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

[Tacenda]

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?

I'm going to ask your question to the nonlds Christian that said that JC is the only one that can hold the Melchizedek priesthood and I'll let you know what they say.

[CASteinman]

I'm going to ask your question to the nonlds Christian that said that JC is the only one that can hold the Melchizedek priesthood and I'll let you know what they say.

I find these kinds of discussions amusing.

[teddyaware]

I find these kinds of discussions amusing.

Hey there CA!! What "kinds" of discussions are you referring to, and why do you find them "amusing?"

[teddyaware]

I'm going to ask your question to the nonlds Christian that said that JC is the only one that can hold the Melchizedek priesthood and I'll let you know what they say.

Excellent! My most powerful arguments from the Bible on this subject are yet to be made.

[CASteinman]

Hey there CA!! What "kinds" of discussions are you referring to, and why do you find them "amusing?"

Discussions where an interested intermediary relays the information back and forth between adversaries. It tends to create a certain level of candor or honesty or something ... but also confusion ..

I also like it in this case because this particular argument is pretty easy. Shooting fish in a barrel is not quite expressive of how simple it is if the fish are moving...

Edited August 23, 2012 by CASteinman

[djholmess]

Teddyaware,

Like I said before I’m not too familiar with the LDS defence of their view of the ‘priesthood.’ However it does seem that you are inserting too much into Hebrews 7:1-3

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;

Firstly, simply out of curiosity, what makes you think Paul was the author of Hebrews?

The text:

¹For 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.

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.

To my knowledge nowhere in this text or in Hebrews at large does it say Melchizedek was a High Priest, it says he was a “priest of the most high God.” The comparison between Melchizedek is not that they were both High Priests but that they were both priests who “abideth a priest continually”

The discussion of what it actually means for Jesus to be a High Priest is taken up in Hebrew 7:23-28

²³ And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:

²⁴ But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

²⁵ Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

²⁶ For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

²⁷ Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

²⁸ For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

Jesus being a High Priest – rather than just a priest of the most high God, is likened to the High Priests of the Aaronic priesthood. Just as the High Priest in Israel would offer sacrifices for sin repeatedly Jesus took upon himself the role of High Priest because he offered up the perfect sacrifice for sin – himself. The concept of a different type of High Priest (Melchizedek or any other) different from the High Priests of Israel who offered sacrifices for sin, is not in the Bible.

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.

Again, nothing in this text actually identifies Melchizedek as a High Priest. Further to my (admitidly limited) knowledge there is no Jewish tradition of identifying High Priests outside of the Levitical Priesthood. So not only is your ascertain not in the text there is no evidence that the Jews reading Hebrews would have seen Melchizedek as a High Priest.

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.

The specific application made in Hebrews 7:1-3 is that Melchizedek was “made like unto” or “resembles” the son of God. So this resemblance of being a “King of Righteousness” and “King of Peace” is applied to Jesus – he is the king of righteousness and king of peace.

It is an unfounded ascertain on your part that there are any other possessors of this ‘Royal Priesthood’ and that they too would become kings in the Kingdom of God. Nowhere in the text are either of these two things discussed.

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?

As far as I am aware the Christian position isn’t that there is only one priest after the order of Melchizedek – Hebrews doesn’t say either way.

The position is that Jesus is the only High Priest. Under the Old Covenant there were many High Priests; one after the other. They had to repeatedly offer sacrifices. Jesus has offered one sacrifice sufficient for all time.

Hebrews 7:

²⁶ For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. ²⁷ He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.

Hebrews 9:

²⁴ For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. ²⁵ Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, ²⁶ for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Christ has superseded the High Priests of the Old Covenant because he has done away with the need for continual sacrifices. This is why there has been a change in the priesthood (Hebrews 7:6-7); the Levitical Priesthood with its many sacrifices and many High Priests could not attain perfection. Christ has come as the final High Priest and in one sacrifice attained perfection.

The comparison between Jesus and Melchizedek is not that they are both High Priests but that their priesthoods both last forever. Jesus priesthood is eternal like Melchizedek’s, and is a High priesthood because he replaced the Aaronic High Priests by doing away with the need for sacrifices for sin. So as the eternal High Priest he has done away for sins and “always lives to make intercession” for those who draw near to him (Hebrews 7:25).

Thus there can only be one High Priest because only one person has offered a perfect High Priestly sacrifice and only one person ever lives to make intercession for his people – Jesus Christ.

[teddyaware]

Discussions where an interested intermediary relays the information back and forth between adversaries. It tends to create a certain level of candor or honesty or something ... but also confusion ..

I also like it in this case because this particular argument is pretty easy. Shooting fish in a barrel is not quite expressive of how simple it is if the fish are moving...

Very funny! Knocking down the "one Melchizedek Priesthood holder only" theory may be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel for a knowledgeable Latter Day Saint. But those who hold to the theory are just so gosh darn sure of themselves.

[teddyaware]

Djholmess

The prophet Joseph Smith had it revealed to him that it actually was Paul who wrote the Epistle. It's very enlightening and stabilizing belonging to the true Church of Christ, led by the Lord himself through living Apostles and Prophets. Lots of confusing issues and doubts are cleared up, increasing one's sure knowledge and sharpening his views.

Remember, all of the Christians of New Testament times belonged to a Church that was led by living Apostles and Prophets. And if those early Christians could be transported through time to see most of the churches of today they would wonder -- "Where are the Apostles and Prophets? Don't these people know the true Church cannot exist without living Apostles and Prophets? Do they not remember the words of Paul? He surely taught that Apostles and Prophets needed to remain in the Church "till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of theknowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctine..." (Eph 4)

As for your other point, the whole purpose of Paul was to show that the Priesthood of Christ is the same Priesthood as the one held by Melchizedek. That's why Melchizedek didn't lose his priesthood at death as the High Priests of Aaron did. Rather, the Priesthood he held made him "like unto the Son of God; abid(ing) a priest continually."

With deep respect, there comes a time when revelation from God is needed to clear things up. We could go back and forth on this point as to whether or not Christ was the one and only High Priest after the Order (i.e. group or community) of Melchizedek. But to no successful resolution.

I know by revelation that the Melchizedek Priesthood is that same "Royal Priesthood" (priesthood of kings) mentioned by Peter. While it's true that Christ is the greatest of all Melchizedek Priesthood holders -- the forerunner who first entered the true Holy of Holies in heaven -- nevertheless, the Latter Day Saints know that if faithful we'll inherit all things that he, Christ, possesses -- including his piesthood and his throne. For he said "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." Referring to this great destiny of becoming joint hiers with Christ, John said the Lord hath made us "kings and priests unto God and his Father." Truly, the "family in heaven" is a royal fellowship of Priest Kings! These enthroned 'sons of God' hold The Royal Priesthood, a power and authority that abides with them in heaven "continually;" A Priesthood that abides as an eternal personal blessing beyond death.

[djholmess]

Djholmess

Remember, all of the Christians of New Testament times belonged to a Church that was led by living Apostles and Prophets. And if those early Christians could be transported through time to see most of the churches of today they would wonder -- "Where are the Apostles and Prophets? Don't these people know the true Church cannot exist without living Apostles and Prophets? Do they not remember the words of Paul? He surely taught that Apostles and Prophets needed to remain in the Church "till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of theknowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctine..." (Eph 4)

This is obviously a topic of discussion for a different thread but I will point out one thing which I have seen LDS miss when they quote Ephesians to prove the need for living apostles – just to get your view on it.

Ephesians 4

¹ And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, ¹² to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, ¹³ until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,

Notice what the apostles and prophets are given to do; equip the saints for the work of ministry for building up the body of Christ.

It seems in your understanding Ephesians 4 is saying the Apostles and Prophets build up the body of Christ. Yet it seems to me that this is the “work of ministry” that the saints are to do. The saints do this ministry not the apostles. I believe the Apostles and Prophets serve to equip the saints so that the saints together work to build up the body of Christ.

If it was the responsibility of the Apostles to build up the body then you would have a stronger argument that living apostles are necessary – though I don’t think it would be conclusive.

However this is not what the text actually seems to say.

Further look at the next few verses:

¹⁴ so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. ¹⁵ Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, ¹⁶ from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

Who is it who is speaking the “truth in love” in verse 15? It seems to be all those who are “to grow up in every way into him,” right? Yet this speaking the truth in love seems to be one of the mechanism that causes the growth. So who is responsible for this building up? It seems to be all the saints, not the apostles.

We see this again in verse 16; 1) the body builds itself up, it isn’t built up by the apostles, 2) it only builds itself up when “each part” of the “whole body” is working properly, not only by the work of apostles and prophets .

I know that the grammar in the KJV would cause someone to read this verse the way you do;

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

But remember there were no semi colons or commas in the original Greek. Further almost every other translation recognises that Paul is saying the saints are to do this building up – not apostles and prophets:

NIV:

to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up

NLT:

Their responsibility is to equip God's people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ.

NASB:

for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ

ISV:

to equip the saints, to do the work of ministry, and to build up the body of the Messiah

I’m not trying to get into a discussion about living apostles etc but I just wanted to show you why evangelicals do not find the LDS argument from Ephesians 4 convincing.

It is the saints/body of Christ that is to do the ministry of building itself up – the Apostles job is to equip them to do so. Evangelicals believe that the Apostles do this job through the record of their teachings – the Holy Spirit inspired scriptures. Whether there is a need for living Apostles or not, evangelicals do not see anything in Ephesians 4 that would mean there must be.

As for your other point, the whole purpose of Paul was to show that the Priesthood of Christ is the same Priesthood as the one held by Melchizedek. That's why Melchizedek didn't lose his priesthood at death as the High Priests of Aaron did. Rather, the Priesthood he held made him "like unto the Son of God; abid(ing) a priest continually."

Apart from the fact that you probably mean something different by the phrase ‘priesthood’ I largely agree with you. However I don’t think this is the issue; Yes Jesus is an eternal priest similar to Melchizedek, but he is also a High Priest after the fashion of the Aaronic High Priests - with one difference. He is a better High Priest in that he has offered a sacrifice once for all and so done away with the need for many high priests who offer many sacrifices.

My issue with the LDS concept of ‘priests’ isn’t that believers being ‘priests of God’ mentioned throughout scripture are eternal priests. I believe they will be – believers are granted eternal life after all. I wouldn’t call them Melchizedek priests because the NT never draws that similarity but they will eternally be priests.

My issue is with LDS promoting High Priests. Hebrews is very clear Jesus is a High Priest because he perfectly fulfilled the role of the Aaronic High Priests. As such he is the only High Priest because he done away with the need for the Aaronic High Priests. Intentionally or unintentionally when LDS claim they are or have High Priests they are robbing Jesus of his unique title and position.

As far as I am aware LDS High Priests don’t claim to make offerings for sin and don’t claim to intercede on behalf of the people of God – right? So why do LDS use the title High Priests when Melchizedek wasn’t a high priest and what they do does not correspond to what either Aaronic High Priests or Jesus as The High Priest did/does?

With deep respect, there comes a time when revelation from God is needed to clear things up. We could go back and forth on this point as to whether or not Christ was the one and only High Priest after the Order (i.e. group or community) of Melchizedek. But to no successful resolution.

I am glad we can be respectful in our dialogue with one another – I hope I haven’t come across disrespectful of your beliefs.

I would disagree about the need for further revelation about this issue. It seems clear to me that Gods revelation in Hebrews is pretty clear on why Jesus is considered a High Priest – I see no reason from the text to think anyone else could be considered a High Priest. Jesus is the only one capable of making a perfect sacrifice for sin.

[Sevenbak]

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.

I don't think anyone said it involves mediation before the Father. As we understand it, it's mediation before Christ. (But that gets into a completely different discussion for the Trinity folks) "Standing at the Bar of Christ" alongside His servants is the wording in the scriptures.

[Lightbearer]

What think ye of this statement? It seems to be the wedge that is between our church and the rest of the christian world....

Thus, by denying that Jesus Christ is the ONLY High Priest of the New Covenant, Mormons make many other humans mediators between them and God. And this is blasphemy against Christ. Mormons have accepted the humans whom their leaders appointed priests as mediators between them and God. They have been deceived to refuse Christ as the ONLY Savior.

From this website: On the page there is a conversation between Steven who is LDS and this man from The Disciples of Jesus Christ....which one makes the better argument?

http://jdisciple.wor...ormon-theology/

One thing you should keep in mind is that Anti-Mormons LIE. And saying that LDS refuse Christ as the Only savior is a contemptable LIE... I am not interested in arguing over the meaning of Biblical texts, but I will quote from the Book of Mormon which we LDS hold as scripture:

"AND again, my brethren, I would cite your minds forward to the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children; and I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people. And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption. And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such. And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren. Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared— And thus being called by this holy calling, and ordained unto the high priesthood of the holy order of God, to teach his commandments unto the children of men, that they also might enter into his rest— This high priesthood being after the order of his Son, which order was from the foundation of the world; or in other words, being without beginning of days or end of years, being prepared from eternity to all eternity, according to his foreknowledge of all things— Now they were ordained after this manner—being called with a holy calling, and ordained with a holy ordinance, and taking upon them the high priesthood of the holy order, which calling, and ordinance, and high priesthood, is without beginning or end— Thus they become high priests forever, after the order of the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, who is without beginning of days or end of years, who is full of grace, equity, and truth. And thus it is. Amen. Now, as I said concerning the holy order, or this high priesthood, there were many who were ordained and became high priests of God; and it was on account of their exceeding faith and repentance, and their righteousness before God, they choosing to repent and work righteousness rather than to perish; Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb. Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence; and there were many, exceedingly great many, who were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God. And now, my brethren, I would that ye should humble yourselves before God, and bring forth fruit meet for repentance, that ye may also enter into that rest. Yea, humble yourselves even as the people in the days of Melchizedek, who was also a high priest after this same order which I have spoken, who also took upon him the high priesthood forever. And it was this same Melchizedek to whom Abraham paid tithes; yea, even our father Abraham paid tithes of one–tenth part of all he possessed. Now these ordinances were given after this manner, that thereby the people might look forward on the Son of God, it being a type of his order, or it being his order, and this that they might look forward to him for a remission of their sins, that they might enter into the rest of the Lord. Now this Melchizedek was a king over the land of Salem; and his people had waxed strong in iniquity and abomination; yea, they had all gone astray; they were full of all manner of wickedness; But Melchizedek having exercised mighty faith, and received the office of the high priesthood according to the holy order of God, did preach repentance unto his people. And behold, they did repent; and Melchizedek did establish peace in the land in his days; therefore he was called the prince of peace, for he was the king of Salem; and he did reign under his father. Now, there were many before him, and also there were many afterwards, but none were greater; therefore, of him they have more particularly made mention." (Book of Mormon | Alma 13:1-19)

So this Priesthood is the Priesthood after the order of the Son of God. We become Kings and Priests unto Him, who is the author and finisher of our faith. We are to become as He is and the only way to do so is to follow Him who is our exemplar. If there is any doubt I quote the following:

"And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent."

(Book of Mormon | Mosiah 3:17)

So the claim of these Anti-Mormons is a LIE on the face of it.

[teddyaware]

I am glad we can be respectful in our dialogue with one another – I hope I haven’t come across disrespectful of your beliefs.

I would disagree about the need for further revelation about this issue. It seems clear to me that Gods revelation in Hebrews is pretty clear on why Jesus is considered a High Priest – I see no reason from the text to think anyone else could be considered a High Priest. Jesus is the only one capable of making a perfect sacrifice for sin.

First, Paul says that the Apostles and Prophets (like he) were designed to remain a living presence in the Church "till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man..." But the fact is that all the members of Christ's Church have not as yet achieved faith and knowledge of the Son of God "unto a perfect man;" so the time 'till' referred to has yet to happen.

In addition, notice Paul does not want to be misunderstood, so he qualifies the expression "prefect man" with the words "unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" I'd like to meet one Christian who believes he's already personally obtained "the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." Again, notice he doesn't say "unto becoming christlike." Rather, he places emphasis on the expression "the FULNESS of Christ." These aforementioned benchmarks have not been met as yet, so Apostles and Prophets are stii essential and absolutely necessary.

So why did living Apostles and Prophets cease to exist in the Church of Christ? Because there was a general apostasy from the duly authorized priesthood authortities and from the truth of God.

Back to Melchizedek: I wonder if you're aware of the fact that many Christians acknowledge the priesthood Melchizedek held --according to the plain meaning of the text of Hebrews 7 -- is exactly the same priesthood Christ held. How do they get around that acknowledgement to arrive back at your position? They came up with the idea that, somehow, Melchizedek wasn't actually an ancient king and patriarch, but was, rather, an early manifestation of Christ on earth, before his appearence in the flesh. The human mind is very flexible and creative indeed, isn't it?

Finally, you wonder why God would want men in his Church to hold the same order of the Priesthood of Melchizedek he held. The reason? It has to do primarily with the service we Melchizedek Priesthood holders render in the Temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Peter expresses it beautifully when he says, "To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but choses of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Remember, we Latter Day Saints believe that when the scriptures testify we are "joint hiers with Christ" and that we will "inherit all things," we believe just what it says; all things means all things. And among the "all things" we will inherit are included his throne and his Holy Priesthood. "For both he that sanctifieth and they who ar e sactified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them bretheren," (Heb 2:11)

[Vance]

Teddyaware,

To my knowledge nowhere in this text or in Hebrews at large does it say Melchizedek was a High Priest, it says he was a “priest of the most high God.”

The problem with your argument is that Hebrews also calls Jesus a "priest".

Heb 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. (Quoting Ps 110:4)

It also says,

10 Called or God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

So, was the order of Melchisedec, an order of "high priests" or simply "priests"?

(Wouldn't "high priests" be a subset of "priests"?

And again it says,

Heb 6:20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

What is consistent is the "after the order of Melchisedec".

Perhaps you need to determine what an "order" is.

The comparison between Melchizedek is not that they were both High Priests,

You haven't established that.

. . . but that they were both priests who “abideth a priest continually”

That part is true. Your problem is that you don't understand that ONLY those of the same "order" as Melchizedek “abideth a priest continually”.

Do you realize that by that statement you are admitting that Jesus was a "priest".

The discussion of what it actually means for Jesus to be a High Priest is taken up in Hebrew 7:23-28

Well, those parts are not limited to only Jesus. And you are neglecting the rest of the chapter which does the same.

Jesus being a High Priest – rather than just a priest of the most high God, is likened to the High Priests of the Aaronic priesthood.

1) You haven't established that Jesus was not "a priest". Hebrews clearly says he was.

2) No, He was not "likened to a High Priest of the Aaronic" order, He was distinguished from them.

Just as the High Priest in Israel would offer sacrifices for sin repeatedly Jesus took upon himself the role of High Priest because he offered up the perfect sacrifice for sin – himself.

Do you not see the distinction?

The concept of a different type of High Priest (Melchizedek or any other) different from the High Priests of Israel who offered sacrifices for sin, is not in the Bible.

You mean, besides the one you just mentioned?

Again, nothing in this text actually identifies Melchizedek as a High Priest.

Other than him being a member of the same order as Jesus?

The specific application made in Hebrews 7:1-3 is that Melchizedek was “made like unto” or “resembles” the son of God. So this resemblance of being a “King of Righteousness” and “King of Peace” is applied to Jesus – he is the king of righteousness and king of peace.

As was Melchizedek. So, what is your point?

It is an unfounded ascertain on your part that there are any other possessors of this ‘Royal Priesthood’ and that they too would become kings in the Kingdom of God.

You mean other than 1 Pet 2:9????

Nowhere in the text are either of these two things discussed.

Ok, the text doesn't clarify this concept so you don't know what it all means, BUT MORMONS ARE WRONG!!!

That is a common anti-Mormon approach. It doesn't sell well here.

As far as I am aware the Christian position isn’t that there is only one priest after the order of Melchizedek – Hebrews doesn’t say either way.

Actually it does, Melchizedek was ALSO of the order of Melchizedek. So that is TWO. Besides, it take more than one to make an order. And it makes no sense at all to use the word "order" if there were only two.

From the 1828 Dictionary,

"order"

9. Rank; class; division of men; as the order of nobles; the order of priests; the higher orders of society; men of the lowest order; order of knights; military orders, &c.

10. A religious fraternity; as the order of Benedictines.

Sorry, but the use of the word "order" TOTALLY BLOWS AWAY YOUR ARGUMENT!!!!!

The position is that Jesus is the only High Priest.

See above.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Vance

[djholmess]

In addition, notice Paul does not want to be misunderstood, so he qualifies the expression "prefect man" with the words "unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" I'd like to meet one Christian who believes he's already personally obtained "the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." Again, notice he doesn't say "unto becoming christlike." Rather, he places emphasis on the expression "the FULNESS of Christ." These aforementioned benchmarks have not been met as yet, so Apostles and Prophets are stii essential and absolutely nessecary.

Of course you won't encounter a Christian who believes he has already obtained the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. That is not what we are disagreeing on. As I said in my previous post the text does not actually teach that it is Apostles and Prophets that do the work of building up the body. Therefore your TILL argument does not carry any weight. The teaching of the text is that the body builds itself up and so what must remain to do this work are not living Prophets and Apostles but the body of saints.

Either way though isn't your argument self refuting? If Paul is saying that God has given Apostles and Prophets which are nessecary until the body has reached the fullness of Christ then there can't have been a total apostasy, the body hadn't reached the full measure of Christ so Apostles must have remained? Or to look at it from the other direction if there really was an apostasy then Paul must have been wrong because God didn't give Apostles TILL the body reached the full measure of Christ.

That you believe there was an apostasy and thus a loss of Apostles and Prophets means your own reading of Ephesians 4 can't be true-they wern't given TILL the body reached the full measure of Christ but only for a short period before they were lost and then restored 1700 years later.

Edited August 23, 2012 by djholmess

[Vance]

Of course you won't encounter a Christian who believes he has already obtained the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. That is not what we are disagreeing on. As I said in my previous post the text does not actually teach that it is Apostles and Prophets that do the work of building up the body. Therefore your TILL argument does not carry any weight. The teaching of the text is that the body builds itself up and so what must remain to do this work are not living Prophets and Apostles but the body of saints.

Ok, so the verses don't mean what they say. Got it.

Either way though isn't your argument self refuting?

No.

If Paul is saying that God has given Apostles and Prophets which are nessecary until the body has reached the fullness of Christ then there can't have been a total apostasy, . . .

How so? Just because Apostles and Prophets are necessary to keep the church on the right track until it reaches unity, doesn't require the Church to reach unity before an apostasy could happen. In fact, the loss of Apostles and Prophets in the church is prima facie evidence FOR an apostasy.

the body hadn't reached the full measure of Christ so Apostles must have remained?

In the true church, YES. But in the apostate church, no.

Or to look at it from the other direction if there really was an apostasy then Paul must have been wrong because God didn't give Apostles TILL the body reached the full measure of Christ.

Not at all. The lack of Apostles and prophets is prima facie evidence FOR an apostasy.

[teddyaware]

As I said in my previous post the text does not actually teach that it is Apostles and Prophets that do the work of building up the body.

Hello again dj! Back from work so I can reply. Think it would be best to take our discussion one specific point at a time. By pursuing a targeted, micro-approach to our debate, we can concentrate on individual points of argument till one of us has convinced the other, or, as gentlemen, we agree to disagree. Though it might be an agonizingly slow process, I think we'll accomplish much more in the end. What do you think of this method of debate?

Let's start with the sentence of yours above. In light of your belief that "the text does not actually teach that it is Apostles and Prophets that do the work of building up the body," what do you think then Paul was trying to teach the saints in verses 11 and 12 from Ephesians 4? And I quote:

11 And he gave some apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, some and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

To me it's exceedingly difficult to imagine that Paul isn't teaching here that all the above listed church officers are called upon to build the body of Christ. How is it that you say otherwise?

[djholmess]

Hello again dj! Back from work so I can reply. Think it would be best to take our discussion one specific point at a time. By pursuing a targeted, micro-approach to our debate, we can concentrate on individual points of argument till one of us has convinced the other, or, as gentlemen, we agree to disagree. Though it might be an agonizingly slow process, I think we'll accomplish much more in the end. What do you think of this method of debate?

Let's start with the sentence of yours above. In light of your belief that "the text does not actually teach that it is Apostles and Prophets that do the work of building up the body," what do you think then Paul was trying to teach the saints in verses 11 and 12 from Ephesians 4? And I quote:

11 And he gave some apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, some and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

To me it's exceedingly difficult to imagine that Paul isn't teaching here that all the above listed church officers are called upon to build the body of Christ. How is it that you say otherwise?

I'm ok with this approach. I addressed this in post #59 but to summarise;

I agree with you that from the KJV it would appear that the above list is called upon to 1) perfect the saints 2) do the work of ministry 3) edifying the body of Christ.

That's the way the the use of the grammar (the combination of semi colon & commas) indicates to be true.

However I do not use the KJV, for a number of reasons, a couple are; the translation was done hundreds of years ago so I'm not too familiar with the words and grammar of the time - the English language has changed since then; also the translation was based on 11 complete Greek manuscripts, today we have over 5500 partial and complete manuscripts for modern translations.

In my previous post I gave two reasons why I do not se the verse saying what you have said it does. Firstly, modern translations do not suggest your view to be correct. Secondly, the wider context (verses 13-16) clearly identify all of the body as the ones who do the work of building the body.

Typically I use the ESV which reads;

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,12  to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,

It seems to me the most natural way of reading this is that the list above is called to 1) equip the saints for the work of ministry, and that this ministry they are to equip them to do is to build up the body of Christ. So it is the saints who actually do the ministry of building up the body. In my previous quote I listed a number of other modern translations that also read this way.

Regarding the wider context.

In verse 15 Paul identifies one of the ways the body is built up; by "speaking the truth in love". The "we" that does this speaking is clearly all believers not just Apostles and Prophets. So this indicates that the ministry of building up the body is done by all believers

In verse 16 it is clear that the body makes itself grow when all the parts of the body are working properly, not just the Apostles and Prophets. All the parts of the body are all believers so again it is the ministry of all saints to build up the body. To limit this ministry to a ministry of the Apostles and zpriphets in verse 12 seems to contradict verses 15&16.

So because of 1) the grammar of modern translations (which are meant to be easier understood) and 2) the immediate context. I do not think it is correct to limit the list of Apostels, Prophets ... as the ones who alone are doing the ministry of building up the body. I believe it is pretty clear that is is the work of all the saints to do this ministry.

Therefore to say this verse means there must be living prophets and apostles is erroneous because it is based on the mistaken belief that the apostles and prophets actually do the ministry of building up the body. The saints do this ministry, so there only needs to be living saints to do this ministry.

Do you agree that verses 15-16 indicate that the body grows when all the saints are working-that all believers are involved in the process?

As neither of us are Greek Scholars (I'm presuming) I'm not sure if we'll get any further on our discussion of verse 12-13 as it seems to be a translational issue.

[teddyaware]

Hi dj,

As I suggested, let's take this one micro-point at a time.

In your last post you say: "So because of 1) the grammar of modern translations (which are meant to be easier understood) and 2) the immediate context. I do not think it is correct to limit the list of Apostels, Prophets ... as the ones who alone are doing the ministry of building up the body."

In my previous post, I said Ephesians 4 verses11&12 indicate all the listed church leaders, in verse 11, are expected do the work of the ministry and edify the body of Christ. Here is germaine quote from my previous post:

"To me it's exceedingly difficult to imagine that Paul isn't teaching here that ALL the above listed church officers are called upon to build the body of Christ."

I have a question for you: Do you believe that Paul, in his calling as an Apostle in the early Church, ever performed the work of the ministry and the building up of the body of Christ?

[Flyonthewall]

I think this demonstrates how a translation can lose something...are the Prophets and Apostles etc. supposed perfect the saints? or to simply equip the saints...

Two different meanings for the same scripture...hmmm I wonder how many other places this has happened.

[djholmess]

Hi dj,

As I suggested, let's take this one micro-point at a time.

In your last post you say: "So because of 1) the grammar of modern translations (which are meant to be easier understood) and 2) the immediate context. I do not think it is correct to limit the list of Apostels, Prophets ... as the ones who alone are doing the ministry of building up the body."

In my previous post, I said Ephesians 4 verses11&12 indicate all the listed church leaders, in verse 11, are expected do the work of the ministry and edify the body of Christ. Here is germaine quote from my previous post:

"To me it's exceedingly difficult to imagine that Paul isn't teaching here that ALL the above listed church officers are called upon to build the body of Christ."

I have a question for you: Do you believe that Paul, in his calling as an Apostle in the early Church, ever performed the work of the ministry and the building up of the body of Christ?

As I have said; the section of Ephesians 4:11-16 is teaching that when all the body is working together it makes itself grow. Or to put it another way all the saints do the work of building up the body of Christ. So Paul as a saint and member of the body of Christ was involved in this work.

However, Paul as an Apostle; along with other Apostles, Propehts Shepherds etc have a specific responsibiity to equip the saints to do the ministry of building up the body. So Paul 1) as an apostle had a responsibilty to equip the saints to do the work and 2) as a saint had the work to do himself as well.

Let me ask you: in verse 16 when Paul says the whole body makes itself grow when all the parts are working do you believe this just refers to Apostles, Prophets, Shepherds etc as 'all the parts' or does this refere to all the saints as 'all the parts'?

Edited August 24, 2012 by djholmess

[Vance]

As I have said; the section of Ephesians 4:11-16 is teaching that when all the body is working together it makes itself grow.

Ok, but it also says that the body INCLUDES apostles and prophets. At least the body of the TRUE church INCLUDES apostles and prophets.

Or to put it another way all the saints do the work of building up the body of Christ.

Ok, The CJCLDS does EXACTLY that.

So Paul as a saint and member of the body of Christ was involved in this work.

And as an apostle and prophet his also involved in this work.

However, Paul as an Apostle; along with other Apostles, Propehts Shepherds etc have a specific responsibiity to equip the saints to do the ministry of building up the body.

Yup. I can agree with that. The True Church will have apostles and prophets that "equip the saints (members of the true church) to do the ministry of building up the body".

So Paul 1) as an apostle had a responsibilty to equip the saints to do the work and 2) as a saint had the work to do himself as well.

Agreed.

Let me ask you: in verse 16 when Paul says the whole body makes itself grow when all the parts are working do you believe this just refers to Apostles, Prophets, Shepherds etc as 'all the parts' or does this refere to all the saints as 'all the parts'?

Apostle and prophets are parts of the body. In FACT they are the FOUNDATION, a vital part.

Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Notice the similarity of language, "all the building fitly framed together" (Eph 2:21) and, " the whole body fitly joined together" (Eph 4:16).

Apostles and prophets ARE (not were) a VITAL part of the true Church.

Edited August 24, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

The problem with your argument is that Hebrews also calls Jesus a "priest".

Heb 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. (Quoting Ps 110:4)

It also says,

10 Called or God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

So, was the order of Melchisedec, an order of "high priests" or simply "priests"?

(Wouldn't "high priests" be a subset of "priests"?

And again it says,

Heb 6:20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

What is consistent is the "after the order of Melchisedec".

Perhaps you need to determine what an "order" is.

You haven't established that.

That part is true. Your problem is that you don't understand that ONLY those of the same "order" as Melchizedek “abideth a priest continually”.

Do you realize that by that statement you are admitting that Jesus was a "priest".

Well, those parts are not limited to only Jesus. And you are neglecting the rest of the chapter which does the same.

1) You haven't established that Jesus was not "a priest". Hebrews clearly says he was.

2) No, He was not "likened to a High Priest of the Aaronic" order, He was distinguished from them.

Do you not see the distinction?

You mean, besides the one you just mentioned?

Other than him being a member of the same order as Jesus?

As was Melchizedek. So, what is your point?

You mean other than 1 Pet 2:9????

Ok, the text doesn't clarify this concept so you don't know what it all means, BUT MORMONS ARE WRONG!!!

That is a common anti-Mormon approach. It doesn't sell well here.

Actually it does, Melchizedek was ALSO of the order of Melchizedek. So that is TWO. Besides, it take more than one to make an order. And it makes no sense at all to use the word "order" if there were only two.

From the 1828 Dictionary,

Sorry, but the use of the word "order" TOTALLY BLOWS AWAY YOUR ARGUMENT!!!!!

See above.

No response yet.

[teddyaware]

Let me ask you: in verse 16 when Paul says the whole body makes itself grow when all the parts are working do you believe this just refers to Apostles, Prophets, Shepherds etc as 'all the parts' or does this refere to all the saints as 'all the parts'?

I already answered that question in my last post; wherein I said:

"To me it's exceedingly difficult to imagine that Paul isn't teaching here that all the above listed church officers are called upon to build the body of Christ."

Let me tell you something that's been on my mind, dj. I think you just might be putting all of us on here; deliberately messing about and distorting the clear and unambiguous meaning the scriptures in an attempt to confuse and toy with "the Mormons," just for the amusement it brings. I say this in a spirit of fun, as you have not offended me in the least

But if you're not trying to pull our collective legs on this thread, let me give you some advice: I don't know how old you are, but if you're still somewhat young, I want you to know that you should think seriously about going to law school to study to become a criminal defence attorney. And I don't say that to put you down, as you have an amazing talent, a gift really.

You're so good at making language and the meaning of words pliant, indefinite and amorphus, that I can almost gurantee your clients will either be acquitted of the crimes for which they've been charged, or you'll wind up with a lot of hung juries, which are almost as good as aquittals. Your opposing lawyers -- as well as the hapless people you'll examine and cross examine -- will have swimming heads and sputtering lips by the time you're done with them. The jurors will invariably think "reasonable doubt;" while the judges will pop advils by the handfull. And to top it all off, you'll make a whole lot of money while you're at it, to boot!

All the best, Ted

[djholmess]

I already answered that question in my last post; wherein I said:

"To me it's exceedingly difficult to imagine that Paul isn't teaching here that all the above listed church officers are called upon to build the body of Christ."

Let me tell you something that's been on my mind, dj. I think you just might be putting all of us on here; deliberately messing about and distorting the clear and unambiguous meaning the scriptures in an attempt to confuse and toy with "the Mormons," just for the amusement it brings. I say this in a spirit of fun, as you have not offended me in the least

But if you're not trying to pull our collective legs on this thread, let me give you some advice: I don't know how old you are, but if you're still somewhat young, I want you to know that you should think seriously about going to law school to study to become a criminal defence attorney. And I don't say that to put you down, as you have an amazing talent, a gift really.

You're so good at making language and the meaning of words pliant, indefinite and amorphus, that I can almost gurantee your clients will either be acquitted of the crimes for which they've been charged, or you'll wind up with a lot of hung juries, which are almost as good as aquittals. Your opposing lawyers -- as well as the hapless people you'll examine and cross examine -- will have swimming heads and sputtering lips by the time you're done with them. The jurors will invariably think "reasonable doubt;" while the judges will pop advils by the handfull. And to top it all off, you'll make a whole lot of money while you're at it, to boot!

All the best, Ted

I feel your tone is very disrespectful. I have clearly laid out why I beleive the plain reading of the text in view teaches 1) that Apostles & Prophets are responsible to equip the saints for ministry 2) that all saints do the ministry of building up the body. I have in no way been trying to be facetious with the text but simple hold your understanding of the text up to the actual words of the text.

This is the very format you wanted-you asked me to discuss this with you point by point.

I asked you that question again because you have as yet not directly answered it. Do only the list in verse 11 build up the body of Christ? Your answer seems to be yes. So then I want to know do you then limit 'the body that makes itself grow' in verse 16 to only include the Apostles etc. to be consistent you would have too. However I think we can both see that the plain reading of verses 13-16 is that the parts of the body working and growing refers to all the saints. So all the saints do this ministry of building up the body.

As I said at the start of this conversation my intention was simply to demonstrate to you why evangelicals do not pay much attention to the LDS argument that Ephesians 4 teaches that living Apostles are nessecary - because we recognise that not only apostles but all the saints build up the body.

Edited August 25, 2012 by djholmess

[teddyaware]

Hi dj,

All right, then. Mission accomplished; you do appear to be legit. The reason why I went on about you becoming a lawyer, is that from my point of view your arguments are so weak and unconvincing that I thought you just might be pulling my leg. No disrespect is meant in saying this. It's just that your argumentation, from my perspective, is very,very weak indeed. You may think the same about my argumentation, and that's just fine. Each of us is allowed our own perspectives and opinions on the subject

There's a mental exercise you could put yourself through when reading the New Testament: Remember, all that was written and spoken during the New Testament period happened at a time when there actually were living Apostles and Prophets in the Church. So you need to ask yourself this: "How would a New Testament time period Church member interpret the passages found in Ephesians 4?" When those folks heard Paul teach that the Church they belonged to was built upon the foundation of Apostles and Prophets, there can be no doubt they understood him to mean living Apostles and Prophets (Eph 2), for he was one. Don't interpret these scriptures in light of you own modern protestant church experience. Rather, try to understand them in the same way those of the New Testament Ghurch would have understood them. That's the key! Otherwise, confusion reigns.

Though the point of the last question you ask seems somewhat vague to me, I think it might be satisfactorally answered by quoting Paul once again. Remenber, try very hard to understand these verses the the same way the New Testament Church members would have understood them...

14 For the body is not one member, but many.

15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the ^ahead to the feet, I have no need of you.

22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be ^amore feeble, are necessary:

23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:

25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same ^acare one for another.

26 And whether one member ^asuffer, all the members ^bsuffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

27 Now ye are the body of ^aChrist, and ^bmembers in particular.

28 And God hath set some in the church, first ^aapostles, secondarily ^bprophets, thirdly ^cteachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, ^dgovernments, diversities of tongues.

29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of ^amiracles?

30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? (1 Cor 12)