![FairMormon Logo](https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021_fair_logo_primary.png)
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
m |
|||
(10 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | {{ | + | {{Main Page}} |
− | |||
− | |||
− | }} | ||
<onlyinclude> | <onlyinclude> | ||
==Question: Was the priesthood held by Jesus priesthood not 'transferable' to members of the Church?== | ==Question: Was the priesthood held by Jesus priesthood not 'transferable' to members of the Church?== | ||
− | ===The Bible supports | + | ===The Bible supports the Latter-day Saint position that the Priesthood is the authority God has given man to perform ordinances necessary for salvation.=== |
It is claimed that only Jesus held the priesthood, and that such priesthood was not 'transferable' to members of the Church. However, the claim that priesthood is non-transferrable fails on linguistic, scriptural, scholarly, and logical grounds. | It is claimed that only Jesus held the priesthood, and that such priesthood was not 'transferable' to members of the Church. However, the claim that priesthood is non-transferrable fails on linguistic, scriptural, scholarly, and logical grounds. | ||
− | The Bible supports that Latter-day Saints position that the Priesthood is the authority God has given man to perform the ordinances (e.g. baptism, sacrament, sealing, etc.) that Jesus has declared to be necessary, in order that the atonement may have full effect in our lives. | + | The Bible supports that Latter-day Saints position that the Priesthood is the authority God has given man to perform the ordinances (e.g. baptism, sacrament, sealing, etc.) that Jesus has declared to be necessary, in order that the atonement may have full effect in our lives. |
===The claim that the priesthood is not transferable is based upon old scholarship=== | ===The claim that the priesthood is not transferable is based upon old scholarship=== | ||
Line 17: | Line 14: | ||
:''Aparabatos'', on (see parabaino; belonging to later Greek [Phryn. 313 Lob];not LXX) {{b||Hebrews|7|24}} usually interpreted 'without a successor'. But this meaning is found nowhere else. ''Aparabatos'' rather has the sense of permanent, unchangeable" [followed by citations].<ref>Reference "aparabatos," in Walter Bauer and Frederick William Danker (editors), ''A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature '', 3rd edition, (Urbana and Chicago, University Of Chicago Press, 2001), 97. ISBN 0226039331.</ref> | :''Aparabatos'', on (see parabaino; belonging to later Greek [Phryn. 313 Lob];not LXX) {{b||Hebrews|7|24}} usually interpreted 'without a successor'. But this meaning is found nowhere else. ''Aparabatos'' rather has the sense of permanent, unchangeable" [followed by citations].<ref>Reference "aparabatos," in Walter Bauer and Frederick William Danker (editors), ''A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature '', 3rd edition, (Urbana and Chicago, University Of Chicago Press, 2001), 97. ISBN 0226039331.</ref> | ||
− | Thus, it is the ''priesthood'' which is unchangeable, rather than being non-transferable. Claims that the priesthood is not transferable are not supported by the Biblical text. Rather, the priesthood is a permanent and necessary part of the Church—any Church claiming it is unnecessary does not meet the Biblical model. | + | Thus, it is the ''priesthood'' which is unchangeable, rather than being non-transferable. Other scholars that confirm this understanding include Harold W. Attridge,<ref>Harold W. Attridge, ''Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), 210.</ref> Franz Delitzsch,<ref>Franz Delitzch, ''Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews'', trans. Thomas L. Kingbury (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1952), 370-371.</ref> James Moulton and George Milligan,<ref> James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, ''The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1949), 53.</ref> David L. Allen,<ref>David L, Allen, “Hebrews,” ''The New American Commentary'', 42 vols. (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2010), 35:428.</ref> Dana M. Harris,<ref>Dana M. Harris, ''Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament: Hebrews'' (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2019), 5.A.3.</ref> Hermann Cremer,<ref>Hermann Cremer, ''Biblio-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek'', trans. William Urwick (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1872), 655-656.</ref> and Craig Koester.<ref>Craig R. Koester, ''Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary'' (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 365. FairMormon thanks Jaxon Washburn and Robert Boylan for their compilation of these sources.</ref> Claims that the priesthood is not transferable are not supported by the Biblical text. Rather, the priesthood is a permanent and necessary part of the Church—any Church claiming it is unnecessary does not meet the Biblical model. |
The ten-volume ''Theological Dictionary of the New Testament'' agrees, in which the word ''aparabatos'' is discussed: | The ten-volume ''Theological Dictionary of the New Testament'' agrees, in which the word ''aparabatos'' is discussed: | ||
Line 25: | Line 22: | ||
:[after giving examples from secular literature: Plutarch, Josephus, Epictetus, etc] | :[after giving examples from secular literature: Plutarch, Josephus, Epictetus, etc] | ||
− | :Hebrews 7.24 says of Christ that because He remains to eternity He has an unchangeable and imperishable priesthood. Instead of the passive 'unchangeable' [743] many expositors suggest the active sense 'which cannot be transferred to another;" 'Christ has a priesthood which cannot be transferred to anyone else' [citing Bengel]. 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 active sense is not attested elsewhere." (742-3).<ref>Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (editors), Geoffrey W. Bromiley (translator), ''Theological Dictionary of the New Testament'' (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), 5: 742-743. </ref> | + | :Hebrews 7.24 says of Christ that because He remains to eternity He has an unchangeable and imperishable priesthood. Instead of the passive 'unchangeable' [743] many expositors suggest the active sense 'which cannot be transferred to another;" 'Christ has a priesthood which cannot be transferred to anyone else' [citing Bengel]. 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 active sense is not attested elsewhere." (742-3).<ref>Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (editors), Geoffrey W. Bromiley (translator), ''Theological Dictionary of the New Testament'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), 5: 742-743. </ref> |
The statement 'yields a good sense' suggests that those who choose that translation are probably doing so for theological reasons, not grammatical or linguistic reasons; and the ''TDNT'' author is voting against such a choice. | The statement 'yields a good sense' suggests that those who choose that translation are probably doing so for theological reasons, not grammatical or linguistic reasons; and the ''TDNT'' author is voting against such a choice. | ||
Line 84: | Line 81: | ||
* ''11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical (Aaronic) priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) '' | * ''11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical (Aaronic) priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) '' | ||
− | (under the Aaronic priesthood, the people received the law of Moses | + | (under the Aaronic priesthood, the people received the law of Moses—an eye for an eye) |
* ''what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? '' | * ''what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? '' | ||
Line 116: | Line 113: | ||
* ''17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.'' | * ''17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.'' | ||
− | (Christ, and the priesthood authority He holds | + | (Christ, and the priesthood authority He holds—the Melchizedek Priesthood—is eternal—without end.) |
* ''18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. '' | * ''18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. '' | ||
Line 166: | Line 163: | ||
The fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, therefore, was introduced by him to take the place of the law of Moses. But, this does not mean that priesthood transfer to mankind has or must cease. In fact, Jesus actions in the Bible, and the conduct of the apostles after His resurrection, show [[Mormonism_and_priesthood/Restoration|precisely the opposite pattern]]. | The fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, therefore, was introduced by him to take the place of the law of Moses. But, this does not mean that priesthood transfer to mankind has or must cease. In fact, Jesus actions in the Bible, and the conduct of the apostles after His resurrection, show [[Mormonism_and_priesthood/Restoration|precisely the opposite pattern]]. | ||
</onlyinclude> | </onlyinclude> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | {{Critical sources box:Mormonism and priesthood/Non-transferable/CriticalSources}} | ||
{{endnotes sources}} | {{endnotes sources}} | ||
<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[es:El Mormonismo y el sacerdocio/Intransferible]] | ||
+ | [[Category:Questions]] |
It is claimed that only Jesus held the priesthood, and that such priesthood was not 'transferable' to members of the Church. However, the claim that priesthood is non-transferrable fails on linguistic, scriptural, scholarly, and logical grounds.
The Bible supports that Latter-day Saints position that the Priesthood is the authority God has given man to perform the ordinances (e.g. baptism, sacrament, sealing, etc.) that Jesus has declared to be necessary, in order that the atonement may have full effect in our lives.
In Bauer's Greek-English lexicon, we read:
Thus, it is the priesthood which is unchangeable, rather than being non-transferable. Other scholars that confirm this understanding include Harold W. Attridge,[2] Franz Delitzsch,[3] James Moulton and George Milligan,[4] David L. Allen,[5] Dana M. Harris,[6] Hermann Cremer,[7] and Craig Koester.[8] Claims that the priesthood is not transferable are not supported by the Biblical text. Rather, the priesthood is a permanent and necessary part of the Church—any Church claiming it is unnecessary does not meet the Biblical model.
The ten-volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament agrees, in which the word aparabatos is discussed:
The statement 'yields a good sense' suggests that those who choose that translation are probably doing so for theological reasons, not grammatical or linguistic reasons; and the TDNT author is voting against such a choice.
In a review of Walter Martin's book, The Maze of Mormonism, in which Martin bases his argument against the Melchizedek Priesthood on the interpretation of "unchangeable" being "non-transferable, Richard Lloyd Anderson informs us that:
So we see that it is incorrect to interpret "unchangeable" as "non-transferable."
And:
More modern versions of the Bible agree with this interpretation.
The interpretation of "unchangeable" to mean "non-transferable" does not stand up to scripture, correct doctrine, Biblical scholarship, or Greek terminology.
It is understandable that creedal Protestant Christians (who make up the vast majority of sectarian anti-Mormons) desperately need the priesthood, as understood by Latter-day Saints, to be non-existent today. The whole idea of authority, direct from God, being necessary for the saving ordinances of mankind, completely undermines and destroys the traditionally accepted doctrine that one is "saved by faith alone." It also completely destroys their own claims to authority, since they are the result of a break-off from the Roman Catholic faith.
If the Catholics did not have the priesthood authority, then the Protestants cannot have taken it with them. Hence, they are anxious to claim a "priesthood of all believers," or claim priesthood isn't needed at all.
If the Catholics did have the authority, then Protestants were wrong to leave in the first place. And, the Church rejected the view that the priesthood was "non-transferrable." Biblical scholarship has now "caught up" to this view, but Joseph Smith had it right in the first place.
As seen above, most of the argument against the LDS doctrine of priesthood is based upon Hebrews 7:24:
Some Christians interpret the word "unchangeable" as meaning non-transferable. Therefore, they say, the Priesthood that Christ held (the Melchizedek Priesthood) could not be transferred to anyone. But, as we have seen, this relies on an out-dated reading of the Greek. Such a view was defensible in the 19th century; it can no longer be sustained.
But, even if we grant this obsolete reading, could this be the correct interpretation? If so, there is a glaring contradiction within this very chapter, for verse twelve says the priesthood has changed:
Either the priesthood is transferable (changeable), from Christ to others, or it is not. Which verse are we to believe? Let's take a closer look at this "unchangeable" priesthood in Hebrews 7:11-24:
(under the Aaronic priesthood, the people received the law of Moses—an eye for an eye)
(Those that hold the authority of the higher, or Melchizedek Priesthood, also hold the authority of the lessor, or the Aaronic Priesthood)
(Here is a glaring contradiction to what the some Christians claim, for it clearly says the priesthood "changed." Let's continue to examine just what changed, and what the term means in context.)
(The Law of Moses changed, not the priesthood. In other words, when Christ came, he gave a higher law. For example, the law was no longer an "eye for an eye," it was "turn the other cheek." Along with this higher law, came a higher priesthood, which is what is meant by "changed.")
(Moses did not speak about the Melchizedek Priesthood and the higher law, which the Lord had, but he did speak of the Aaronic Priesthood, or the lower law.)
(This priest is Jesus Christ)
(The Law of Moses—An Eye for an Eye)
(The higher law, which Christ brought, which will lead us to eternal life.)
(Christ, and the priesthood authority He holds—the Melchizedek Priesthood—is eternal—without end.)
(The Law of Moses was abolished with the institution of the higher Law brought by Christ.)
(We could not become perfect as our Father in Heaven commanded us to be by obedience to the Mosaic Law, for it does not contain the authority for the saving ordinances of salvation—the "keys" to bind in heaven and on earth, or in today's terminology, temple ordinances)
(A better hope, or a higher law, which brought the authority for the saving ordinances)
(It is through this higher law, by partaking of the temple ordinances, that we can "draw nigh" unto God, or become like Him, which is to "be perfect" {as God is perfect} as He commanded us—Matthew 5:48.)
(This is in reference to the oath and covenant of the priesthood.)
(The priests of the Aaronic, or Levitical, priesthood)
(The Aaronic, or lessor, priesthood, does not require an oath or covenant.)
Ezra Taft Benson discussed this idea:
the mouth of God" (see D&C 84꞉33-44). The oath of the Melchizedek Priesthood is an irrevocable promise by God to faithful priesthood holders. "All that my Father hath shall be given unto them" (see D&C 84꞉38). This oath by Deity, coupled with the covenant by faithful priesthood holders, is referred to as the oath and covenant of the priesthood."[14]
(The Melchizedek Priesthood is eternal)
(In context, this verse (24) that some Christians use to try to argue against the priesthood, is saying that since Jesus Christ is eternal, so is the authority He has. It is this same authority that Christ passed on to his Apostles, and they, passed on to others in the Church.)
The fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, therefore, was introduced by him to take the place of the law of Moses. But, this does not mean that priesthood transfer to mankind has or must cease. In fact, Jesus actions in the Bible, and the conduct of the apostles after His resurrection, show precisely the opposite pattern.
Critical sources |
|
Notes
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.
Donate Now