Did the Pope change or misquote the Bible?

[Phil12123]

In his 1995 bestselling book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Pope John Paul II made the following reference to the Mass on page 139:

              The Church is the instrument of man’s salvation. It both contains
              and continually draws upon the mystery of Christ’s redemptive
              sacrifice.  Through the shedding of His own blood, Jesus Christ
                  **constantly “enters into God’s sanctuary thus obtaining eternal
              redemption”** (cf. Hebrews 9:12).

Did the Pope change or misquote Heb. 9:12? It would appear that three alterations have so distorted the meaning of that verse that the pope’s new version teaches the very opposite of what the original did. Here is what Heb. 9:12, in context, really says:

    11. But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come to be, passing through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not belonging to this creation,
    **12. he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, having obtaining eternal redemption.**
    13. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the sprinkling of a heifer's ashes can sanctify those who are defiled so that their flesh is cleansed,
    14. how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to worship the living God.

To review:

The Pope: Through the shedding of His own blood, Jesus Christ
**constantly “enters into God’s sanctuary thus obtaining eternal
redemption” **(cf. Hebrews 9:12).

The Bible: Hebrews 9:12: "he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption."

The Pope’s changes:
1. Changes the tense of the verb from past tense (“entered”) to present tense (“enters”).
2. Omits the crucial words “once for all” which tell how often He “entered.”
3. Uses, instead, the word “constantly” to describe how often He “enters.”
4. Changes the tense of the final phrase from “having obtained” to “thus obtaining,” from past tense to present tense.

Comments, anyone?

 

[zarthan]

In his 1995 bestselling book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Pope John Paul II made the following reference to the Mass on page 139:

              The Church is the instrument of man’s salvation. It both contains
              and continually draws upon the mystery of Christ’s redemptive
              sacrifice.  Through the shedding of His own blood, Jesus Christ
                  **constantly “enters into God’s sanctuary thus obtaining eternal
              redemption”** (cf. Hebrews 9:12).

Did the Pope change or misquote Heb. 9:12? It would appear that three alterations have so distorted the meaning of that verse that the pope’s new version teaches the very opposite of what the original did. Here is what Heb. 9:12, in context, really says:

    11. But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come to be, passing through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not belonging to this creation,
    **12. he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, having obtaining eternal redemption.**
    13. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the sprinkling of a heifer's ashes can sanctify those who are defiled so that their flesh is cleansed,
    14. how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to worship the living God.

To review:

The Pope: Through the shedding of His own blood, Jesus Christ
constantly “enters into God’s sanctuary thus obtaining eternal
redemption” (cf. Hebrews 9:12).

The Bible: Hebrews 9:12: "he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption."

The Pope’s changes:
1. Changes the tense of the verb from past tense (“entered”) to present tense (“enters”).
2. Omits the crucial words “once for all” which tell how often He “entered.”
3. Uses, instead, the word “constantly” to describe how often He “enters.”
4, Changes the tense of the final phrase from “having obtained” to “thus obtaining,” from past tense to present tense.

Comments, anyone?

If this is a quotation from his book, and if this the intention of what he meant, then it is disturbing that he could be so misinformed about our faith. Since we do not know if the first two premises are correct, we can not assume anything as of yet.

 

[smithm29]

First, forgive me for posting. I almost never post here because my life is ridiculously busy and I don’t really have time to follow up on posts. I saw this and wanted to add something.

In a technical sense, note that he uses “cf”, which means “compare,” rather than “I have directly cited”. There is no misquotation, intentional or not. He even uses the correct abbreviation to ensure that you can’t be confused about the intent.

However, I think that the biggest part of the confusion seems to be a misunderstanding of God’s nature. God is timeless, eternal. I don’t mean immortal, though he certainly is immortal. I mean that God exists outside of time. Time is, for God, another aspect of creation. He experiences the entire continuum from the beginning to the end all at once. He is being crucified in God’s now. Adam is sinning in God’s now. My great grandchildren (if I have any) are being born in God’s now. Remember, “Before Abraham was, I AM.” CS Lewis has a nice talk available on the BBC about God’s timelessness where he compares it to the ability of an author to step away from a story for years and then come back and change something in the exact same spot. Not a perfect analogy, but it helps.

So the author of Hebrews is speaking of the act of redemption in man’s time, which has passed and happened once and for all. John Paul is speaking of the act in God’s time, which is eternal and timeless. The pope hasn’t completely changed the meaning of what is said in Hebrews. He’s merely stated it in another context- a context that has immediate relevance when considering the mass and how grace is effected (yes, effected) through the sacrament.

 

[Thoma25]

The Sacrifice of Calvary was once-and-for-all. It was an historical event, which St. Paul describes as Christ’s entering the sanctuary. As Christ is God, it was an event that exists outside of the constraints of time. In this way, the Sacrifice is re-presented every day at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, so that the merits of Christ’s Sacrifice are applied to us who exist within space and time.

The Sacrifice of Calvary occurred only once in a bloody manner, but is made present to us daily in an unbloody manner through the Mass. Perhaps, with a poetic/philosophical license, we may see Christ “constantly entering” into the Sanctuary due to its timeless nature, while not contradicting the veracity of the one-time historical event.

 

[runningdude]

The key are the two little letters “cf.”, which means that the quote is inspired by, but not exactly from Hebrews, referring us back to the Epistle to learn more.

From the Epistle, we learned that Christ died “once for all”. Thus in John Paul II tells us that Christ died once, and the Church constantly draws on this singular sacrifice.

PS. I see I’ve been beaten to the punch, lol

 

[MtGargano]

the Pope is referencing the mass…there is mass constantly…it is calvary repeated…this does not contradict Pauls one time reference to calvary in those Hebrews verses.

God Bless

 

[Crumpy]

Just a thought. I don’t think that the Pope can change the Bible. The previous posts explain the general idea.

We need to approach scripture with reverence and gratitude. This is quite a question. We need to keep an open mind even if we think something is amiss. We aren’t the first to read the Bible, etc. It’s been read billions of time.

 

[mcrow]

This is just another case of thinking too much. The “cf” clearly means that he’s not quoting that verse but what he said is inspired by it, thus the perceived inaccuracies.

 

[zarthan]

Regardless of how we understand this quotation, those who are non-Catholic need to understand that it is the Catholic church which has fulfilled the prophecy of Malachi 1:11 from her very beginning:

“For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.” (NASB)

 

[Bookcat]

the Pope is referencing the mass…there is mass constantly…it is calvary repeated…this does not contradict Pauls one time reference to calvary in those Hebrews verses.

God Bless

made present…that is the word to use…

Catechism:

1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body.

for more…vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm#V

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Perhaps the context of the Pope’s writing is in that redemption is obtained, sin continues. Jesus appears, for us, to affect the effect. The war has been won, the battles rage on.

It is Catholic theology that we are offered cleansing from the inside out unlike the Protestant theology that states we are “covered” by a imputing of Jesus’ righteousness. We then wouldn’t need to be cleansed from the inside out but this seems incorrect because an imputation of Jesus’ righteousness covering us leaves us lost in our sins in our soul which is where the entering by Jesus on our behalf before the Father offers His merits for our sins as the Old Testament priests did in the Temple. This cleansing is ongoing due to sin being an ongoing reality.

 

[Edward_H]

It’s been said this way:

All events in time are experienced by God the Father as present moments. Thus the sacrifice of Jesus is always present to His Father. Jesus’s sacrifice then is not finite or fixed in time. The Mass is ongoing. His salvific action is saving us all the time.

 

[Church_Militant]

He’s actually speaking of the Mass which is the re-presentation of that same sacrifice of Christ, which is, in fact, timeless because its efficacy travels both back and forward in time, which, to the best of my knowledge, is consistent with most Christian faith communities doctrines on that singular sacrifice.

Because those same communities have no Mass, they lack that ultimate miraculous intimacy of that sacrifice in the Eucharist.

I have an article on my blog that might help you understand better.

The Eucharist IS Scriptural

 

[Phil12123]

In a technical sense, note that he uses “cf”, which means “compare,” rather than “I have directly cited”. There is no misquotation, intentional or not. He even uses the correct abbreviation to ensure that you can’t be confused about the intent.

Yes, I noticed the “cf.” But the Pope uses quotation marks, as if the quote is taken from the verse he is referencing. If not taken from that verse, where did the quote come from? Did he make it up himself? And yes, I am “comparing” the quote with that verse, and what I find is that the two express opposite, contradictory thoughts. So, if he is not changing the verse or misquoting it, he certainly is confusing me with it. The verse emphasizes the once-for-all singularity of Christ’s one sacrifice, which cannot be repeated, re-offered, or even re-presented, just remembered. It occurred ONE time and was offered to the Father on our behalf ONE time. Then He sat down, indicating He finished that portion of His high priestly duties. In His seated position at the Father’s right hand, He then performs His duty of intercession (Heb. 7:25). His one, once-for-all sacrifice has been completed. It is a done deal. Again, we do not repeat it, just remember it, with what He told us to do “in remembrance” of Him and His one sacrifice—the Lord’s Supper.

However, I think that the biggest part of the confusion seems to be a misunderstanding of God’s nature. God is timeless, eternal. I don’t mean immortal, though he certainly is immortal. I mean that God exists outside of time. Time is, for God, another aspect of creation. He experiences the entire continuum from the beginning to the end all at once. He is being crucified in God’s now. Adam is sinning in God’s now. My great grandchildren (if I have any) are being born in God’s now. Remember, “Before Abraham was, I AM.” CS Lewis has a nice talk available on the BBC about God’s timelessness where he compares it to the ability of an author to step away from a story for years and then come back and change something in the exact same spot. Not a perfect analogy, but it helps.

So the author of Hebrews is speaking of the act of redemption in man’s time, which has passed and happened once and for all. John Paul is speaking of the act in God’s time, which is eternal and timeless. The pope hasn’t completely changed the meaning of what is said in Hebrews. He’s merely stated it in another context- a context that has immediate relevance when considering the mass and how grace is effected (yes, effected) through the sacrament.

Yes, I agree that the author of Hebrews is speaking of the act of redemption in man’s time, which has passed and happened once and for all. And obviously Hebrews is written for our benefit, not God’s. He is the author, not the audience. But I don’t see how John Paul is speaking of the act in God’s time, which is not really the point. Is it proper to say Christ “constantly enters” the heavenly sanctuary, in God’s timing, to effect our redemption, in our timing? It mixes contexts, sort of like, mixed metaphors or apples and oranges.

Furthermore, the bottom line affect is to support some sort of continuation of the once-for-all sacrifice and its once-for-all offering to the Father in the Mass today. What if the whole point of Hebrews is the opposite, namely, there can be no such continuation. It was once-for-all, not once for then and once for today and once for tomorrow. Doesn’t any continuation in the Mass today completely violate the whole sense of Hebrews? Don’t today’s priests offering His once-for-all sacrifice in any unbloody manner, day after day, week after week, millions of times a year, look more like the O.T. priests who continued to offer sacrifices that could never take away sin? What if no such continuation is what God wants, but only a continual remembering of that once-for-all sacrifice?

 

[Linda_Marie]

It is not Calvary repeated over and over again. It is the Eternal Calvary present on the altar when the Eucharist is consecrated.

Catholics have been celebrating Mass since Christ instructed the Apostles at the Last Supper to “do this as a memorial sacrifice for me”. The term memorial sacrifice had a special significance to the Jews.

Passover is a memorial sacrifice. The Jews believed that Passover was a once for all event that transcends time and that every Passover is the exact same Passover as when the Lord’s angel killed all the first-born of Egypt and passed over the homes marked with the blood of the sacrifice.

Passover Seder
While the Jewish people have celebrated Passover annually since the time of Moses, in reality, there was only one Passover. It occurred almost 3500 years ago down in Egypt. It was there, at that time, that a lamb was sacrificed, and the blood was applied to each doorpost and lintel. When done in faith and in obedience to God’s command, that home was “passed over” by the death angel and the firstborn was spared. All subsequent observances over the centuries were memorials of that one and only first Passover.

This is why Christ chose Passover to be crucified. The parallel to the feast they were celebrating was unmistakable to them, all being practicing Jews.

From the Catechism:

1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet ‘in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.’"135

“Do this in memory of me”

1341 The command of Jesus to repeat his actions and words “until he comes” does not only ask us to remember Jesus and what he did. It is directed at the liturgical celebration, by the apostles and their successors, of the memorial of Christ, of his life, of his death, of his Resurrection, and of his intercession in the presence of the Father.167

The sacrificial memorial of Christ and of his Body, the Church

1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial.

1363 In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men.184 In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them.

 

[Edward_H]

Yes, I noticed the “cf.” But the Pope uses quotation marks, as if the quote is taken from the verse he is referencing. If not taken from that verse, where did the quote come from? Did he make it up himself? And yes, I am “comparing” the quote with that verse, and what I find is that the two express opposite, contradictory thoughts. So, if he is not changing the verse or misquoting it, he certainly is confusing me with it. The verse emphasizes the once-for-all singularity of Christ’s one sacrifice, which cannot be repeated, re-offered, or even re-presented, just remembered. It occurred ONE time and was offered to the Father on our behalf ONE time. Then He sat down, indicating He finished that portion of His high priestly duties. In His seated position at the Father’s right hand, He then performs His duty of intercession (Heb. 7:25). His one, once-for-all sacrifice has been completed. It is a done deal. Again, we do not repeat it, just remember it, with what He told us to do “in remembrance” of Him and His one sacrifice—the Lord’s Supper.

Yes, I agree that the author of Hebrews is speaking of the act of redemption in man’s time, which has passed and happened once and for all. And obviously Hebrews is written for our benefit, not God’s. He is the author, not the audience. But I don’t see how John Paul is speaking of the act in God’s time, which is not really the point. Is it proper to say Christ “constantly enters” the heavenly sanctuary, in God’s timing, to effect our redemption, in our timing? It mixes contexts, sort of like, mixed metaphors or apples and oranges.

Furthermore, the bottom line affect is to support some sort of continuation of the once-for-all sacrifice and its once-for-all offering to the Father in the Mass today. What if the whole point of Hebrews is the opposite, namely, there can be no such continuation. It was once-for-all, not once for then and once for today and once for tomorrow. Doesn’t any continuation in the Mass today completely violate the whole sense of Hebrews? Don’t today’s priests offering His once-for-all sacrifice in any unbloody manner, day after day, week after week, millions of times a year, look more like the O.T. priests who continued to offer sacrifices that could never take away sin? What if no such continuation is what God wants, but only a continual remembering of that once-for-all sacrifice?

Wrong. It’s not a “done deal”. That’s the Protestant error…fixing God in time. Putting God on our terms. This error is the beginning of many problems for the Protestants…predestination, once saved, can we sin again, etc. etc.

Are you saying that God’s actions are fixed, limited in time? I hope not. His saving act continues and through the hands, mind, voice of the priest are made present for us again. Jesus’s saving act is always present to the Father.

The Divine Liturgy - the Mass - continues in heaven always, and due to the universality of the Catholic Church around the world, continues 24/7.

 

[smithm29]

Furthermore, the bottom line affect is to support some sort of continuation of the once-for-all sacrifice and its once-for-all offering to the Father in the Mass today. What if the whole point of Hebrews is the opposite, namely, there can be no such continuation. It was once-for-all, not once for then and once for today and once for tomorrow. Doesn’t any continuation in the Mass today completely violate the whole sense of Hebrews? Don’t today’s priests offering His once-for-all sacrifice in any unbloody manner, day after day, week after week, millions of times a year, look more like the O.T. priests who continued to offer sacrifices that could never take away sin? What if no such continuation is what God wants, but only a continual remembering of that once-for-all sacrifice?

I think you’re missing the concept of timeless and eternal again. God is not limited by time in the way you’re trying to make him out to be (see below). He experiences all of time in his existence. He is eternal and outside of time. He is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end-- implicit in there is that he is everything in between, too. If something happens, God experiences it always, eternally. He says I AM THAT I AM or I AM HE WHO IS, or I AM WHO AM. He is ontological truth. He is eternal being, existing at all times in all places. All things that happen, happen for him eternally.

Because of that, Christ’s sacrifice, for God, IS. By that I mean that it is ontological truth from the moment of creation to the moment of judgement through the eternity after time. Mass doesn’t re-create this or continue it within the context of time as we experience it. Mass brings the sacrifice into the present for us. It offers us a taste of that eternal truth. It makes God’s reality our reality.

This is a matter of definitions. Either God is perfect or he is not. In order for God to be perfect, he must be eternal. If he is eternal, if follows that he experiences everything, always. If God is eternal, than all of time is ontological truth for him. If all of time is present, is truth, or simply IS, then his power can make that truth present for us. That is what the mass does, and that is what the pope is saying. We don’t do anything to recreate the sacrifice. We are allowed, by the grace of God, to be present as he is present. We are allowed to re-present it as he makes his existence known to us and shares his reality with us.

NOTE: I’m sorry if that line seems uncharitable- I don’t mean for it to be. I don’t think that you’re* intentionally trying to limit God*. I meant to make the point that this argument against the mass (which you aren’t the first to make), has the effect of limiting God by binding him into the context of time, which is his creation. I don’t doubt your piety or your faith, and I don’t mean to be insulting. I do hope that, rather than immediately responding, you can take some time to think about the idea of God being outside of time and how that affects the idea of mass making Calvary present.

 

[Todd_Easton]

The notion that “Jesus Christ constantly ‘enters into God’s sanctuary’” is beyond my feeble understanding; how can someone constantly enter into a place without ever leaving the place? If the English translation is accurate, perhaps the pope meant that, because Jesus Christ still bears the wounds of Calvary in his risen and glorified body (cf. John 20:27; Revelation 5:6), now that Christ is seated at God’s right hand, whenever God looks upon Christ, which must be constantly, he is constantly reminded of his Son’s sacrifice on the Cross for our redemption.

 

[NHInsider]

Yes, I noticed the “cf.” But the Pope uses quotation marks, as if the quote is taken from the verse he is referencing. If not taken from that verse, where did the quote come from? Did he make it up himself? And yes, I am “comparing” the quote with that verse, and what I find is that the two express opposite, contradictory thoughts. So, if he is not changing the verse or misquoting it, he certainly is confusing me with it. The verse emphasizes the once-for-all singularity of Christ’s one sacrifice, which cannot be repeated, re-offered, or even re-presented, just remembered. It occurred ONE time and was offered to the Father on our behalf ONE time. Then He sat down, indicating He finished that portion of His high priestly duties. In His seated position at the Father’s right hand, He then performs His duty of intercession (Heb. 7:25). His one, once-for-all sacrifice has been completed. It is a done deal. Again, we do not repeat it, just remember it, with what He told us to do “in remembrance” of Him and His one sacrifice—the Lord’s Supper.

This is the classic Reformist view of the Lord’s Supper - a purely symbolic re-enactment that reminds us of what Jesus did on the Cross. Catholics believe that the Eucharist is not just a symbol but is an actual participation in the one sacrifice. To use modern terminology, the Mass is a point in space-time that makes it possible for all people to stand at the foot of the Cross and sit in the Upper Room. (In this way it continues the action of the Passover, which made it possible for every faithful Jew to participate in the Exodus.)

Is it proper to say Christ “constantly enters” the heavenly sanctuary, in God’s timing, to effect our redemption, in our timing? It mixes contexts, sort of like, mixed metaphors or apples and oranges.

Sort of like - John’s Vision of the Heavenly liturgy?

Furthermore, the bottom line affect is to support some sort of continuation of the once-for-all sacrifice and its once-for-all offering to the Father in the Mass today. What if the whole point of Hebrews is the opposite, namely, there can be no such continuation. It was once-for-all, not once for then and once for today and once for tomorrow. Doesn’t any continuation in the Mass today completely violate the whole sense of Hebrews? Don’t today’s priests offering His once-for-all sacrifice in any unbloody manner, day after day, week after week, millions of times a year, look more like the O.T. priests who continued to offer sacrifices that could never take away sin? What if no such continuation is what God wants, but only a continual remembering of that once-for-all sacrifice?

No, the whole point of Hebrews is that the sacrifices of the Old Covenant have been fulfilled in the Sacrifice of the New Covenant. The daily sacrifices of the Temple are no longer needed because the Perpetual Sacrifice has been offered. We have a High Priest who is also the Lamb. Our earthly priests represent Him offering Himself to the Father.

The Heavenly sanctuary is the focus here - both in Hebrews and in Pope John Paul’s book and in the Mass. The once-for-all sacrifice of Calvary is offered perpetually and eternally on the altar in Heaven (see Revelation - the Lion of Judah is the Lamb sacrficed from the foundation of the earth.) When we go to Mass, we participate in the eternal Heavenly liturgy. One of the requirements of the Passover was that everyone consumed the flesh of the Paschal sacrifice. In the Eucharist Jesus made it possible for us to consume the sacrifice of His flesh, that commandment He had given (John 6) that was so disconcerting that many of His followers abandoned Him.

 

[FatherOfTwelve]

Yes, I noticed the “cf.” But the Pope uses quotation marks, as if the quote is taken from the verse he is referencing. If not taken from that verse, where did the quote come from? Did he make it up himself? And yes, I am “comparing” the quote with that verse, and what I find is that the two express opposite, contradictory thoughts. So, if he is not changing the verse or misquoting it, he certainly is confusing me with it. The verse emphasizes the once-for-all singularity of Christ’s one sacrifice, which cannot be repeated, re-offered, or even re-presented, just remembered. It occurred ONE time and was offered to the Father on our behalf ONE time. Then He sat down, indicating He finished that portion of His high priestly duties. In His seated position at the Father’s right hand, He then performs His duty of intercession (Heb. 7:25). His one, once-for-all sacrifice has been completed. It is a done deal. Again, we do not repeat it, just remember it, with what He told us to do “in remembrance” of Him and His one sacrifice—the Lord’s Supper.

Yes, I agree that the author of Hebrews is speaking of the act of redemption in man’s time, which has passed and happened once and for all. And obviously Hebrews is written for our benefit, not God’s. He is the author, not the audience. But I don’t see how John Paul is speaking of the act in God’s time, which is not really the point. Is it proper to say Christ “constantly enters” the heavenly sanctuary, in God’s timing, to effect our redemption, in our timing? It mixes contexts, sort of like, mixed metaphors or apples and oranges.

Furthermore, the bottom line affect is to support some sort of continuation of the once-for-all sacrifice and its once-for-all offering to the Father in the Mass today. What if the whole point of Hebrews is the opposite, namely, there can be no such continuation. It was once-for-all, not once for then and once for today and once for tomorrow. Doesn’t any continuation in the Mass today completely violate the whole sense of Hebrews? Don’t today’s priests offering His once-for-all sacrifice in any unbloody manner, day after day, week after week, millions of times a year, look more like the O.T. priests who continued to offer sacrifices that could never take away sin? What if no such continuation is what God wants, but only a continual remembering of that once-for-all sacrifice?

6And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

7And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

8And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints

The Lamb is Jesus, You say “He sat down”! Done over! Well the Bible (KJV) says he’s standing up…? Doh! Which is it? Does he always just sit in that Throne?