation"],"yoast_head":"\n
Sacrifice of the Mass and Hebrews 8 (vs. James White)<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Protestants retain a remnant of New Testament eucharistic and sacrificial, priestly thought. Hebrews 13:10 states that "we have an altar." Why?\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/sacrifice-of-the-mass-hebrews-8-vs-james-white.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sacrifice of the Mass and Hebrews 8 (vs. James White)\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Protestants retain a remnant of New Testament eucharistic and sacrificial, priestly thought. Hebrews 13:10 states that "we have an altar." Why?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/sacrifice-of-the-mass-hebrews-8-vs-james-white.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-02-11T16:26:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-27T23:37:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/02\/Cover-555-x-831.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"513\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"768\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/sacrifice-of-the-mass-hebrews-8-vs-james-white.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/sacrifice-of-the-mass-hebrews-8-vs-james-white.html\",\"name\":\"Sacrifice of the Mass and Hebrews 8 (vs. James White)\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2016-02-11T16:26:15+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-27T23:37:47+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"Protestants retain a remnant of New Testament eucharistic and sacrificial, priestly thought. Hebrews 13:10 states that \\\"we have an altar.\\\" Why?\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/sacrifice-of-the-mass-hebrews-8-vs-james-white.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/sacrifice-of-the-mass-hebrews-8-vs-james-white.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/sacrifice-of-the-mass-hebrews-8-vs-james-white.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sacrifice of the Mass and Hebrews 8 (vs. James White)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sacrifice of the Mass and Hebrews 8 (vs. James White)","description":"Protestants retain a remnant of New Testament eucharistic and sacrificial, priestly thought. Hebrews 13:10 states that \"we have an altar.\" Why?","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/sacrifice-of-the-mass-hebrews-8-vs-james-white.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sacrifice of the Mass and Hebrews 8 (vs. James White)","og_description":"Protestants retain a remnant of New Testament eucharistic and sacrificial, priestly thought. Hebrews 13:10 states that \"we have an altar.\" Why?","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/sacrifice-of-the-mass-hebrews-8-vs-james-white.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2016-02-11T16:26:15+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-27T23:37:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":513,"height":768,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/02\/Cover-555-x-831.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/sacrifice-of-the-mass-hebrews-8-vs-james-white.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/sacrifice-of-the-mass-hebrews-8-vs-james-white.html","name":"Sacrifice of the Mass and Hebrews 8 (vs. James White)","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2016-02-11T16:26:15+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-27T23:37:47+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"Protestants retain a remnant of New Testament eucharistic and sacrificial, priestly thought. Hebrews 13:10 states that \"we have an altar.\" Why?","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/sacrifice-of-the-mass-hebrews-8-vs-james-white.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/sacrifice-of-the-mass-hebrews-8-vs-james-white.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/sacrifice-of-the-mass-hebrews-8-vs-james-white.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sacrifice of the Mass and Hebrews 8 (vs. James White)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6082","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6082"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6082\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6085"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6082"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6082"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6082"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"Cover](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/02\/Cover-555-x-831.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n