The Biblical Evidence for an Ordained, Ministerial Priesthood in the New Covenant from the Last Supper Accounts

The Biblical Evidence for an Ordained, Ministerial Priesthood in the New Covenant from texts dealing with the Eucharist

Within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there are two priesthoods that worthy males are ordained to--the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods. It is the belief of Latter-day Saints that, through the Prophet Joseph Smith, God restored these priesthoods and their authorities as part of the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

In this paper, I will discuss the question of the biblical evidence for an ordained, ministerial priesthood, in contradistinction to opponents, mainly Evangelical Protestants, who claim that there is no ordained priesthood under the New Covenant, and, furthermore, the only holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood is Jesus Christ. Furthermore, at the end of this paper, I will answer common theological, exegetical, and historical questions that are often raised against Latter-day Saint theology on the Priesthood.

Before I begin, it should be noted that one should not expect a one-to-one “match” between the modern LDS structure and theology of the Priesthood and of those in previous dispensations, as we are in the “Dispensation of the Fullness of Times.” As it is written:

[F]or it is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fullness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and to be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time. And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, and dispensation of the fullness of times. (D&C 128:18 [emphasis added])

Notwithstanding, there exists strong implicit evidence from the New Testament, as well as explicit Old Testament evidence, proving an ordained priesthood within the New Covenant.

What about Hebrews 7:24?

Perhaps the most commonly used verse to “disprove” there being an ordained priesthood is Heb 7:24, a text used, not just against Latter-day Saints, but others, such as the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox who would agree on this particular issue (though Latter-day Saints do not have a sacradotal priesthood). The text, from the NIV, an Evangelical Protestant translation, reads:

But because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood.

Much ink has been spilled on the term translated “permanent” (KJV: unchangeable), the Greek term απαραβατος. This is a hapax legomenon (a word only used once in the Greek New Testament), and some, especially commentators until the turn of the twentieth century, postulated, as it was not found in other Greek texts contemporary with Hebrews, it was a term invented by the author of the Hebrews to describe Christ’s priesthood as being non-transferable. However, since the turn of the twentieth-century, Greek papyri contemporary with Hebrews were unearthed, disproving this thesis, and this is reflected in most scholarly Greek lexicons and commentaries.

For instance, on page 53 of Moulton-Milligan’s Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, S.V. απαραβατος:

 In P Ryl II. 65¹⁸ (B.C. 67?—in any case Ptol.) a judgement ends with καὶ τἄλλα τὰ δι᾽ αὐτῆ[ς δι]ωρισμένα μένειν κύρια καὶ ἀπαράβατα, “valid and inviolate” (Edd.). The legal formula, thus established for an early period, survives six centuries later in P Grenf I. 60⁷ (A.D. 581) ἀπαραβάτῳ πράσει: “inviolable” must be the sense, though the words follow a hiatus. Another example, also vi/A.D., is in P Lond 1015¹² (= III. p. 257) ἄτρωτα καὶ ἀσάλευτα καὶ ἀπαράβατας …, a contract for the surrender of property. See also P Catt recto^{v. 19} (ii/A.D.) (= Chrest. II. p. 422) ἔνια ἀπαράβατά ἐστιν, “es gibt Dinge, an denen sich nichts ändern lässt” (Ed.). It is clear that the technical use, compared with the late literary (ap. Lobeck Phryn. p. 313), constitutes a very strong case against the rendering “not transferable”. Phrynichus himself prescribed ἀπαραίτητος: what sense that would have made in Heb 7²⁴ passes comprehension. Vettius Valens has the adverb five times (see index), always as “validly” or “inevitably.” It occurs in P Strass I. 40²³ (A.D. 569), rendered “unverbrüchlich” (Ed.). 

This is also reflected in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG), the term is defined thusly (emphasis added):

804  ἀπαράβατος

• ἀπαράβατος, ον (s. παραβαίνω; belonging to later Gk. [Phryn. 313 Lob.]; not LXX) Hb 7:24 usu. interpr. ‘without a successor’. But this mng. is found nowhere else. ἀ. rather has the sense permanent, unchangeable (Stoic. II 266, 1; 293, 31 [Chrysipp.]; Plut., Mor. 410f; 745d; Epict. 2, 15, 1, Ench. 51, 2; Herm. Wr. fgm. XXIII, 48 [494, 26 Sc.], fgm. XXIV, 1; Philo, Aet. M. 112; Jos., Ant. 18, 266, C. Ap. 2, 293; Just., A I, 43, 7; as legal t.t. over a long period of time in pap: PRyl 65, 18 [I BC]; PLond III, 1015, 12 p. 257 [VI AD] ἄτρωτα καὶ ἀσάλευτα καὶ ἀπαράβατα; Mitt-Wilck. II /2, 372 V, 19; PEllingworth, JSNT 23 ’85, 125f).—M-M. TW. Spicq.—DELG s.v. βαίνω. 

One recent Protestant commentator who, while agreeing with the common Protestant view that only Jesus holds the Melchizedek Priesthood, rejects the antiquated understanding of απαραβατος:

[Heb 7:24] is straightforward in its meaning, asserting Jesus has a permanent, perpetual, unchanging priesthood because he “lives for ever.” When the adjective aparabaton, “permanent,” is translated attributively, as in the NIV, KJV, and a few other translations, it is a violation of Greek grammar. The adverbial rendering as in the NASB is also problematic. It is better to take the adjective in a predicate relationship to the noun, as “Jesus has the priesthood (and it is) permanent,” or as a relative clause, “a priesthood which is permanent.” (David L. Allen, Hebrews [vol. 35 The New American Commentary; Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2010], 428)

The 10-volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) defines the term as follows:

απαραβατος

This is a rare word found only in later Gk. Only very infrequently does it have the sense of "inviolable." Epict. Enoch .. 51:2 νομος απαραβατος also P. Ryl., II. 65 18: P. Grenf., I. 60, 7. its usual sense is "unchangeable," "immutable." In this sense fate is said to be unconditionally fixed and subject to no change or alteration. Plut. De Fato 1 (II.568d): η ειμαρμενη λογος θειος απαρβατος δι' αιτιαν ανεμποδιστον; De Plactis Philosophorum. I. 28,4 (II, 885b): οι Στωικοι ειρμον αιτιων, τουτεστι ταξιν και επιουνδεσιν απαραβατον; M. Ant., XII, 14, 1: αναγκη ειμαρμενης και απαραβατος ταξις . . . In the sense "unchangeable" the word is a tt. in law. A judgment from the 1st cent. A.D. (P. Ryl., II, 65, 18) ends with the words: και ταλλα τα δι' αυτη[ς δι]ωρισμενα μενειν και απαραβατα ("valid and unalterable") . . . Hb. 7:24 says of Christ that because He remains to eternity He has an unchangeable and imperishable priesthood. Instead of the pass. "unchangeable" many expositors suggest the act. sense "which cannot be transferred to another": "Christ has a priesthood which cannot be transferred to anyone else." This is a natural interpretation and yields a good sense, but it does not really fit the context. We should keep to the rendering "unchangeable," the more so as the act. sense is not attested elsewhere. (Gerhard Kittell and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [10 vols.: trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley: Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1967], 5:742-43)

In other words, the verse does not teach that the Melchizedek Priesthood cannot be passed from one to another, but that this divine power is permanent and unchangeable, which makes sense in light of it being part of the power and authority of God. Nothing in the verse, however, precludes this authority being granted, albeit in a narrow sense, to others to act in His name.

That the Bible affirms that more than Jesus and Melchizedek hold the Melchizedek Priesthood can be shown by the fact that the Davidic Kings were the addressee of the following text:

The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." (Psa 110:4 NRSV)

This would explain why David and Solomon, who were not Levites, would engage in priestly sacrifices and other actions (e.g.,2 Sam 6:12-14 [cf. Exo 28:6]; 2 Chron 6:13; 1 Kgs 8). Furthermore, the term כֹּהֵן (priest [KJV: rulers]) is used of the sons of David in 2 Sam 8:18. Here is the NRSV translation of this verse:

Benaiah son of Jehoiada was over the Cherethites and the Pelethites; and David's sons were priests (כֹּהֲנִ֥ים).

All this adds support to the Latter-day Saint contention that other people than Jesus and Melchizedek held the Melchizedek Priesthood (cf. D&C 107).

To understand the desperation many critics engage in to avoid the obvious claim that non-Levites served as priests in the Old Testament can be seen in this thread on the Mormon Dialogue forum. With respect to 1 Sam 2:18 ("But Samuel ministered before the Lord, being a child, girded with a linen ephod"), one Evangelical wrote the following (lame) argument:

1 Samuel 2:18 does not say that God called Samuel to serve as a priest. The passage says that Samuel worked as a servant to a priest, not that he was a priest himself (see v. 11). It was natural enough for assistants of the priests to wear a linen ephod, but this didn't make those assistants priests themselves.

Responding to this, Bill Hamblin wrote the following:

How about the fact that Moses and Samuel are equated in Jer. 15:1.

Moses and Aaron were among his priests,

Samuel was among those who called upon his name. (Ps 99:6)

Here, in Hebrew poetic parallelism, Samuel is a priest like Moses.

What about Samuel offering burnt offerings (1 Sam. 7:9)?

So:

1- he wears priestly robes (1 Sam 2:18)

2- he "serves" in the temple/tabernacle (1 Sam 2:18), a technical term for temple liturgy (HALOT 1661-2)

3- he offers sacrifice (1 Sam 7:9)--supposedly a prerogative of priests.

4- he, like Moses is "stands before the Lord" (Ps 99:6 and Jer. 15:1)

The obvious conclusion is that Samuel was a priest, though not a Levite. Alas, since it doesn't match your Evangelical theology, you reject the obvious meaning of the text.

One can read the further exchange on this point on the thread, but it does show that Evangelical Protestants only play lip-service to follow the plain meaning of the biblical texts.

With respect to the term "order," here are how some lexical sources define the Hebrew and Greek terms:

Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature

ταξις, εως, η (Aeschyl. Hdt. +; inscr., pap., LXX, Ep. Arist., Philo, Joseph., Test. 12 Patr.; loanw. in rabb.).

1. fixed succession or order (Epic 3.2.2; Test. Napht. 2:8 εν ταξει) εν τη ταξει τησ εφημεριας αυτου Lk 1:8. Without εν: ταξει in strict chronological) order Papias 2:15, though JAKleist, transl. '48, 207f, note 19, prefers verbatim

Johanes E. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Basedo n Semantic Domains (2d ed.)

τάξις, εως f: an ordered or arranged sequence - 'in order, in a sequence.' ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ ἱερατεύειν αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ τάξει τῆς ἐφημερίας αὐτοῦ 'it happened while he was serving as a priest in the order of his division' Lk 1.8.


Benjamin Davidson, The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon

דברה
1. manner, mode, order, Ps. 110.4.

William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament

דִּבְרָה
*דִּבְרָה or *דְּבָרָה: cs. דִּבְרַת & דִּבְרָתִי Ps 1104; sf. דִּבְרָתִי Jb 58: — 1. )legal( case Jb 58; — 2 manner, way Ps 1104; — 3. ±al-dibrat on account of Ec 318 82; w. šellœ° (« še) so that…not 714.

Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT):

1956  דִּבְרָה

*דִּבְרָה or *) דְּבָרָהfem. of (דָּבָר: ï BArm.; cs. דִּבְרַת and דִּבְרָתִי Ps 1104 )BL 526k(; sffx. דִּבְרָתִי Jb 58:

—1. )legal( plea Jb 58; cj. Dt 333 ï דַּבֶּרֶת;

—2. manner Ps 1104;



—3. ) עַל־דִּבְרַתï דָּבָר 2; EgArm. DISO 55( with regard to Qoh 318 82; with ) שֶׁלֹּאï שֶׁ( so that not (alt. lest) 714. † 

Old Testament Prophecies of the New Covenant Priesthood

A common misconception among many is that the concept of priests and priestly actions are part of the Law of Moses, and, further, only Levites, after the establishment of the Levitical Priesthood, engaged in priestly services and sacrifices that were acceptable to God. However, this is far from the case. Before God established the Levitical priesthood, there were priests among the Israelites. For example, Noah (Gen 8:20); Abraham (Gen 12:7); Jacob (Gen 31:54, 46:1) and Jethro (Exo 18:12) offered sacrifices that were accepted by God. In Exo 19:22, 24:4-5, mention of priests and young men offering sacrifices before the establishment of the Levitical Priesthood are mentioned. Even after the establishment of the Levitical Priesthood, other Israelites offered sacrifices and/or were priests. For instance, Micah consecrated one of his sons to be his priest (Judg 17:5), although later he took a Levite to be his priest (Judg 17:11-12). Gideon offered a sacrifice (Judg 6:20-28), as did David (2 Sam 6:13), Manoah (Judg 13:15-23), and the prophet Elijah the Tishbite (1 Kgs 18:30-38). Moreover, David’s sons were priests in 2 Sam 8:18 (the Chronicler altered this in his history, instead giving them the position of chief officials in the service of the king [2 Chron 18:17]), and so was Ira the Jairite (2 Sam 20:26).

For a book-length study of the Israelite priesthood and its background, see Aelred Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood.

Interestingly, there are a number of Old Testament texts that speak of a ministerial priesthood as being part-and-parcel of the then-future New Covenant.

And I know their works and their thoughts; it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory. And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles. And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the Lord out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the Lord, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord. And I will also take of them for priests, and for Levites, saith the Lord. For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. (Isa 66:18-22).

In this pericope, Isaiah, speaking of the last days, has God’s people engaged in priestly, temple ministry, consistent with Latter-day Saint claims, not just about an ordained priesthood, but also temple worship in the New Covenant. Furthermore, God promises to “take of them” “Levites” (the Hebrew כֹּהֲנִ֥ים לַלְוִיִּ֖ם  which means “Levitical Priests”), without regard of their genealogy. Some critics claim that the LDS have an unbiblical view of the Aaronic Priesthood as we don’t ordain people to this priesthood based on their genealogy. However, with the death of Christ, such requirements were annulled, and we see the biblical evidence of this practice in Isaiah’s prophecy quoted above.

Other pertinent texts are the following:

For thus saith the Lord; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; Neither shall the priests the Levities want a man before me to offer burn offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to sacrifice continually. And the word of the Lord came unto Jeremiah, saying, Thus saith the Lord; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season. Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me. (Jer 33:17-22)

And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years. (Mal 3:3-4 [cf. D&C 13])

In the above pericopes, both Jeremiah, speaking of the New Covenant, and Malachi, speaking of the last days, speaks of there being priests engaged in priestly activity and ministry, consistent with an ordained, ministerial priesthood within the New Covenant, but not the so-called “Priesthood of all Believers” as understood by many groups today. These should also be read in light of Ezek 40-47 which detail the building of the house of the Lord in Jerusalem in the last days, complete with priests after the order of Aaron, and blood sacrifices being offered to God (cf. D&C 13).

As one non-LDS author on the topic of biblical eschatology wrote on Ezek 40-47:

Some offer objections to the future fulfillment of these promises because a renewal of the sacrifices is predicted, as for instance in the verse just quoted (Jer. 33: 18) it says, “Neither shall the Levites want a man before me, to offer burnt-offerings, and to kindle meat-offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.” The objection here raised is that Christ being made the one great offering, “once for all,” no sacrifices can be offered in the age to come. But Israel’s laws in the past required offerings to be made pointing to Christ, and those offerings were intended as a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ. While this was fulfilled to a limited extent, it fell short of absolute fulfillment, for Israel, as a nation, did not receive the instructions of the schoolmaster, and were, therefore, not led to Christ, and therefore did not recognize Him. When they are brought into the bond of the broken covenant they will be willing to do God’s commandments, for He says, “My people shall be willing in the day of my wrath,” and what they failed to do in the offerings under the law prospectively, under Christ in the age to come they will do retrospectively. What a grand sequel this is. The very nation which crucified Christ, notwithstanding that all their sacrifices pointed to Him, shall yet look unto Him whom they have pierced, and mourn for Him. Therefore those sacrifices which by their wickedness they had wrested out of their true meaning, shall yet be offered in the real and true sense in which they were intended to be offered, pointing to, centering and focalizing, as it were, in Christ. They will then, repenting of their sins, heartily acknowledge and memoralize Him who was the type and the substance of the shadow of the broken law.  

For a more elaborate and clearer prophecy of this memorial system of offerings, in the rebuilt and beautiful temple which is to adorn the land of Israel, the reader is referred to the prophecy of Ezekiel, where a description of the temple and the Divine service is given, which has never yet found its fulfillment in the history of the world. The description is there by inspiration. It is there to be fulfilled. And fulfilled it will be as surely as it has been written. Then Israel, as a nation, in relation to the civil and the ecclesiastical government of the world, will be, as Moses declared, the head and not the tail, the highest of all nations; the forces of the Gentiles shall be brought unto them, and the dark night which has obtained since Israel’s sun went down will be dispelled by the morning of an unclouded dawn when the “sun of righteousness” will illuminate and bless the world, and “fill the earth with the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” (Thomas Williams, The World's Redemption [Advocate Publishing House, 1913], pp. 111-12

One final text would be Isa 56:6-7, we read the following prophecy:

And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, all who keep the sabbath, and do not profane it, and hold fast my covenant--these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples. (NRSV)

Commenting on this prophecy, one scholar wrote the following:

In the Synoptic accounts of the temple cleansing in Matthew 21:13, Mark 11:17, and Luke 19:46, Christ refers to God's house being a house of prayer. That reference to "house of prayer" occurs in Isaiah 56:6-7, where the prophet, Third Isaiah (as we commonly call him), foresaw major changes in the temple liturgy in the future, changes so major that Levitical priests would not be the only ones offering sacrifices. In Isaiah 56:6-7, God announces through the prophet that that foreigners will offer burnt offerings and sacrifices in his holy mountain (where the Jerusalem temple is located) and that God will accept them on his altar. This is looking beyond priesthood confined to the tribe of Levi. It is looking forward to something major happening in the future that will involve a massive change in the temple liturgy and the Levitical priesthood. The shock in Isaiah 56:6-7 is its prediction that foreigners will come to minister in the temple, because the word used for minister/serve in 56:6, šārat (שׁרת), typically refers to liturgical service. The prophet sees Gentiles offering sacrifices in Jerusalem. This is omitted from Isaiah 56 in the Dead Sea Scrolls, perhaps because this idea was so repugnant. It is highly suggestive that as Christ cleanses the temple he quotes part of a Scripture passage referring to foreigners undertaking priestly sacrificial duties in the temple. (Thomas J. Lane, The Catholic Priesthood: Biblical Foundations [Steubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Road, 2016], 32)

While there are many other texts one can point to, it should be clear that the Old Testament contains explicit prophecies of there being future ordained priests, and commensurate with such, a ministerial priesthood as being an integral part of the New Covenant. Critics of Latter-day Saint teachings on the priesthood will have to ignore such texts as their only alternative would be to claim that Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Malachi were all false prophets! Fortunately, Latter-day Saints are not in such a precarious position.

The Priestly Language used by Christ at the Last Supper

The Institution of the Last Supper is recounted in four pericopes in the New Testament which I will reproduce:

For I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you, that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread. And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do (τουτο ποιειτε) in remembrance (αναμνησις) of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do(τουτο ποιειτε) ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance (αναμνησις ) of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. (1 Cor 11:23-26)

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed (εκχεω) for many for the remission of sins. (Matt 26:26-28)

And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed (εκχεω ) for many. (Mark 14:22-24)

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do (τουτο ποιειτε ) in remembrance (αναμνησις) of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed (εκχεω) for you. (Luke 22:19-20)

In the above four texts, Christ uses priestly, sacrificial language, and commands the disciples to do the same, providing strong implicit evidence of an ordained, ministerial New Covenant priesthood. In what follows will be a lexical analysis of the terms in light of the LXX.

“Do This” (τουτο ποιειτε)

The obvious meaning of the phrase “do this” is that Christ is commanding his apostles to celebrate the Eucharist regularly; it is not just a once-for-all celebration. However the verb ποιειν “to do” and its Hebrew equivalent, עשׂה have sacrificial connotations. In the Torah alone, עשׂה/ποιεω are coupled with the term for “sacrifice” (Hebrew: זֶבַח; sometimes מִנְחָה  [“gift”/”offering”]; LXX: θυσια). There are multitudinous examples of such in the Old Testament, in the Torah alone, we have the following instances: Exo 10:25; 29:41; Lev 2:7, 8, 11; 6;14; 7:9; 17:8; 23:19; Num 6:17; 15:3, 5, 6, 8, 24; 28:5, 8, 26, 31; 29:39; Deut 12:27.

Here we have the Hebrew and Greek of Exo 10:25 and 29:41 (emphasis added):

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֔ה גַּם־אַתָּ֛ה תִּתֵּ֥ן בְּיָדֵ֖נוּ זְבָחִ֣ים וְעֹל֑וֹת וְעָשִׂ֖ינוּ לַיהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵֽינוּ׃  

καὶ εἶπεν Μωυσῆς ἀλλὰ καὶ σὺ δώσεις ἡμῖν ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ θυσίας ἃ ποιήσομεν κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν

And Moses said, Thou must give us also sacrifices and burnt offerings, that we may sacrifice unto the Lord our God.

וְאֵת֙ הַכֶּ֣בֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִ֔י תַּעֲשֶׂ֖ה בֵּ֣ין הָעַרְבָּ֑יִם כְּמִנְחַ֙ת הַבֹּ֤קֶר וּכְנִסְכָּהּ֙ תַּֽעֲשֶׂה־לָּ֔הּ לְרֵ֣יחַ נִיחֹ֔חַ אִשֶּׁ֖ה לַיהוָֽה

καὶ τὸν ἀμνὸν τὸν δεύτερον ποιήσεις τὸ δειλινόν κατὰ τὴν θυσίαν τὴν πρωινὴν καὶ κατὰ τὴν σπονδὴν αὐτοῦ ποιήσεις εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας κάρπωμα κυρίῳ

And the other lamb thou shalt offer at even, and shalt do thereto according to the meat offering of the morning, and according to the drink offering thereof, for a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the Lord.

So, apart from being a command to celebrating the Eucharist on a regular basis (or, as Paul says in the pericope in 1 Cor 11 quoted above, as often as believers meet together to proclaim the death of Jesus), those engaging in the activity are performing a priestly activity (cf. 3 Nephi 18:5 in the Book of Mormon where only those who are ordained to the priesthood are said to be able to perform the Eucharist).

“Remembrance” (αναμνησις)

Αναμνηεσις is a very potent term used in the Greek of 1 Cor 11 and Luke 22.

The term appears five times in the LXX. Four of these five instances are within the sense of priestly sacrifice; the exception is Wisdom of Solomon 16:6. The NRSV translates the verse as follows:

They were troubled for a little while as a warning, and received a symbol of deliverance to remind (αναμνησις) them of your law's command.

The other instances of this term in the LXX are Lev 24:7; Num 10:10; Psa 38:1 [LXX, 37:1] and 70:1 [LXX, 69:1]), translating the Hebrew terms אַזְכָּרָה (Lev 24:7); זִכָּרוֹן (Num 10:10) and הַזְכִּיר (Psa 38:1; 70:1). The NRSV captures the original language text rather well:

You shall put frankincense with each row, to be a token offering for the bread, as an offering (αναμνησις) by fire to the Lord. (Lev 24:7)

Also on your days of rejoicing, at your appointed festivals, and at the beginnings of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over your sacrifices of well-being; they shall serve as a reminder (αναμνησις ) on your behalf before the Lord your God: I am the Lord your God. (Num 10:10)

A Psalm of David, for the memorial offering (αναμνησις). . . (Psa 38:1)

To the leader. Of David, for the memorial offering (αναμνησις). . . (Psa 70:1).

This, of course, should not be taken to mean that the Eucharist is itself a propitiatory sacrifice, as Christ died once-for-all, and the theology of the New Testament is antithetical to theories one finds within Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. However, Christ’s use of this potent, priestly sacrificial term, from both the LXX and the Hebrew Old Testament, further provides exegetical evidence that the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is a priestly activity, and that the meal is a sacrificial meal insofar as one is reminded of the sacrifice of Christ.

“Shed” (εκχεω)

The term εκχεω appears twelve times in the context of sacrifice in the LXX (e.g. poured out libations of water or of wine); its Hebrew equivalent is שׁפך.  In nine other usages of the term, it refers to shedding blood, or pouring out blood as part of the sacrificial ceremony where the priests were not just getting rid of the blood in some practical way--they were pouring out that blood at the base of the altar as part of the ritual of the sacrifice.

Examples of this from the LXX can be seen in the following:

And thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood upon the altar of the Lord thy God: and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out (εκχεω) upon the altar of the Lord thy God, and thou shalt eat the flesh. (Deut 12:27)

And they gathered together to Mizpeh, and drew water, and poured (εκχεω) it out before the Lord, and fasted on that day, and said there, We have sinned against the Lord. And Samuel judged the children of Israel in Mizpeh. (1 Sam 7:6)

Among the smooth stones of the stream is thy portion; they, they are thy lot: even to them hast thou poured (εκχεω) a drink offering, thou hast offered a meat offering. Should I receive comfort in these? (Isa 57:6)

He held out his hand for the cup and poured a drink offering of the blood of the grape; he poured (εκχεω) it out at the foot of the altar, a pleasing odour to the Most high, King of all. (Sirach 50:15 [NRSV])

Again, this adds further substantiation to the claim that the Lord’s Supper is something that priests are to be ordained to participate in.

“We have an Altar” (Heb 13:10)

In Heb 13:10, we read the following in the Greek:

ἔχομεν θυσιαστήριον ἐξ οὗ φαγεῖν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἐξουσίαν οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες

We have an altar from which we eat and from which those who serve in the tent have no authority to eat from. (My translation).

It is generally agreed by commentators that this verse is speaking of the Lord’s Supper. What is interesting is that cultic terms “altar” (Greek: θυσιαστηριον); “to serve” (within the sense of the temple cult [λατρευω]) is coupled with the tent/tabernacle (σκηνη) and “authority” (εξουσια) are used all within the context of the Lord’s Supper. For instance, σκηνη is the term used in the LXX for the Old Testament tabernacle and is used in the verbal form, σκηνοω, for Jesus’ “tabernacling” among us (John 1:14). Furthermore, εξουσια is used in the sense of “authority” or “power,” often within a priestly sense, and Christ uses this word of himself with respect to the authority the Father gave to him (John 17:2), consistent with the LDS understanding of the nature and origin of the Priesthood. All these terms further give evidence that the Eucharist, in the New Covenant, is a priestly duty. Just as the Old Covenant priests served in the Old Testament tabernacle and later, temple, those performing the Eucharist in the New Covenant are participating in a cultic worship of the New Covenant, and that is to be understood as a priestly action, too.

Note the following from John Chrysostom (347-407), tying Heb 13:10 to the Lord’s Supper, and not simply an allusion by metonymy to the atonement/cross of Jesus:

Reverence now, oh reverence, this Table whereof we all are partakers! (1 Cor. x. 16-18.) Christ, Who was slain for us, the Victim that is placed thereon! (Heb. xiii. 10.) Robbers when they once partake of salt, cease to be robbers in regard to those with whom they have partaken thereof; that table changes their dispositions, and men fiercer than wild beasts it makes gentler than lambs. But we though partakers of such a Table, and sharers of such food as that, arm ourselves against one another, when we ought to arm against him who is carrying on a war against all of us, the devil. Yet this is why we grow weaker and he stronger every day. For we do not join to form in defence against him, but along with him we stand against each other, and use him as a commander for such hostile arrays, when it is he alone that we ought to be fighting with. But now letting him pass, we bend the bow against our brethren only. What bows, you will say? Those of the tongue and the mouth. For it is not javelins and darts only, but words too, keener far than darts, that inflict wounds. And how shall we be able to bring this war to an issue? one will ask. If thou perceivest that when thou speakest ill of thy brother, thou art casting up mire out of thy mouth, if thou perceivest that it is a member of Christ that thou art slandering, that thou art eating up thine own flesh (Ps. xxvii. 2), that thou art making the judgment set for thee more bitter (fearful and uncorrupt as it is), that the shaft is killing not him that is smitten, but thyself that shot it forth. (John Chrysostom, Homilies on Paul's Epistle to the Romans, Homily VIII on Romans 4:1,2)

With respect to the evidence for an ordained Priesthood in early Christianity, the late Catholic scholar, Louis Bouyer, discussed some of the issues that are sometimes brought up by critics of such a perspective (e.g. RPC Hanson, Christian Priesthood), under an excurses entitled, “Presbyter et Sacerdos” (Latin: Elder and Priest), we read the following:

If, as we have seen for Christian antiquity, the whole body of the Church, including the faithful laity, must be associated with the priesthood of Christ, particularly in the Eucharistic celebration, what must be thought of the application to the pastoral ministry, first of the bishops and then of the “presbyters,” their associates, of the sacerdotal expressions? In fact, today in the Catholic (or Orthodox) Church, when we say “priest,” we think immediately of sacredos, rather than presbyter.

We must point out that, since subapostolic times, we see assimilation between the function of the bishop, presiding over the Eucharistic sunaxis, and that of the “high priest” of the Old covenant. As the simple presbyters, associated with the bishops, gradually replaced the in this function, this expression of a sacerdotal character par excellence was also applied to their own ministry. The matter must be considered perfectly legitimate if we observe that the pastoral function in the Church of the bishop and the presbyter, to the extent that the latter is called by the bishop to share in his function, is a ministry of Christ, of his presence as head in the midst of his body, to all generations everywhere.

By union with and participation in Christ, all are priests in the Church in one sense, in the unity of their common attachment to Christ by the ministry that he instituted to this end in the apostles. The ecclesiastical ministry as a ministry of the Head—of his presence as Head in the midst of his body, to continue to gather it in this unity of the Spirit, of whom Jesus alone is the source, and thus allow it to participate in Christ’s sacerdotal action—is therefore, properly, the ministry of the priesthood of Jesus. As with all the gifts of Jesus to his Church, the ministry of this priesthood exists only to permit everyone to participate in it in unity.

Separated from their legitimate pastors (i.e., those in the apostolic successions), as we have explained, the baptised faithful are incapable of being brought together in a Church which is that of Christ so as to exercise in it, as members of his body, the priesthood, which remains forever his.

This does not mean that God cannot occasionally make use of an irregular ministry to communicate his graces (just as he can, on occasion, dispense with every sacrament, even baptism). But this could not rescind the fact that a break with the apostolic succession implies that the Church of Christ can no longer be assembled locally, that his body, both mystical and Eucharistic, has no longer any objective, real presence among us and, therefore, that his priesthood is no longer the object of common participation by the faithful in a Eu-charist which would be truly his . . . The idea of a “presbyteral succession,” which could palliate defect of the apostolic succession, seems to us in radical contradiction with the very nature of the presbyterate: that is, and can only be, representation of a local community of the Church to the ministry sent by Christ to his body, which alone, for this reason, can be the object of a succession. This succession is, in effect, only a succession in the sending: of the Father to the Son, of the Son to the preeminent apostles, of these apostles to the bishop, whom priests do not succeed (any more than they succeed one another) but are associated with in each generation. (Louis Bouyer, The Church of God: Body of Christ and Temple of the Spirit [SanFrancisco: Ignatius, 2011], 596-97)

Implications of this Priestly Language

There are a couple of implications of this priestly, sacrificial language one finds with the Last Supper accounts; the three most important being—

(1) That the Eucharist is an action to be performed on a regular basis; it was not a once-for-all event.

(2) That the Eucharist is a sacrificial meal, wherein Christ’s sacrifice is potently remembered by His people, using the elements of his body (bread) and his blood (wine or water).

(3) That those who preside at the Lord’s Supper are ordained to a New Covenant Priesthood, something consistent with Latter-day Saint Scriptures, theology, and practice.