When Did Jesus Receive The Aaronic And Melchizedek Priesthood?

[Ahab]

this has something to do with your confusion, am sure, because this is not what "priesthood" in the Bible means.

examples:

to all of Israel that returned from captivity in Babylon,

Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Consider your ways.

Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house;

and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith the LORD.

(Haggai 1:7-

the Lord authorized the people to rebuild the temple. were they all made priests?

And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant;

and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him.

(Jeremiah 27:6)

the Lord authorized Nebuchadnezzar to build a kingdom and rule over it. was Nebuchadnezzar the Lord's priest?

And Samuel said to Saul, “The LORD sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the LORD. Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

(1 Samuel 15:1-3)

the Lord authorized Saul to destroy the Amalekites. was Saul a priest of God?

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.

The authorities that exist have been established by God.

(Romans 13:1)

there is no government given authority whose authority is not established by God.

is Obama a priest of the Almighty God? his authority to rule in America is from God.

is Kim Jong-un a priest of the Lord of Hosts? his authority to rule in North Korea is established by God.

maybe it would be wise instead to look at what a "priest" is from the standpoint of the Bible, don't you think?

The office/position/calling of priest in the priesthood is not the same thing as the priesthood itself, just as the office/position/calling of elder or deacon or bishop or apostle or patriarch, etc, is not the same thing as the priesthood itself. There is an association, but they are not the same thing. And yes even people who aren't called and ordained to an office in the priesthood can still receive and act by the power of the priesthood/authority of God, including women and wee babies.

[Avatar4321]

if "blessing" = conferring priesthood, why did Abraham at that time pay a tithe to Melchizedek? 

priests do not pay tithes to each other. 

maybe not in your church. But in the Church of Jesus Christ priests do.

but as your church has no priests or priesthood I presume that is accurate from your experience.

tell me, who do you think priests are supposed to tithe to if not someone who has keys over them?

[Ahab]

tell me, who do you think priests are supposed to tithe to if not someone who has keys over them?

I'm imagining him imagining someone jangling some keys like some car keys or keys to a building over the head of some priest, with the priest supposedly giving his tithe to him.

Some things are just kinda hard to put into words.

[Canadaigua]

We believe he was a type and a shadow of Christ - thus the priesthood was identified thru him.

What is your point?

Then why don't we see anyone in the entire Bible besides Christ who was a high priest after the order of Melchizedek?

[Ahab]

Then why don't we see anyone in the entire Bible besides Christ who was a high priest after the order of Melchizedek?

We do. You just don't know what to look for. That order is his order, and when he gave his authority to others back then then they were of the same order as him.

[JLHPROF]

Then why don't we see anyone in the entire Bible besides Christ who was a high priest after the order of Melchizedek?

 

Several of us have already told you of DOZENS of people who were Melchezidek Priesthood holders in the Bible.

But just because that term isn't specified and you don't understand priesthood, you are unable to recognize them as such.

[Avatar4321]

Then why don't we see anyone in the entire Bible besides Christ who was a high priest after the order of Melchizedek?

still pretending melchizedek isn't a high priest after the order of melchizedek? I mean the order is named after him. Not to mention it's quite obvious that no order has only one person in it.

[Vance]

Then why don't we see anyone in the entire Bible besides Christ who was a high priest after the order of Melchizedek?

You mean besides Christ and Melchizedek, right?

 

After all it can't be an "order" with only one.  From the 1828 Webster Dictionary

 

Order

1. Regular disposition or methodical arrangement of things; a word of extensive application; as the order of troops or parade; the order of books in a library; the order of proceedings in a legislative assembly. order is the life of business.

 

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, etc.

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

[Flyonthewall]

Then why don't we see anyone in the entire Bible besides Christ who was a high priest after the order of Melchizedek?

Blinders I suppose. I see many people in the Bible that had the priesthood. Moses had the Melchizedek priesthood. The priesthood was changed with Aaron - due to the house of Israel's rebellion and they received a lesser portion of the priesthood.

[Canadaigua]

You mean besides Christ and Melchizedek, right?

 

After all it can't be an "order" with only one.  From the 1828 Webster Dictionary

 

Order

Hebrews 7:15

<>

• NASB 7:15 And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, 
• ESV 7:15 This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, 
• KJV 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

 

Christ holds a unique priesthood that nobody else holds and he is our high priest after the likeness/similitude of Melchizedek who has superseded the Levitical high priest after His death.  Under the law there was only one high priest at a time and now there is only one high priest and that is Christ.

He is like Melchizedek in that he is a king and a priest and his authority is above that of the Levitical.

[Canadaigua]

Blinders I suppose. I see many people in the Bible that had the priesthood. Moses had the Melchizedek priesthood. The priesthood was changed with Aaron - due to the house of Israel's rebellion and they received a lesser portion of the priesthood.

The idea that Moses held the Melchizedek priesthood and that this priesthood was downgraded to the Aaronic because of rebellion is a LDS concept that nobody else believes--except perhaps the FLDS.  It is just not to be found because there wasn't a Melchizedek priesthood that started with Adam going down to Moses--then downgraded to the Aaronic except for the prophets who still held the Melchizedek.  Moving into the NT nobody held this priesthood except Christ and that was only after his death when he became our high priest superseding the Levitical high priest.  This is symbolized when the Temple curtain was torn in two at the death of Christ.

[Michael Sanders]

So, in summary, what the full phrase means is that the recipient of the Melchizedek Priesthood does not have to have a father and mother of the tribe of Levi in order to receive it; and that, unlike the Levitical Priesthood that had its beginning with the law of Moses, the Melchizedek Priesthood had no beginning and will have no end. Do I have it right?

That's how I've always understood the verse.

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

[Michael Sanders]

Then why don't we see anyone in the entire Bible besides Christ who was a high priest after the order of Melchizedek?

One of David's Psalms states, "The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.". Psalm 110:4

It has been argued that this text is a coronation psalm for the appointment of a Davidic king. We need to ask ourselves who is this "thou" in the verse above referring to? It certainly doesn't refer to either Jesus Christ or Melchizedek (which is who evangelicals tell us can possess this priesthood). No one is assuming that this was an unbroken succession, but the psalm (upon which the Hebrews 7 text relies), in its original context, quite clearly contemplates a succession of priest-kings anointed after the order of Melchizedek. This explains how Saul, David, Solomon ---none of whom was of the lineage of Aaron---made sacrifices without reproach. Joseph Smith seemingly confirms the idea, that authorized and appointed kings were possessors of this priesthood.

So, who is being referred to in Psalm 110 Canadaigua? And why does the author of the Hebrew letter allude to this episode in Hebrews 7?

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

[Bobbieaware]

The idea that Moses held the Melchizedek priesthood and that this priesthood was downgraded to the Aaronic because of rebellion is a LDS concept that nobody else believes--except perhaps the FLDS. It is just not to be found because there wasn't a Melchizedek priesthood that started with Adam going down to Moses--then downgraded to the Aaronic except for the prophets who still held the Melchizedek. Moving into the NT nobody held this priesthood except Christ and that was only after his death when he became our high priest superseding the Levitical high priest. This is symbolized when the Temple curtain was torn in two at the death of Christ.

The Book of Mormon makes it known that the Bible is missing many plain and precious truths that would otherwise have been included in its pages if it hadn't been for designing, apostate men who deliberately held back very important portions of sacred writ from exposure and publication. One can never hope to get a complete and definitive picture of what went on in the New Testament Church from the Bible as it exists today. As the apostle John indicated, what's in the Bible is only the scant tip of a very large mass of sacred information. Without living prophets to uncover and reveal what was intentionally withheld from the world, it's inevitable one will stumble, even if he doesn't realize it.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[JLHPROF]

The idea that Moses held the Melchizedek priesthood and that this priesthood was downgraded to the Aaronic because of rebellion is a LDS concept that nobody else believes--except perhaps the FLDS. 

 

So?  Popularity means nothing.  There are 1,800,000 muslims, 1,100,000 hindus, etc.  Doesn't make their religions any more true.

 

 

It is just not to be found because there wasn't a Melchizedek priesthood that started with Adam going down to Moses--then downgraded to the Aaronic except for the prophets who still held the Melchizedek. 

 

Yes, there was.  If you can make claims with no backing, so can I.

In the end these claims are like the atheist who cannot see the evidence of God so decides God cannot be.  You cannot see the evidence of ongoing priesthood so you decide it doesn't exist.  And just like the atheist, your inability to see the evidence is an issue of faith, not of fact.  Hebrews 11:1.

 

 

Moving into the NT nobody held this priesthood except Christ and that was only after his death when he became our high priest superseding the Levitical high priest.  This is symbolized when the Temple curtain was torn in two at the death of Christ.

 

Nope.  Revelation 1:6 & 5:10 state that many will become priests.

The tearing of the veil represented the removal of the barrier between God and man (among other things).  It had NOTHING to do with the end of the Levitical priesthood (which BTW Malachi 3:3 and Mormonism teaches won't end until another righteous offering is made).

 

This notion of Christ as the one and only priesthood holder has no scriptural backing - Christ is named as the great High Priest, but that is not a prohibition on any other priests.

Edited January 9, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Flyonthewall]

The idea that Moses held the Melchizedek priesthood and that this priesthood was downgraded to the Aaronic because of rebellion is a LDS concept that nobody else believes--except perhaps the FLDS.  It is just not to be found because there wasn't a Melchizedek priesthood that started with Adam going down to Moses--then downgraded to the Aaronic except for the prophets who still held the Melchizedek.  Moving into the NT nobody held this priesthood except Christ and that was only after his death when he became our high priest superseding the Levitical high priest.  This is symbolized when the Temple curtain was torn in two at the death of Christ.

Of course it is an LDS belief because we have more truth to go on.

The Priesthood Adam held would not have been called the Melchizedek priesthood as Melchizedek had not been born yet. It would have simply been the "Priesthood". The priesthood would have been the same until the Mosaic Law, where it was down graded and given different duties - like with Aaron and the Levites. The priesthood had definitely changed.

Of course moving into the NT nobody held the higher priesthood - how long had Israel been without a prophet?

Christ had the priesthood before His death - it was His priesthood. He is the Great High Priest.

The Holy of Holies was the most sacred room in the ancient temple; it symbolized the presence of God. Once a year, on the Day of Atonement, the high priest passed through the veil of the temple and entered into the Holy of Holies, where he sprinkled the blood of a sin offering to atone for the sins of all the congregation of Israel (see Leviticus 16). When the veil of the temple was “rent in twain” (torn in two) at the death of Jesus Christ (Matthew 27:51), it was a dramatic symbol that the Savior, the Great High Priest, had passed through the veil of death and would shortly enter into the presence of God.

[Michael Sanders]

Is it possible that David Whitmer is right in the above quote?

Please consider the mindset and age of the author at the writing of this "Address" which is clearly filled with errors. First, he is incorrect to state that high priests "were only in the church before Christ" and that having them in the Restored Church "is not according to the teachings of Christ in either of the sacred books..." After his apparent disillusionment and rejection of latter-day revelation (notice he writes "either of the sacred books" having rejected the D&C) he is confusing the role of an Aaronite High Priest with Melchizedek Priesthood holders of which Lehi and the other Book of Mormon prophets are numbered (remember they are of Manasseh, not Levi) and besides in the Book of Alma we have references to a plurality of high priests functioning in the church (not a singular Aaronite High Priest as David envisions here - sorry David). His next statement that Christ is "our great and last High Priest" is unscriptural no matter how oft repeated and found nowhere in the scriptures. David's allegation that the office of High Priest was introduced (by Rigdon I suppose) "two years" later by "men who had drifted into error" begs the question. Where were you David when all this was going on? Were you not in those selfsame councils with those men? Did you not uphold the work? Why were you yourself ordained to this office on October 21, 1831 per the Far West Record?

David ascribes the miraculous restoration of the high priesthood with accompanying power as being the work of the devil:

"It was not given to Brother John nor any of them at that time to understand this matter of the devil entering into the first High Priests that were ordained in the church. They were all blind as to the design of that thing, and did not see what it meant. Of course it was given to Brother Joseph to cast the devil out, but what was the design of the devil entering into these men just as soon as they were ordained the first High Priests ever ordained in the church? Of course it was to show that God' s sore displeasure was upon their erring works or ordaining High Priests into the Church of Christ. Any spiritual man can see this. Brother John was himself ordained a High Priest at that time, so he was in error and could not see it; but he saw it very clearly in 1848, when the Lord opened our eyes to see and understand it. Prejudiced persons are blind and do not want to see and understand except their own preconceived way. There is none so blind as those who will not see." David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers (Richmond, MO: By the Author, 1887: reprinted., Concord, CA: Pacific Publishing Company, 1960), p 81-82

This he recollects some 50 years after the fact concerning the June 1831 conferences, then he turns around 4 months later and gets ordained to the high priesthood along with several other elders. Especially when compared to the accounts left by others who were there when "the authority of the Melchisedec priesthood was manifested, and conferred for the first time upon several of the elders" i.e. Joseph Smith, John Whitmer, Lyman Wight, Parley Pratt, Levi Hancock, John Corrill, Newel Knight, etc...who put an entirely different spin on the event. Something is not adding up here.

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

Edited January 9, 2015 by Michael Sanders

[Canadaigua]

Of course it is an LDS belief because we have more truth to go on.

The Priesthood Adam held would not have been called the Melchizedek priesthood as Melchizedek had not been born yet. It would have simply been the "Priesthood". The priesthood would have been the same until the Mosaic Law, where it was down graded and given different duties - like with Aaron and the Levites. The priesthood had definitely changed.

Of course moving into the NT nobody held the higher priesthood - how long had Israel been without a prophet?

Christ had the priesthood before His death - it was His priesthood. He is the Great High Priest.

 

Of course it is an LDS belief because we have more truth to go on.

But it is inconsistent with what is taught in the Bible

 

The Priesthood Adam held would not have been called the Melchizedek priesthood as Melchizedek had not been born yet. It would have simply been the "Priesthood".

It was called "The Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God".  But this is the same thing as the Melchizedek priesthood.

 

The priesthood would have been the same until the Mosaic Law, where it was down graded and given different duties - like with Aaron and the Levites. The priesthood had definitely changed.

Prior to the Levitical priesthood there was not an organized priesthood like you propose.  The first organized priesthood came under the Mosaic law.

 

Of course moving into the NT nobody held the higher priesthood - how long had Israel been without a prophet?

LDS believe that the apostles held the Melchizedek priesthood but you won't find this anywhere in the NT.  Rather what you see is that Christ lived under the law which had Levitical priests and a single high priest and when Christ died he superseded the Aaronic High Priest becoming our Melchizedek High Priest. entering into the true Holy of Holies which is Heaven.

 

Christ had the priesthood before His death - it was His priesthood. He is the Great High Priest.

Christ lived under the law and the priesthood was via the tribe of Levi.  Christ was from the tribe of Judah and therefore under the law could not be a priest.

[Flyonthewall]

Of course it is an LDS belief because we have more truth to go on.

But it is inconsistent with what is taught in the Bible

It is not inconsistent with what is taught in the Bible. The fact is, there is hardly anything taught about Melchizedek in the Bible.

 

 

The Priesthood Adam held would not have been called the Melchizedek priesthood as Melchizedek had not been born yet. It would have simply been the "Priesthood".

It was called "The Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God".  But this is the same thing as the Melchizedek priesthood.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Flyonthewall

[Canadaigua]

". . .The bible states that Jesus ordained them and set them apart - this is bestowing the priesthood upon them.

Of course Christ lived under the Mosaic law, until he fulfilled it. Does not negate the fact that He had the higher priesthood and was a priest after the order of Melchizedek, not a Levitical priest. . . "

 

The Bible doesn't teach that Jesus gave the apostles the Melchizedek priesthood nor does say any NT member holds the Melchizedek priesthood.  But I would be interested in hearing where you think that it states that--BTW the verses about "keys of the kingdom" doesn't mention a thing about the Melchizedek priesthood.

 

There was no such thing as the Melchizedek priesthood under the law--what is the basis for you to say that Jesus held this priesthood during his earthly ministry?

[Canadaigua]

Remember the name of the priesthood? - The Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God.

Was He or was He not the Son of God?

"The Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God" is a term that the Mormons have invented.

 

Jesus is the Son of God.

 

I am not sure how you think that this supports your position.  Perhaps you could elaborate on it for me.

[Canadaigua]

Of course it is the same as the Melchizedek - because it was given to him, and because he was a type and a shadow of Christ it was later identified through him. Interesting that he was such a great High Priest that it was identified through him. It was mentioned in Psalms so known in the time of David, and in the NT times.

 

1.  If the Melchizedek priesthood existed at the time of Adam why on earth would it be named after Melchizedek who comes and goes within a few verses in Genesis.  

 

2.  Since you believe that Abraham held the Melchizedek priesthood why do you think that Melchizedek was superior to Abraham

 

Hebrews 7

4 See how great this man was to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils! 

5 And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people, that is, from their brothers, though these also are descended from Abraham. 

6 But this man who does not have his descent from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 

7 It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior. 

[Flyonthewall]

The Bible doesn't teach that Jesus gave the apostles the Melchizedek priesthood nor does say any NT member holds the Melchizedek priesthood.  But I would be interested in hearing where you think that it states that

Here is one:

John 15:16

16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Matthew 16 and 19 both refer to it.

--BTW the verses about "keys of the kingdom" doesn't mention a thing about the Melchizedek priesthood.

Why should it have to? By what means will the keys of the kingdom allow them to bind on earth and heaven?

 

There was no such thing as the Melchizedek priesthood under the law--what is the basis for you to say that Jesus held this priesthood during his earthly ministry?

According to Hebrews 7, the Mosaic law could not be fulfilled without it.

Just what is the priesthood to you?

[Flyonthewall]

"The Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God" is a term that the Mormons have invented.

 

Jesus is the Son of God.

 

I am not sure how you think that this supports your position.  Perhaps you could elaborate on it for me.You are the one that used that name so I was simply bringing it back to your attention.

[Canadaigua]

Here is one:

John 15:16

16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Matthew 16 and 19 both refer to it.

 

But you are reading the Melchizedek priesthood into the text.  Nowhere in the verses that you have given me says a thing about the Melchizedek priesthood.