Take a look at some other verses in Hebrews:
All of chapter 9 deals with superiority of the New Covenant over the Old – the Old foreshadowed the New, with the Old rites of sacrifice not being able to take away sin but only Jesus’ supreme sacrifice on the Cross which, unlike the animal sacrifices, occurred only once, and as another posted already noted, His sacrifice on Calvary is sacramentally *re-presented *(not repeated, just made present in space and time without Jesus suffering and dying again and again). Or, as one of my theology professors explained, “What was once made present in history is now made present in mystery.”
Look at Hebrews 9:23 – “Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves *with better sacrifices than these.” *This speaks of sacrifices of the *New Covenant *in the plural. As the whole chapter is about the inability of the OT sacrifices to take away sin and the one sacrifice of Christ on the Cross the only effective sacrifice, then why talk about sacrifices in the plural? It says they are “better” than the OT sacrifices, and the only way they can be better is that they actually *take away *sin. And the only way they could take away sin is to be the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. (A sacrifice doesn’t have to involve killing – in the OT there were bloodless grain and drink offerings). But these sacrifices must not involve killing Jesus again because it has already said that Jesus has died only once.
Look at Hebrews 13:10, “We have an altar from which those who serve the tent *have no right to eat.” *This again is a reference to the Old Covenent – those Jews still clinging to the OT sacrificial system have no right to what is sacrificed on Christian *altars. *Why speak of an altar for the New Covenant if Jesus’ sacrifice was not necessary to be re-presented? Altars are for offering sacrifice, but again we know it’s not bloody sacrifice because Jesus died only once for our sins. And this verse says something *edible *is offered which the Jews clinging to the old covenant have no right to “eat.” I’ve heard Protestants interpret this verse to mean it’s talking about sacrifices of praise, love, etc, but you don’t *eat *praise, love, etc. Something *edible *is being offered on Christian altars, and that something is a sacrifice superior to the Old Covenant animal sacrifices that can actually take away sins, which can only be Jesus Christ; Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity (and going back to Hebrews 5:10 it says Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, who made an offering of bread and wine, which is the form under which Jesus’ flesh and blood are offered in sacrifice).
The book of Revelation tells us of an altar in heaven (Rev. 6:9). Why the presence of an altar in heaven if there is no more sacrifice after Jesus’ death on the Cross? Catholic teaching is that the Mass (the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary takes place both in heaven and on earth – in the Mass heaven and earth are joined in one act of worship of God. The sacrifice of Christ is outside of time because Jesus is eternal and infinite.)
This is prophesied in Malachi 1:11, “For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord.” This verse talks about a pure offering made to God by the Gentiles (“the nations”), not just the Jews. This can only be a reference to Jesus because only Christ can be a “pure offering” and because the Gentiles are worshipping the true God in this sacrifice.
Jesus’ sacrifice on Calvary is re-presented so Christians in every age and every place can be with Christ at the foot of the Cross and commune with Him and receive His grace and forgiveness, which we continually need. It’s not because there is anything lacking in Christ’s death on the Cross – just the opposite – Jesus’ sacrifice is so abundant and powerful that it transcends time and reaches to us all.
