|
Christians and
Temple Building: This following article by "Dr." White is unmodified, including several punctuation errors, spelling errors, and lack of linking to notes, et. al. Ensuing correspondence follows. Christians Built
Temples? A Reply to by James White A few years ago the LDS Church celebrated the 100th Anniversary of
the dedication of the Salt Lake City Temple (1993). Knowing that much would be said
at the General Conference concerning the SLC Temple, I wrote a very small tract
(738 words, nine paragraphs) titled “Temples Made With Hands.” In it I briefly
laid out discussion-starting assertions regarding the role of the temple in the Scriptures
in contrast with LDS concepts. Since it is very brief, I include the entire text here: Many of the world’s religions focus their worship upon a temple, or temples. Often the deity that is worshipped is said to be physically present in the temple, while at other times the deity, though dwelling somewhere else, visits with the people at the temple. Under the Old Covenant , the one true God of Israel, Jehovah, allowed His people to build a single temple, located in Jerusalem. The first temple was built by Solomon, and was destroyed in 586 B.C. by the invading Babylonians. The second temple was built by Zerubbabel, and was expanded greatly by Herod in the years prior to Christ’s ministry. This temple was destroyed by Titus and the Roman legions in A.D. 70. Never did God allow His people to build multiple temples such as those of the pagan religions that surrounded Israel. Further, the temple in Israel had one primary function: the worship of God through the offering of sacrifices. There were no secret ceremonies, no endowments, so sealings in the temple in Jerusalem. The highest act of worship took place on the day of Atonement, when the one high priest* offered the sacrifice for the sins of the people. The high Priest would, on that day, go through the veil into the Holy of Holies, and there offer the blood of the sacrifice before God. All of the actions of the priests in the temple, including the one high priest , were mere shadows of the reality that God provided in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. The epistle to the Hebrews in the New Testament makes it very plain that the Old Covenant, including its temple ritual and its priesthood, pointed away from itself to a greater reality in Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:1). The early Christians did not seek to build a temple in Jerusalem, or anywhere else, for that matter. Christians have never built temples. Why? The reasons are to be found in Scripture. 1) Jesus Christ fulfilled the law, including both the priesthood, as well as the function of the temple in Jerusalem. When Jesus Christ died, the veil, through which the high priest entered into the Holy of Holies once a year, was torn from top to bottom (Matt. 27:51). The way was opened, forever, for the people of God to approach the throne of grace, not through a mediating priesthood, as in the Old Covenant, but through the shed blood of Jesus Christ (Heb. 9:6-15, 10: 19-22). Since it was the function of the priesthood to offer sacrifices and since there is no more sacrifice for sin (Heb. 10:18), the priesthood has been fulfilled in Christ. Since it was the main function of the temple to be the place where these sacrifices were offered, its role in God’s plan, too, has been fulfilled. This is why Christians have no "enduring city," and are able to continually offer sacrifices, not of blood for the covering of sin, but of praise, through the confession of the name of Christ (Heb. 13:13-14). 2) The "temple" of the Christian Church is the body of believers, both collectively and individually. The Bible says, "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" (1 Cor. 6:19). The body of believers is God’s temple, indwelt by His Spirit, just as the body of the individual believer is the temple of God. "What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?" (1Cor. 6:19). Christians do not seek to build temples made by hands, because they have temples made by His Spirit, just as the Lord Jesus had promised (John 14:23). In the Old Testament God spoke of His Name being in the temple (1Kings 8:29, etc.) Today, God’s people offer the sacrifice of praise to God, "Giving thanks to his name," (Heb. 13:15) not in a temple made with hands, but in the living body of Christ, the Church. Do not be led astray by those who would direct you back to the old ways. God will not be worshipped in ways that are contrary to his revealed truth. Christians worship God in all places, not in temples made with hands. Rather than engaging in rituals, or endowments, that supposedly bestow authority or power, Christians worship God in spirit, and in truth (John 4:21-24). Many years later, I received an unsolicited response to this tract from Dr. William Hamblin of Brighan [sic] Young University. I include his full comments below: I would like to make a few observations regarding James White's anti-Mormon tract, "Temple Made with Hands." 1. White informs us that God generously "allowed His people to build a single temple, located in Jerusalem" but that "never did God allow His people to build multiple temples. "White's use of the word allowed to describe God's command to build temples is a serious distortion. Temple building is one of the premier commands from God to Israel, as the vast portions of the Old Testament focusing on temple building and worship clearly demonstrates. (I am assuming the functional equivalency of tabernacle and temple, which I also assume White will not dispute.) 2. Here is a list of the major Israelite cultic centers, shrines, locations for the tabernacle, and temples, which were in operation during biblical times, based on archaeological and/or textual evidence: Mosaic Tabernacle {-13C} It is quite clear there is more going on here than White's simplistic claim that "never did God allow His people to build multiple temples" would lead us to believe. God certainly did allow it, since it clearly happened. Whether he commanded it, or accepted their worship as authentic, or tolerated apostate temples unwillingly, or viewed them as abominations is a different question. But many, if not most Israelites apparently believed that multiple temples were possible. 3. When White writes, "there were no secret ceremonies, no endowments, so[sic] sealings in the temple in Jerusalem" he is hardly informing the LDS of something new, nor contradicting one of our cherished doctrines. The Old Testament temple of Jerusalem was run by the Aaronic priesthood, and thus could not have performed LDS-style temple ritual, which require Melchizedek priesthood authority. (This is not to say that such rituals were necessarily unknown in Old Testament times-this is another question-only that such rituals were not performed in the Aaronic temple of Jerusalem, or at least were not part of the public cultus.) Also, White's exposition on the body as temple metaphor is hardly damaging to the LDS position, since we believe the same metaphor, though we understand it somewhat differently. The real question is, is the body the only temple. 4. He also asserts (without the slightest pretense of evidence), that "the early Christians did not seek to build a temple in Jerusalem, or anywhere else, for that matter. Christians have never built temples." Then precisely how is the Anti-Christ to enter and sit in "temple of God" in the last days (2 Thes. 2:4) if there is to be no temple of God? Unfortunately for White, it is quite clear that the New Testament apostles continued to worship in the Jerusalem temple after Christ's ascension (Acts 2:46, 3:1-10, 5:20-42). Even Paul worshipped there (Acts, 21:26-30, 22:17, 24:6-18, 25:8, 26:21). Paul is explicitly said to have performed purification rituals (Acts 21:26, 24:18), and prayed in the temple (Acts 22:17, cf. 3:1); he claims that he has not offended "against the temple," implying he accepts its sanctity (Acts 25:8). Indeed, Paul also offered sacrifice (prosfora) in the temple (Acts 21:26, cf. Num 6:14-18), a very odd thing for him to do if the temple had been completely superceded after Christ's ascension. Finally, and most importantly, Paul had a vision of Christ ("The Just One" ton dikaion) in the temple (Acts 22:14-21), paralleling Old Testament temple theophanies, and strongly implying a special sanctity in the temple, where God still appears to men even after Christ's ascension. The books of Hebrews and Revelations are filled with descriptions of God's Temple in Heaven (Heb 8-9; Rev 11, 15, and numerous allusions throughout; for more details from an LDS perspective, see Holzapfel and Seely, My Father's House: Temple Worship and Symbolism in the New Testament, [Bookcraft, 1994], 183-249). Why the prominence of these descriptions of a heavenly temple if it is such a transitory and superceded institution and edifice? Historically, many medieval Christians explicitly called their great basilicas and cathedrals temples: Constantine's Holy Sepulcher, Justinian's Hagia Sophia, and Leo's basilica in Rome (See Nibley's "Christian Envy of the Temple" Mormonism and Early Christianity, 399-409.) Of course, the Christianized Dome of the Rock was explicitly called Templum Domini, the temple of the Lord" by the Crusaders, and the monks and priests serving there were the Templars, the priestly order of the Temple! And, from their perspective, the ancient Israelite temple sacrifices continued in the Christianized form of the mass, as can be seen in the allegorical mosaics at Ravenna, to give just one example. Baptists may never have built temples, but Christians certainly did. 5. White makes the (again unsubstantiated) claim that "the priesthood has been fulfilled in Christ" and that Christians do not need "a mediating priesthood." In this he is flatly contradicted by both the New Testament and early Christian writers. Why, if Christ has removed all need for human priesthood authority, did Christ order the lepers he healed to go to the Jewish priests for purification (Mk 1:44, Lk 17:14)? Apparently Christ believed that his miraculous powers of healing did not negate or supercede the priesthood authority of the Jewish priests. I suppose White could argue that Christ had not yet ascended into heaven and replaced the Jewish High Priest. If so, why does Peter speak of a post ascension "holy priesthood" (1 Pet 2:5) and "royal priesthood" (1 Pet 2:9) among Christians? Likewise John in Revelations [sic] speaks of the saints as "priests to his [Christ's] God and Father" (1:6), and "priests to our God" (5:10); in the resurrection there "shall be priests of God and of Christ" (20:6). What odd statements for an infallible book to make if White's understanding of priesthood is correct. Some of the earliest Christians also explicitly disagree with White's claims. The author of the Didache, (one of the earliest post-New Testament Christian documents, late first to early second century), states explicitly that "the prophets ... are your high priests" (13.1). Note the plural here: the prophets (profetais) are the Christians' high priests (archiereis). So, early post-New Testament Christians had prophets (a thing White believes Christians shouldn't have) who were high priests (a thing White believes Christians shouldn't have); and there were apparently simultaneously more than one high priest. (See also 1 Clement 40-44; the article in Ferguson's Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, pp. 754-5 provides references to other second and early third century Christian sources mentioning Christian priests.) Unfortunately, and not untypically, White has misunderstood and
misrepresented the LDS position, Scripture, and early Christian history on temples. I would like to respond to this attempt on the part of a leading LDS scholar to respond to our brief biblical comments about temples. God and Temple Building The first and rather obvious point to be made is that Dr. Hamblin spends much time proving something that is irrelevant to the point made in the original tract. That is, he focuses on the word “allowed” and completely misses the point of its original usage.God [sic] commanded Israel to build the Tabernacle.He [sic] then commanded that one single temple be built in Jerusalem. The entirety of the list provided by Dr. Hamblin proves only that people rebel against God’s commands, nothing more. God did not command the building of a single one of the structures/centers of “worship” noted by Dr. Hamblin. In fact, God punished Israel for her idolatry in these places. It is hard to miss the idea that Dr. Hamblin is attempting to provide a basis for LDS temple building based upon the idolatry and rebellion of the ancient Israelites. Dr. Hamblin obviously knows that this is the case:
It is obvious that “allowed” in our tract is the same as “commanded” in Dr. Hamblin’s response. God did not command Israel to build multiple temples. The “simplistic” thing here is the good professor’s reading, not the statement originally made, and the “serious distortion” comes from Dr. Hamblin, not from me. But what is most amazing is the willingness of LDS apologists to grab hold of anything, including pagan practices, in the futile attempt to build a foundation for LDS practices. I have seen this before: people grabbing hold of Origen’s concept of the pre-existence of souls, pointing to the Gnostics of the second century, or here, pointing to the rebellion of idolatrous Israelites who specifically violated God’s command and brought His wrath down upon themselves. I’m not sure why LDS apologists feel that reference to ancient heretical movements in some way vitiates the charges of heresy Christians level against them. Proving that there have always been heresies or acts of rebellion throughout history hardly excuses the modern appearances of such heresies. All this proves is that the Christian Church has had to contend against these falsehoods all along. Next, I am very glad Dr. Hamblin admits that in the only God-ordained place of worship (i.e., the tabernacle in the early period, the Temple in the latter period) there were no “temple ceremonies,” no secret ceremonies, endowment ceremonies, or the like. No Mormon, knowing the endowment ceremony today, would find the ancient worship of the Temple to be a parallel to Mormonism. Even when a surface parallel could be found (for example, the use of a “veil”), the actual function is found to be completely different: in the ancient Temple this veil separated the most holy place from the rest of the temple, and only the High Priest entered the veil once a year with a blood sacrifice. In the LDS temple you likewise have a veil, but its purpose is completely different. It is also fascinating to note that the veil in the Jewish temple was torn by God Himself when Christ died, symbolizing the removal of that wall of separation due to His completed and perfect death. Mormonism goes back to something inferior yet again, placing a veil in their temple. Christians have never sought to build such temples or re-institute such practices, as we will see below. Beyond this, there is great anachronism involved in reading LDS theology back into the Old Testament. This is seen especially in Dr. Hamblin’s comments regarding the Melchizedek Priesthood. Quite simply, the LDS concept of the Aaronic/Melchizedek distinction is utterly foreign to the Old Testament text. The Mormon teaching of priesthood authority does not come from the reading of the biblical text: it comes from Joseph Smith, not from the Scriptures. And most LDS admit this to be the case. Christians and Temples Next, I asserted that early Christians did not build temples. This is a simple fact of history. Dr. Hamblin provides us with a few unique attempts to undercut my statement, but, never does he show us a single Christian temple. But let’s look briefly at his attempts: 1)“…how is the Anti-Christ to enter and sit in "temple of God" in the last days (2 Thes. 2:4) if there is to be no temple of God?” Answer: A classic example of hidden (and false) assumptions. Where does one get the idea that Christians are supposed to be the ones who build such a temple? The existence of a single Temple in the future (please note, the Mormon would have no idea which of the many LDS temples such a statement could refer to: while the original readers of the epistle would not have had such a confusion) hardly provides a basis for the LDS penchant for temple building. Not only are there all sorts of contextually possible interpretations of the passage, but note the shift in the argument: from “Christians are not temple building people” to “if there is to be no temple of God?” 2)“Unfortunately for White, it is quite clear that the New Testament apostles continued to worship in the Jerusalem temple after Christ's ascension (Acts 2:46, 3:1-10, 5:20-42).” Answer: Unfortunately? Notice again the shift in argumentation: nowhere did my tract even begin to suggest that the early Christians did not pray in the Jerusalem Temple. It is obvious beyond contradiction that they did. However, once a complete split had taken place between the early Christian community and Judaism (seen clearly in the experience of Paul narrated in Acts 21-22) the Christians do not go out and build a new temple in which to pray. Therefore, Dr. Hamblin’s citation of this passage is irrelevant to the issue at hand. 3) Even Paul worshipped there (Acts, 21:26-30, 22:17, 24:6-18, 25:8, 26:21). Paul is explicitly said to have performed purification rituals (Acts 21:26, 24:18), and prayed in the temple (Acts 22:17, cf. 3:1); he claims that he has not offended "against the temple," implying he accepts its sanctity (Acts 25:8). Indeed, Paul also offered sacrifice (prosfora) in the temple (Acts 21:26, cf. Num 6:14-18), a very odd thing for him to do if the temple had been completely superceded after Christ's ascension. Answer: Again Dr. Hamblin proves what is undisputed. How does the fact that the Temple continued to function until A.D. 70 refute the assertion that Christians were not temple builders? Paul went to the temple, paid his vows, etc., as any good Jewish person would. As to whether he should have done so or not in that particular instance is debated by scholars, but the fact remains that none of this even begins to prove that Christians sought to build temples in which to perform ceremonies, let alone the even more far-fetched idea that the ceremonies they would perform would be even remotely similar to that which takes place in the LDS endowment ceremonies. As to the temple worship being superceded, as we will see briefly below, that is the entire thesis of the writer to the Hebrews. 4) “Finally, and most importantly, Paul had a vision of Christ ("The Just One" ton dikaion) in the temple (Acts 22:14-21), paralleling Old Testament temple theophanies, and strongly implying a special sanctity in the temple, where God still appears to men even after Christ's ascension.” Answer: One is again left wondering how it is that a vision early on in Paul’s Christian life is meant to indicate that Christians are to go and build temples in which to practice Masonic-like rituals, replete with special temple clothing and the like? Why is the Greek for “the Righteous One” relevant? One is left to wonder. If the Lord Jesus had said, “And go build temples around the world in which to receive endowments and baptize the dead” we would have something of significance. But such is not to be found in the text of Acts 22. 5) “The books of Hebrews and Revelations are filled with descriptions of God's Temple in Heaven (Heb 8-9; Rev 11, 15, and numerous allusions throughout)…. Why the prominence of these descriptions of a heavenly temple if it is such a transitory and superceded institution and edifice?” Answer: Perhaps Dr. Hamblin’s answer lies in his own words: Christians, who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God, are God’s temple on earth (1 Corinthians 3:16). They look to a future when the dwelling place of God will be with men on earth (Revelation 21:22, etc.) They do not need to build a temple in which to sacrifice as the Old Covenant believers had, for Christ has entered into the holy place in heaven having obtained eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:12). There is no need for a physical temple when Christ has finished His work. I simply point out yet again that there is nothing in the references provided that even begins to substantiate the idea of Christians as temple builders. No commands in Scripture to build edifices in which only “temple ready” individuals can receive special endowments, enter into eternal marriage ceremonies, etc. and etc. In other words, Dr. Hamblin has failed to provide even the beginning of a meaningful defense of the Mormon position. 6) “Historically, many medieval Christians explicitly called their great basilicas and cathedrals temples: Constantine's Holy Sepulcher, Justinian's Hagia Sophia, and Leo's basilica in Rome (See Nibley's "Christian Envy of the Temple" Mormonism and Early Christianity, 399-409.) Of course, the Christianized Dome of the Rock was explicitly called Templum Domini, the "temple of the Lord" by the Crusaders, and the monks and priests serving there were the Templars, the priestly order of the Temple! And, from their perspective, the ancient Israelite temple sacrifices continued in the Christianized form of the mass, as can be seen in the allegorical mosaics at Ravenna, to give just one example. Baptists may never have built temples, but Christians certainly did.” Answer: I hope the reader will recognize that in this section a leading LDS scholar is arguing that the LDS concept of temple building is to be substantiated by the fact that later generations of Christians built grand cathedrals and edifices that they called “temples.” The fact that they offered no animal sacrifices (as in the Old Testament) in these buildings, nor, more importantly, that they did anything remotely similar to the LDS endowments, seems to miss Dr. Hamblin’s attention. Christians of various kinds may have built great buildings: but they did not build temples as we said in our tract. Hence, despite his best efforts, Dr. Hamblin has provided us with a great testimony to the truthfulness of our original testimony: Christians are not temple builders, for they know that the Church as a whole, and believers as individuals, are the “temple of God,” and they do not seek to rebuild what God has done away with. Christians and the Priesthood I made just a few brief comments on the priesthood concept in the tract provided above. We provided much lengthier comments in a tract titled What Is Your Authority? which is one of our most popular publications. Likewise, I addressed the issue in Letters to a Mormon Elder pp. 243-248. I have always found the priesthood issue to be one of the weakest areas of LDS apologetics: the Christian Scriptures simply do not support the system developed by Joseph Smith and his successors. While a few small attempts have been made to provide some kind of biblical defense of the concept, it is simply not possible for the LDS apologist to engage in meaningful, fair exegesis of the biblical text on any topic, including that of the priesthood, in light of the fundamental differences that exist between Christianity and Mormonism. The over-riding authority of the LDS Scriptures and LDS doctrine preclude the meaningful interpretation of the biblical text by LDS scholarship. This comes out clearly in the topic at hand. Given the LDS view of atonement, grace, sin, and redemption, and the inherent contradiction that exists between LDS sources of authority and the Bible on these very topics, it is not surprising that the LDS apologist is forced to engage in eisegetical proof-texting, as we see in these comments by Dr. Hamblin. He begins by asserting that I am “flatly contradicted” by the New Testament and early Christian writers. I will gladly concede that patristic sources use the term “priest” very early on: that they were making the kind of claim that Mormonism does regarding priesthood authorities is a completely different issue. But as I utterly reject Roman Catholic claims to sacramental authority in a priesthood on biblical grounds, so I am consistent in rejecting Mormon claims on the same grounds. And it is upon this issue that I will focus my attention. First, I would like to provide some foundation for the comments made in the tract on temples by providing the argumentation in our tract, What is Your Authority? What is Your Authority? An Examination of the Mormon Priesthoods in the Light of God's Word, the Bible The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims to be the only true church on earth today.(1) They also claim to hold the only true priesthood authority.(2) Supposedly the Aaronic priesthood was conferred on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery on May 15, 1829, and then, sometime in June of the same year, Peter, James and John supposedly appeared and conferred the Melchizidek priesthood to them.(3) When Christians attempt to confront the teachings of the LDS Church, the frequent response of the Mormons is "What is your authority?" Mormons truly believe that they have a special authority from God as presented by the priesthood.But, [sic] the question we must ask is this--does the Bible support these ideas? Does the Bible present a special priesthood authority as the Mormon Church claims? Let's examine this idea. The Aaronic Priesthood The presentation of the Aaronic priesthood as found in the Bible demonstrates clearly that Aaronic priests were ordained to that position in quite a different way than LDS men are today.(4) The duties of the Aaronic priests were also inconsistent with those of the priests of Mormonism.(5) What is even more important for our purposes is the fact that the requirements for the Biblical Aaronic priests are very different from those of Mormon teaching. The priesthood of Aaron is reserved solely and eternally(6) for the descendants of Aaron. Hence, the only ones who can hold the Aaronic priesthood, according to the Bible, are those who are the physical offspring of the tribe of Levi, the family of Aaron. When we look at LDS practice, however, we find that in the individual's "Patriarchal blessing" he is told to what tribe he belongs. Normally, the tribe is that of Ephraim or Manassah. We have never encountered any Mormon who claimed to be of the tribe of Levi, let alone the family of Aaron. Clearly the Mormon person must not be claiming to hold the same priesthood as spoken of in the Bible, as very few of the members of the LDS Church are Jewish in lineage! The most telling objection to be raised to the entire idea of a modern, functioning Aaronic priesthood is the simple teaching of the New Testament that in the one-time sacrifice of Jesus Christ the entire sacrificial system, along with its priesthood duties, was fulfilled and completed. To go back to the old system is to undo the work of Jesus at Calvary! For example--the veil of the Temple in Jerusalem was torn in two from top to bottom when Christ died (Matthew 27:51). This veil had stood for the separating wall between God and man that was bridged but once a year by the one high priest(8) when he offered the sacrifice of atonement for the people.(9) Christ, however, offered the final sacrifice and in doing so opened the way permanently for all who would come to God by Him. Christ did not do away with the priesthood--rather he fulfilled it--its purpose was done, finished, completed.(10) Since this is so, anyone today who wishes to revive the old ways of the Aaronic priesthood sadly misunderstands the work of Christ on the cross.(11) The Melchizedek Priesthood Much more important than the Aaronic priesthood in Mormon thought is the "Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God" or the "Melchizedek Priesthood." This priesthood "comprehends the Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood, and is the grand head, and holds the highest authority with pertains to the priesthood...and is the channel through which all knowledge, doctrine, the plan of salvation and every important matter is revealed from heaven."(12) Obviously this supposed authority is very important to the LDS Church.But [sic] again, does the Bible support such a teaching? Let us first examine the qualifications of the "Melchizedek" priest as given in the Bible. Hebrews 7:3 tells us that Melchizedek was "without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life...." Only Melchizedek and Christ meet those qualifications,(13) for this priesthood is unique--no one but Melchizedek and Christ has ever held it. Indeed, Hebrews 7:3 also makes clear that Melchizedek is only like theSon [sic] of God--he was not the pattern that Jesus followed by rather he was a "type"--the mere reflection of the full expression of the Son of God. This priesthood is also seen, on the basis of this passage, to be one that is not passed on from one to another(14) like the Aaronic priesthood was. The work of the Melchizedek priest is seen in Hebrews 7:24-25, where the Bible says, "But this man (Jesus), because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore, he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." The priesthood Jesus holds is His "unchangeably" or "permanently." Some translate it by the word "permanently." Some translate it by the word "intransmissable"(15) indicating that no one else can hold this priesthood. Though some would argue with the translation of the word, the fact is clear that the person holding this priesthood by right of eternal life is able to save completely those who come unto God by him--a claim that few Mormons would knowingly make. However, if the LDS Church is going to declare that it has this priesthood, it must face the fact that it is professing to have that which, according to the Bible, is the property of Jesus Christ alone. A passage that is frequently cited in this discussion is Hebrews 5:6 which mentions the "order of Melchizedek." The LDS Church teaches that this indicates that there was an "order" of priests after Melchizedek--that this is a priesthood that is passed on much like the Aaronic.(16) The whole point of the discourse, however, is just the opposite--the priesthood of Jesus is superior to that of Aaron and one of the reasons is that it is not passed from one to another. It is not invested in men who will die, but is given only to the One who has died and lives forever, the Lord Jesus Christ! To miss the point is to misunderstand the entire argument of Hebrews! It must also be pointed out that the word translated "order" means "of the same kind"(17) or "nature, quality, manner, condition, appearance."(18) It does not refer to a lineage of priests, but rather to the kind of priest. It must again be stressed that Jesus' priesthood is His uniquely and that no one can claim to hold what is His by right as the one great High Priest, the one Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). Therefore, the LDS Church's claim to hold this priesthood is without Biblical basis or historical basis,(19) and far more importantly, it strikes at the very core of the work and office of the Lord Jesus Christ. We do not pretend that these few points cover all there is to say on this subject--such a discussion would not be practical in this small space. We do feel, however, that the above information makes it very clear that the Mormon view of "authority" is separate from, and contradicted by, the Word of God. An Important Decision Given the Bible's teaching about the "priesthood" as claimed by the LDS Church, the individual Mormon is left with a decision to make--will he follow the teachings of his church, or the teachings of Jesus Christ and his apostles as contained in the Bible?In [sic] making this decision, it is important for the Mormon to realize that the real Jesus Christ is vastly superior to the concept he or she has been taught.He [sic] is not simply one of the many offspring of a god who was once a man--He is the one true God of creation, who holds all things together by His power (Col. 1:15-17). His priesthood is far above anything that we humans can imagine, and His work cannot be imitated by men who claim religious "authority." He does not dispense His power and authority through man-made channels, but rather He gives His real authority to each and every person who comes to Him by faith.(20) There is no separate "class" of believers to whom some special priesthood is given--all the believers in the true Jesus Christ are "kings and priests unto God"--not priests that stand before God for others as in the Old Testament--but priests unto God in that they have direct access to God through the Lord Jesus Christ. This kind of authority is not "passed on" through religious ceremony, but is given by the Sovereign Holy Spirit at the time of conversion. At the present time you may reject what we have said.Our [sic] plea to you would be that you would remember these words, for someday, when you need a true foundation--a solid basis in real truth, you will need to deal with what we have said. When you desire a full and vital personal relationship with the living God rather than the dry husks of formal religion, remember His truth as presented in His Word, the Bible.He [sic] offers you full salvation. Remember that Jesus is "able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them." *There was only one high Priest at a time under the law, and only one High Priest today, Jesus Christ. Heb. 7:24-8:6 Notes 1.Mormon
Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie page 670, The Seer by Orson Pratt, pg. 255. 2.Mormon
Doctrine, pp. 136-137, D&C 107. 3.D&C
27:8, 12.However, these verses were added to the original revelation (by Joseph
Smith).Over [sic] 400 words have been added to or deleted from this "revelation" since
it was originally given. 4.Exodus
29, Leviticus 8. 5.Leviticus
chapters 4 through 10. 6.Numbers
16:40, 18:7. 7.Exodus
28:1, 29:9, 44, 40:15, Numbers 18:1-7, Nehemiah 7:61-65. 8.Much could be said concerning the fact that
there was only one high priest, not the many which can be found in
Mormonism.Indeed, [sic] according to the book of Hebrews, we have today but one high priest, the Lord Jesus
Christ.Anyone [sic] claiming to be a "high priest" is usurping Jesus' position
(Hebrews 7:26-28) 9.Leviticus
16, Hebrews 9:7. 10.Hebrews 7:12 says that there has been a
"change" in the Aaronic priesthood.The [sic] Greek term indicates that the Aaronic
priesthood has been completed.As [sic] Dr. A.T. Robertson said in reference to this verse,
"God's choice of another kind of priesthood for His Son, left the Levitical line off
to one side, forever discontinued, passed by "the order of Aaron." 11.Hebrews 9:10-28.We also must ask why Joseph
Smith taught that during the millenial [sic] kingdom the Old Testament animal sacrifices would
be reinstituted (see DHC 4:211, Mormon Doctrine p. 666)? Doesn't such a teaching,
along with the LDS doctrine of blood atonement show how little is known of the Biblical
doctrine of the atonement of Christ within Mormonism? Also, should someone feel that John 15:16
refers to the "ordination" of the apostles and the granting to them of some
special "authority," we would like to point out that the word translated
"ordained" in 15:16 is simply a synonym for "chosen" that is
translated in modern versions as "appointed."It [sic] has no reference whatsoever to
the idea of a special religious "ordination" of priests. 12.Mormon
Doctrine p. 476. 13.Jesus
being the eternal God--of course, since Mormonism believes God is a man and Jesus one of
his many offspring, they would misunderstand the point made here.See [sic] our many other tracts
for the Bible's teaching concerning God and the eternal fact that He is not a man. 14.There were no "Melchizedek"
priests between Genesis 14 and the coming of the Lord Jesus--Melchizedek did not
"give" the priesthood to Jesus (or anyone else for that matter)--it was Jesus'
by right. 15.See, for example, Strong's Concordance
("not passing away, intransferable, unchangeable"), J.H. Thayer's Lexicon
("unchangeable, and therefore not liable to pass to a successor") the Zondervan
Interlinear ("intransmissible") The Expositor's Greek Testament
("...that the new priest is sole and perpetual occupant of the office, giving place
to no successor") and Dr. A.T. Robertson ("God placed Christ in this priesthood
and no one else can step into it"). 16.This
can be seen in the fact that the Mormon Church "passes on" its idea of the
Melchizedek priesthood by the laying on of hands, etc. 17.The
rendering of J.C. Ward as suggested by Dr. Leon Morris. 18.Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. edited by Arndt,
Gingrich, and Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979) pp. 803-804. See also
W.E. Vine's Expositor's Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan New
Jersy:
Revell Company, 1966) p. 145. 19.There
is really no historical basis for the supposed "restoration" of the priesthood,
as mentioned briefly above. The sections in the Doctrine and Covenants (specifically
Section 27) have been edited to make it look as though this
teaching was a part of Mormon theology from the beginning when this is not so."An
[sic] Address to All Believers in Christ" pages 56 and following. The evidence for a visit
in June of 1829 of Peter, James and John is slim to none. 20.As
the Bible says, "But as many as received him, to them gave he power (Gr: eksousia,
meaning power, authority) to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his
name." (John 1:12). Note that we become children of God--not that we have always been
the children of God. Returning to Dr. Hamblin’s response, we read: “Why, if Christ has removed all need for human priesthood authority, did Christ order the lepers he healed to go to the Jewish priests for purification (Mk 1:44, Lk 17:14)?” Answer: Because this took place prior to the institution of the New Covenant, along with the sacrificial death of Christ wherein the Old Covenant concept of the priesthood, sacrifices, etc., was fulfilled. Jesus did not destroy the law, nor did He dismiss the Jewish system of worship as it existed in His day.He [sic] fulfilled the requirements of the law as the perfectly obedient Son, and He did so in the place of all those who are “in Him” (i.e., the elect). Upon His death, when the veil in the Temple is torn from top to bottom, the Old Covenant, which was just a shadow of the things to come, passes away, and the New Covenant is put in force (Hebrews 8). Hence, after Calvary, the priesthood is found within the Christian Church, not the Jewish Temple. Hamblin continues: “Apparently Christ believed that his miraculous powers of healing did not negate or supercede the priesthood authority of the Jewish priests. I suppose White could argue that Christ had not yet ascended into heaven and replaced the Jewish High Priest. If so, why does Peter speak of a post ascension "holy priesthood" (1 Pet 2:5) and "royal priesthood" (1 Pet 2:9) among Christians?” It seems Dr. Hamblin has not taken the time to learn historic Christian doctrine regarding the priesthood. I only briefly note that if a Christian apologist were to present this kind of argument against Mormonism (an argument based upon ignorance of basic LDS teachings), Dr. Hamblin would speak at length about how the Christian apologist is unscholarly, unprepared, unfair, etc. It is obvious to any person who reads the cited passages that they are not about the Jewish priesthood. They refer to all Christians (male and female, high or low) who are a kingdom of priests. Look at the passages: 4 And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is
choice and precious in the sight of God, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy
priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For this is contained in Scripture: "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A
CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE
DISAPPOINTED." 7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who
disbelieve, "THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone," 8 and, "A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE"; for they stumble
because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also
appointed. 9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's
OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you
out of darkness into His marvelous light; The audience is not a group of Jewish priests, nor a group of LDS priesthood holders, but all Christians. There is no Aaronic/Melchizedek priesthood here, but a single priesthood of believers, completely distinct from the Jewish priesthood of the Old Covenant. If Dr. Hamblin would familiarize himself with historic Christian doctrine on the subject, he would know that Christians firmly believe that they all, due to their union with Christ Jesus, the one High priest, offer up sacrifices of praise to God (Hebrews 13:15). The ordination to this priesthood is regeneration: being born again, made a new creature in Christ. There are no endowments, secret handshakes, special garments or anything of the like: just the sovereign act of the Spirit of God in drawing the elect unto the Savior. To confuse the priesthood of believers with the Aaronic priesthood is to show a tremendously flawed understanding of both the text of the New Testament as well as Christian theology as a whole. Hamblin shows how far this goes with his further comments: “Likewise John in Revelations (sic) speaks of the saints as "priests to his [Christ's] God and Father" (1:6), and "priests to our God" (5:10); in the resurrection there "shall be priests of God and of Christ" (20:6). What odd statements for an infallible book to make if White's understanding of priesthood is correct. Answer: Or, obviously, if Dr. Hamblin was familiar at all with the position he is attempting to critique, he would see he is completely missing the point (and the source he is borrowing from, noted below, does not support his viewpoint on the topic, either). The Old Covenant priesthood is fulfilled in Christ: the Aaronic priesthood passed away, and Christ alone is the sole Melchizedek priest, as we noted in the tract above. Hamblin continues: “Some of the earliest Christians also explicitly disagree with White's claims. The author of the Didache, (one of the earliest post-New Testament Christian documents, late first to early second century), states explicitly that "the prophets ... are your high priests" (13.1). Note the plural here: the prophets (profetais) are the Christians' high priests (archiereis). So, early post-New Testament Christians had prophets (a thing White believes Christians shouldn't have) who were high priests (a thing White believes Christians shouldn't have); and there were apparently simultaneously more than one high priest.” One should always check the context of patristic citations used by LDS apologists. Here is what we find in the Didache at this point: But every true prophet desiring to settle among you is worthy of his food. In like manner a true teacher is worthy, like the workman, of his food. Every firstfruit then of the produce of the wine-vat and of the threshing-floor, of thy oxen and of they sheep, thou shalt take and give as the firstfruits to the prophets; for they are your chief-priests. As those familiar with church history know, this refers to that primitive period where traveling prophets (see 2 and 3 John for examples of this) are in view. Again Dr. Hamblin shows his ignorance of historic Christian doctrine when he says that Christians should not have “prophets.” These men were preachers, not prophets like the LDS “Prophet” in Salt Lake City. The use of the term “chief-priest” is obviously made in reference to the giving of the first-fruits, which is drawn from the Old Testament parallel. Any serious reading of the Didache would inform the reader of the nature of these “priests” and “prophets.” Indeed, Dr. Hamblin neglected to quote the next section of the passage: “But if ye have not a prophet, give them to the poor.” Have not a prophet? Obviously, this refers to an itinerant preacher, not a “prophet” in the LDS sense. If Dr. Hamblin had wished to accurately represent the viewpoint of the Didache, why not quote section 15, which begins, “Appoint for yourselves therefore bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord…for they are your honourable men along with the prophets and teachers.” But, such a citation, giving so much context, would not suit Dr. Hamblin’s purpose. That is clear from the closing comments he offered: “(See also 1 Clement 40-44; the article in Ferguson's Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, pp. 754-5 provides references to other second and early third century Christian sources mentioning Christian priests.)” I would invite everyone to read the referenced sections of both sources: I think just having the entire context is refutation enough. Keep in mind that the letter of Clement is written by the Church at Rome (not by a single bishop) to the Church at Corinth because the Corinthians had kicked out their elders (this forms the background of the section cited below).
Note what is said in the very first paragraph of entry on “Priesthood” in Ferguson’s Encyclopedia of Early Christianity:
The next paragraph likewise provided Dr. Hamblin with the vast majority of his citations (including the reference to Clement), yet it begins, “The New Testament does not employ the title “priest” for those who exercise special ministries, but Paul does use priestly language to describe his apostolic work of preaching.” In Conclusion I did not seek Dr. Hamblin’s comments on our little tract on temples. We made a simple point in our brief little tract: Mormon Temples are not Christian edifices. Christians do not seek to construct buildings in which to engage in secret ceremonies or endowments. His response has been very useful, however, in demonstrating that when Mormons attempt to build a biblical defense of their system, they inevitably do only one thing: confirm the fact that at the very root, Mormonism is completely inconsistent with the Christian faith. Ensuing correspondence: Letter One
Letter Two (The following is the contents of an e-mail Dr. Hamblin sent to James on 6 Dec 1999, as a result of James above correspondence.)
Letter Three
Letter Four (Dr. Hamblin's response to James' above e-mail.)
Letter Five
In a note posted to an e-mail group, a very educated linguist, upon reading the above response by James, was able to decipher James' comments and interpret them and decipher their intended meaning:
Additional Correspondence One (sent 8 Dec 1999)
See also, "Dr." James White, Temple
Made With Hands, and |
