Christ Is Not Our Only High Priest, According To Mormon Theology?

[djholmess]

You do indeed display a lack of knowledge about the LDS concept of the priesthood. Please read this article and the linked sources to get an introduction to our beliefs on this matter. But I have to ask, where does the Bible teach the doctrine of "the priesthood of all believers"?

How is what I said relevant to the LDS concept of priests? - I was answering a question about why evangelical denominations have elders/pastors rather than priests.

The concept/doctrine comes from such verses as;

1 Peter2:4-10

⁴ As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, ⁵ you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.....

⁹ But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. ¹⁰ Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Revelation 5:8-10

⁸ And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. ⁹ And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll

and to open its seals,

for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God

from every tribe and language and people and nation,

¹⁰ and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God,

and they shall reign on the earth

Nowhere in the NT is the concept and function of the Aaronic priesthood established in the gatherings (churches) of believers. Mainly because the ceremonial sacrifices of the priesthood had been done away with in Christ’s perfect sacrifice for sin. Instead of just having the descendents of Aaron as priests who were specially set apart for serving God, all believers, men and women, are now set apart by God as his priests.

[altersteve]

How is what I said relevant to the LDS concept of priests? - I was answering a question about why evangelical denominations have elders/pastors rather than priests.

The way you phrased your answer, and the way you phrase this entire post as well, made it seem like you don't quite understand the LDS concept of the priesthood (not priests; in LDS doctrine, being a priest means you hold the priesthood, but holding the priesthood does not necessarily make you a priest). I encourage you to read the article I linked as well as the other links within that article to help you gain an understanding that will benefit both of us in this discussion (so we don't talk past each other).

I do feel like I must comment on your citation of 1 Peter 2:9, however. In this verse, Peter was quoting a passage in Exodus 19, which is NOT talking about the priesthood of all believers because when this revelation was given through Moses, the priesthood was limited to Levites. Therefore, 1 Peter 2:9 cannot reasonably be used to support this doctrine. To do so is to miss Peter's point completely.

Edited August 21, 2012 by altersteve

[djholmess]

I do feel like I must comment on your citation of 1 Peter 2:9, however. In this verse, Peter was quoting a passage in Exodus 19, which is NOT talking about the priesthood of all believers because when this revelation was given through Moses, the priesthood was limited to Levites. Therefore, 1 Peter 2:9 cannot reasonably be used to support this doctrine. To do so is to miss Peter's point completely.

Obviously I disagree. Peter is making the application to all his audience the 'you' he is refering to are all the believers to whom he wrote the letter. Nowhere does he say 'now I'm only talking to descendants of Levi here.' Rather the same group 'you' are the ones who are a chosen race, a holy nation and who have revieved mercy.

Notice also that the promise in Exodus 19 is conditional:

⁵ Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; ⁶ and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.

As far as I am aware the 'priesthood' was limited to the tribe of Levi after the golden calfs incident, further the history of Israel makes it clear that they repeatidly failed to obey God and keep his covenant.

Either way Peter is clearly making the application that this conditional promise that was given to Isreal has been fulfilled in NT believers. Bleievers are now "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession" being made so by God, "As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, ⁵ you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house"

If Peter was not talking about all his intended audience then what do you think he was trying to communicate in these verses?

[altersteve]

Once again, please read the link I provided. Then we can continue this. I want us to have a good understanding of what the other believes so we don't end up talking past each other.

[djholmess]

Once again, please read the link I provided. Then we can continue this. I want us to have a good understanding of what the other believes so we don't end up talking past each other.

Ok I've read it, so now can you explain what you think Peter is trying to communicate?

[CASteinman]

Tacenda, other humans being mediators between us and God is a common occurrence in the New Testament.

I am not disagreeing that your citations and others show the existence of High Priests and related callings in New Testament times, but I don't think that in most cases (maybe not any) they are shown to be exactly mediators between us and God... rather they are agents of Christ in certain roles that are not exactly mediation.

[CASteinman]

Ok I've read it, so now can you explain what you think Peter is trying to communicate?

I am jumping in here and do not know what the other fellow would say, but to me Peter is trying to communicate the idea of separateness or rather separation from the World while at the same time being a service to the World through Service and authorized Devotion to Jesus Christ.

Its like "Men do not light a candle and put it under a Bushel" -- but also "Be in the World but not Of the World".

I do not think he was literally or specifically talking about ordained priesthood there. I think it was allegory or parable.

At the same time however, while this was a bit of literary license, I do not think it was especially inaccurate. Whenever God has established the Gospel among His people, He has included Priests distributed throughout the congregation so that that priesthood was found where the Gospel was found, down to very small units. Thus the Priesthood was "among" them (and that is why, for example, the Levites did not have their own land).

In the case of the New Testament, it is possible (though not attested to) that like the modern Church of Jesus Christ -- all worthy male members are ordained to the priesthood. In addition, as with the modern Church of Jesus Christ -- of the "the elect" may exercise the priesthood in certain ways and it is had by all -- even by those who are not ordained to offices in the priesthood.

In this case "they" are a Priesthood both because of their service and faith but also because the Priesthood is found among them -- in the structure of the Church, the stones neatly fitted together, that included both ordained priesthood offices as well as the unordained priesthood of Believers (which includes the ordained members) to the World and in Sacred Worship.

Specifically, the argument that he was addressing "all believers" would, if taken as thus applying his words to all believers would suggest that, if he was speaking literally, he was speaking to women who were also priesthood holders -- which is not something that occurred in the ancient Church under the Apostles -- it is thus (and obviously) not so simple as a literal, universal declaration that everyone has a priesthood ordination merely because they are believers.

But, in LDS beliefs, among the elect there is a sense in which all members -- men and women -- exercise priesthood authority.

However, as I said, even though Peter is addressing "the elect" I do not think he had this in mind. I think he was using allegory.

Edited August 21, 2012 by CASteinman

[djholmess]

I am jumping in here and do not know what the other fellow would say, but to me Peter is trying to communicate the idea of separateness or rather separation from the World while at the same time being a service to the World through Service and authorized Devotion to Jesus Christ.

Its like "Men do not light a candle and put it under a Bushel" -- but also "Be in the World but not Of the World".

I do not think he was literally or specifically talking about ordained priesthood there. I think it was allegory or parable.

I do not think Peter is talking about an ordained priesthood in the sense that LDS view men being ‘ordaned’ with the priesthood either. However I do believe Peter is teaching that in Christ believers are made to be priests – not ordained by men, but made by Jesus. See my quote of revelation 5 a few posts above as well.

I would find this hard to accept that Peter is simply talking in parable as within this context Peter specifically mentions one of the acts of the OT Aaronis priests – offering sacrifices.

you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

It seems to me that Peter’s concept of the post Jesus priesthood is substantially different to the OT priesthood yet carries some similarities. So whilst physical animal sacrifices are no longer practiced new spiritual sacrifices are offered.

Notice further how all of the ‘you’ are offering spiritual sacrifices not just some of them.

Specifically, the argument that he was addressing "all believers" would, if taken as thus applying his words to all believers would suggest that, if he was speaking literally, he was speaking to women who were also priesthood holders -- which is not something that occurred in the ancient Church under the Apostles -- it is thus (and obviously) not so simple as a literal, universal declaration that everyone has a priesthood ordination merely because they are believers.

Above you said that women being counted as among those who were priesthood holders is not something that occurred in the Church under the Apostles. Do you know of any evidence that shows that the Apostles ordained priests or taught a system of church leadership/worship that included priesthood holders at all?

To be honest the LDS view of the ‘Priesthood’ is something that is totally foreign to me – I’ve never heard anything like it before and I certainly have not read anything in the NT that has made me think something like that existed.

Given that such a thing did not exist and that 1 Peter 2 and Revelation 5 are talking about all believers I see no reason why believing women are not included in this group who are made into a priesthood. The Aaronic priesthood was limited only to the descendants of Levi but, if in the change in priesthood brought about by Jesus, men from the other tribes of Israel could become this new type of priests and even gentiles could become these new priests then I don’t see why women can’t either.

Obviously if there was some teaching in the NT about the Aaronic priesthood and Melchizedek, and it was only limited to men then I would agree that Peter isn’t talking about women. But there is no such thing in the NT.

[CASteinman]

I do not think Peter is talking about an ordained priesthood in the sense that LDS view men being ‘ordaned’ with the priesthood either. However I do believe Peter is teaching that in Christ believers are made to be priests – not ordained by men, but made by Jesus.

If we are talking about literary license then we may be in agreement -- with one exception. Peter is talking not to just anyone who believes but the elect -- those who were baptized by proper authority and who have taken upon them the sacred covenants of Temple Worship.

I would find this hard to accept that Peter is simply talking in parable as within this context Peter specifically mentions one of the acts of the OT Aaronis priests – offering sacrifices.

No, he does not.

It seems to me that Peter’s concept of the post Jesus priesthood is substantially different to the OT priesthood yet carries some similarities. So whilst physical animal sacrifices are no longer practiced new spiritual sacrifices are offered.

I agree but not based upon this passage. This is not a discourse about Priesthood roles and activities but rather the role of the Church in the World, particularly under adversarial conditions and yet required to be a light to the World.

Notice further how all of the ‘you’ are offering spiritual sacrifices not just some of them.

That is correct.

Above you said that women being counted as among those who were priesthood holders is not something that occurred in the Church under the Apostles. Do you know of any evidence that shows that the Apostles ordained priests or taught a system of church leadership/worship that included priesthood holders at all?

Yes of course. This thread is full of references. I don't expect to have to trot out bazillions of references on this matter when those that are already presented are sufficient -- in addition to the long registered recognition of Apostles ordaining deacons, bishops other Apostles and so on.

To be honest the LDS view of the ‘Priesthood’ is something that is totally foreign to me – I’ve never heard anything like it before and I certainly have not read anything in the NT that has made me think something like that existed.

That is the value of the Restoration. It makes hidden things plain and restores things long lost. It is hard to put new wine into old bottles!

Given that such a thing did not exist and that 1 Peter 2 and Revelation 5 are talking about all believers I see no reason why believing women are not included in this group who are made into a priesthood.

That you do not see it is irrelevant to the fact of the matter. Indeed, you would not be expected to see it as you are unfriendly to the concept of the True Priesthood.

However, the historical record is pretty strong on this point.

[David T]

My understanding is that Jesus is presented as the Eternal High Priest of the Heavenly Temple. Everything done on earth seeks to be in imitation and in similitude (shadow, symbol, etc) of that ultimate, eternal service.

[djholmess]

Yes of course. This thread is full of references. I don't expect to have to trot out bazillions of references on this matter when those that are already presented are sufficient -- in addition to the long registered recognition of Apostles ordaining deacons, bishops other Apostles and so on

I'm sorry but you'll have to point these out to me. I haven't seen anything that shows the Apostles appointed/ordained priests.

[Bill Hamblin]

1 Peter 2 is in part a commentary on Ex. 19:5, 9, where God originally wants Israel to be a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Ex. 19:6). Due to the sin of Israel with the Golden Calf (Ex. 32), priesthood is restricted only to the Levites because only they stood with Moses on that day (Ex 32:26). 1 Peter 2:9 in fact quotes exactly from Ex. 19:6 in the Septuagint Greek translation. Thus Peter is saying that Christianity is the return to the original plan of God at Sinai, where any man could be a priest. This is by no means the same as saying every man is automatically a priest as the Evangelicals believe. Peter must be read in its first century Jewish context, not in a 21st century Evangelical context.

[Zakuska]

I'm sorry but you'll have to point these out to me. I haven't seen anything that shows the Apostles appointed/ordained priests.

Sure...

Acts 14 23

Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.

Titus 1:5

5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you—

[USU78]

We also shouldn't forget the lesson of:

Numbers 3:11-13: And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the ^afirstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine; Because all the firstborn are mine; for on the day that I smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt I ^ahallowed unto me all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast: mine shall they be: I am the Lord.

Later, when all the Levites, Cohenim and Levis alike, are hallowed via a terrible scourging, including the shaving of their bodies like so many Egyptian slaves, it's made clear that the Priest is a servant of G-d, belonging to Him. They are not exalted over anyone else: indeed, it's made clear that they are the servants of all, to act in the place of the Firstborn of the other tribes as G-d's specially called and annointed servants. Cf., please, the statement by the Master incident to the washing of the feet at the Last Supper.

THAT is your NT reference for priesthood: the Apostles are to act on the Master's behalf in serving others, being to the Congregation of the Saints as household slaves, just as the Levites were as household slaves to G-d and the Congregation of Israel. They and the Apostles had the right/responsibility to preside over the rites of YHWH worship, but had the duty to serve.

If you don't understand this, you don't understand priesthood.

Edited August 21, 2012 by USU78

[Vance]

Obviously I disagree. Peter is making the application to all his audience the 'you' he is refering to are all the believers to whom he wrote the letter.

Priesthood of all believers is a concept fabricated by Martin Luther the false prophet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_priesthood_%28doctrine%29

The epistle of Peter would have been written to the MALE LEADERSHIP of the church, so it is no surprise that he would designate them as a "royal priesthood" etc.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

1 Peter 2 is in part a commentary on Ex. 19:5, 9, where God originally wants Israel to be a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Ex. 19:6). Due to the sin of Israel with the Golden Calf (Ex. 32), priesthood is restricted only to the Levites because only they stood with Moses on that day (Ex 32:26). 1 Peter 2:9 in fact quotes exactly from Ex. 19:6 in the Septuagint Greek translation. Thus Peter is saying that Christianity is the return to the original plan of God at Sinai, where any man could be a priest. This is by no means the same as saying every man is automatically a priest as the Evangelicals believe. Peter must be read in its first century Jewish context, not in a 21st century Evangelical context.

This message needs to be repeated.

(Sorry, but my one rep point is not enough.)

[djholmess]

Sure...

Acts 14 23

Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.

Titus 1:5

5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you—

Ok so now show me how NT elders are priests?

[altersteve]

Ok so now show me how NT elders are priests?

They are not "priests," but they do hold the priesthood. Holding the priesthood does not necessarily make you a priest. If you read the link I gave you earlier, you would understand this.

[Sevenbak]

I am not disagreeing that your citations and others show the existence of High Priests and related callings in New Testament times, but I don't think that in most cases (maybe not any) they are shown to be exactly mediators between us and God... rather they are agents of Christ in certain roles that are not exactly mediation.

What is a mediator if not a judge? The scriptures seem very clear to point out that Christ will not be the only one sitting in judgment in the hereafter.

Even the notion of St. Peter sitting at the "pearly gates" comes from this, apparent, lost belief, but founded squarely in NT texts.

It's no different than Moroni standing at the Bar of Christ judging us, or Joseph Smith doing the same. All are servants of God, of various dispensations with stewardships they must account for.

[CASteinman]

What is a mediator if not a judge?

Jesus, as mediator, is an intercessor for us before the Father. None of us can do that. And its not the same thing as judging.

Edited August 21, 2012 by CASteinman

[David T]

They are not "priests," but they do hold the priesthood. Holding the priesthood does not necessarily make you a priest. If you read the link I gave you earlier, you would understand this.

I'm not convinced that "holding the priesthood" isn't a modern concept. Even in the early days of the Restoration, 'the priesthood' meant a body of priests, and 'the high priesthood' meant a body of high priests. You 'received the priesthood' by accepting the Church authorities who held those offices. The 'Priesthood' was a body of priests, not a code word for 'The Power of God'. Wisdom, or even Logos are, as I see it, closer NT parallels to our modern concept of the embodiment of God's power.

The division of 'Conferring' priesthood Power as something separate from Ordaining to an Office is a 20th century codification and innovation.

I don't think the Letter to the Hebrews - or the Petrine Epistles - are using 20th-21st Century correlated Mormon Definitions of 'priest' and 'priesthood'. That doesn't make their observations invalid, it does, however, suggest one should be careful when prooftexting them using our modern definitions and usages.

Edited August 22, 2012 by David T

[Sevenbak]

Jesus, as mediator, is an intercessor for us before the Father. None of us can do that. And its not the same thing as judging.

I don't think we're using the term the same. Jesus is THE Mediator, but he appoints judges, bestows thrones, crowns, etc. to help do His work.

[CASteinman]

I don't think we're using the term the same. Jesus is THE Mediator, but he appoints judges, bestows thrones, crowns, etc. to help do His work.

I agree but I don't think any of that involves mediation before the Father. If you have some valid source that says otherwise I am willing to adjust my view.

[Bill Hamblin]

I'm not convinced that "holding the priesthood" isn't a modern concept. Even in the early days of the Restoration, 'the priesthood' meant a body of priests, and 'the high priesthood' meant a body of high priests. You 'received the priesthood' by accepting the Church authorities who held those offices. The 'Priesthood' was a body of priests, not a code word for 'The Power of God'. Wisdom, or even Logos are, as I see it, closer NT parallels to our modern concept of the embodiment of God's power.

The division of 'Conferring' priesthood Power as something separate from Ordaining to an Office is a 20th century codification and innovation.

I don't think the Letter to the Hebrews - or the Petrine Epistles - are using 20th-21st Century correlated Mormon Definitions of 'priest' and 'priesthood'. That doesn't make their observations invalid, it does, however, suggest one should be careful when prooftexting them using our modern definitions and usages.

That particular terminology is certainly modern; the concept, however, is ancient.

[teddyaware]

The notion that Christ would be the one and only Melchizedek Priesthood holder is erroneous. We can learn several things pertaining to the nature of the Melchizedek Priesthood in the Apostle Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews in which he declared;

1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem. priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;

2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Hebrews 7:1-3

There are several things we can learn from these three verses:

1 There was an ancient king and patriarch known by the name of Melchizedek, and this man held the same High Priesthood that Christ did. In fact, this order (order meaning a religious group or community bound in unity by living and upholding specific, codified principles) of the High Priesthood was named after him, he being a noble archetype of such priests.

2 Abraham, the revered "Father of the Faithful," considered this High Priest Melchizedek to be his file leader -- Abraham paying tithes to and received blessings from this great High Priest.

3 The name/title Melchizedek translated into English from the Hebrew means King of Righteousness or King of Peace. Therefore, when we say Melchizedek Priesthood we are actually saying Priesthood of the King of Righteousness or Priesthood of the King of Peace (these two appelations refer equally to King Messiah, as well as to King Melchizedek the prophet and patriarch).

4 This order (see the Joseph Smith translation of verse 3) of the High Priesthood is without beginning or end, but has existed

forever, eternally. And this Holy Order or "Royal Priesthood" (i.e. 'priesthood of kingship') empowers its possessors to become kings and priests in the Kingdom of God for all eternity.

5 By virtue of holding this same High Priesthood after the Order of Melchizedek that the Son of God holds, Melchizedek became like unto the Son of God, holding said priesthood "continually," or in other words, forever; not transfering his priesthood authority to another at death, as was the case with the high priests who officiated in the Holy of Holies under the High Priesthood of Aaron, or lesser priesthood. So when Paul refers to the Priesthood after the Order of Melchizedek as an "unchangeable priesthood," he's simply saying that those who hold this priesthood do not lose it at death. Rather, they hold it continually forever after death and after the resurrection.

And so I ask this same question for a third time, "If Christ is the one and only Melchizedek Priesthood holder that ever was and will be, why did Melchizedek hold this same priesthood?" Will one of you who believes that Christ might be, or is, the only Melchizedek Priesthood holder please answer my question?