Refuting Jeff Durbin on Mormonism and the Atonement

In a previous post, Refuting Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism," I interacted with, and refuted many of the arguments of Jeff Durbin against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In this blog post, I will interact with, and refute his arguments from a video "Answering Mormons: What Did Jesus Do?" which is a critique, from his Reformed Protestant perspective, against the Latter-day Saint understanding of the atonement:

Salvation according to Mormonism

Durbin claims that LDS theology teaches one is saved through the atonement "by obedience." In reality, this is a misrepresentation of LDS theology. Here is what the third and fourth Articles of Faith states (emphasis added):

We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved by odedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on the hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Such, of course, is biblical. Note, for instance, Acts 2:38:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν), and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Outside of John 3:3-5, this is perhaps the favourite text used in support of baptism being salvific. Here, in this verse, we have a statement from Peter that seems to teach rather explicitly that the instrumental means of the forgiveness of sins is water baptism.

The Latter-day Saint interpretation of Acts 2:38 can found in a revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1831:

Wherefore, I give unto you a commandment that ye go among this people, and say unto them, like unto mine apostle of old whose name was Peter: Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus, who was on the earth and is to come, the beginning and the end; Repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, according to the holy commandment, for the remission of sins: And whoso doeth this shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of the hands of the elders of the church. (D&C 49:11-14).

Proponents of the symbolic view of baptism have made much about the preposition εις (“for” in Acts 2:38), which reveals much about the deceptive use of Greek many critics of the Restored Gospel engage in.

Some have argued, following the lead of J.R. Mantey, that εις in this verse as a “causal” or “resultant” meaning; namely, one is baptised because they had a remission of sins before baptism. An example from everyday English would be, “I took a tablet for my migraine”—one did not take the tablet to bring about a migraine, but because of one having a migraine, then they took a tablet.

However, this “causal” meaning of the Greek preposition εις can be refuted on many counts:

Firstly, both baptism and repentance are tied together, through the use of the coordinating conjunction και ("and"). If one wishes to suggest we are baptised because of our remission of sins, then the passage would also suggest that we must repent because of our remission of sins precedes repentance (in other words, our sins are forgiven, so as a result, we repent). I am unaware of any theological system that teaches such a view, and for good reason--it is a grossly unnatural, eisegetical reading of the construction.

Secondly, modern Greek grammarians (even those who hold the symbolic view of baptism) have refuted Mantey’s comments about εις. For instance, Daniel Wallace, in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, pp. 370-71, we read the following:

On the one hand, J. R. Mantey argued that εἰς could be used causally in various passages in the NT, among them Matt 3:11 and Acts 2:38. It seems that Mantey believed that a salvation by grace would be violated if a causal εἰς was not evi­dent in such passages as Acts 2:38.³⁹

On the other hand, Ralph Marcus questioned Mantey’s nonbiblical examples of a causal εἰς so that in his second of two rejoinders he concluded (after a blow-by-blow refutation):

It is quite possible that εἰς is used causally in these NT passages but the examples of causal εἰς cited from non-biblical Greek contribute absolutely nothing to making this possibility a probability. If, therefore, Professor Mantey is right in his interpre­tation of various NT passages on baptism and repentance and the remission of sins, he is right for reasons that are non-linguistic.⁴⁰

Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal εἰς fell short of proof. . . .In sum . . . his ingenious solution of a causal εἰς lacks conviction

Notes for the above:

³⁹ See J. R. Mantey, “The Causal Use of Eis in the New Testament,” JBL 70 (1952) 45-58 and “On Causal Eis Again,” JBL 70 (1952) 309-311.

⁴⁰ Ralph Marcus, “The Elusive Causal Eis,” JBL 71 (1953) 44. Cf. also Marcus’ first article, “On Causal Eis,” JBL 70 (1952) 129-130.

Another refutation of this argument comes from Matt 26:28. Speaking of the then-future shedding of his blood and its relationship to the Eucharistic cup, Christ says:

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

The Greek phrase, “for the remission of sins” is εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν; in Acts 2:38, it is exactly the same, except in Acts 2:38 there is a definite article (των) before “sins,” not causing any change in the meaning. Here, we see that those who hold to a “causal” meaning of εις in Acts 2:38 have to engage in a gross inconsistency (or, if they are consistent, adopt a very novel soteriology)—holding such an interpretation of εις, one will have to conclude (if one is consistent) that the remission of sins comes first, which then gives cause for the shedding of Christ's blood. The atonement, then, is no longer an action of Jesus in this sense. Of course, as with the "causal" interpretation of εις in Acts 2:38 is based on eisegesis, this interpretation of Matt 26:28, too, wrenches the underlying Greek out of context. Of course, only Latter-day Saints and others who hold to baptism being salvific can be consistent in their approach to both Matt 26:28 (on the relationship between remission of sins and the shedding of Christ’s blood) and Acts 2:38 (for the remission of sins and baptism).

Some critics of this view of baptism point to Matt 12:41:

The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at (εις) the preaching of Jonas [OT Jonah]; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

The argument is that εις here clearly has a “causal” meaning, as one cannot repent “into” one’s preaching or teaching. However, for those who make this argument (e.g. Eric Johnson), it reveals a poor grasp of how language works. In English, it is nonsensical to say, as the Greek of this verse reads, “into the proclamation of Jonas”; therefore, to make sense to English readers, most translations render εις as “at.” However, for a Greek reader and speaker, it is perfectly natural to think/read of one converting “into” the preaching of another. Think of the French way to ask for directions—in French, it is “pour aller” followed by “to” (á) and the destination. “Pour aller” literally means “for to go.” However, this would not be rendered into English as “for to go,” but “how do you get to”; however, for a French speaker, it is proper to speak of “how to go” to a certain place. Comments about Matt 12:41 that justify εις having a “causal” meaning only shows ignorance of both the Greek language and how language works, as there if often an inability to render perfectly one language into another without a translator having to take liberties to ensure readers will understand it in English.

Moreover, that modern scholarly grammarians agree with the "traditional" rendering of the preposition in Acts 2:38 are numerous; in perhaps the most scholarly Koine Greek lexicon on the market (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature [BDAG]), the following definition of εις is offered, with Acts 2:38 being an example of the preposition carrying the meaning with "into" or "with a goal towards" (within the context of Acts 2:38, one is baptised into/with a goal towards a remission of sins, supporting baptism being salvific, not merely symbolic [emphasis added]):

f. to denote purpose in order to, to (Appian, Liby. 101 §476 ἐς ἔκπληξιν=in order to frighten; Just., A I, 21, 4 εἰς προτροπήν ‘to spur on’) εἰς ἄγραν in order to catch someth. Lk 5:4. εἰς ἀπάντησιν, συνάντησιν, ὑπάντησίν τινι (s. these 3 entries) to meet someone, toward someone Mt 8:34; 25:1; J 12:13. εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς as a witness, i.e. proof, to them Mt 8:4; 10:18; 24:14 al. εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven Mt 26:28; cp. Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3; Ac 2:38. εἰς μνημόσυνόν τινος in memory of someone Mt 26:13; Mk 14:9; cp. Lk 22:19 al. (εἰς μνημόσυνον En 99:3). εἰς ὅ for which purpose (Hdt. 2, 103, 1) Col 1:29; otherw. 2 Th 1:11 with this in view; εἰς τί; why? (Wsd 4:17; Sir 39:16, 21) Mt 14:31; Mk 14:4; 15:34; Hm 2:5; D 1:5. εἰς τοῦτο for this reason or purpose Mk 1:38; Lk 4:43 v.l.; J 18:37; Ac 9:21; 26:16; Ro 9:17; 14:9; 2 Cor 2:9; 1J 3:8; Hs 1:9 (Just., A I, 13, 3). εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο for this very reason 2 Cor 5:5; Eph 6:22; Col 4:8. W. subst. inf. foll. (X., Ages. 9, 3, Mem. 3, 6, 2; Just., A I, 9, 5) in order to (oft. LXX; neg. μή in order not to; s. B-D-F §402, 2) Mt 20:19; 26:2; 27:31; Mk 14:55 and oft.—εἰς ὁδόν for the journey 6:8.

Evangelical apologist, Gary F. Zeolla of "Darkness to Light Ministries," wrote an article entitled, "Questions about Baptism." In an attempt to downplay the salvific role of baptism in Acts 2:38, he wrote that:

"[R]epent" and "be baptized" in Acts 2:28 [sic; he means v.38] have different grammatical forms so they are not both linked with "the remission of sins." On the other hand, in Acts 3:19, the verbs "repent" and "be converted" do have the same grammatical forms. But baptism is not mentioned. So baptism is to be submitted to AFTER repentance and conversion.

This is a rather silly argument, but it does show that the old adage, "a little Greek is a dangerous thing" is alive and well.

The term translated as "repent" in Acts 2:38 is μετανοήσατε which is the imperative aorist active of the verb μετανοεω. The term translated as "be baptised" is βαπτισθήτω, the imperative aorist passive of the verb βαπτιζω. The difference (which the apologist does not tell us) is simply between an active and passive voice. Of course, as repentance is something one does, while baptism is something that is done to the person, that is the reason for the difference in voices. There is no hint whatsoever that Acts 2:38 separates baptism from the remission of one's sins, notwithstanding this rather weak argument.

In Acts 3:19, the term translated as "be converted" is ἐπιστρέψατε, again, the imperative aorist active, this time of the verb επιστρεφω, "to turn/return." However, it is simply question-begging to claim that, just as baptism is not mentioned in this verse, ipso facto, baptism is not salvific, in spite of texts explicitly tying it into salvation (e.g., Rom 6:1-4). Furthermore, it is akin to advocates of "no-Lordship" theologies citing Acts 16:31 ("Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved") as precluding repentance from salvation, in spite of other verses which are explicit in repentance being tied into the salvation formula (e.g., Rom 10:9, 13). Evangelicals, like Zeolla, are guilty of implicitly denying the practice of "tota scriptura" (taking into account the entirety of the Bible's message on a topic) an important element of the Protestant doctrine and practice of Sola Scriptura.

R.C.H. Lenski, the great Lutheran commentator, wrote on this verse and how it demonstrates that water baptism is salutary:

Our acceptance of baptism is only acceptance of God’s gift.

This is emphasized strongly in the addition: “for or unto remission of your sins.” It amounts to nothing more than a formal grammatical difference whether εἰς is again regarded as denoting sphere (equal to ἐν), R. 592, or, as is commonly supposed, as indicating aim and purpose, R. 592, or better still as denoting effect. Sphere would mean that baptism is inside the same circle as remission; he who steps into this circle has both. Aim and purpose would mean that baptism intends to give remission; in him, then, who receives baptism aright this intention, aim, and purpose would be attained. The same is true regarding the idea of effect in εἰς. This preposition connects remission so closely with baptism that nobody has as yet been able to separate the two. It is this gift of remission that makes baptism a true sacrament; otherwise it would be only a sign or a symbol that conveys nothing real. In order to make baptism such a symbol, we are told that Peter’s phrase means only that baptism pictures remission, a remission we may obtain by some other means at some later day. But this alters the force of Peter’s words. Can one persuade himself that Peter told these sinners who were stricken with their terrible guilt to accept a baptism that pointed to some future remission? Had he no remission to offer them now? And when and how could they get that remission, absolutely the one thing they must have? And how can Ananias in 22:16 say, “Be baptized and wash away thy sins!” as though the water of baptism washed them away by its connection with the Name?

Ἄφεσις, from ἀφίημι, “to send away,” is another great Biblical concept: “the sending away” of your sins. How far away they are sent Ps. 103:12 tells us: “as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.” Measure the distance from the point where the east begins to the point where the west ends. Nor does David say, “as far as the north is from the south,” lest you think of the poles and succeed in measuring the distance. Again Micah 7:19: “Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.” Even today the sea has depths that have never been sounded. The idea to be conveyed is that the sins are removed from the sinner so as never to be found again, never again to be brought to confront him. God sends them away, and he would thus be the last to bring them back. When the sinner appears before his judgment seat, his sins are gone forever. This is what our far less expressive “forgiveness” really means. Nor does the guilt remain, for sin and guilt are one: sin gone, guilt gone! (Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (pp. 107–108). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.)

Hebrews vs. Reformed Soteriology

Durbin harps on Heb 10:14 ("For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified") as if such is (1) proof for the Reformed view of the atonement and (2) as if such is problematic towards Latter-day Saint soterology. Durbin also (correctly) urges the audience to read Hebrews to understand Christ's atonement. Sadly for Durbin, Hebrews disproves, not proves, Reformed soteriology. Let us examine three important texts in Hebrews: (1) 10:10-14; (2) 2:17 and (3) 10:26-29.

Heb 10:10-14

 The Greek (with key terms in bold), followed by the KJV, reads:

ἐν ᾧ θελήματι ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμὲν διὰ τῆς προσφορᾶς τοῦ σώματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐφάπαξ. ¹¹Καὶ πᾶς μὲν ἱερεὺς ἕστηκεν καθ᾽ ἡμέραν λειτουργῶν καὶ τὰς αὐτὰς πολλάκις προσφέρων θυσίας, αἵτινες οὐδέποτε δύνανται περιελεῖν ἁμαρτίας, ¹²  οὗτος δὲ μίαν ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν προσενέγκας θυσίαν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ, ¹³  τὸ λοιπὸν ἐκδεχόμενος ἕως τεθῶσιν οἱ ἐχθροὶ αὐτοῦ ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ. ¹⁴  μιᾷ γὰρ προσφορᾷ τετελείωκεν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους.

By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. ¹¹ And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: ¹² But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; ¹³ From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. ¹⁴ For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

In the view of many Evangelicals, this pericope “proves” that the believer cannot fall from their salvation and that salvation is a once-for-all event (being tied into one of the many theologies of “eternal security” [e.g. Perseverance of the Saints within Reformed soteriology]).

First, Hebrews 10:14 is a somewhat obscure grammatical choice of words by the writer.

It should first be noted that Heb 10:14 (“For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified”) is ambiguous in the Greek.

The verse contains the present participle τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους (“those being sanctified”). This present participle could be related to the perfect tense of τετελείωκεν (“he has perfected”). If this is the case, the sacrifice of Christ is indeed once-for-all (εφαπαξ), but is in a progressive relationship to us, that is, at least with respect to sanctification, Christ’s sacrifice does not give us a “blanket” forgiveness of one’s past, present, and then-future sins; instead, it gives us a perfect forgiveness of one’s past and present sins, but it is not applied all at once to us, as we know elsewhere from the New Testament that we must seek forgiveness of sins we commit post-conversion (e.g. 1 John 2:1-2).

Had the author of Hebrews wanted to convey such a “blanket” forgiveness as some wish to read into this pericope, he should have used a noun (e.g. τουν αγιουν [“the sanctified”]).

Something interesting appears in verse 10—the writer uses a perfect tense instead of a present participle. He says ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμὲν (“we have been sanctified”). The difference apparently lies in the “we” of v. 10 (the author and his immediate hearers) in contrast to those addressed in v. 14 which is an open-ended inclusion of anyone who will experience the sanctification in the future. This being the case, in biblical Greek, it is better to use a present participle, because only that form can include those in the present who are being sanctified as well as those in the future who will be sanctified.

There is another possibility that τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους refers to the entire sanctification process, including “positional” sanctification, for the author and his hearers in v.10 (i.e. they have been sanctified [per v. 10] but they are also being sanctified [v.14]).

Heb 2:17

Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

There are a number of interesting things when one examines this verse. Firstly, there are two “purpose clauses” in this verse; the first (“that he might be a merciful high priest”) is the Greek ινα clause; the second is the use of the Greek preposition εις which means “into” or “with a goal towards” and this is coupled with the present infinitive form of the verb ιλασκομαι “to make atonement” (ιλασκεσθαι), and this present “making of atonement” is “for the sins of the people” (τας αμαρτιας του λαου). The author of Hebrews views Christ’s on-going office of heavenly intercessor as one that allows for the continuing appeasement of the Father to win the forgiveness of sins committed by believers, sins that were not forgiven at one’s conversion. In other words, this verse presents Jesus as the heavenly high priest who, even at present, makes atonement for sins; this is alien to many theologies that think of one's forgiveness as being once-for-all. The author of Hebrews says Jesus makes atonement for sins on an ongoing basis. If ones’ then-future sins were already atoned for when one appropriated Jesus (esp. if one holds to imputed righteousness), and their justification can never be lost, this verse and its theology is nonsensical. However, Christ's ongoing work as High Priest in the heavenly tabernacle is ongoing in reference to our own sins. Thus, the present infinitive form in Heb 2:17 conclusively demonstrate the continuing need for the application of Christ's work for our own salvation. Reformed Protestants are in the unenviable position of having to advocate a soteriology that is at odds with the witness of biblical exegesis.

This fits perfectly well with what we find in the Expositor's Greek New Testament (5 vols.), ed. Nicoll Robertson, where Protestant scholar Marcus Dods wrote the following on Heb 2:17 (here, vol. 4 pp. 269-70):

εἰς τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι, “for the purpose of making propitiation,” εἰς indicating the special purpose to be served by Christ’s becoming Priest. ἱλάσκομαι (ἱλάσκω is not met with), from ἵλαος, Attic ἵλεως “propitious,” “merciful,” means “I render propitious to myself”. In the classics it is followed by the accusative of the person propitiated, sometimes of the anger felt. In the LXX it occurs twelve times, thrice as the translation of כִּפֵּר. The only instance in which it is followed by an accusative of the sin, as here, is Psalms 64 (65):3, τὰς ἀσεβείας ἡμῶν σὺ ἱλάσῃ. In the N.T., besides the present passage, it only occurs in Luke 18:13, in the passive form ἱλάσθητί μοι τῷ ἁμαρτωλῷ, cf. 2 Kings 5:18. The compound formἐξιλάσκομαι, although it does not occur in N.T., is more frequently used in the LXX than the simple verb, and from its construction something may be learnt. As in profane Greek, it is followed by an accusative of the person propitiated, as in Genesis 32:20, where Jacob says of Esau ἐξιλάσομαι τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς δώροις κ.τ.λ.; Zechariah 7:2, ἐξιλάσασθαι τὸν Κύριον, and Zechariah 8:22, τὸ πρόσωπον Κυρίου, also Matthew 1:9. It is however also followed by an accusative of the thing on account of which propitiation is needed or which requires by some rite or process to be rendered acceptable to God, as in Sir 3:3; Sir 3:30; Sir 5:6; Sir 20:28, etc., where it is followed by ἀδικίαν, and ἁμαρτίας; and in Leviticus 16:16; Leviticus 16:20; Leviticus 16:33, where it is followed by τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ θυσιαστήριον, and in Ezekiel 45:20 by τὸν οἶκον. At least thirty-two times in Leviticus alone it is followed by περί, defining the persons for whom propitiation is made, περὶ αὐτοῦ ἐξιλάσεται ὁ ἱερεύς or περὶ πάσης συναγωγῆς, or περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὑμῶν. In this usage there is apparent a transition from the idea of propitiating God (which still survives in the passive ἱλάσθητι) to the idea of exerting some influence on that which was offensive to God and which must be removed or cleansed in order to complete entrance into His favour. In the present passage it is τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ which stand in the way of the full expression of God’s favour, and upon those therefore the propitiatory influence of Christ is to be exerted. In what manner precisely this is to be accomplished is not yet said. “The present infinitive ἱλάσκεσθαι must be noticed. The one (eternal) act of Christ (c. x. 12–14) is here regarded in its continuous present application to men (cf. c. Hebrews 2:1-2).”

Heb 10:26-29

On his Alpha and Omega Ministries Website, James R. White has an article entitled, "Hebrews and the Atonement of Christ." This is, in part, a response to pp. 102-7 of Catholic apologist Robert A. Sungenis' book, Not By Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice (Queenship, 2000).

Near the end of the article, White attempts to interact with one pericope that is often cited, alongside Heb 6:4-6, as proof that a truly justified believer can lose their salvation, Heb 10:26-29. Before we reproduce White's comments, here is the 1995 NASB translation:

For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer a punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under the foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Sungenis (ibid, pp. 102-3) writes:

This is a significant passage for our present discussion. The use of the word “sacrifice” in this context demands an explanation as to why such a concept is even mentioned, if, as is claimed by non-Catholic opponents, the one-time acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice totally secures and completes one’s justification. How can opponents explain this passage when the ones addressed in the context of Hebrews 10 are practicing Christians? According to Hebrews 10:29, they have already been “sanctified.” Hebrews 10:32-34 adds that they had become noteworthy for having previously “stood their ground in a great contest in the face of suffering;” they had been “publicly exposed to insult and persecution; at other times stood side by side with those who were so treated;” they “had sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of their property, because they knew they had better and lasting possessions.” The warning is clear that if they now decide to sin “deliberately,” then no more sacrifice is left or them, rather, “a fearful expectation of judgment.”

In an attempt to avoid the theological implications of this pericope, White (using some projection along the way), writes:

Sungenis follows up these comments with a reference to Hebrews 10:29.  He asserts this passage teaches one can fall away from sanctification.  He does not show any familiarity with the question of who it is who is sanctified by the blood of the covenant in this passage.  The great Puritan scholar, John Owen, wrote concerning who is the one “sanctified” in Hebrews 10:29:

But the design of the apostle in the context leads plainly to another application of these words. It is Christ himself that is spoken of, who was sanctified and dedicated unto God to be an eternal high priest, by the blood of the covenant which he offered unto God, as I have showed before. The priests of old were dedicated and sanctified unto their office by another, and the sacrifices which he offered for them; they could not sanctify themselves: so were Aaron and his sons sanctified by Moses, antecedently unto their offering any sacrifice themselves. But no outward act of men or angels could unto this purpose pass on the Son of God. He was to be the priest himself, the sacrificer himself, -- to dedicate, consecrate, and sanctify himself, by his own sacrifice, in concurrence with the actings of God the Father in his suffering. See John 17:19; Hebrews 2:10, 5:7, 9, 9:11, 12. That precious blood of Christ, wherein or whereby he was sanctified, and dedicated unto God as the eternal high priest of the church, this they esteemed “an unholy thing;” that is, such as would have no such effect as to consecrate him unto God and his office.  (John Owen, Commentary on Hebrews, vol. 22, p. 676)

I will admit that when I first read White’s comments, it struck me as rather desperate, but forced upon him due to his a priori assumption that Reformed soteriology must be biblical.

In an article responding to White (no longer accessible online, but a copy is in my possession for those who wish to read it), "James White's 'Feature Article' and the Calvinist Dance Around the Book of Hebrews," Sungenis wrote in response:

Obviously, Owen can’t admit that the one “sanctified” in Hebrews 10:29 is a Christian, for that would mean that the Christian could lose his sanctification, and if he lost his sanctification, he would lose his justification, and if he lost his justification, it means he was never predestined to salvation in the first place, and thus, you see, the whole edifice of Calvinism would topple in one fell swoop. Suffice it to say, the only ones who even dare interpret Hebrews 10:29 in the way White is suggesting are the Calvinists.

But, of course, once they make such a claim, then they create other exegetical problems out of which there is no escape. They are stuck with explaining how Christ can be “sanctified by the blood of the covenant” when the word “sanctified” or its derivatives are never mentioned as occurring with or to Christ. Perhaps White would like to start a new religion based on the fact that he thinks Christ was “sanctified,” but it will be a religion that has no basis in the Bible, for the Bible simply does not teach such a heretical idea.

They also must explain how and why the Hebrew writer, in Hebrews 10:29, suddenly shifts from talking about the Christian (“and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant”) to an abrupt reference to Christ in mid-sentence (“by which he was sanctified”). I have searched all my Greek lexical and grammatical aids, and not one of them says that it is grammatically justifiable to say that the “he” of “by which he was sanctified” is anything but the Christian spoken about in “and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant.”

In short, this is an outlandish claim of White’s, and it is just as heretical as his suggestion that Christ is the one who is sanctified. But this is what White is reduced to saying of Hebrews 10:29 in order to attempt to save face for Calvinism. It’s obvious why White didn’t cite any Greek grammars to support his claim, since none of them do so. The only thing he could find is some centuries-old Calvinist writer, who didn’t even address the Greek of the passage, as his only authoritative source. That, speaks volumes of the shoddy research and poor exegetical abilities of James White. One fatal flaw leads to another.

While I disagree with Sungenis on the thesis of his book (that the Catholic Mass is both biblical and historical), he is both spot-on in his book in rejecting eternal security/perseverance of the saints as being biblical and this rather desperate attempt to avoid the clear meaning of Heb 10:26-29 from both White and Owen. While the verb αγιαζω can have the sense of "to consecrate" and is used of Jesus in John 10:35-36; 17:19 and 1 Pet 3:15, the meaning in Heb 10:29 is clearly soteriological, so cannot be used of Jesus but of redeemed/justified Christians. If Owen and White were consistent, they would have to argue, as do many Christadelphians, that Jesus offered up a sacrifice for himself for His own sin(s) (in the CD view, the sin of being human [not that White or Owen would hold to such--they would agree that Christ was sinless, but such is the precarious position one is placed with such eisegetical nonsense]).

Indeed, the other Reformed commentators I have examined on this epistle while agreeing with White’s soteriology and belief a true believer could never lose their salvation, reject this strained reading (i.e., Christ is the one sanctified in Heb 10:29, not a Christian). For instance, one recent commentary wrote the following:

We should also note that the author speaks of the blood “by which” the readers were “sanctified” (ηγιασθη). Here is powerful evidence that those addressed are truly believers, confirming what was argued in 6:4-5, for Jesus’ blood sanctifies, and sets them apart (cf. 13:12 and 2:11). Jesus by his once-for-all offering “perfected forever those who are sanctified” (10:14). Sanctification here is definitive and positional rather than progressive. It is awkward and unnatural to see a reference to Jesus in the pronoun instead of believers, for it makes little sense to say Jesus was sanctified by his own blood. Jesus is the one who sanctifies in Hebrews (2:11), not the one who is sanctified. Indeed, in chapters 10 and 13 the author clearly states three times that the death of Jesus sanctifies believers (10:10, 14, 12:12). Nor is it persuasive to say that the sanctification is not saving, comparing it to the sanctification under the old covenant (9:13), which only sanctified externally. The argument fails to persuade, for the point in Hebrews is that Jesus’ sacrifice stands in contrast to the sacrifices of the old covenant. His sacrifice is effective and truly brings sanctification. To say that his sacrifice only sanctifies externally, like the sacrifices of the old covenant, misses one of the major themes of the letter. Contrary to OT sacrifices, Jesus’ sacrifice truly cleanses the conscience. (Thomas R. Schreiner, Commentary on Hebrews [Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation: Nashville: Holman Reference, 2015], 327)

James White's theological mentor, John Calvin, also believed that those who are said to be "sanctified" in Heb 10:29 are Christians, not the person of Christ:

The blood of the covenant,  etc. He enhances ingratitude by a comparison with the benefits. It is the greatest indignity to count the blood of Christ unholy, by which our holiness is effected; this is done by those who depart from the faith. For our faith looks not on the naked doctrine, but on the blood by which our salvation has been ratified. He calls it the blood of the covenant, because then only were the promises made sure to us when this pledge was added. But he points out the manner of this confirmation by saying that we are sanctified; for the blood shed would avail us nothing, except we were sprinkled with it by the Holy Spirit; and hence come our expiation and sanctification. The apostle at the same time alludes to the ancient rite of sprinkling, which availed not to real sanctification, but was only its shadow or image

As with so many areas, James White fails on (1) biblical-exegetical grounds and (2) presents a marginal interpretation (out of desperation to prop up belief in Calvinism) of Heb 10:29 that is a rejected view even within Reformed circles, both historical and modern.

As an aside, for a detailed exegetical response to John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (a work White is rather fond of), see Norman F. Douty, Did Christ Die Only for the Elect? A Treatise on the Extent of Christ’s Atonement (2d ed; Eugene, Oreg: Wipf & Stock, 1978).

One could go on, but it is clear that Hebrews (1) poses no problems for LDS theology and (2) disproves Reformed soteriology.

1 John 2:1-2 and the intercession of Christ

Durbin, in his comments on the biblical teaching on the atonement, harps on his absolutised reading of Heb 10:14 (which we have seen to be eisegetical) and the fact Christ is "sitting" not "standing." Let us deal with these issues--

Firstly, a problematic text about the nature of Christ's atonement for those who are Reformed is that of 1 John 2:1-2. The ESV renders the verse as follows (emphasis added):

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

In this verse, John is speaking to Christian believers of his time and states that not only was/is Christ an atoning sacrifice (ιλασμος) for their then-past sins but is presently an atoning sacrifice for their then-future sins. Why is this problematic? In Reformed soteriology, when an individual is pronounced “justified,” all their past, present, and then-future sins are forgiven, a “blanket forgiveness,” if you will. However, the text is pretty clear that a true believer will not only sin, but such sins will have to be repented of and forgiven by Jesus Christ. This is brought out when one looks at the Greek:

The phrase, “we have an advocate” translates παράκλητον ἔχομεν, where the present text of “to have” εχω coupled with the Greek term παρακλητος, which refers to an advocate, an individual who pleads another's cause in their place, which is related to the intercessory work of Jesus Christ being tied into the perseverance of Christians and their ultimate salvation, something we find in a host of biblical texts, such as:

Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. (Rom 8:33-34)

But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore, he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he liveth to make intercession for them. (Heb 7:24-25)

We see a very potent example of this in Rev 5:6:

And I beheld, and lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

In this passage, John sees a vision of the heavenly tabernacle, where Jesus is presented as being a Lamb. The term “as it had been slain” translates the Greek term ὡς ἐσφαγμένον, where the term ως (like/as) coupled with perfect passive participle of the verb σφαζω (to slay), therefore, depicting Jesus, in His post-resurrection state, in a sacrificial role, paralleling the slaughter of the Passover lamb. Furthermore, Jesus is not sitting, but standing, indicating activity on his behalf (cf. Acts 7:55-56; Heb 8:1-3), namely, His intercessory work before God the Father, applying the benefits of His atoning sacrifice for His people until He comes in glory; further, as we learn in vv.8-9, the potency of the prayers offered by the disembodied elders have their basis on this intercessory work—similarly, the potency of our prayers have power due to the prayers and intercessory work of Christ, our mediator (cf. 1 Tim 2:5).

The term “he is the propitiation for our sins” translates the Greek αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστιν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν. The ESV and other translations are correct in rendering Christ being a present atoning sacrifice (“propitiation”), as the verb “to be” (ειμι) is in the present tense (εστιν [“he is”]). This is commensurate with texts such as Heb 2:17, where the author of Hebrews presents Jesus as a present-propitiation, not merely a past-propitiation, for the sins of true believers.

1 John 1:5-10 confirms the focus on the present sins of the Christian that need forgiveness; verse 6 speaks of those who claim to have fellowship and yet walk in darkness (i.e. are engaged in unrepentant sin). In verse 7, the author provides the remedy to such, viz. the blood of Jesus Christ "that cleanseth us from all sin," allowing restoration of fellowship. This is reinforced in vv.8 and 10 that denies the claim that a Christian is without sin, while v. 9 encourages the sinner to repent, upon which God will "forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." The pronouns used indicate that the author included himself in such warnings and as one who needs to engage in repentance and have his then-future sins forgiven, too.

John continues by qualifying the scope of Christ’s atoning sacrifice—He is not just the propitiation for the sins of believers (“our sins”) but also but also "for the whole world." The term "whole world" translates the Greek του κοσμου. The term κοσμος in all 17 occurrences in 1 John does not have the restrictive meaning that is required by Reformed theology which states that Christ died only for the elect and makes intercession only for the elect (Limited Atonement [AKA Particular Redemption], the”L” in the TULIP):

Let us quote from some representative examples, again from the ESV, as it is a popular translation among many Reformed Protestants:

For all that is in the world (κοσμος)--the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life--is not from the Father but is from the world. (1 John 2:16)

But if anyone has the world's (κοσμος) goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? (1 John 3:17)

They are from the world (κοσμος); therefore they speak from the world (κοσμος), and the world listens to them. (1 John 4:5)

And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Saviour of the world (κοσμος). (1 John 4:14).

The latter texts are interesting as the title “Saviour” (σωτηρ) is predicated upon Jesus and His role as a Saviour is said to be for the world, not just a select few arbitrarily chosen by God in the eternal past (cf. John 4:42). Some Reformed apologists try to answer the implications of the phrase, "the whole world" by claiming that John is writing to Jewish converts to Christianity, and is simply stating that Christ has elect from among both the Jews and the Gentiles, so "the whole world" should mean "Jew and Gentile." However, such is a complete and utter stretch--for Jews, there were only two ethnic categories one belonged to; one was either a Jew or a Gentile--so everybody would be in view.

When read exegetically, 1 John 2:1-2 shows that (1) Christ is a present propitiation for Christians; (2) the then-future sins of a Christian are not forgiven at justification, and as result (3) repentance is not a once-off concept as some (not all) Evangelicals posit, and (4) Christ is the atoning sacrifice, not just for Christians, but the everybody.

John McLeod Campbell, a 19th-century Reformed theologian who was critical of much of Penal Substitution, captured the extent and meaning of the atonement when he wrote:

And He is the propitiation: for propitiation is not a thing which He has accomplished and on which we are thrown back on as a past fact. He is the propitiation. Propitiation for us sinners,--reconciliation to God,--oneness with God abides in Christ. When we sin, and so separate ourselves from God, if we would return and not continue in sin we must remember this. For it is in this view that the Apostle, writing to us “that we sin not,” reminds us of the propitiation—not a work of Christ, but the living Christ Himself: and so he proceeds—“Hereby we do know that we know Him if we keep His commandments;” the direct effect of knowing Christ the propitiation for sin being keeping Christ’s commandments. And because of the power to keep Christ’s commandments, which is ours in Christ as the propitiation for our sins, the Apostle, in words similar to those which he had just used with reference to the claim to fellowship with God who is light, adds, “He that saith I know him,” that is Christ the propitiation for our sins, “and keepeth not his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepth His word, in him verily is the love of God perfected,”—the end of this gift of love accomplished. “Hereby know we that we are in Him. He that saith he abideth in Him ought himself also so to walk even as He walked.” (John McLeod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement and Its Relation to Remission of Sins and Eternal Life [2d ed.: London: Macmillan and Co., 1867], 197-98; emphasis in original).

This is yet another text which shows, with great perspicuity, that Latter-day Saint theology is more reflective of “Biblical Christianity” than Reformed theology, which most of our Evangelical Protestant opponents subscribe to.

With respect to Jesus "sitting," it is true that Hebrews speaks of Christ "sitting" on the Father's right hand, based on Psa 110:1 (109:1, LXX), denoting that He will never have to die again. However, other texts speak of him "standing" and "interceding." Note the following comments from two scholars on the nature of Christ's intercessory work:

Forgiveness through the intercession of Jesus

While not as universally attested as the view of his death as salvific, the notion of Jesus’ continuous intercession for those who have sinned surfaces in a number of texts that otherwise differ widely in theological character. Paul expresses his conviction that Jesus ‘is at the right hand of God’ and ‘intercedes (εντυγχανει) for us’ (Rom 8.34), but he does not mention sins specifically, Likewise, the author of Hebrews states that Jesus ‘can also save forever those who come to God through hi, since he always lives to intercede (εντυγχανειν) for them’ (Heb 7.25). It is possible in view of his subsequent discussion of the high-priestly sacrifice for sins (7.26-7) that the author here envisages a ministry of praying specifically for sins to be forgiven, but he does not say so explicitly.

First John clearly associates Jesus’ intercessory work with forgiveness claiming that ‘if somebody sins, we have an advocate (παρακλητον) with the Father, Jesus Christ who is righteous’ (2.1). The notion that the righteous departed pray for the forgiveness of the sins of the living is firmly rooted in several variants of early Judaism, and the phrasing in First John is strikingly evocative of Philo’s articulation of this conception. What Philo predicated of the ancient saints of Israel, First John attributes to Jesus: the continuing ministry of praying before God on behalf of sinners, at least on behalf of those sinners who have not committed mortal sin (see 5.16-17)

Luke’s narration of the death of Stephen (Acts 7.54-60) also assigns the role of advocate to Jesus. Scholars have frequently taken Stephen’s invocation of Jesus, ‘Lord, do not hold (μη στησης) this sin against them (7.60) as equivalent to saying ‘Lord, forgive this sin for them’ and thus as expressing the notion that the heavenly Jesus forgives sins. But this interpretation appears to be based on the misunderstanding of ‘to establish’ (ισταναι) and ‘to remit’ (αφιεναι) as antonyms in 1 Macc. 13.36-40; 15.2-9, where a careful reading reveals that these verbs are by no means antonymous. A more relevant philological background for Stephen’s prayer is provided by the regulations concerning vows and pledges in Num 30.11-15 LXX, which allow a husband either to nullify (περιαιρειν) his wife’s vows and pledges by speaking out, or to validate (ισταναι) them by keeping silence. In the former case, ‘the Lord will forgive (καθαρισει (MT: יסלח )) the woman (30.13). In Acts 7.60, Stephen analogously petitions Jesus not to validate the sin of the assassins, but to nullify it by speaking on their behalf, reserving for God the prerogative of properly forgiving their sin. This also explains better why Jesus is standing, rather than sitting, at the right hand of God in Stephen’s vision (Acts 7.55-56): Jesus is not functioning as a judge, but as the advocate of his faithful witness (cf. Luke 12:8-9), who exemplarily asks him to speak also in favour of the enemies.

This understanding of Acts 7.60 affects the construal of Peter’s advice to Simon Magus, ‘ask the Lord that, if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven for you’ (Acts 8.24). The identity of ‘the Lord’ is obscure. If it refers to God, a post-baptismal sin may be forgiven by God without Jesus playing any instrumental role (cf. 3.19). If, by contrast, it refers to Jesus, then his function could be understood in either of two ways: as the one who actually forgives sins, or as the heavenly advocate, who intercedes for the sinner before God. The contextual nearness between 7.60 and 8.22 speaks for the latter alternative, as does the passive construction ‘will be forgiven’ (αφεθησεται), which may indicate that the implicit agent of forgiveness is not identical with ‘the Lord’ to whom the prayer is addressed. (Tobias Hägerland, Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins: An Aspect of His Prophetic Ministry [Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 150; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012], 97-99)

To understand the heavenly intercession of the Son on our behalf as the propitiation of the Father, as Michael does, generates a significant problem of internal coherence for penal substitution. According to penal substitution, the primary purpose and effect of the death of Jesus was to propitiate the wrath of God on account of the sins of humanity. As it is written elsewhere, because Christ is “a priest forever” in heaven, he “always lives to make intercession” and is thus “able for all time to save those who approach God through him” (Heb 7:24-25). Heavenly intercession on our behalf is thus the ongoing vocation of the risen and ascended Christ. So, if the purpose and effect of the Son's intercession is to propitiate the Father's wrath, then the Son is continually doing in heaven at the throne what was to have been fully accomplished on earth at the cross. The cross would thus seem to have been ineffective, or at least incomplete, in accomplishing its primary purpose of saving humanity from divine wrath. Michael's [a Reformed apologist the author is responding to] interpretation of 1 John 2:1-2, although given in defense of penal substitution, effectively undermines it. (Darrin W. Snyder Belousek, Atonement, Justice, and Peace: The message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012], p. 249 n. 13)

Many proponents of Reformed soteriology have shown to be inconsistent with respect to their views on the nature of Christ’s atoning death its relationship to intercession, as well as the salutary nature of Christ’s intercession. James R. White, for instance, once wrote the following:

He enters into the presence of the Father, having obtained eternal redemption. Christ presents Himself before the Father as the perfect oblation in behalf of His people. His work of intercession, then, is based on His work of atonement. Intercession is not another or different kind of work, but is the presentation of the work of the cross before the Father . . . the Son intercedes for men before the Father on the basis of the fact that in His death He has taken away the sins of God’s people, and therefore, by presenting His finished work on Calvary before the Father, He assures the application of the benefits of His death to those for whom He intercedes. (James R. White, The Fatal Flaw, pp. 133-134).

Ulrich Zwingli, one of the magisterial Reformers, wrote the following on the intercessory work of Christ:

For as He [Christ] offered Himself once on the cross and again to the Father in heaven, so He won and obtained remission of sins and the joy of everlasting happiness. (The Latin Works of Huldreich Zwingli [trans. Macauley Jackson; 2 vols.], 2:276)

This inconsistency is also part-and-parcel of John Calvin’s soteriology as well as those who, like James White, subscribe to such a forensic model of atonement. In the book by Robert Peterson, Calvin and the Atonement, we read the following on the topic of Christ’s office of priest and work of intercession:

Salvation depends upon Christ’s highly priestly work of reconciliation . . . The second of Christ’s priestly duties is intercession. Because Jesus Christ has reconciled the Father to believers and them to him, he has opened for them a way of access to God in prayer. In the Institutes, Calvin explains that Christ’s accomplishment of reconciliation is the prerequisite for his work of intercession:

For having entered a sanctuary not made with hands, He appears before the Father’s face as our constant advocate and intercessor (Heb. 7:25; 9:11f.; Rom. 8:34). Thus He turns the Father’s eyes to His own righteousness to avert his gaze from our sins. He so reconciles the Father’s heart to us by His intercession that He prepares a way and access for us to the Father’s throne. He fills with grace and kindness the throne that for miserable sinners would otherwise have been filled with dread. (Institutes II.xvi.16)

In fact, according to Calvin’s commentary on 1 John 2:1, ‘Christ’s intercession is the continual application of His death to our salvation.’ Christ’s priestly work of reconciliation is once for all. But his high priestly function of intercession is continuous. He continually intercedes on behalf of his people before his Father’s throne. (Robert A. Peterson Sr., Calvin and the Atonement: What the renowned pastor and teacher said about the cross of Christ [Ross-shire, UK: Mentor, 1999], 57-58)

On p. 58 n. 51 of ibid., we read the following:

Hoogland expresses this very well: ‘The intercession of Christ according to Calvin, is not an additional act which Christ performs in heaven, different from His death and resurrection. His intercession is the presence of His death and resurrection themselves before the Father’ (Marvin P. Hoogland, ‘Calvin’s Perspective on the Exaltation of Christ in Comparison with the Post-Reformation Doctrine of the Two States’, pp. 198f.)

As with James White (whose book was written, in part, against the Catholic doctrine of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice), Calvin contradicts himself when he critiques this doctrine, one that is tied into Christ’s intercessory work being salutary (showing the inconsistent nature of such a view of atonement):

It is in the context of the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice that Calvin takes great affront at the Roman Catholic mass. In the Institutes, he explains:

The sacrificial victims which were offered under the law to atone for sins were so called, not because they were capable of recovering God’s favour or wiping out iniquity, but because they prefigured a true sacrifice such as was finally accomplished in reality by Christ alone; and by him alone, because no other could have done it. And it was done but once, because the effectiveness and force of that one sacrifice accomplished by Christ are eternal, as he testified with his own voice when he said that it was done and fulfilled; that is, whatever was necessary to recover the Father’s favour, to obtain forgiveness of sins, righteousness and salvation—all this was performed and completed by that unique sacrifice of his. And so perfect was is that no place was left afterward for any other sacrificial victim. Therefore, I conclude that it is a most wicked infamy and unbearable blasphemy, both against Christ and against the sacrifice which he made for us through his death on the cross, for anyone to suppose that by repeating the oblation he obtains pardon for sins, appeased God, and acquires righteousness. But what else is done by performing masses except by the merit of a new oblation we are made partakers in Christ’s passion? (Institutes IV.xviii.13-14) (ibid., 98-99)

Commenting on this aforementioned passage from Calvin’s Institutes, Peterson writes:

[In Calvin’s eyes] Christ’s work was perfect and no other sacrifices are needed. Christ perfectly fulfilled the Old Testament sacrificial system by offering himself on the cross. His work is sufficient to save his people from their sins. (Ibid., 99)

The Reformed doctrine of Christ’s atoning death and its relationship to His intercession is internally inconsistent and should be, as with the other tenets of Calvinism, rejected.

Are Jesus and Melchizedek one and the same person?

In an act of desperation, Durbin identifies Jesus with the person of Melchizedek (i.e., they are numerically identical, with Melchizedek being an Old Testament Christophany). Again, such only shows his lousy exegetical skills.

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, 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)

Hebrews 7:24

Durbin argues that Heb 7:24 teaches that Christ's priesthood cannot be transferred to any other person. However, this only shows that Durbin is decades behind on Greek lexicography and other studies.

Much ink has been spilt 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.). 

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 Durbin that only Jesus holds the Melchizedek Priesthood, rejects Durbins' 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.

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. † 

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.

For more, see my The LDS Priesthoods: Resource Page

Durbin's Misinformed Comments about LDS Theology

Durbin throws out a number of half-truths and lies about Latter-day Saint soteriology and Christology, which were soundly refuted in Refuting Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism" (cf. my response to Bobby Gilpin a Reformed Baptist in the UK, Latter-day Saints have Chosen the True, Biblical Jesus). I will direct the reader to that response and related pages dealing with issues about Christology, soteriology, and other topics on my blog to see that Durbin is, as always, out in left field concerning these theological issues.

Yet again, we see that (1) Latter-day Saint theology is consistent with sound biblical exegesis; (2) Reformed theology is anti-biblical and (3) Jef Durbin is ignorant of both the Bible and "Mormonism."






Support this blog:

Paypal

Gofundme