I recently came across an attempted rebuttal to one of my articles, Biblical Evidence of Multiple People Having Held the Melchizedek Priesthood. The “response,” WHERE DOES YOUR PASTOR GET HIS AUTHORITY? Engages in a lot of special pleading (e.g., because David used agents to bring the Ark to Obed-Edom, ergo, he must have used agents for the priestly sacrifices). Here is the “challenge” posed by the critic:
I will give you $100 if you can find one of these Biblical characters where the text says they hold such priesthood . . . I again extend the $100 challenge to show a Bible verse where Ps. 110:4 is applied to anyone but Jesus (see Heb. 5:10; 6:20; 7:1; etcetera).
Firstly, it should be noted that the author is labouring under the (false) a priori assumption that, unless “x” is explicated in the Bible, it cannot be true. In reality, he is assuming what he must first prove true—Sola Scriptura, the formal doctrine of the Protestant Reformation. There is absolutely no biblical and patristic evidence, when exegeted properly, that supports this. I will happily debate any Protestant apologist in public on this topic as, from any exegetically sound perspective, it is a doctrine and epistemology that simply cannot hold up to the historical-grammatical method of interpretation.
Furthermore, even his own Evangelical scholars disagree with him and agree with me that Psa 110, including v.4, is not being addressed only to Jesus; instead, it is being directed to the Davidic Kings of Israel. The NET Bible has the following notes for Psa 110:1:
1Psalm 110:1. In this royal psalm the psalmist announces God's oracle to the Davidic king. The first part of the oracle appears in v. 1, the second in v. 4. In vv. 2-3 the psalmist addresses the king, while in vv. 5-7 he appears to address God.
3 sn My lord. In the psalm's original context the speaker is an unidentified prophetic voice in the royal court. In the course of time the psalm is applied to each successive king in the dynasty and ultimately to the ideal Davidic king. NT references to the psalm understand David to be speaking about his "lord," the Messiah. (See Mat 22:43-45; Mar 12:36-37; Luk 20:42-44; Act 2:34-35).
Additionally, we read the following about Psa 110:4:
17 sn You are an eternal priest. The Davidic king exercised a non-Levitical priestly role. The king superintended Judah's cultic ritual, had authority over the Levites, and sometimes led in formal worship. David himself instructed the Levites to bring the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem (1Ch 15:11-15), joined the procession, offered sacrifices, wore a priestly ephod, and blessed the people (2Sa 6:12-19). At the dedication of the temple Solomon led the ceremony, offering sacrifices and praying on behalf of the people (1Ki 8).
18 tn The phrase עַל־דִּבְרָתִי ('al-divratiy) is a variant of עַל־דִּבְרָת ('al-divrat; the final yod [י] being an archaic genitival ending), which in turn is a variant of עַל דָּבַר ('al davar). Both phrases can mean "concerning" or "because of," but neither of these nuances fits the use of עַל־דִּבְרָתִי in Psa 110:4. Here the phrase probably carries the sense "according to the manner of." See L. C. Allen, Psa 101-150 (WBC), 81.
19 sn The Davidic king's priestly role is analogous to that of Melchizedek, who was both "king of Salem" (i.e., Jerusalem) and a "priest of God Most High" in the time of Abraham (Gen 14:18-20). Like Melchizedek, the Davidic king was a royal priest, distinct from the Aaronic line (see Heb 7). The analogy focuses on the king's priestly role; the language need not imply that Melchizedek himself was "an eternal priest."
In his article, “Psalm 110:1 and the New Testament,” Bibliotheca Sacra 149 (Oct. 1992):438-53, Evangelical Protestant Herbert W. Bateman IV argues that, "[T]he phrase "to my lord" (l'adoni) apparently indicates that David was directing this oracle from Yahweh to a human lord" (p. 448) and that "it seems reasonable to suggest that Psalm 110 is a typological-prophetic oracle of the Lord from the preexilic time period. David prophetically spoke the psalm to his "lord," Solomon, when Solomon ascended to the Davidic throne in 971 B.C." (p. 453)
Dr. Claude Mariottini, in his article, Rereading 2 Samuel 8:18: “David’s Sons Were Priests” shows that non-Levites engaged in sacrifices and other priestly activities in the Old Testament, not merely their agents as the author of the piece claims. Indeed, 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).
In the entry for "Melchizedek" in the Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000), we read the following under the heading of Psalm 110 (emphasis added):
Ps. 110 is generally classified as a royal psalm that lauds the position and attributes of the king. Textual problems, particularly in Ps. 110:3, 6-7, make it exceedingly difficult to reach positive conclusions. In Ps. 110:4 the king is called “a priest according to the order of Melchizedek,” but the precise comparison is unclear. It is far from certain that Heb. ʿal-diḇrāṯî (commonly rendered “in the order of”) refers to an official religious order per se, for elsewhere the phrase simply means “on account of.” To be sure, the oracle considers the king to be “like” Melchizedek, but again, the absence of data on Melchizedek as a historical figure precludes certainty about the precise meaning of the phrase.
This refutes the claim among some Evangelicals that, with the exception of Jesus only, no Davidic King held the priesthood “after the order/on account of” Melchizedek.
Dr. Claude Mariottini, in his article, Rereading 2 Samuel 8:18: “David’s Sons Were Priests” shows that non-Levites engaged in sacrifices and other priestly activities in the Old Testament, not merely their agents as the author of the piece claims. Indeed, 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).
No matter how you cut this one, the author of the article is clearly way out in left field in terms of exegesis and scholarship. As proof of this, he did make this false claim that has been refuted time and time again (showing a clearly lack of intellectual integrity):
When an Aaronic priest died, another in his bloodline took his office. Christ’s priesthood was not like that. Christ had no successors; he did not pass on a “Melchizedek” priesthood to anyone. Hebrews 7:23-24 makes this point clear, read it carefully:
“Also there were many priests [Aaronic priests], because they were prevented by death from continuing. But He [Jesus] because he continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. (NKJV)
The word “unchangeable” is very important. In the original Greek language, the word means, “untransferrable.” In other words, Jesus did not pass His priesthood to anybody. I will give $100 to the first person who can find, in the Bible, someone Jesus gave a “Melchizedek” priesthood to.
With respect to the LDS Priesthoods, I would suggest pursuing the pages at The LDS Priesthoods: Resource Page, including The Biblical Evidence for an Ordained, Ministerial Priesthood in the New Covenant from the Last Supper Accounts. Not, with respect to Heb 7:24, while much ink has been spilt on the term translated “permanent” (KJV: unchangeable), the Greek term απαραβατος, the common Protestant interpretation is simply false as modern scholarship has revealed. 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 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:
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.
Interestingly, the author of the piece, if his claims are to be taken seriously, makes many Old Testament prophets into false prophets! 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.
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.
Interestingly, the author of the piece, if his claims are to be taken seriously, makes many Old Testament prophets into false prophets! 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).
As one non-LDS author on the topic of biblical eschatology wrote on Ezek 40-47:
As one non-LDS author on the topic of biblical eschatology wrote on Ezek 40-47:
Some offer objections to the future fulfillment of these promises because a renewal of the sacrifices is predicted, as for instance in the verse just quoted (Jer. 33: 18) it says, “Neither shall the Levites want a man before me, to offer burnt-offerings, and to kindle meat-offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.” The objection here raised is that Christ being made the one great offering, “once for all,” no sacrifices can be offered in the age to come. But Israel’s laws in the past required offerings to be made pointing to Christ, and those offerings were intended as a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ. While this was fulfilled to a limited extent, it fell short of absolute fulfillment, for Israel, as a nation, did not receive the instructions of the schoolmaster, and were, therefore, not led to Christ, and therefore did not recognize Him. When they are brought into the bond of the broken covenant they will be willing to do God’s commandments, for He says, “My people shall be willing in the day of my wrath,” and what they failed to do in the offerings under the law prospectively, under Christ in the age to come they will do retrospectively. What a grand sequel this is. The very nation which crucified Christ, notwithstanding that all their sacrifices pointed to Him, shall yet look unto Him whom they have pierced, and mourn for Him. Therefore those sacrifices which by their wickedness they had wrested out of their true meaning, shall yet be offered in the real and true sense in which they were intended to be offered, pointing to, centering and focalizing, as it were, in Christ. They will then, repenting of their sins, heartily acknowledge and memoralize Him who was the type and the substance of the shadow of the broken law.
For a more elaborate and clearer prophecy of this memorial system of offerings, in the rebuilt and beautiful temple which is to adorn the land of Israel, the reader is referred to the prophecy of Ezekiel, where a description of the temple and the Divine service is given, which has never yet found its fulfillment in the history of the world. The description is there by inspiration. It is there to be fulfilled. And fulfilled it will be as surely as it has been written. Then Israel, as a nation, in relation to the civil and the ecclesiastical government of the world, will be, as Moses declared, the head and not the tail, the highest of all nations; the forces of the Gentiles shall be brought unto them, and the dark night which has obtained since Israel’s sun went down will be dispelled by the morning of an unclouded dawn when the “sun of righteousness” will illuminate and bless the world, and “fill the earth with the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” (Thomas Williams, The World's Redemption [Advocate Publishing House, 1913], pp. 111-12
One final text would be Isa 56:6-7, we read the following prophecy:
Commenting on this prophecy, one scholar wrote the following:
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.
And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, all who keep the sabbath, and do not profane it, and hold fast my covenant--these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples. (NRSV)
Commenting on this prophecy, one scholar wrote the following:
In the Synoptic accounts of the temple cleansing in Matthew 21:13, Mark 11:17, and Luke 19:46, Christ refers to God's house being a house of prayer. That reference to "house of prayer" occurs in Isaiah 56:6-7, where the prophet, Third Isaiah (as we commonly call him), foresaw major changes in the temple liturgy in the future, changes so major that Levitical priests would not be the only ones offering sacrifices. In Isaiah 56:6-7, God announces through the prophet that that foreigners will offer burnt offerings and sacrifices in his holy mountain (where the Jerusalem temple is located) and that God will accept them on his altar. This is looking beyond priesthood confined to the tribe of Levi. It is looking forward to something major happening in the future that will involve a massive change in the temple liturgy and the Levitical priesthood. The shock in Isaiah 56:6-7 is its prediction that foreigners will come to minister in the temple, because the word used for minister/serve in 56:6, šārat (שׁרת), typically refers to liturgical service. The prophet sees Gentiles offering sacrifices in Jerusalem. This is omitted from Isaiah 56 in the Dead Sea Scrolls, perhaps because this idea was so repugnant. It is highly suggestive that as Christ cleanses the temple he quotes part of a Scripture passage referring to foreigners undertaking priestly sacrificial duties in the temple. (Thomas J. Lane, The Catholic Priesthood: Biblical Foundations [Steubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Road, 2016], 32)
While there are many other texts one can point to, it should be clear that the Old Testament contains explicit prophecies of there being future ordained priests, and commensurate with such, a ministerial priesthood as being an integral part of the New Covenant. Critics of Latter-day Saint teachings on the priesthood will have to ignore such texts as their only alternative would be to claim that Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Malachi were all false prophets! Fortunately, Latter-day Saints are not in such a precarious position.
While much more could be said, it is clear that the author of the piece on The Narrows Church is out of his depth when it comes to biblical exegesis and modern scholarship, as are so many other critics of Latter-day Saint theology and Scripture.
