The LDS Priesthoods: Resource Page

The theology of the LDS Priesthoods is an issue that I have dedicated a few blog posts on, and interacted with most of the criticisms Evangelicals and other detractors have raised, vis-à-vis biblical-exegetical, and historical issues. This page will link to the articles addressing these issues, and will be updated if/when new entries are posted (so this page will serve as a useful depository of sorts . . . )

Update: In early 2018, my book-length discussion of the Priesthood was published: After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood

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

Questions and Answers about the Mormon Priesthoods

Are Melchizedek and Jesus the same person?

The eternality of the Aaronic Priesthood

Louis Bouyer on the Office of "Priest" (Sacredos) in the Early Church

Old Testament Practices and Mormonism

Latter-day Saints have chosen the True, Biblical Jesus

The Priesthood of All Believers

David Allen on how to translate Hebrews 7:24

Another note on απαραβατος in Hebrews 7:24

Non-Levitical Kohens and the etymology of Cumorah (cf. The Use of כמר KMR at Elephantine and the Etymology of "Cumorah")

Hebrew and Greek lexical sources on דברה and ταξις (order) in Psalm 110:4 (109:4, LXX)

Jimmy Akin's Opening Statement to The Priesthood Debate

Insights into John 20:23

Additional Notes on Hebrews 7:12 and the Aaronic Priesthood

Priestly Sacrificial Language in 1 Clement

James 5:14-15 in Early Christianity

John H. Elliott vs. the Priesthood of All Believers in 1 Peter

Refuting James White on Hebrews 7:24

Answering Cecil Andrews on the LDS Priesthoods

Does Luke 9:49-50 refute the need for a New Covenant Priesthood?

Biblical Evidence of Multiple People Having Held the Melchizedek Priesthood
Response to The Narrows Church on the Melchizedek Priesthood

Galatians 1:1 and the Apostleship of Paul

Matthew 16:19 and the meaning of "keys," "binding," and "loosing"

Evangelical Apologist Shoots Himself in the Foot on the Levitical Priesthood

The Temple Veil and the Need for a Mediator

Isaiah 56:6-7 and the New Covenant Priesthood

απαραβατος in texts contemporary with Hebrews

The Melchizedek Priesthood and the Unique Office of Jesus Christ

Fireside on the Biblical Foundations of an Ordained Priesthood in the New Covenant

Arie W. Zwiep on Acts 1:21-22

William Riley on the Davidic King as a Priest in Psalm 110:4

Joshua G. Matthews on Jethro and the Melchizedek Priesthood

Hebrew and Greek lexical sources on דברה and ταξις (order) in Psalm 110:4 (109:4, LXX)

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.

Chris VanLandingham on Philippians 3:9

Does Paul really discuss two different kinds or species of righteousness, or does he discuss only the two different origins of righteousness? The latter seems most likely since δικαιοσυνη has the same sense throughout Philippians. Even in 3:9, the difference is only one of origin, whether εκ νομου or εκ θεου. Nothing suggests that these prepositional phrases should indicate two different definitions for the same word in the same sentence. If Paul really wanted to indicate two different properties or qualities, he would have used two different words. At any rate, Paul wants what Noah, Daniel, Baruch and Enoch have:

Noah was found (ευρεθη) perfect, righteous (δικαιος); at the time of wrath he was taken in exchange . . .  (Sir 44:17)

And God saved me from the lions because righteousness was found in me before him. (καθότι δικαιοσύνη ἐν ἐμοὶ εὑρέθη ἐναντίον αὐτου Daniel 6:23)

For you [i.e., Baruch] have been found righteous before God (Δικαιος γαρ ευρεθης εναντιον του θεου), and he did not let you come here, so that you would not see the ill-treatment by the Babylonians that has come upon the people. (4 Bar. or Paraleipomena Jeremiou 7:25)

Let us consider Enoch, who, when he was found righteous in obedience (εν υπακοη δικαιος ευρεθεις), was changed, and his death was not discovered. (1 Clem. 9:3)

The δικαιοσυνη “found” in the prophet Daniel is the same kind of δικαιοσυνη Paul hopes is found (ευρεθω) in himself, even if they come from different sources. Just as δικαιοσυνη and δικαιος, moreover, do not carry the notion of acquittal in Sirach, Daniel, Paraleipomena Jeremiou (4 Baruch), or 1 Clement, neither does δικαιοσυνη in Philippians. In Sirach, Daniel, the Paralelipomena Jeremiou, and 1 Clement, the noun and the adjective refer to a state of being or a quality that Noah, Daniel, Baurch, and Enoch possess. In all five texts, clearly God will make a determination, as is evident by ευρισκω, not the δικαι- terms. God’s determination must accord to the truth: if Noah, Daniel Baurch, Enoch, or Paul is righteous, then that righteousness will be what God finds. (Chris VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006], 314-15)

Λογιζομαι in texts contemporary with the New Testament, part 7: Summary

This is the seventh and final installment of this series; here are the links to the previous installments:

Part 1 (LXX Apocrypha)

Part 2 (Greek Pseudepigrapha)

Part 3 (Apostolic Fathers)

Part 4 (Josephus)

Part 5 (Philo)

Part 6 (Modern Lexical Sources)

As we have seen throughout the presentation and discussion of the instances of λογιζομαι in literature contemporary with the New Testament, the preponderant (by a scholarly mile) meaning of the verb is that the verb refers to what someone is thinking of as a mental representation of the reality they are witnessing. It is incredibly rare to find instances where the imputation understanding (seeing in someone something that is not there that must be given from an outside/alien source) can be foisted upon the verb, and even in some of these instances (such as the quotations of Gen 15:6 and 31:15) do not hold up to exegetical scrutiny. This is only where one area Reformed theology is being refuted; much of contemporary biblical scholarship is rejecting the "legal fiction" reading of many key texts. Consider the following scholarly dismissal of the traditional Reformed reading of LXX Deut 25:1, a text often cited to support forensic justification:

Deuteronomy 25:1--ἐὰν δὲ γένηται ἀντιλογία ἀνὰ μέσον ἀνθρώπων καὶ προσέλθωσιν εἰς κρίσιν καὶ κρίνωσιν καὶ δικαιώσωσιν τὸν δίκαιον καὶ καταγνῶσιν τοῦ ἀσεβοῦς: "Now if there is a dispute between men and they enter into litigation and (the judges) rule and they give justice to the righteous and pass sentence on the impious." the sense is difficult to determine. It could mean "to declare righteous the righteous one," but besides being redundant, the righteous do not go to court to get a simple declaration, they go to see and get justice (flogging, in this text). On the other hand, "to find righteous" works well because it stands nicely antithetic to καταγιγνωσκω. The emphasis, nevertheless, focuses on the action that the judges impose, not what they find. (Chris VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006], 257)

The soteriological implications of this is immense—when we read of a person being “credited with righteousness,” it is not a legal fiction, but, as in the case of Phinehas in Psa 106:30-31 and elsewhere, it is due to their truly being made, not simply declared, righteous, and one can see baptism being the instrumental means of one being made righteous (cf. Rom 6:1-4 [and other key texts such as Acts 2:38] where it is through the instrumental means of water baptism one is cleansed by the Spirit of God and engrafted into Christ), something that is nicely summarised by the following:

The explanatory γαρ in 6:5 links the verse with his previous comments about the believer’s death with Christ through water-baptism in 6:3-4. His argument appears to be that believers died to sin and should no longer live under its power (6:2). Their water-baptism proves that they participate in the death of Jesus and experience a spiritual death to the power of sin (6:3). Therefore, Paul concludes that believers have been buried with Jesus through their participation in water-baptism, a baptism that identifies them with the death of Jesus (their representative [5:12-21]) and thereby kills the power of sin in their lives, so that they would live with Jesus in the resurrection just as Jesus presently lives in the power of his physical resurrection (6:4). Believers who died to the power of sin by being baptized into Jesus’ death will certainly (αλλα και) participate in a physical resurrection just as Jesus died and resurrected, because those who died to the power of sin (just as Jesus died = τω ομοιωματι του θανατου αυτου) will participate in a future resurrection (just as Jesus has already been resurrected) (6:5). (Jarvis J. Williams, Christ Died for Our Sins: Representation and Substitution in Romans and their Jewish Martyrological Background [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2015], 178).

Far from supporting Reformed theology, a careful lexical analysis of λογιζομαι refutes such an unbiblical soteriology while it supports Latter-day Saint soteriology. Again, far from being “unbiblical,” if any theology can be labelled (though not within a since of legal fiction . . . ) “biblical Christianity,” it is “Mormonism,” not Reformed theology.

Another note on απαραβατος in Hebrews 7:24

In a previous post discussing some of the biblical evidence for an ordained, ministerial priesthood in the New Covenant, I discussed the common claim that Heb 7:24 means that only Jesus can hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, showing that the term απαραβατος does not have the sense of "non-transferrable" but instead means "permanent" (cf. this post on David Allen's comments on this verse). I would like to add the following entry from Kittel's 10-volume lexicon as further evidence against the common Protestant interpretation of this verse:

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)

John 14:28 and the relationship between the Son and the Father

A commonly cited text to support the subordination of the Son to the Father is that of John 14:28:

You heard me say to you, "I am going away, and I am coming to you." If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I." (NRSV)

The term translated as "greater" is μειζων, the masculine nominative singular comparative of μεγας (large/great); it is used elsewhere to show how one person is greater than another:

Are thou greater (μειζων) than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? (4:12)

Art thou greater (μειζων) than our father Abraham, which is dead? And the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? (8:53)

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater (μειζων) than his lord; neither hs that is sent greater (μειζων) than he that sent him. (13:16)

Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater (μειζων) than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. (15:20)

In an attempt to "get around" the Christological implications of Christ saying that the Father is greater than Him, Trinitarian apologists argue that Jesus was only speaking of his incarnation, where he hid his divine attributes and glory, per the common Trinitarian interpretation of Phil 2:7 and that he was speaking of His humanity in contrast with the divinity of the Father.

There are a number of problems with this (lame) response; notice that Trinitarian apologists who use this "argument" ultimately shoot themselves in the foot, if they were consistent--if, in their view, Jesus was speaking of his human will/nature, and thus inferior to God, then they cannot use any of his other “claims” for divinity while he was on earth. Either he was, as a person, equal to God or he wasn’t.

Furthermore, another response that is sometimes forwarded is that Jesus' words mean that the Father is only "greater" in a functional sense in that the Father "sends" the Son, but is not "better" than Jesus. However, this is an example of “special pleading,” a very common logical fallacy within much of Trinitarian apologetics, as they are introducing a factor unrelated to the matter, and argue for that; to have someone greater than another person introduces inequality.

As with many biblical texts, we see that Latter-day Saint Christology is supported by biblical exegesis and that Trinitarian theology is found fighting against the plain, exegetically sound meaning of the pertinent texts and even the rules of basic logic (as it always is).

More biblical evidence against the "Gentile" interpretation of John 10:16

In a previous post, I discussed the common LDS interpretation of John 10:16, as well as provided a counter to the claim that the "other sheep" Christ spoke about were the Gentiles. I just came across this discussion on this text from a Protestant apologist which adds further information against the Gentile interpretation of this verse:

There are two major problems with this interpretation. First of all, if men are sheep before they believe then they already have eternal life: “And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand” (John 10:28). If the sheep were never goats then how can they be born “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1)? No one among the unsaved Gentiles is ever called sheep. Try pigs and dogs (Mat. 7:6; 15:26-27; 2 Pet. 2:1, 22). The Gentiles were “without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12). Can one of God's sheep go to hell? Why then must God's sheep believe on Christ?
            The second problem concerns the identification of the sheep. Who are the sheep? According to Micaiah (1 Kgs. 22:17), Asaph (Psa. 74:1; 78:52; 79:13), the Psalmist (Psa. 44:11, 22; 95:7; 100:3), David (Psa. 119:176), Isaiah (Isa. 53:6), Jeremiah (Jer 23:1; 50:6, 17), Ezekiel (Eze. 34:6, 11, 12), and Jesus Christ (Mat. 10:6: 15:24): the sheep are Israel. Notice the condition of Israel in the Old Testament:
 My people hath been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray, they have turned them away on the mountains: they have gone from mountain to hill, they have forgotten their restingplace (Jer. 50:6) Mu sheep wandered through all the mountains, and upon every hill: yea, my floc, was scattered upon all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek after them (Eze. 34:6). Then notice a forgotten prophecy from the Lord:
 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out. As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in  the cloudy and dark day. And I will bring them out from the people, and gather them from the countries, and will bring them to their own land, and feed them upon the mountains of Israel by the rivers, and in all the inhabited places of the country. I will feed them in a good pasture, and upon the high mountains of Israel shall their fold be: there shall they lie in a good fold, and in a fat pasture shall they feed upon the mountains of Israel.  I will feed my flock, and I will cause them to lie down, saith the Lord GOD. I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and will bind up that which was broken, and will strengthen that which was sick: but I will destroy the fat and the ¹ strong; I will feed them with judgment. (Eze 34:11-16) Note also the New Testament counterparts:
 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mat. 10:6) But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mat. 15:24) When Christ came, his sheep—like Simeon (Luke 2:25), Annas (Luke 2:36-38), Zacharias and Elisabeth (Luke 2:8-20), and the disciples (John 1:40-49)--knew him (John 10:14), followed him (John 10:27), and received eternal life (John 10:28). We have here the separation of the Jewish sheep from the goats and the drawing of them to the Messiah.

Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism Rev. Ed. (Vance Publications, 1999), 339-40.