In a poorly researched article, "Understanding Mormon Vocabulary," Cecil Andrews wrote the following (emphasis in the original):
The Aaronic priesthood was made redundant by the finished sacrificial work of Jesus on the cross and Jesus Himself now holds the position of our great High Priest in heaven. This position is being described as “unchangeable” (Hebrews 7:24) (i.e. cannot be transferred) and “after the order of Melchizedec” (Hebrews 7:17). A careful study of Hebrews 7 will confirm these wonderful truths. All true believers in this life are described by the Apostle Peter as “a royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9).
All the biblical texts Andrews raises against "Mormonism" on issues such as Christology and soteriology have been dealt with time and time again on this blog (e.g, this post discussing Psa 90:2 and Moroni 8:18 and the "eternality" of God). Furthermore, I have discussed various arguments against the LDS Priesthoods which are accessible on The LDS Priesthoods: Resource Page, including a paper The Biblical Evidence for an Ordained, Ministerial Priesthood in the New Covenant from the Last Supper Accounts. However, to show Andrews' lack of knowledge about biblical exegesis and all things "Mormon," I will focus on these "arguments."
There are a number of problems with Andrews’ comments in this short paragraph.
Was the Aaronic Priesthood Made Redundant?
Notice how Andrews does not produce a single verse to support the claim that the Aaronic Priesthood was made redundant. It may surprise him, but a bald assertion is not meaningful exegesis. Notwithstanding, it is common for many Evangelical critics of the LDS Church to claim that Heb 7:12 states that the Aaronic Priesthood is to have no role in the New Covenant:
For the priesthood being changed (μετατίθημι), there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
In the KJV, the term “change(d)” appears twice, but the underlying Greek words are different. The term μεταθεσις is used with respect to the change of the law. This term means “to change.” However, with respect to the Priesthood, the Greek term is μεταθιτημι, which often means “to transfer” (e.g. in the sense of transposition). Note the other instances of this term in the New Testament where it has this meaning:
And [the bodies of Jacob et al.] were carried over (μεταθιτημι) into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem. (Acts 7:16)
By faith Enoch was translated (μεταθιτημι) that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated (μεταθιτημι) him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. (Heb 11:5)
There is no exegetical warrant to the claim that Heb 7:12 means the Aaronic Priesthood was abrogated. Koine Greek has several words the author of Hebrews (IMO, the author of Luke-Acts) could have used if he wished to convey this meaning, but he didn’t.
That the Aaronic Priesthood was understood to be “eternal” and not just temporal to the time of the Law of Moses can be seen in texts such as Exo 40:15:
And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office; for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.
The Hebrew term translated in the KJV as "eternal" is עוֹלָ֖ם; the LXX uses αιων. This is coupled with the phrase, "throughout their generations," offering strong evidence of the perpetual, not temporal, nature of the Aaronic Priesthood. A priesthood that was annulled in AD 30 is hardly "eternal." Furthermore, do note that, unlike circumcision and the dietary food laws which were revealed to be annulled (e.g., Acts 10 and 15), such is never said of the Aaronic Priesthood.
here is the definition of μετατίθημι as provided by BDAG (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature), the leading Koine Greek lexicon:
4860 μετατίθημι
• μετατίθημι by-form pres. 3 pl. μετατίθονται AcPl Ha 2, 26 (s. B-D-F §94, 1); fut. μεταθήσω Is 29:14; 1 aor. μετέθηκα; 2 aor. ptc. μεταθείς. Pass.: fut. 3 sg. μετατεθήσεται Is 29:17; 1 aor. μετετέθην (Hom.+) gener. ‘change (the position of)’.
1. to convey from one place to another, put in another place, transfer τὴν χεῖρα ἐπί τι transfer your hand to someth. B 13:5. W. acc. of pers. and indication of the goal μεταθέντες αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὴν καροῦχαν they had him transferred to the carriage MPol 8:2. Pass.: of corpses μετετέθησαν εἰς Συχέμ they were brought back to Shechem Ac 7:16. W. indication of the place fr. which ἐκ τῶν βασάνων be removed from (the place of) torment Hv 3, 7, 6 (μετατίθημι ἐκ as a grave-ins fr. Amastris: JÖAI 28 Beibl. ’33, col. 81f no. 39). Of Enoch be taken up, translated, taken away (to heaven) Hb 11:5a; 1 Cl 9:3 (cp. Sir 44:16; Wsd 4:10); the act. in the same sense and of the same person Hb 11:5b (Gen 5:24).
2. to effect a change in state or condition, change, alter (Hdt. 5, 68 et al.; Jos., Ant. 15, 9; IAndrosIsis, Kyme 4: the νόμοι of Isis are not subject to alteration by humans) τὶ εἴς τι someth. into someth. (Esth 4:17s μετάθες τὴν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ εἰς μῖσος) τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριτα εἰς ἀσέλγειαν pervert the grace of our God to dissoluteness Jd 4. Pass. μετατιθεμένης τῆς ἱερωσύνης when the priesthood is changed, i.e. passed on to another Hb 7:12 (Jos., Ant. 12, 387 of the transfer of the office of high priest to another person).—Of a severe alteration in condition collapse μεγάλαι πόλεις μετατίθονται AcPl Ha 2, 25f.
3. to have a change of mind in allegiance, change one’s mind, turn away, desert mid. (Polyb. 5, 111, 8; 24, 9, 6; Diod. S. 11, 4, 6; 2 Macc 7:24 ἀπὸ τ. πατρίων.—ὁ μεταθέμενος in Diog. L. 7, 166 and Athen. 7, 281d [the latter without the art.] refers to Dionysius the Turncoat, who left the Stoics and adopted Epicureanism) ἀπό τινος εἴς τι from someth. to someth. μ. ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς … εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον desert him who called you (and turn) to another gospel Gal 1:6 (cp. Hierocles 7 p. 429: there is to be no yielding to μεταβαλλομένοις ἐκ τῆς περὶ φιλοσοφίαν σπουδῆς εἰς ἑτέραν τινὰ τοῦ βίου πρόθεσιν; Just., D. 47, 5 ἀπὸ εὐσεβείας … ἐπὶ … ἀθεότητα; Field, Notes 188). ἀπὸ τῶν χαλεπῶν ἐπὶ τὰ δίκαια turn away from evil to good MPol 11:1 (cp. Just., A I, 45, 6 and D. 107, 2 al.).—M-M. TW.
The reference from Josephus cited by BDAG reads as follows:
Now as to Onias, the son of the high priest, who, as we before informed you, was left a child when his father died, when he saw that the king had slain his uncle Menelaus, and given the high priesthood to Alcimus, who was not of the high priestly family, but was induced by Lysias to translate (μετατίθημι) that dignity from his family to another house, he fled to Ptolemy, king of Egypt. (Antiquities of the Jews 12:387)
Obviously, in light of the biblical instances of μετατίθημι, and in light of the lexicographical evidence and from Josephus, nothing in the semantic domain of μετατίθημι, or Heb 7:12 itself, that poses any issues for Latter-day Saint theology.
Of course, one cannot help but think that the reference to " the finished sacrificial work of Jesus on the cross" is an allusion to John 19:30. The text reads:
That an ordained, ministerial priesthood, including the Aaronic Priesthood, is part of the New Covenant is consistent with the Old and New Testaments, unless one wishes to claim that the Old Testament prophets were false prophets. How so?
Firstly, note that 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).
Of course, one cannot help but think that the reference to " the finished sacrificial work of Jesus on the cross" is an allusion to John 19:30. The text reads:
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished; and he bowed his head and gave up the ghost.
The term translated in the KJV as “It is finished” is a single Greek term, τετελεσται, the perfect passive indicative form of the verb meaning “to complete” (τελεω). It should be noted that τετελεσται, in verse 30, stands without a subject or object, thus having no specific grammatical referent.
Τετελεσται is used twice in the LXX and one other time in the Greek NT, and in neither of these instances does it have such connotations that many Protestant apologists claim it does.
Ezra 7:12 (LXX) reads:
Αρθασασθα βασιλεὺς βασιλέων Εσδρα γραμματεῖ νόμου τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τετέλεσται ὁ λόγος καὶ ἡ ἀπόκρισις
Brenton, in his translation of the LXX, renders the above as:
Arthasastha, king of kings, to Esdras, the scribe of the law of the Lord God of heaven, Let the order and the answer be accomplished.
3 Maccabees 5:27 (NRSV) reads:
But he, on receiving the report and being struck by the unusual invitation to come out -- since he had been completely overcome by incomprehension -- inquired what the matter was for which this had been so zealously completed (τετελεσται) for him.
The only other time in the New Testament this phrase occurs is in the context of John 19:30 itself, verse 28:
After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished (τετελεσται), that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
The most natural and historical interpretation of the text suggests that “it is finished” refers to the accomplishment of all the details that were required prior to Christ’s death, for once these details are completed, Jesus utters, “it is finished” and gives up the spirit and dies. Jesus desires to accomplish all the specific prophecies of the Old Testament. The previous use of τετελεσται in verse 28, quoted above, makes this clear. Fulfilment of Scripture is also evident in John 19:24 (cf. Luke 24:25-27). Hence, the primary contextual referent for “it is finished” is the fulfilment of Scripture. In addition, Jesus desires to secure the care of His mother, Mary, and thus gives custody of her to John the apostle at the foot of the cross (John 19:25-27). Once these things are accomplished, Jesus can then die. Hence, the scriptural prophecies concerning His suffering and death are finished, but the text does not discuss the nature of His sacrifice, as such is something the text does not even begin to discuss, let alone settle. That this was the earliest Christian interpretation can be seen in the following from John Chrysostom (A.D. 349-407) who wrote the following on the meaning of τετελεσται “it is finished” in John 19:30:
Notwithstanding, even allowing for John 19:30 to have a meaning relating to salvation, it still does not support the common Protestant interpretation of this verse. Consider the following:
In the theology of the apostle Paul, this common Protestant interpretation of John 19:30 is anti-biblical. According to the apostle Paul, the Father raised Christ for our justification:
For a fuller discussion of this passage and related issues, see Why Latter-day Saints cannot believe Evangelical Protestantism is True: A Response to Dave Bartosiewicz
They parted the garments, by which such great miracles were done. But they wrought none now, Christ restraining His unspeakable power. And this was no small addition of insult. For as to one base and abject, as I said, and the vilest of all men; so do they dare to do all things. To the thieves at any rate they did nothing of the kind, but to Christ they dare it all. And they crucified Him in the midst of them, that He might share in their reputation.
And they gave Him gall to drink, and this to insult Him, but He would not. But another saith, that having tasted it, He said, "It is finished." And what meaneth, "It is finished?" The prophecy was fulfilled concerning Him. "For they gave me," it is said, "gall for my meat, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink." But neither doth that evangelist indicate that He drank, for merely to taste differs not from not drinking, but hath one and the same signification.
But nevertheless not even here doth their contumely stop, but after having stripped and crucified Him, and offered Him vinegar, they proceeded still further, and beholding Him impaled upon the cross, they revile Him, both they themselves and the passers by; and this was more grievous than all, that on the charge of being an impostor and deceiver He suffered these things, and as a boaster, and vainly pretending what He said. Therefore they both crucified Him publicly, that they might make a show of it in the sight of all; and therefore also they did it by the hands of the soldiers, that these things being perpetrated even by a public tribunal, the insult might be the greater. (Homilies of John Chrysostom: Matthew XXVII.27-29, Homily LXXXVII, 1)
Notwithstanding, even allowing for John 19:30 to have a meaning relating to salvation, it still does not support the common Protestant interpretation of this verse. Consider the following:
In the theology of the apostle Paul, this common Protestant interpretation of John 19:30 is anti-biblical. According to the apostle Paul, the Father raised Christ for our justification:
Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for (δια here has a causal sense [i.e. for the sake of]) our justification (Rom 4:25)
That an ordained, ministerial priesthood, including the Aaronic Priesthood, is part of the New Covenant is consistent with the Old and New Testaments, unless one wishes to claim that the Old Testament prophets were false prophets. How so?
Firstly, note that 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 and 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).
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.
Is Jesus the only holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood according to Heb 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 rectov. 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.).
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 Andrews that only Jesus holds the Melchizedek Priesthood, rejects Andrews' 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:
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.
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.
Of course, one could ask, "If Jesus is the only holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood, what about Melchizedek (Gen 14:18-19; cf. Psa 110:4)?" Rather desperately, some Protestants claim that Melchizedek and Jesus are one and the same person, with the former being an Old Testament appearance ("Christophany") of the premortal Jesus.
Interestingly, one of, if not the earliest, individuals to make this association was Ambrose of Milan However, the underlying theological reasons why Ambrose made this association would be anathema to Andrews et al! Why? Ambrose, as all commentators on his theology of the Eucharist would agree, held that the Eucharist was a sacrifice and that Christ was substantially present in the sacrifice. The association of Jesus with the Melchizedek was tied into the sacrifice of the New Covenant (the “Mass” in Catholic circles) being prefigured by the sacrifice of Melchizedek whom offered bread and wine in Gen 14:18 (cf. Exposition of the Christian Faith XI).
Latter-day Saints have never claimed that Melchizedek and Jesus are one and the same person, and for good reason—there is not Scriptural justification for this identification. Within uniquely LDS scriptural texts, the person of Melchizedek and Jesus are differentiated from one another (Alma 13 and D&C 107 are pretty explicit in this). Furthermore, even limiting us to the Bible, the epistle to the Hebrews itself differentiates between Melchizedek and Jesus wherein an identification of persons would violate the law of the Identity of Indiscernibles (e.g. Heb 7:3, 15). As the following quote from Jesuit scholar, Albert Vanhoye in his (excellent) commentary on Hebrews states correctly, the association of Melchizedek and Jesus in Hebrews is not an identification of persons, but one of prefiguration:
[The figure of Melchizedek in Psa 110] corresponds . . .to an image of the Son of God, for the Son of God has “neither beginning of days, nor end of life,” and only the Son of God could become “priest for ever.” With all these traits, the biblical image of Melchisedek constitutes a prefiguration of the glorified Christ, one of God and priest for ever. Only a prefiguration, because Melchisedek was not really Son of God, nor priest for ever; he was only “made like the Son of God” by the way he is represented in the text of Genesis, and not in reality. Likewise, his priesthood is not truly eternal but has only, in the text of Genesis, an appearance which has something of eternity about it. To express this important nuance, the author avoids using, concerning Melchisedek, the expression of the psalm, “for ever,” but uses an expression with a weaker sense, which can be translated as “continually” or “in perpetuity.” Of whom exactly, is Melchisedek a prefiguration? He is not a prefiguration of the Son of God before the incarnation, for the latter is not “without father,” he has God as father, and he is not a priest, for he lacks the fraternal link with mankind. Nor is Melchisedek a prefiguration of the incarnate Son of God and living his earthly life, because then he is not “without mother.,” he is the son of Mary; he is not “without genealogy,” being of the tribe of Juda. And he has not yet been proclaimed priest by God. Melchisedek is the prefiguration of the risen Christ, for the resurrection is a new creation, in which neither human father, nor human mother, nor genealogy have any part. The human nature of the risen Christ is the “the greater and more prefect tent, not made by hand of man, that is to say not of this creation” (Heb 9:11) by means of which Christ entered into intimacy with God and ran into God’s eternity. In the resurrection, the human nature of Jesus received the fullness of filial glory but that glory does not break the links of Christ with mankind, for it is through the complete fraternal solidarity with them that it was obtained (see Heb 2:9-18). It follows that the glorified Christ, Son of God and brother of mankind, is “priest for ever.” That is what the author sees prefigured in the biblical image of the perpetual priesthood of Melchisedek. (Albert Vanhoye, A Different Priest: The Epistle to the Hebrews [Miami: Convivium Press, 2011], 209-10)
Much more could be said on this, but Andrews is clearly way out in field on the topic of the Melchizedek Priesthood in both Heb 7:24 and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
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. †
The Priesthood of All Believers in 1 Pet 2:9
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine. (Exo 19:5)
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Pet 2:9)
Often, Evangelicals who reject the existence of a ministerial priesthood in the New Covenant, cite 1 Pet 2:9 as "proof" that all believers are part of the "priesthood of all believers," and that there is no New Covenant priest (except for Jesus). Of course, this ignores the biblical evidence for a New Covenant priesthood, such as the priestly language used in the Last Supper accounts as well as the prophecies of such a priesthood by Old Testament prophets, such as Isaiah and Jeremiah. Furthermore, the appeal to 1 Pet 2:9 to support this relatively late concept in Christian theology is based on eisegesis, as is so many of the doctrines Evangelical Protestants hold to (e.g., purely symbolic view of baptism; the Trinity; sola scriptura; forensic justification; eternal security).
Firstly, note that it is an established fact from Hebrews that Christ is the High Priest of the New Covenant, just as there was a High Priest (Aaron) in the Old Covenant (e.g., Heb 4:14). This shows us that not all priests are of the same rank, something inconsistent with the Evangelical claim. Secondly, we know that there was a Levitical priesthood that was of a lower rank than the High Priest but still superior in rank to the "priesthood of all believers" and thus one would be justified in expecting this second rank (members of an ordained, ministerial priesthood) of priests to be paralleled in the New Covenant along with the clear presence of the first (the great High Priest, Jesus) and third rank ("Royal Priesthood").
This is further substantiated by the fact that even after Moses calls the people a royal priesthood, he goes on to put them into different categories (those of priests and laity):
And the Lord said unto Moses, Go down and charge the people, lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze, and many of them perish. And let the priests also, which come near to the Lord, sanctify themselves, lest the Lord break forth upon them. And Moses said unto the Lord, The people cannot come up to mount Sinai: for thou chargedst us, saying, Set bounds about the mount and sanctify it. And the Lord said unto him, Away, get thee down, and thou shalt come up, thou, and Aaron with thee: but let not the priests and the people break through to come up unto the Lord, lest he break forth upon them. (Exo 19:21-24)
Clearly, there is a second class of priests, and these are members of a ministerial priesthood.
That the New Testament authors understood this correspondence between the Old and New Covenant priesthoods can be seen in Jude 11:
Woe to them! For they go the way of Cain, and abandon themselves to Balaam's error for the sake of gain, and perish in Korah's rebellion. (NRSV)
In this verse, Jude warns the Christian community to respect the priest-laity division, noting that there will be disobedient members of the community who will be modelled after Cain, Balaam, and Korah who engaged in such a rebellion. All these situations were sins involving the priesthood. Korah's rebellion, for instance, is the most noteworthy of the three; in Num 16 Korah, serving as an equivalent of a deacon, gets upset and gathers a group of friends and engages in a rebellion:
And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord? (Num 16:3)
Moses then rebukes Korah and says to him that he would be thankful that he is a deacon, but that he should not seek to raise himself to the level of a priest:
And he hath brought thee near to him, and all thy brethren the sons of Levi with thee: and seek ye the priesthood also? (Num 16:10)
Funnily enough, Evangelicals would side with Korah on this! They would say to Latter-day Saints and others who hold to a ministerial priesthood in the New Covenant, "you raise yourself above everyone else; everyone is equal!"
The only way Jude's warning of a modern Korah-like rebellion makes any sense is if there will be Christians who will try to usurp authority and "move up" in the New Covenant priesthood--it makes no sense if the Evangelical understanding of the "priesthood of all believers" is correct.
As with so many of their beliefs and practices, Evangelicals are forced to defend a doctrine that is void of any sound biblical-exegetical support and is, in reality, based on a concept Martin Luther invented in 1520 in On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. They are also in the unenviable position of holding to an ecclesiology and understanding of the "priesthood" that would result, if they were consistent, in the rejection of Isaiah and Jeremiah as false prophets as they prophesied of a ministerial priesthood as being part of the New Covenant (see discussion above).
When one examines the fuller context of 1 Pet 2, there exists a greater refutation of this concept:
Come to him, a living stone, though rejected by mortals yet chosen and precious in God's sight and like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in scripture: "See, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame." To you then who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, "The stone that the builders rejected has become the very head of the corner." and "A stone that makes them stumble, and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. (1 Pet 2:4-10 NRSV)
Lutheran New Testament scholar, John H. Elliot, in his massive commentary on 1 Peter, offered the following devastating refutation of the thesis that this pericope teaches the concept of the universal priesthood of believers, initially expounded by Martin Luther in his 1520 The Babylonian Captivity of the Church:
(1) As is evident from its structure and content and from the accentuation of the election of both Jesus Christ and the believing community, 1 Pet 2:4-10 is designed as an affirmation of the elect and holy character of the believing community, which, through faith, is one with the elect and holy Christ. Election rather than priesthood is its central focus. The theme of election that extends from the letter’s beginning to its end (1:1; 5:13) receives here its most profound articulation. The passage, in fact, constitutes one of the most elaborate statements on Christian election in the entire NT.
(2) The covenant formula of LXX Exod 19:6, which included the terms basileion and hierateuma, in accord with prior Israelite interpretation of this text was one of several OT texts employed by the Petrine author to explicate the elect and holy character of the covenantal people of God as once affirmed at Sinai and now affirmed of God’s people at the end time.
(3) The term hierateuma, like the other honorific epithets for Israel with which it is joined here (“elect stock,” “holy people,” “people of God”), is a collective noun designating the believing community as community, as is true of other collective terms as well. The substantive basileion, “royal residence” (v 9b), likewise is applied to the believing community in its entirety and it interpreted as the “house(hold) of the Spirit” (v 5d)
(4) In both 1 Peter and its source, Exod 19:6, “priestly community” expresses the holiness of the covenant community and the immediacy of its relation to God, both of which are distinctive qualities of the believing community that the author stresses throughout the first major section of the letter with other language as well (1:2, 3-5, 14,16, 17-21, 22; 2:5 [“holy priestly community”], 9-10; c. also 3:5, 18c; 5:7a, 10). The action of the believers as priestly community is to offer “spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God” (2:5f), a cultic image that occurs only here in 1 Peter and that is not elaborated on anywhere else in the letter. Similarly, neither hierateuma plays no independent role in the ecclesial thought of the letter. The appearance of hierateuma in 2:5 and 9 is due solely to its place in the covenant formula of Exod 19:6, which is used by the Petrine author to affirm the election and holiness of the household of faith.
(5) No mention is made in 2:4-10 of baptism or any baptismal “ordination” or “consecration” to priesthood on the part of the believers.
(6) Nowhere in 1 Peter is there any reference to the priesthood of Christ or any suggestion that believers share in the priesthood of Christ by virtue of their constituting a “priestly community.” In the book of Hebrews, on the other hand, Jesus Christ is identified metaphorically as a priest (Heb 7:15, 21,; 8:4; 10:21) or high priest (Heb 2:17; 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5, 10; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1; 9:11). In Revelation, Christians are denoted metaphorically as priests as well (Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). In other NT writings, cultic metaphors occasionally are used to describe the proclamation of the gospel (Rom 15:16), the gift of material support (Phil 4:18), or aspects of salvation (Heb 4:16; 8:1; 9:11-14, 23-28; 10:10, 19-22; 13:10-16). No single NT author, however, makes any attempt to integrate these random images into a unified teaching on Christian priesthood, and this certainly includes the author of 1 Peter. To attributes these various motifs to 1 Peter is to impute alien notions to this text and to distort its focus. IN 1 Pet 2:4-10, the association of believers with Christ is that of “living stones,” who through faith are one with Christ, the “living stone,” and who are “elect” as he was “elect” in God’s sight. (John H. Elliot, 1 Peter [Anchor Bible 37b; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 2000], 451-53).
As with the doctrine of sola scriptura, the Protestant conception of “the priesthood of all believers” is without exegetical warrant. Protestantism truly is the emperor with no (theological) clothing. I would urge Evangelicals to reconsider both their claims and the truth claims of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Conclusion
It should be obvious that the claims Andrews made against the Latter-day Saint view of the priesthood are without merit. As with his other criticisms against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, some of which have been discussed on this blog, they lack any merit within the realms of history, exegesis, and logic. Sadly for Andrews, embarrassing himself is a constant feature of his ministry. For instance, in a debate against a Muslim apologist, Adnan Rasheed in Trinity College Dublin in 2012 (I was in attendance), he claimed that 1 John 5:7 is original to the New Testament! Furthermore, in many debates, he has shown himself to be grossly ignorant, including this debate against Roman Catholic apologist, Peter Williams, on the question of the Catholic Mass:
In reality, Andrew apart from being an unrepentant liar (cf. Rev 21:8) is also a purveyor of a damnable false gospel (Calvinism). He is not to be trusted at all on any topic he discusses.