On "The Blog of Mormon" (not going to lie, love the title of the blog!), Reformed Baptist Bobby Gilpin just posted an article that touches upon the issue of Priesthood and miracles, as well as Christology:
GENERAL CONFERENCE OCTOBER 2017 – SUNDAY MORNING SESSION
Many of his arguments on the topic of Christology and other areas have been dealt with before in some detail:
Bobby's comments will be in red and my responses will be in black.
It should be noted that much of Bobby's Reformed presuppositions colour much of his reasoning, and sadly as we have seen, such presuppositions are contrary, ironically enough in light of the Protestant doctrines of sola scriptura and tota scriptura, to biblical exegesis. See:
An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology
As noted, some of the arguments focus on Christology, which is always a favourite topic to discuss (see above). Bobby writes the following in his article:
Such ignores the promise of the New Testament that believers will be "Christified." Note one of the glorious promises to those who endure in Rev 3:9, 21:
Continuing, Bobby writes:
In the Carmen Christi (Phil 2:6-11), Paul writes the following in v. 9:
The term "highly exalted" comes from the verb ὑπερυψόω and means, "to raise to a high point of honor, raise, exalt" per BDAG. Phil 2:9, part of the Carmen Christi (vv.5-11) states that “God also hath highly exalted [Christ], and given him a name which is above every name.” Here, we read that the Father gave to Christ, on the moment of his exaltation of the Son, a name above every other name (Yahweh). This shows that the son did not possess this name until his exaltation, showing the ontological subordination of the Son to the Father; also, it speaks of Christ being “exalted,” which is nonsense in light of much of Trinitarian theologies that state that Jesus was not void of his deity, but instead decided to voluntary “shield” it to most people (in effect, ridding Phil 2:5-11 of the concept of kenosis, self-emptying, and instead, perverting the Christology of the text to speak of an endusasthai or a “clothing on”). Furthermore, we know that this name could not be “Jesus,” as He possessed this name prior to his exaltation.
Such a Christology, apart from being reflected throughout the New Testament, can also be seen in the revelations of Joseph Smith, such as D&C 93:16-17:
Another relevant text is Matt 28:18 where Jesus, after the resurrection, tells the apostles that "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." The term translated as "power" is εξουσια, which means "authority" while the underlying Greek for "is given" is εδοθη, the aorist of διδωμι, indicating that Christ was indeed given such authority, not that he possessed it eternally and there never was a time when he had it but "veiled" it, per the Hypostatic Union. Such also fits the Christology of the apostolic preaching, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles (e.g., Acts 2:32-33, 36; 5:31-32; cf. John 5:26), such preaching that is being commissioned in Matt 28:18-19 by Jesus Christ Himself.
On the "origin" of such a power and it being "given" to Jesus, Bobby also notes the following while, interestingly, referencing Heb 1:3:
I say "interestingly" with respect to the appeal to Heb 1:3 and its description of Jesus as such a text proves the Latter-day Saint understanding of both this topic as well as God the Father, not just Jesus, being embodied. How so? LDS apologist D. Charles Pyle in his FAIR Conference paper from 1999, "I have said, 'ye are gods': Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New Testament Text"
On the topic of Col 1:17 which Gilpin also quotes, for a fuller exegesis of this text and its context (vv.15-20), see Refuting Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism"; however, it should be enough to note that, in v.17, when Paul speaks of Jesus being "before all things," such a statement nor its context does not touch upon whether a New Covenant priesthood was established with people acting as representatives of Jesus and/or whether Jesus is "autotheos" (God in an underived sense) as the Father is "autotheos" (the overwhelming majority of early Christians held that the person of the Father alone was autotheos).
The final comment from Bobby I will deal with is the following:
For those wishing to delve into this issue, however, more fully, I do have a listing of relevant articles on the LDS Priesthood, including responses to long-standing criticisms thereof, such as the claim Heb 7:24 means only Jesus can hold the priesthood due to the use of απαραβατος and the Protestant understanding of the "Priesthood of All Believers," and many other issues (I don't want to seem like I am skipping past important texts and topics here!):
The LDS Priesthoods: Resource Page
(1) Old Testament Prophecies of a Ministerial Priesthood in the New Covenant:
For more on this, see:
Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus
Fritz Chenderlin, “Do This as My Memorial”: The Semantic and Conceptual Background of Αναμνησις in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25
There are a couple of implications of this priestly, sacrificial language one finds with the Last Supper accounts; the three most important being—
(3) Priesthood in 1 Clement
Such an ecclesiology and view on authority is not unique to the ecclesiology in 1 Clement (end of the 1st century) but also others, including Ignatius of Antioch (c. AD 107), where he stated that, without an ordained priesthood, there is no true Church.
In chapter 3 of his epistle to the Trallians, one of Ignatius' seven authentic epistles, we read the following:
For more on the priesthood in early Christianity, see Bryan A. Stewart, Priests of My People: Levitical Paradigms for Early Christian Ministers (Peter Lang, 2015). His PhD dissertation, of which this book is a slight expansion of, can be found here. It does a good job at refuting some of the errant views of the priesthood in early Christianity by the likes of Richard Hanson, Christian Priesthood Examined (London: Lutterworth Press, 1979).
(Update: Bobby contacted me to inform me that he was asking, not about the Biblical and/or early Christan witness to an ordained, ministerial priesthood, but the "priesthood" being the instrumental means of creation and other more unique teachings of Latter-day Saint theology. On this, I am unaware of any explication of such in the earliest sources, and this is probably something only explicated in modern revelation [cf. D&C 128:18]. However, "power of God" is a synonym in LDS circles, as noted by Bobby, for the priesthood, of such a portion is delegated to us to act as his authorised agents. As Joseph F. Smith noted, "What is the Priesthood? It is nothing more nor less than the power of God delegated to man by which man can act in the earth for the salvation of the human family, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and act legitimately; not assuming that authority, nor borrowing it from generations that are dead and gone, but authority that has been given in this day in which we live by ministering angels and spirits from above, direct from the presence of God. . . . It is the same power and Priesthood that was committed to the disciples of Christ while he was upon the earth, that whatsoever they should bind on earth should be bound in heaven and whatsoever they should loose on earth should be loosed in heaven." Conference Report, October 1904, p. 5; as the nature of the priesthood in the New Covenant is an important difference between Reformed vs. non-Reformed [esp. Catholic; Eastern Orthodox; LDS], this is one topic that needs more debate/dialogue beyond proof-texting Heb 7:24 [Bobby also told me he hopes to discuss this and other topics in more detail in the future, so hopefully we will see a better Evangelical interaction with the relevant issues than previous attempts by others--I for one will welcome it]. Notwithstanding, many biblical commentators have noted that, after His exaltation and ascension into heaven, Christ received an authority/power he did not have until then. Commenting on the relationship between Melchizedek and Jesus in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Albert Vanhoye wrote the following, which of course should be compared with the comments about Phil 2:5-11; Heb 1:3; Matt 28:18-19 in this article:
Bobby, at the end of this article, writes (emphasis added):
One comment (more of a question/challenge) I have for Bobby (or any Protestant, Reformed other otherwise) would be this:
Where in the Bible does it teach Sola Scriptura? This is the formal doctrine of Protestantism and presupposition that is rarely if ever, proven by Protestant apologists, just merely assumed, and yet, it is central to Protestantism. Indeed, much of Bobby's arguments can be boiled down to, "Because 'x' is not explicated in the Bible, ipso facto it is not true."
I have a full-length discussion of this topic here:
Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura
All the relevant biblical texts (e.g., 2 Tim3:16-17; 1 Cor 4:6, etc., as well as other "proofs" such as the "Word of God = the Bible" fallacy discussed in detail).
While Bobby (correctly) focused on this article on central issues that divide LDS and Reformed Protestants (e.g., the priesthood), I do hope that he will seriously interact with, and reconsider his adherence to, Sola Scriptura, as well as his other Reformed presuppositions which colours much of his criticisms of "Mormonism," as I would argue the following from the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, a subordinate standard to which Reformed Baptists subscribe, which presents a definition representative of the functional position of most Protestants, is not just unbiblical, but anti-biblical in the light of exegesis:
I conclude this article with such a friendly challenge/debate.
GENERAL CONFERENCE OCTOBER 2017 – SUNDAY MORNING SESSION
Many of his arguments on the topic of Christology and other areas have been dealt with before in some detail:
Joseph Smith Worship? Responding to Criticisms of the Role and Status of the Prophet Joseph Smith in Latter-day Saint Theology
For those wanting a full discussion of topics (e.g., Bobby's appeal to 1 Tim 2:5 and the "one mediator" argument) should pursue the above papers. However, I will deal with some of the topics discussed in his most recent article here.
For those wanting a full discussion of topics (e.g., Bobby's appeal to 1 Tim 2:5 and the "one mediator" argument) should pursue the above papers. However, I will deal with some of the topics discussed in his most recent article here.
Bobby's comments will be in red and my responses will be in black.
It should be noted that much of Bobby's Reformed presuppositions colour much of his reasoning, and sadly as we have seen, such presuppositions are contrary, ironically enough in light of the Protestant doctrines of sola scriptura and tota scriptura, to biblical exegesis. See:
An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology
As noted, some of the arguments focus on Christology, which is always a favourite topic to discuss (see above). Bobby writes the following in his article:
I once had some Mormon missionaries in my living room and I asked them the question, do you think it's possible that one day you could be as great as Jesus? One of them confidently answered: Yes!
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee . . . To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
Believers are promised to sit down on Christ’s throne, which is the Father's very own throne! Interestingly, Christ sitting down on the throne of the Father is cited as prima facie evidence of his being numerically identical to the “one God” (see the works of Richard Bauckham on “divine identity” on this issue), and yet, believers are promised the very same thing! This is in agreement with John 17:22 in that we will all share the same glory and be one with Christ and God just as they are one. Sitting in it does not indicate ontological identification with God, contra Richard Bauckham and others (cf. Testament of Job 32:2-9, where Job is promised to sit on God’s throne, something that is common in the literature of Second Temple Judaism and other works within the Jewish pseudepigrapha and elsewhere).
As for Rev 3:9, believers are said to be the future recipients of προσκυνέω. While some may try to downplay the significance of this term, all other instances it is used elsewhere in the book of Revelation, it is always used within a religious context (Rev 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 9:20; 11:1, 16; 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:7, 9, 11; 15:4; 16:2; 19:4, 10, 20; 20:4; 22:8, 9). Only by engaging in special pleading and question-begging can one claim it does not carry religious significance in Rev 3:9.
Note the exegesis provided by New Testament scholar, Jürgen Roloff, on these important verses:
[3:9] With the same words that are in 2:9, the claim of the Jews to be the assembly (synagōgē) of God and the people of God's is rejected as false. Because they rejected Jesus as bringer of God's salvation, in truth they subordinated themselves to the dominion of God's adversary. Israel's heritage and claim are completely transferred to the Christian community. To it, therefore, also belongs the promise, originally made to Israel, that at the end time of the Gentiles will enter the city of God and subjugate themselves to the people of God (Isa. 60:14 and elsewhere). Indeed, among those who then come will be the unbelieving Jews, who will realize that Jesus loved them and that means he chose them; (cf. Isa. 42:1) and made them into the people of God. When mention is made of "bowing down" before the feet of the church, this assumes full participation of the church in the kingdom of Christ and sitting with him on his throne (v. 21) . . . [3:21] The final word about overcoming in the series of letters has particular importance. It summarizes in conclusion the central promise of salvation, which is the promises heretofore was sounded several times with variations and modifications, by using another Synoptic expression of Jesus (Luke 22:30b; Matt 19:28 [Q?]: to those who overcome is promised here participation in Jesus' heavenly kingdom. Thus, just as Jesus sits on his throne (cf. 5:6) beside God as equal ruler on the basis of his having overcome and thereby shares his dominion, so also will those who have overcome for his sake receive a place in his messianic rule (cf. 20:6) with unlimited communion, and even equality, with him. (Jürgen Roloff, Revelation [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993], 61, 65-66)
Continuing, Bobby writes:
In Mormonism it is the power of the priesthood in the New Testament it is the power of Jesus name by which we are healed, and this goes much deeper than that.
Now I know that many Mormons reading this will be saying to themselves:
"You don't get it Bobby they are the same thing, the power of Jesus name is the power of the priesthood!"
Now the answer to whether that is true or not is found in a simple question, and that is,
Is Jesus the all-sufficient creator of everything, with power in His own right to create, save and heal, or is He a being that started out with limited power and authority and had to be exalted to a position to which He did not hold previously and be given that power?
If Jesus is by nature sufficient, powerful and glorious He needs nothing to be given to Him, if He has gained His power and glory from an external source? What is it?
In the Carmen Christi (Phil 2:6-11), Paul writes the following in v. 9:
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name.
The term "highly exalted" comes from the verb ὑπερυψόω and means, "to raise to a high point of honor, raise, exalt" per BDAG. Phil 2:9, part of the Carmen Christi (vv.5-11) states that “God also hath highly exalted [Christ], and given him a name which is above every name.” Here, we read that the Father gave to Christ, on the moment of his exaltation of the Son, a name above every other name (Yahweh). This shows that the son did not possess this name until his exaltation, showing the ontological subordination of the Son to the Father; also, it speaks of Christ being “exalted,” which is nonsense in light of much of Trinitarian theologies that state that Jesus was not void of his deity, but instead decided to voluntary “shield” it to most people (in effect, ridding Phil 2:5-11 of the concept of kenosis, self-emptying, and instead, perverting the Christology of the text to speak of an endusasthai or a “clothing on”). Furthermore, we know that this name could not be “Jesus,” as He possessed this name prior to his exaltation.
This can also be seen in John 17:11-12:
And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one. While I was with them, I protected them in your name that you have given me. I guarded them, and not one of them was lost except the one destined to be lost, so that the scripture might be fulfilled. (NRSV)
In the above pericope, using prolepsis (cf. v.22), Christ speaks of how the Father “gave” him the Father’s name (Yahweh); it was not something Christ intrinsically possessed until after his exaltation.
Even after his exaltation, the telos of the all glory and honour Christ receives is that of the further glorification of the Father:
That at the name of Jesus ever knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:9-10 [emphasis added]; cf. 1 Cor 15:22-28)
One should also point out the term, sometimes translated as “exploited” in Phil 2:6 αρπαγμος. Again, this points to something that Jesus did not have, as its predominant meaning in Koine Greek literature means “to plunder” or “to steal.” Notice how Louw-Nida define the term in their work, Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains, 2d ed.:
ἁρπάζω ; ἁρπαγμός, οῦ m ; ἁρπαγή, ῆς f: to forcefully take something away from someone else, often with the implication of a sudden attack - 'to rob, to carry off, to plunder, to forcefully seize.' ἁρπάζω: πῶς δύναταί τις εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ καὶ τὰ σκεύη αὐτοῦ ἁρπάσαι 'no one can break into a strong man's house and carry off his belongings' Mt 12.29 . . . ἁρπαγμός, οῦ m: that which is to be held on to forcibly - 'something to hold by force, something to be forcibly retained.'
BDAG’s first definition of the term also lists Phil 2:6 (emphasis in original)
1. a violent seizure of property, robbery (s. ἁρπάζω; Plut., Mor. 12a; Vett. Val. 122, 1; Phryn., Appar. Soph.: Anecd. Gr. I 36. Also Plut., Mor. 644a ἁρπασμός), which is next to impossible in Phil 2:6 (W-S. §28, 3: the state of being equal w. God cannot be equated w. the act of robbery).
And I, John, bear record that he received a fullness of the glory of the Father; And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him.
Another relevant text is Matt 28:18 where Jesus, after the resurrection, tells the apostles that "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." The term translated as "power" is εξουσια, which means "authority" while the underlying Greek for "is given" is εδοθη, the aorist of διδωμι, indicating that Christ was indeed given such authority, not that he possessed it eternally and there never was a time when he had it but "veiled" it, per the Hypostatic Union. Such also fits the Christology of the apostolic preaching, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles (e.g., Acts 2:32-33, 36; 5:31-32; cf. John 5:26), such preaching that is being commissioned in Matt 28:18-19 by Jesus Christ Himself.
On the "origin" of such a power and it being "given" to Jesus, Bobby also notes the following while, interestingly, referencing Heb 1:3:
Now in the Bible we never see anything close to this in terms of the priesthood being an external, eternal power through which God created all things, we simply see a God who has power by virtue of who He is.
Hebrews 1:3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
I say "interestingly" with respect to the appeal to Heb 1:3 and its description of Jesus as such a text proves the Latter-day Saint understanding of both this topic as well as God the Father, not just Jesus, being embodied. How so? LDS apologist D. Charles Pyle in his FAIR Conference paper from 1999, "I have said, 'ye are gods': Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New Testament Text"
There is also scripture that can used to potentially support the idea that God could have a physical body. One of these is Hebrews 1:3. Christ could only be the exact representation of the Father if the Father himself possessed a body of some sort. In fact, some who wish to avoid what I feel is the plain meaning of Hebrews 1:3 actually go so far as to separate the natures of Christ or declare that the passage could not possibly infer that the Father is embodied.
Those who criticize this meaning thus, however, do not take into account the fact that there is not one portion of the passage that differentiates between the divine or human nature of Jesus. Secondly, the particle ων on indicates being, i.e., the present state of existence of Jesus from the perspective of the author of Hebrews. It has absolutely nothing to do with only Jesus’ previous state or of only a portion of his supposed dual nature. It only speaks of his total existence as a person.
Further, many grammarians have severely misunderstood the Greek απαυγασμα apaugasma (English: [active] effulgence or radiance; [middle, passive] reflection) in this passage to have the active sense. The Greek και kai (English: and) is here a coordinating conjunction which combines the first and second parts (the second part being of a passive character) of a parallel couplet. Due to this fact, as much as the Evangelicals wish doggedly to hold to their interpretation, the Greek απαυγασμα apaugasma should be understood as having a passive sense.
Why? Because the second portion of the couplet indicates that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature, not that he is synonymous with that nature. Since this passage is a couplet, with the second portion being passive in nature, the first portion must be understood as having a passive sense as well. Thus, Jesus is properly to be seen as he “who is the reflection of the glory (of God) and the exact representation of the substantial nature of him (i.e., the Father).”
In short, the glory of God reflects from Jesus rather than having Jesus as its source, according to the theology of the author of Hebrews. Thusly, Jesus exactly represents God as he exists in all aspects of Jesus’ existence. The passage does not allow differentiation of Jesus’ divine and human natures in relation to God. Quite the opposite is in view here, although I doubt that Evangelicals will wish to agree with my assessment of the passage. Nevertheless, if it is true that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature in all aspects, the Father must have possession of a physical body. Otherwise, Jesus is not and could not be the exact representation of the Father, for the two would differ. This fact is further strengthened by another pertinent fact: the Father is never said to be bodiless in any place within the text of the Bible. That was for a later generation to develop.
On the topic of Col 1:17 which Gilpin also quotes, for a fuller exegesis of this text and its context (vv.15-20), see Refuting Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism"; however, it should be enough to note that, in v.17, when Paul speaks of Jesus being "before all things," such a statement nor its context does not touch upon whether a New Covenant priesthood was established with people acting as representatives of Jesus and/or whether Jesus is "autotheos" (God in an underived sense) as the Father is "autotheos" (the overwhelming majority of early Christians held that the person of the Father alone was autotheos).
The final comment from Bobby I will deal with is the following:
In the early church I am not aware of them having any concept of this either but I am open to correction on that if anyone wants to let me know.
When Bobby says "the early church" I am not 100% sure if he means the post-NT Church of the Apostolic Fathers (e.g, 1 Clement; Ignatius of Antioch, etc), or the New Testament-era Church, as many Protestants use "the early church" as a synonym with the NT-era Church, too, so I will briefly deal with both. I will briefly discuss (1) Old Testament prophecies of a ministerial priesthood; (2) priestly language in the institution narratives of the Greek New Testament and (3) priesthood in 1 Clement, an early Chrisitan text. I will privilege the biblical texts as Bobby is a Reformed Protestant, so his ultimate authority is the Bible, a la Sola Scriptura (see above).For those wishing to delve into this issue, however, more fully, I do have a listing of relevant articles on the LDS Priesthood, including responses to long-standing criticisms thereof, such as the claim Heb 7:24 means only Jesus can hold the priesthood due to the use of απαραβατος and the Protestant understanding of the "Priesthood of All Believers," and many other issues (I don't want to seem like I am skipping past important texts and topics here!):
The LDS Priesthoods: Resource Page
(1) Old Testament Prophecies of a Ministerial Priesthood in the New Covenant:
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, as well as evidence of such a priesthood existing after the atoning sacrifice of Jesus.
(2) Priestly, Sacrificial Language in the New Testament
Other pertinent texts are the following:
For thus saith the Lord; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; Neither shall the priests the Levities want a man before me to offer burn offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to sacrifice continually. And the word of the Lord came unto Jeremiah, saying, Thus saith the Lord; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season. Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me. (Jer 33:17-22)
And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years. (Mal 3:3-4 [cf. D&C 13])
In the above pericopes, both Jeremiah, speaking of the New Covenant, and Malachi, speaking of the last days, speaks of there being priests engaged in priestly activity and ministry, consistent with an ordained, ministerial priesthood within the New Covenant, but not the so-called “Priesthood of all Believers” as understood by many groups today. These should also be read in light of Ezek 40-47 which detail the building of the house of the Lord in Jerusalem in the last days, complete with priests after the order of Aaron, and blood sacrifices being offered to God (cf. D&C 13).
One final text would be Isa 56:6-7, we read the following prophecy:
Commenting on this prophecy, one scholar wrote the following:
One final text would be Isa 56:6-7, we read the following prophecy:
And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, all who keep the sabbath, and do not profane it, and hold fast my covenant--these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples. (NRSV)
Commenting on this prophecy, one scholar wrote the following:
In the Synoptic accounts of the temple cleansing in Matthew 21:13, Mark 11:17, and Luke 19:46, Christ refers to God's house being a house of prayer. That reference to "house of prayer" occurs in Isaiah 56:6-7, where the prophet, Third Isaiah (as we commonly call him), foresaw major changes in the temple liturgy in the future, changes so major that Levitical priests would not be the only ones offering sacrifices. In Isaiah 56:6-7, God announces through the prophet that that foreigners will offer burnt offerings and sacrifices in his holy mountain (where the Jerusalem temple is located) and that God will accept them on his altar. This is looking beyond priesthood confined to the tribe of Levi. It is looking forward to something major happening in the future that will involve a massive change in the temple liturgy and the Levitical priesthood. The shock in Isaiah 56:6-7 is its prediction that foreigners will come to minister in the temple, because the word used for minister/serve in 56:6, šārat (שׁרת), typically refers to liturgical service. The prophet sees Gentiles offering sacrifices in Jerusalem. This is omitted from Isaiah 56 in the Dead Sea Scrolls, perhaps because this idea was so repugnant. It is highly suggestive that as Christ cleanses the temple he quotes part of a Scripture passage referring to foreigners undertaking priestly sacrificial duties in the temple. (Thomas J. Lane, The Catholic Priesthood: Biblical Foundations [Steubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Road, 2016], 32)
The Institution of the Last Supper is recounted in four pericopes in the New Testament which I will reproduce:
For I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you, that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread. And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do (τουτο ποιειτε) in remembrance (αναμνησις) of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do(τουτο ποιειτε) ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance (αναμνησις ) of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. (1 Cor 11:23-26)
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed (εκχεω) for many for the remission of sins. (Matt 26:26-28)
And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed (εκχεω ) for many. (Mark 14:22-24)
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do (τουτο ποιειτε ) in remembrance (αναμνησις) of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed (εκχεω) for you. (Luke 22:19-20)
In the above four texts, Christ uses priestly, sacrificial language, and commands the disciples to do the same, providing strong implicit evidence of an ordained, ministerial New Covenant priesthood. In what follows will be a lexical analysis of the terms in light of the LXX.
“Do This” (τουτο ποιειτε)
The obvious meaning of the phrase “do this” is that Christ is commanding his apostles to celebrate the Eucharist regularly; it is not just a once-for-all celebration. However the verb ποιειν “to do” and its Hebrew equivalent, עשׂה have sacrificial connotations. In the Torah alone, עשׂה/ποιεω are coupled with the term for “sacrifice” (Hebrew: זֶבַח; sometimes מִנְחָה [“gift”/”offering”]; LXX: θυσια). There are multitudinous examples of such in the Old Testament, in the Torah alone, we have the following instances: Exo 10:25; 29:41; Lev 2:7, 8, 11; 6;14; 7:9; 17:8; 23:19; Num 6:17; 15:3, 5, 6, 8, 24; 28:5, 8, 26, 31; 29:39; Deut 12:27.
Here we have the Hebrew and Greek of Exo 10:25 and 29:41 (emphasis added):
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֔ה גַּם־אַתָּ֛ה תִּתֵּ֥ן בְּיָדֵ֖נוּ זְבָחִ֣ים וְעֹל֑וֹת וְעָשִׂ֖ינוּ לַיהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵֽינוּ׃
καὶ εἶπεν Μωυσῆς ἀλλὰ καὶ σὺ δώσεις ἡμῖν ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ θυσίας ἃ ποιήσομεν κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν
And Moses said, Thou must give us also sacrifices and burnt offerings, that we may sacrifice unto the Lord our God.
וְאֵת֙ הַכֶּ֣בֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִ֔י תַּעֲשֶׂ֖ה בֵּ֣ין הָעַרְבָּ֑יִם כְּמִנְחַ֙ת הַבֹּ֤קֶר וּכְנִסְכָּהּ֙ תַּֽעֲשֶׂה־לָּ֔הּ לְרֵ֣יחַ נִיחֹ֔חַ אִשֶּׁ֖ה לַיהוָֽה
καὶ τὸν ἀμνὸν τὸν δεύτερον ποιήσεις τὸ δειλινόν κατὰ τὴν θυσίαν τὴν πρωινὴν καὶ κατὰ τὴν σπονδὴν αὐτοῦ ποιήσεις εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας κάρπωμα κυρίῳ
And the other lamb thou shalt offer at even, and shalt do thereto according to the meat offering of the morning, and according to the drink offering thereof, for a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the Lord.
So, apart from being a command to celebrating the Eucharist on a regular basis (or, as Paul says in the pericope in 1 Cor 11 quoted above, as often as believers meet together to proclaim the death of Jesus), those engaging in the activity are performing a priestly activity (cf. 3 Nephi 18:5 in the Book of Mormon where only those who are ordained to the priesthood are said to be able to perform the Eucharist).
“Remembrance” (αναμνησις)
Αναμνηεσις is a very potent term used in the Greek of 1 Cor 11 and Luke 22.
The term appears five times in the LXX. Four of these five instances are within the sense of priestly sacrifice; the exception is Wisdom of Solomon 16:6. The NRSV translates the verse as follows:
They were troubled for a little while as a warning, and received a symbol of deliverance to remind (αναμνησις) them of your law's command.
The other instances of this term in the LXX are Lev 24:7; Num 10:10; Psa 38:1 [LXX, 37:1] and 70:1 [LXX, 69:1]), translating the Hebrew terms אַזְכָּרָה (Lev 24:7); זִכָּרוֹן (Num 10:10) and הַזְכִּיר (Psa 38:1; 70:1). The NRSV captures the original language text rather well:
You shall put frankincense with each row, to be a token offering for the bread, as an offering (αναμνησις) by fire to the Lord. (Lev 24:7)
Also on your days of rejoicing, at your appointed festivals, and at the beginnings of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over your sacrifices of well-being; they shall serve as a reminder (αναμνησις ) on your behalf before the Lord your God: I am the Lord your God. (Num 10:10)
A Psalm of David, for the memorial offering (αναμνησις). . . (Psa 38:1)
To the leader. Of David, for the memorial offering (αναμνησις). . . (Psa 70:1).
This, of course, should not be taken to mean that the Eucharist is itself a propitiatory sacrifice, as Christ died once-for-all, and the theology of the New Testament is antithetical to theories one finds within Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. However, Christ’s use of this potent, priestly sacrificial term, from both the LXX and the Hebrew Old Testament, further provides exegetical evidence that the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is a priestly activity, and that the meal is a sacrificial meal insofar as one is reminded of the sacrifice of Christ.
“Shed” (εκχεω)
The term εκχεω appears twelve times in the context of sacrifice in the LXX (e.g. poured out libations of water or of wine); its Hebrew equivalent is שׁפך. In nine other usages of the term, it refers to shedding blood, or pouring out blood as part of the sacrificial ceremony where the priests were not just getting rid of the blood in some practical way--they were pouring out that blood at the base of the altar as part of the ritual of the sacrifice.
Examples of this from the LXX can be seen in the following:
And thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood upon the altar of the Lord thy God: and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out (εκχεω) upon the altar of the Lord thy God, and thou shalt eat the flesh. (Deut 12:27)
And they gathered together to Mizpeh, and drew water, and poured (εκχεω) it out before the Lord, and fasted on that day, and said there, We have sinned against the Lord. And Samuel judged the children of Israel in Mizpeh. (1 Sam 7:6)
Among the smooth stones of the stream is thy portion; they, they are thy lot: even to them hast thou poured (εκχεω) a drink offering, thou hast offered a meat offering. Should I receive comfort in these? (Isa 57:6)
He held out his hand for the cup and poured a drink offering of the blood of the grape; he poured (εκχεω) it out at the foot of the altar, a pleasing odour to the Most high, King of all. (Sirach 50:15 [NRSV])
Again, this adds further substantiation to the claim that the Lord’s Supper is something that priests are to be ordained to participate in.
“We have an Altar” (Heb 13:10)
In Heb 13:10, we read the following in the Greek:
ἔχομεν θυσιαστήριον ἐξ οὗ φαγεῖν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἐξουσίαν οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες
We have an altar from which we eat and from which those who serve in the tent have no authority to eat from. (My translation).
According to many commentators, this verse is speaking of the Lord’s Supper. What is interesting is that cultic terms “altar” (Greek: θυσιαστηριον); “to serve” (within the sense of the temple cult [λατρευω]) is coupled with the tent/tabernacle (σκηνη) and “authority” (εξουσια) are used all within the context of the Lord’s Supper. For instance, σκηνη is the term used in the LXX for the Old Testament tabernacle and is used in the verbal form, σκηνοω, for Jesus’ “tabernacling” among us (John 1:14). Furthermore, εξουσια is used in the sense of “authority” or “power,” often within a priestly sense, and Christ uses this word of himself with respect to the authority the Father gave to him (John 17:2), consistent with the LDS understanding of the nature and origin of the Priesthood. All these terms further give evidence that the Eucharist, in the New Covenant, is a priestly duty. Just as the Old Covenant priests served in the Old Testament tabernacle and later, temple, those performing the Eucharist in the New Covenant are participating in a cultic worship of the New Covenant, and that is to be understood as a priestly action, too.
Note the following from John Chrysostom (347-407), tying Heb 13:10 to the Lord’s Supper, and not simply an allusion by metonymy to the atonement/cross of Jesus:
Reverence now, oh reverence, this Table whereof we all are partakers! (1 Cor. x. 16-18.) Christ, Who was slain for us, the Victim that is placed thereon! (Heb. xiii. 10.) Robbers when they once partake of salt, cease to be robbers in regard to those with whom they have partaken thereof; that table changes their dispositions, and men fiercer than wild beasts it makes gentler than lambs. But we though partakers of such a Table, and sharers of such food as that, arm ourselves against one another, when we ought to arm against him who is carrying on a war against all of us, the devil. Yet this is why we grow weaker and he stronger every day. For we do not join to form in defence against him, but along with him we stand against each other, and use him as a commander for such hostile arrays, when it is he alone that we ought to be fighting with. But now letting him pass, we bend the bow against our brethren only. What bows, you will say? Those of the tongue and the mouth. For it is not javelins and darts only, but words too, keener far than darts, that inflict wounds. And how shall we be able to bring this war to an issue? one will ask. If thou perceivest that when thou speakest ill of thy brother, thou art casting up mire out of thy mouth, if thou perceivest that it is a member of Christ that thou art slandering, that thou art eating up thine own flesh (Ps. xxvii. 2), that thou art making the judgment set for thee more bitter (fearful and uncorrupt as it is), that the shaft is killing not him that is smitten, but thyself that shot it forth. (John Chrysostom, Homilies on Paul's Epistle to the Romans, Homily VIII on Romans 4:1,2)
With respect to the evidence for an ordained Priesthood in early Christianity, the late Catholic scholar, Louis Bouyer, discussed some of the issues that are sometimes brought up by critics of such a perspective (e.g. RPC Hanson, Christian Priesthood), under an excurses entitled, “Presbyter et Sacerdos” (Latin: Elder and Priest), we read the following:
If, as we have seen for Christian antiquity, the whole body of the Church, including the faithful laity, must be associated with the priesthood of Christ, particularly in the Eucharistic celebration, what must be thought of the application to the pastoral ministry, first of the bishops and then of the “presbyters,” their associates, of the sacerdotal expressions? In fact, today in the Catholic (or Orthodox) Church, when we say “priest,” we think immediately of sacredos, rather than presbyter.
We must point out that, since subapostolic times, we see assimilation between the function of the bishop, presiding over the Eucharistic sunaxis, and that of the “high priest” of the Old covenant. As the simple presbyters, associated with the bishops, gradually replaced the in this function, this expression of a sacerdotal character par excellence was also applied to their own ministry. The matter must be considered perfectly legitimate if we observe that the pastoral function in the Church of the bishop and the presbyter, to the extent that the latter is called by the bishop to share in his function, is a ministry of Christ, of his presence as head in the midst of his body, to all generations everywhere.
By union with and participation in Christ, all are priests in the Church in one sense, in the unity of their common attachment to Christ by the ministry that he instituted to this end in the apostles. The ecclesiastical ministry as a ministry of the Head—of his presence as Head in the midst of his body, to continue to gather it in this unity of the Spirit, of whom Jesus alone is the source, and thus allow it to participate in Christ’s sacerdotal action—is therefore, properly, the ministry of the priesthood of Jesus. As with all the gifts of Jesus to his Church, the ministry of this priesthood exists only to permit everyone to participate in it in unity.
Separated from their legitimate pastors (i.e., those in the apostolic successions), as we have explained, the baptised faithful are incapable of being brought together in a Church which is that of Christ so as to exercise in it, as members of his body, the priesthood, which remains forever his.
This does not mean that God cannot occasionally make use of an irregular ministry to communicate his graces (just as he can, on occasion, dispense with every sacrament, even baptism). But this could not rescind the fact that a break with the apostolic succession implies that the Church of Christ can no longer be assembled locally, that his body, both mystical and Eucharistic, has no longer any objective, real presence among us and, therefore, that his priesthood is no longer the object of common participation by the faithful in a Eu-charist which would be truly his . . . The idea of a “presbyteral succession,” which could palliate defect of the apostolic succession, seems to us in radical contradiction with the very nature of the presbyterate: that is, and can only be, representation of a local community of the Church to the ministry sent by Christ to his body, which alone, for this reason, can be the object of a succession. This succession is, in effect, only a succession in the sending: of the Father to the Son, of the Son to the preeminent apostles, of these apostles to the bishop, whom priests do not succeed (any more than they succeed one another) but are associated with in each generation. (Louis Bouyer, The Church of God: Body of Christ and Temple of the Spirit [San Francisco: Ignatius, 2011], 596-97)
For more on this, see:
Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus
Fritz Chenderlin, “Do This as My Memorial”: The Semantic and Conceptual Background of Αναμνησις in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25
There are a couple of implications of this priestly, sacrificial language one finds with the Last Supper accounts; the three most important being—
(1) That the Eucharist is an action to be performed on a regular basis; it was not a once-for-all event.
(2) That the Eucharist is a sacrificial meal, wherein Christ’s sacrifice is potently remembered by His people, using the elements of his body (bread) and his blood (wine or water).
(3) That those who preside at the Lord’s Supper are ordained to a New Covenant Priesthood, something consistent with Latter-day Saint Scriptures, theology, and practice.
Much more could be said on the biblical data, and how it is “lived out” in the ecclesiology of the New Testament Church. One such example would be the meaning of the “binding and loosing” in Matt 16 and 18 and the role of the Church in the making and proclaiming of doctrine, not the proclaiming of the gospel merely, in Acts 15 and the Council of Jerusalem, showing that such a view of authority was part of the matrix of New Testament theology. For more, apart from the articles listed on my LDS Priesthoods page, see also the section entitled “The Authority of the Church” in my book Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura, pp.19-34 (online for free here)
Much more could be said on the biblical data, and how it is “lived out” in the ecclesiology of the New Testament Church. One such example would be the meaning of the “binding and loosing” in Matt 16 and 18 and the role of the Church in the making and proclaiming of doctrine, not the proclaiming of the gospel merely, in Acts 15 and the Council of Jerusalem, showing that such a view of authority was part of the matrix of New Testament theology. For more, apart from the articles listed on my LDS Priesthoods page, see also the section entitled “The Authority of the Church” in my book Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura, pp.19-34 (online for free here)
(3) Priesthood in 1 Clement
Chapters 40-44 of 1 Clement (written at the end of the first century) draws many parallels between the Levitical Priesthood and the offices of bishops and deacons in the New Covenant. In 44:4, we read:
For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the gift of the bishop's office unblamably and holily. (J.P. Lightfoot translation)
The portion highlighted in bold translates the Greek προσενεγκόντας τὰ δῶρα. προσφερω is the verb meaning "to offer," and it often used in sacrificial contexts, as it the term δωρον, which means a gift, often in a form of a sacrifice. Instances where προσφερω is used alongside δωρον in sacrificial contexts in the LXX and Greek NT include Lev 1:2-3, 14; 2:1, 4, 12, 13; 3:6; 4:23, 32; 6:13; 7:13, 29, 38; 9:15; 17:4; 21:6, 8, 17, 21; 22:18, 25; 23:14; 27:9, 11; Num 5;15; 7:10, 11, 12, 13, 19; 9:7, 13; 15:4; 28:2; 31:50; Matt 5:23-24; 8:4; Heb 5:1; 8:3-4; 9:9; 11:4.
Similar to the priestly sacrificial language used in the Last Supper accounts in the New Testament, as discussed above, this is strong implicit evidence of an ordained, ministerial priesthood in the New Covenant.
Commenting on the early Christian use of sacrificial language, Adolf von Harnack wrote:
The idea of the whole transaction of the Supper as a sacrifice, is plainly found in the Didache, (c. 14), in Ignatius, and above all, in Justin (I. 65f.) But even Clement of Rome presupposes it, when (in cc. 40-44) he draws a parallel between bishops and deacons and the Priests and Levites of the Old Testament, describing as the chief function of the former (44.4) προσφερειν τα δωρα. This is not the place to enquire whether the first celebration had, in the mind of its founder, the character of a sacrificial meal; but, certainly, the idea, as it was already developed at the time of Justin, had been created by the churches. Various reasons tended towards seeing in the Supper a sacrifice. In the first place, Malachi i. 11, demanded a solemn Christian sacrifice: see my notes on Didache, 14.3. In the second place, all prayers were regarded as a sacrifice, and therefore the solemn prayers at the Supper must be specially considered as such. In the third place, the words of institution τουτο ποιειτε, contained a command with regard to a definite religious action. Such an action, however, could only be represented as a sacrifice, and this the more, that the Gentile Christians might suppose that they had to understand ποιειν in the sense of θυειν. In the fourth place, payments in kind were necessary for the "agapae" connected with the Supper, out of which were taken the bread and wine for the Holy celebration; in what other aspect could these offerings in the worship be regarded than as προσφοραι for the purpose of a sacrifice? Yet the spiritual idea so prevailed that only the prayers were regarded as the θυσια a proper, even in the case of Justin (Dial. 117). The elements are only δωρα προσφοραι, which obtain their value from the prayers, in which thanks are given for the gifts of creation and redemption, as well as for the holy meal, and entreaty is made for the introduction of the community into the Kingdom of God (see Didache, 9. 10). Therefore, even the sacred meal itself is called ευχαριστια (Justin, Apol. I. 66: η τροφη αυτη χαλειται παρ’ ‘ημιν ευχαριστια). Didache, 9. 1: Ignat., because it is τροφη ευχαριστηθεσια. It is a mistake to suppose that Justin already understood the body of Christ to be the object of ποιειν, and therefore thought of a sacrifice of this body (I. 66). The real sacrificial act in the Supper consists rather, according to Justin, only in the ευχαριστιαν ποιειν, whereby κοινος αρτιος becomes the αρτος της ευχαριστιας The sacrifice of the Supper in its essence, apart from the offering of alms, which in the practice of the Church was closely united with it, is nothing but a sacrifice of prayer: the sacrificial act of the Christian here also is nothing else than an act of prayer (See Apol. I. 14, 65-67; Dial. 28, 29, 41, 70, 116-118). (Adolf von Harnack, History of Dogma, Volume 1, pp. 267-8, n. 288)
Such an ecclesiology and view on authority is not unique to the ecclesiology in 1 Clement (end of the 1st century) but also others, including Ignatius of Antioch (c. AD 107), where he stated that, without an ordained priesthood, there is no true Church.
In chapter 3 of his epistle to the Trallians, one of Ignatius' seven authentic epistles, we read the following:
In like manner let all men respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, even as they should respect the bishop as being a type of the Father and the presbyters as the council of God and as the college of Apostles. Apart from these there is not even the name of a church (χωρὶς τούτων ἐκκλησία οὐ καλεῖται). (J.P. Lightfoot translation)Such is representative of an ecclesiology that is much "higher" than one finds within much of Evangelical Protestantism but fits rather comfortably with Latter-day Saint ecclesiology.
For more on the priesthood in early Christianity, see Bryan A. Stewart, Priests of My People: Levitical Paradigms for Early Christian Ministers (Peter Lang, 2015). His PhD dissertation, of which this book is a slight expansion of, can be found here. It does a good job at refuting some of the errant views of the priesthood in early Christianity by the likes of Richard Hanson, Christian Priesthood Examined (London: Lutterworth Press, 1979).
(Update: Bobby contacted me to inform me that he was asking, not about the Biblical and/or early Christan witness to an ordained, ministerial priesthood, but the "priesthood" being the instrumental means of creation and other more unique teachings of Latter-day Saint theology. On this, I am unaware of any explication of such in the earliest sources, and this is probably something only explicated in modern revelation [cf. D&C 128:18]. However, "power of God" is a synonym in LDS circles, as noted by Bobby, for the priesthood, of such a portion is delegated to us to act as his authorised agents. As Joseph F. Smith noted, "What is the Priesthood? It is nothing more nor less than the power of God delegated to man by which man can act in the earth for the salvation of the human family, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and act legitimately; not assuming that authority, nor borrowing it from generations that are dead and gone, but authority that has been given in this day in which we live by ministering angels and spirits from above, direct from the presence of God. . . . It is the same power and Priesthood that was committed to the disciples of Christ while he was upon the earth, that whatsoever they should bind on earth should be bound in heaven and whatsoever they should loose on earth should be loosed in heaven." Conference Report, October 1904, p. 5; as the nature of the priesthood in the New Covenant is an important difference between Reformed vs. non-Reformed [esp. Catholic; Eastern Orthodox; LDS], this is one topic that needs more debate/dialogue beyond proof-texting Heb 7:24 [Bobby also told me he hopes to discuss this and other topics in more detail in the future, so hopefully we will see a better Evangelical interaction with the relevant issues than previous attempts by others--I for one will welcome it]. Notwithstanding, many biblical commentators have noted that, after His exaltation and ascension into heaven, Christ received an authority/power he did not have until then. Commenting on the relationship between Melchizedek and Jesus in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Albert Vanhoye wrote the following, which of course should be compared with the comments about Phil 2:5-11; Heb 1:3; Matt 28:18-19 in this article:
[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.)Just fwiw).
Bobby, at the end of this article, writes (emphasis added):
Mormons I would ask you please explore this and by all means come back to me with your comments.
One comment (more of a question/challenge) I have for Bobby (or any Protestant, Reformed other otherwise) would be this:
Where in the Bible does it teach Sola Scriptura? This is the formal doctrine of Protestantism and presupposition that is rarely if ever, proven by Protestant apologists, just merely assumed, and yet, it is central to Protestantism. Indeed, much of Bobby's arguments can be boiled down to, "Because 'x' is not explicated in the Bible, ipso facto it is not true."
I have a full-length discussion of this topic here:
Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura
All the relevant biblical texts (e.g., 2 Tim3:16-17; 1 Cor 4:6, etc., as well as other "proofs" such as the "Word of God = the Bible" fallacy discussed in detail).
While Bobby (correctly) focused on this article on central issues that divide LDS and Reformed Protestants (e.g., the priesthood), I do hope that he will seriously interact with, and reconsider his adherence to, Sola Scriptura, as well as his other Reformed presuppositions which colours much of his criticisms of "Mormonism," as I would argue the following from the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, a subordinate standard to which Reformed Baptists subscribe, which presents a definition representative of the functional position of most Protestants, is not just unbiblical, but anti-biblical in the light of exegesis:
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture [here, "Scripture" is exhausted, in the theology of this confession by "the Bible"]: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. (Article I ch. VI)
I conclude this article with such a friendly challenge/debate.