Everlasting Priesthood

[Guest intra]

can someone explain to me how this scripture is reconciled in LDS teaching with the continuing ordination of human high priests? 

Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood.
(Hebrews 7:23-24)

isn't Jesus still high priest (according to the order of Melchizedek)? i mean, if His priesthood is eternal, how is it we talk about this priesthood being "restored"? how could it have been lost? 

thank you for your kind replies. i'm looking after understanding, not arguments. sorry if this isn't the appropriate place to ask. i'm not yet familiar enough with the Book of Mormon or D&C to understand this on my own. 
 

[The Folk Prophet]

Doesn't seem that complicated to me. God (Jesus) is God. Of course He still has His own power and authority. That doesn't preclude the reality of that power and authority having been lost from the earth.

[Blackmarch]

can someone explain to me how this scripture is reconciled in LDS teaching with the continuing ordination of human high priests? 

Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood.

(Hebrews 7:23-24)

isn't Jesus still high priest (according to the order of Melchizedek)? i mean, if His priesthood is eternal, how is it we talk about this priesthood being "restored"? how could it have been lost? 

thank you for your kind replies. i'm looking after understanding, not arguments. sorry if this isn't the appropriate place to ask. i'm not yet familiar enough with the Book of Mormon or D&C to understand this on my own. 

 

It wasn't Christ who lost his Priesthood, but the priesthood he bestowed to the earth was lost to man for a time (ie unattainable). So when people speak of  arestoration of the priesthood they are referring to the availablility for mortal men to recieve it.

this occured from death of holders, wickedness and from changing the ordinances. This was a slow process, but the best event that one can look to that started or help start the snowball effect was the death of all the apostles.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Blackmarch

[Traveler]

can someone explain to me how this scripture is reconciled in LDS teaching with the continuing ordination of human high priests? 

Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood.

(Hebrews 7:23-24)

isn't Jesus still high priest (according to the order of Melchizedek)? i mean, if His priesthood is eternal, how is it we talk about this priesthood being "restored"? how could it have been lost? 

thank you for your kind replies. i'm looking after understanding, not arguments. sorry if this isn't the appropriate place to ask. i'm not yet familiar enough with the Book of Mormon or D&C to understand this on my own. 

 

 

When Jesus died on the cross - his priesthood did not die and was resurrected or restored when Jesus was resurrected.  Also note that the Priesthood is the order of Melchizedek - who was also a high priest.  When Jesus left he took his personal priesthood with him but he ordained Apostles to carry on priesthood authority under his direction.  When the Apostles died - for a time priesthood authority was passed on by casting lots and ordaining replacement Apostles.  Paul was such a replacement.

 

The great apostasy ended the priesthood of Christ through apostles as appointed and commanded by Christ to govern his "kingdom".  The prophet Danial prophesied that the great kingdoms of man would end with the great kingdom of Iron that was the Roman empire - first divided into two legs and then into a divided 10 kingdoms (toes).  Then when that final kingdom (the Roman empire) was divided into 10 kingdoms that G-d would establish his kingdom with his priesthood authority again in a place known for its mountains.  From there the kingdom of G-d would go forth throughout the world to gather those that seek the kingdom of G-d.  Isaiah prophesied that this kingdom would be established in the "top of the mountains".  The ancient term "Utah" among the native Ute people means "top of the mountains". 

 

Thus the scriptures tells us that the kingdom of G-d will be established in the 1800's in Utah.  Is it not incredible and marvelous  how G-d fulfills his prophesies?

[Guest intra]

thanks for the replies :) 
 

Doesn't seem that complicated to me. God (Jesus) is God. Of course He still has His own power and authority. That doesn't preclude the reality of that power and authority having been lost from the earth.

but He remains high priest, and has offered one sacrifice that is sufficient for all sin (Himself) - at the true temple in heaven, superseding all earthly sacrifices, that are only a shadow of the perfect things. 

the way i understand this is that it is not that the priesthood itself is "lost" on earth, but completely unnecessary - the office being fulfilled totally by Christ. before He came and took up this mantle, there may have been need for an earthly priesthood to mediate between God and man, but no longer -- and if He is eternally living, His priesthood is never taken away, right? that seems to be the argument in the book of Hebrews. 

my hang-up on this is that, doesn't a high priest have to be removed before there is a change of priesthood? isn't there only one high priest? i understand that we are all made priests after Him, but it seems like ordaining another "high priest" is deposing the one true high priest that we already have, whose priesthood is forever. 

i guess my difficulty is a mismatch between the LDS and Judaic office of high priest - of which there is never more than one (although in 1st century AD Rome appointed thigh priests for political reasons while Jewish orthodoxy denied this and recognized only one, appointed for life). the LDS has many 'high priests' correct? but Israel had only one high priest at any time, appointed until death. 

i guess i am confused by the naming of things.
so how is what the Torah calls an "high priest" different from what the LDS calls an "high priest" ?
are they still subservient to our high priest in heaven? 
or is it that the singularity of the office is peculiar to the Aaronic priesthood? if that's so, how, and why? 

[The Folk Prophet]

i guess my difficulty is a mismatch between the LDS and Judaic office of high priest - of which there is never more than one ...  ...the LDS has many 'high priests' correct? but Israel had only one high priest at any time, appointed until death. 

 

So...why is it a requirement in your mind that LDS thinking align with Judaic?

[Vort]

"High priest" has various meanings. The lead priest in the Levitical order was called the "high" priest. Though he held the Levitical Priesthood, which is basically what we Latter-day Saints would call the Aaronic Priesthood, still he held the title of high priest because he was the one in charge. Similarly, in Christ's day, the main priest was referred to as the "high priest". In this sense, of course, Jesus is always the great and ultimate "high priest"; the Priesthood is his.

 

But we distinguish between two great orders of Priesthood: the lesser Priesthood, which we call Aaronic; and the greater or "higher" Priesthood, which we call Melchizedek. Generically, one who holds either Priesthood is called a "priest". In this sense, a "high priest" is one who holds the higher (or Melchizedek) Priesthood. See, for example, Alma 13:1-9.

 

The term "high priest" is also used as the name of a specific office in the Melchizedek Priesthood, one of five defined offices: elder, high priest, patriarch, seventy, and apostle.

 

So there are many "high priests" in the sense of "someone who holds the higher Priesthood" who are not "high priests" in the sense of "someone ordained to the office of high priest". And when we say that Jesus is the great high priest, we mean neither of those, because the Priesthood and its authority come from Jesus. When we follow back our Priesthood line of authority (assuming we actually have a valid line of authority), it must necessarily end with Jesus.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Vort

[Guest intra]

When Jesus left he took his personal priesthood with him but he ordained Apostles to carry on priesthood authority under his direction.  When the Apostles died - for a time priesthood authority was passed on by casting lots and ordaining replacement Apostles.  Paul was such a replacement.

true, Christ confers priesthood on His disciples, but not just the apostles, in fact every single one of them - this is the understanding Peter communicates (1 Peter 2:5-9), right?

-- but "priesthood" itself and the specific office of "high priest" are different things, yes? 

i understand that there is hierarchy in priesthood, but are Jesus & a quorum of high priests both on exactly the same authoritative level? 

the writer of Hebrews speaks of Him as our only high priest, forever. can you show me how any of the apostles ever spoke of themselves as "high priest" ? 

again i think my confusion may be stemming from an entirely different terminology used between Judeo-Christian structure and Latter-Day Saints hierarchy. when a Jew talks about an "high priest" is the meaning the same as when a Mormon talks about an "high priest" ? or is the more like the modern 'apostolic' evangelical movement, under a different name? 

thanks again; i know this is probably a 'sticky' subject and i hope not to offend anyone. 

 

[Guest intra]

So...why is it a requirement in your mind that LDS thinking align with Judaic?

God does not change. 

[The Folk Prophet]

God does not change. 

 

Are you an orthodox Jew then?

[Guest intra]

"High priest" has various meanings. The lead priest in the Levitical order was called the "high" priest. Though he held the Levitical Priesthood, which is basically what we Latter-day Saints would call the Aaronic Priesthood, still he held the title of high priest because he was the one in charge. Similarly, in Christ's day, the main priest was referred to as the "high priest". In this sense, of course, Jesus is always the great and ultimate "high priest"; the Priesthood is his.

 

But we distinguish between two great orders of Priesthood: the lesser Priesthood, which we call Aaronic; and the greater or "higher" Priesthood, which we call Melchizedek. Generically, one who holds either Priesthood is called a "priest". In this sense, a "high priest" is one who holds the higher (or Melchizedek) Priesthood. See, for example, Alma 13:1-9.

 

The term "high priest" is also used as the name of a specific office in the Melchizedek Priesthood, one of five defined offices: elder, high priest, patriarch, seventy, and apostle.

 

So there are many "high priests" in the sense of "someone who holds the higher Priesthood" who are not "high priests" in the sense of "someone ordained to the office of high priest". And when we say that Jesus is the great high priest, we mean neither of those, because the Priesthood and its authority come from Jesus. When we follow back our Priesthood line of authority (assuming we actually have a valid line of authority), it must necessarily end with Jesus.

thank you Vort, that makes a lot more sense than it would as though Christ were in some way "replaced" 

[Guest intra]

Are you an orthodox Jew then?

spiritually & inwardly, not carnally & outwardly. 

 

[faith4]

"High priest" has various meanings. The lead priest in the Levitical order was called the "high" priest. Though he held the Levitical Priesthood, which is basically what we Latter-day Saints would call the Aaronic Priesthood, still he held the title of high priest because he was the one in charge. Similarly, in Christ's day, the main priest was referred to as the "high priest". In this sense, of course, Jesus is always the great and ultimate "high priest"; the Priesthood is his.

 

 

In the OT, the High Priest did not have various meanings, it referred to one person, who was a descendant of Aaron.  After the Babylonian captivity, the office of High Priest was used as a political pawn and did not stay with his descendants, but remained within the Levite tribe.  The Hebrew word for "priest" is kohen, which means one who offers sacrifice, and that was the job of the priests.  Only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies, once a year on the Day of Atonement, to atone for the sins of all Israel for the year.    

When Christ was crucified, the cross became the altar on which he offered Himself as the perfect sacrifice.  At the moment of His death, the veil in the Temple was torn in half from top to bottom signifying that the High Priesthood of Christ fulfills and surpasses the High Priesthood of the Old Covenant.  He is the High Priest of the New Covenant, instituted at the Last Supper, and stands at the right hand of the Father interceding on our behalf until He comes as the Just Judge, and puts the last enemey (death) under his feet.   

Jesus' Priesthood is in the order of Melchizedek b/c He is both King and Priest.  King by being a descendant of David, and Priest by His sacrificial offering of Himself to the Father.  Jesus was never a priest in the earthly Temple of Jerusalem, He was not of the Levite tribe, but of Judah (David).  We get the name Melchizedek from a mysterious figure in the OT who helps Abraham.  We know he was both king and priest (Gen 14:18), and as priest, he offered a sacrificial offering of bread and wine, not an animal sacrifice.  Melchizedek forshadows the priesthood of Christ, and Psalm 110 promises that the one to come will be both king and priest in the manner of Melchizedek. 

[Vort]

In the OT, the High Priest did not have various meanings, it referred to one person, who was a descendant of Aaron. 

 

Much of what you write is true. But it is irrelevant what the Hebrew term for "high priest" might have meant at the time. Or to be more precise, it's relevant but not conclusive. "High priest" has other meanings today, which is the point.

 

Note that Melchizedek was indeed called kohen, and in fact is (chronologically speaking) the first person to hold that title. The book of Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that the Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, the selfsame Priesthood held by Jesus, supersedes that given to Levi and Aaron.

[Blackmarch]

thanks for the replies :) 

 

but He remains high priest, and has offered one sacrifice that is sufficient for all sin (Himself) - at the true temple in heaven, superseding all earthly sacrifices, that are only a shadow of the perfect things. 

the way i understand this is that it is not that the priesthood itself is "lost" on earth, but completely unnecessary - the office being fulfilled totally by Christ. before He came and took up this mantle, there may have been need for an earthly priesthood to mediate between God and man, but no longer -- and if He is eternally living, His priesthood is never taken away, right? that seems to be the argument in the book of Hebrews. 

my hang-up on this is that, doesn't a high priest have to be removed before there is a change of priesthood? isn't there only one high priest? i understand that we are all made priests after Him, but it seems like ordaining another "high priest" is deposing the one true high priest that we already have, whose priesthood is forever. 

i guess my difficulty is a mismatch between the LDS and Judaic office of high priest - of which there is never more than one (although in 1st century AD Rome appointed thigh priests for political reasons while Jewish orthodoxy denied this and recognized only one, appointed for life). the LDS has many 'high priests' correct? but Israel had only one high priest at any time, appointed until death. 

i guess i am confused by the naming of things.

so how is what the Torah calls an "high priest" different from what the LDS calls an "high priest" ?

are they still subservient to our high priest in heaven? 

or is it that the singularity of the office is peculiar to the Aaronic priesthood? if that's so, how, and why? 

God does things on his own time. in the last days he will accelerate things. at one time he may have only required one, at another, many.

and yes they are all subservient to the Priest of Priests, the Prophet of Prophets, the King of Kings.

[faith4]

Much of what you write is true. But it is irrelevant what the Hebrew term for "high priest" might have meant at the time. Or to be more precise, it's relevant but not conclusive. "High priest" has other meanings today, which is the point.

 

Note that Melchizedek was indeed called kohen, and in fact is (chronologically speaking) the first person to hold that title. The book of Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that the Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, the selfsame Priesthood held by Jesus, supersedes that given to Levi and Aaron.

 

Yes, the Melchizedek Priesthood does supersede the Levitical priesthood because Jesus was (and is) both King and Priest :) .  In His time, a Jewish man could not be both King and Priest, the tribes for both of them were separated, yet Jesus brought them together in His Person, as Psalm 110:4 promises (Heb. 7-8). 

 

 And the information of High Priest is very relevant and conclusive.  The High Priest was set apart, specially consecrated for his duties in the Temple.  He was the only one who could enter the Holy of Holies and look upon the ark of the covenant while making atonement for Israel.  Where is Jesus now?  He stands before God the Father in heaven, the original Holy of Holies, not made by human hands.  What was in the Temple in Jerusalem was merely a shadow of something far greater.  Jesus is our High Priest who stands before the throne of God, offering Himself as atonement for ALL our sins.   

 

"But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come to be, passing

through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not belonging

to this creation, he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and

calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption" Heb 9:11-12

 

"For Christ did not enter into a sanctuary made by hands, a copy of the true one, but heaven

itself, that he might now appear before God on our behalf" Heb 9:24

 

  Idk, He is the High Priest of the New Covenant, always offering Himself.  But I guess in your church the term doesn't have the same meaning, so maybe this info is irrelevant. 

[Vort]

Yes, the Melchizedek Priesthood does supersede the Levitical priesthood because Jesus was (and is) both King and Priest :) .  In His time, a Jewish man could not be both King and Priest, the tribes for both of them were separated, yet Jesus brought them together in His Person, as Psalm 110:4 promises (Heb. 7-8). 

 

 And the information of High Priest is very relevant and conclusive.  The High Priest was set apart, specially consecrated for his duties in the Temple.  He was the only one who could enter the Holy of Holies and look upon the ark of the covenant while making atonement for Israel.  Where is Jesus now?  He stands before God the Father in heaven, the original Holy of Holies, not made by human hands.  What was in the Temple in Jerusalem was merely a shadow of something far greater.  Jesus is our High Priest who stands before the throne of God, offering Himself as atonement for ALL our sins.   

 

"But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come to be, passing

through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not belonging

to this creation, he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and

calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption" Heb 9:11-12

 

"For Christ did not enter into a sanctuary made by hands, a copy of the true one, but heaven

itself, that he might now appear before God on our behalf" Heb 9:24

 

  Idk, He is the High Priest of the New Covenant, always offering Himself.  But I guess in your church the term doesn't have the same meaning, so maybe this info is irrelevant. 

 

Actually, faith4, as far as I understand things, I agree with all you've written, and I appreciate the concise summary. My point in my "irrelevant" (i.e. inconclusive) comment was regarding the OP's question:

 

can someone explain to me how this scripture is reconciled in LDS teaching with the continuing ordination of human high priests? 

Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 

but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood.

(Hebrews 7:23-24)

 

 

Your highly informative answer nevertheless did not address the actual question, which was my point. No criticism of your posts was intended.

[Guest intra]

  Where is Jesus now?  He stands before God the Father in heaven, the original Holy of Holies, not made by human hands.  What was in the Temple in Jerusalem was merely a shadow of something far greater.  Jesus is our High Priest who stands before the throne of God, offering Himself as atonement for ALL our sins.   

a minor point, but such an important one -- He is not perpetually offering Himself on the altar, standing before God - but this He did once, perfectly and sufficiently for all time, and is now enthroned at the right hand of the Father: 

But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

(Hebrews 10:12-14)

with this we know that the work of the cross is complete, finished, and atonement being made perfect, there is no more condemnation for those who are in Him, and there is no more sacrifice that can be made for any who having received Him, turn and reject Him -- the office of 'high priest' (with the meaning of the one who makes atonement at the mercy seat) is fulfilled for all time by one perfect act.

in Him we are being made holy (as we experience things for now only in part), and are (justified and sanctified) made perfect in the sight of the Father, who knowing all things from everlasting to everlasting, sees all things in their fullness.

how great this undeserved gift!!! how perfect His work!! 

[faith4]

Actually, faith4, as far as I understand things, I agree with all you've written, and I appreciate the concise summary. My point in my "irrelevant" (i.e. inconclusive) comment was regarding the OP's question:

 

 

Your highly informative answer nevertheless did not address the actual question, which was my point. No criticism of your posts was intended.

 

No worries, I wasn't trying to answer the OP, I was just clarifying your post :)

[faith4]

a minor point, but such an important one -- He is not perpetually offering Himself on the altar, standing before God - but this He did once, perfectly and sufficiently for all time, and is now enthroned at the right hand of the Father: 

But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

(Hebrews 10:12-14)

with this we know that the work of the cross is complete, finished, and atonement being made perfect, there is no more condemnation for those who are in Him, and there is no more sacrifice that can be made for any who having received Him, turn and reject Him -- the office of 'high priest' (with the meaning of the one who makes atonement at the mercy seat) is fulfilled for all time by one perfect act.

in Him we are being made holy (as we experience things for now only in part), and are (justified and sanctified) made perfect in the sight of the Father, who knowing all things from everlasting to everlasting, sees all things in their fullness.

how great this undeserved gift!!! how perfect His work!! 

 

I couldn't agree more!!

[Traveler]

true, Christ confers priesthood on His disciples, but not just the apostles, in fact every single one of them - this is the understanding Peter communicates (1 Peter 2:5-9), right?

 

 

Not right - Paul was ordained under the direction of Apostles acting as the proxy for Christ - Jesus only ordained Apostles - he personally trained them it is was his Apostles that were present at the "last supper" - not every single one of the disciples were invited.  We also have records that when an apostle died that the remaining Apostles and only Apostles (not every single one of the disciples) cast lots to select another apostle.  When Paul spoke of a "royal priesthood" - that was an explicit reference to a kingdom - A specific kingdom organized and operating as Jesus left it to be run and organized - the great apostasy changed that organization and did away with apostles and likewise the priesthood Jesus gave his apostles as well as the right to preside at gatherings of congregations. 

 

 

-- but "priesthood" itself and the specific office of "high priest" are different things, yes? 

i understand that there is hierarchy in priesthood, but are Jesus & a quorum of high priests both on exactly the same authoritative level? 

 

 

 

What do you mean by different things???  A high priest is appointed to preside over gatherings of other priesthood members when they meet.  The reason Paul wrote letters (epistles) was because he was acting as the presiding high priest over those to whom we wrote to.  But he was not the only one presiding - some of the other Apostles acting as high priests also gave presiding lessons to congregations. 

 

 

the writer of Hebrews speaks of Him as our only high priest, forever. can you show me how any of the apostles ever spoke of themselves as "high priest" ? 

 

 

Jesus also tells us that he was presided over by "The Father"

 

 

again i think my confusion may be stemming from an entirely different terminology used between Judeo-Christian structure and Latter-Day Saints hierarchy. when a Jew talks about an "high priest" is the meaning the same as when a Mormon talks about an "high priest" ? or is the more like the modern 'apostolic' evangelical movement, under a different name? 

thanks again; i know this is probably a 'sticky' subject and i hope not to offend anyone.

 

Your confusion is because you do not understand the covenant established through a kingdom.  Not living under a Supreme Suzerain and not understanding how servant vassal law was anciently established - you are making assumptions of ancient terms in scripture based on modern social political constructs - which I do not think apply the way you think they do.  The relationship of a servant vassal to a Supreme Suzerain was also lost in the great apostasy in order to men to assume control of the kingdom that rightfully belongs to Jesus.  Thus he is the presiding authority.  The question is - in his absents who has right to act as his proxy and preside over congregations of his disciples?  If you read the scriptures of the New Testament - you will discover that Jesus appointed his Apostles and his apostles acted as presiding authority over all the true disciples of Christ.

 

What Jesus appointed as recorded in scripture was changed - you have every right to align yourself with those changes - by what ever reason you want.  I have chosen to reject such changes as apostasy.  I believe the the prophesies that in the last days that there will be a "restoration"

[Guest intra]

sorry this will be a long post to read . .
according to my understanding, the gift of God, because apart from Him i have nothing but confusion, but ask understanding of Him in faith, and do receive according to His mercy on me. 

 

Not right - Paul was ordained under the direction of Apostles acting as the proxy for Christ - Jesus only ordained Apostles - he personally trained them it is was his Apostles that were present at the "last supper" - not every single one of the disciples were invited.  We also have records that when an apostle died that the remaining Apostles and only Apostles (not every single one of the disciples) cast lots to select another apostle.  When Paul spoke of a "royal priesthood" - that was an explicit reference to a kingdom - A specific kingdom organized and operating as Jesus left it to be run and organized - the great apostasy changed that organization and did away with apostles and likewise the priesthood Jesus gave his apostles as well as the right to preside at gatherings of congregations. 

Paul was ordained by Christ Himself, not by men (see Acts ch.9), as he avers: 

Paul, an apostle -- sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead..
(Galatians 1:1 -- see also Romans 1:1, 1 Cor. 1:1, 2 Cor. 1:1, Ephesians 1:1, etc) 

it is Peter, not Paul, who says this:

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
(1 Peter 2:9) 

and he is writing not to apostles, but "God's elect" who are "chosen" according to the Father, sanctified by the Spirit and justified with Jesus' blood:
 

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,

To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood

(1 Peter 1:1) 
 
this apostle calls believers an "holy nation" and a "chosen people" -- and doesn't imply an hierarchy. in fact, Christ set hierarchy among His disciples firmly on it's head: 

Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave — just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
(Matthew 20:25-28) 

similarly John, writing "to the seven churches in Asia" (not to apostles) says: 

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father — to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.
(Revelation 1:5-6)

this fulfills the promise God spoke to the Israelites: 

 Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.
(Exodus 19:5-6) 

it is not disputed that the veil which separated the holy of holies was torn in two (Matthew 27:51) at the time that Jesus made the final and perfect atonement. when He did this, He became both the sacrifice and the high priest, in full accordance with Yon Kippur (Leviticus ch.16) -- the only time that the high priest of Israel entered into that sanctum. now the meaning of the veil being removed is that the mercy seat of the Father is no longer behind a barrier - it is available to all men.

Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are — yet he did not sin. Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.
(Hebrews 4:14-16) 

notice that the writer to the Hebrews confesses that Christ has ascended to the heavens - but still calls Him our high priest. to me, this is strong evidence that the duties of His office remain in Him even though He is bodily removed from the earth. no other "mediator" is appointed in scripture to replace Him: 

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men,

the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
(1 Timothy 2:5-6)

he also says we may approach the "throne of grace" -- the mercy seat, which is above the ark in the holy of holies (Exodus 25:17-22). this is testified by two witnesses: the torn veil, and Jesus Christ, both our propitiation and propitiatior (Romans 3:24-26), who says there is no other way to the Father but through Him. 



with Israel, according to the law given to Moses, there was only one "high priest" -- only one authorized to make this atonement. throughout the Torah and the Talmud, there is no indication ever of there being more than one "high priest" -- he is spoken of always as "the" high priest, never "an" high priest. Israel however had many "priests" - chosen always from the tribe that the Lord set apart. it is the specific duty of the high priest to sprinkle blood on the mercy seat on the day of atonement; to mediate between the people and God. no one else was ever allowed to pass through the veil. if God is the God of Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, Moses and David, and God does not change - do His ways and His promises change?

the priesthood under the Mosaic law was from the tribe of Levi, and no other - Levi was set apart by God for this purpose (Deuteronomy 10:8). this is now how we as believers are - chosen and set apart to enter into His kingdom, to serve and worship Him. these things are the primary responsibilities of priesthood: to serve God and to worship Him. in many place the scripture says those who believe in Christ are sanctified by the Spirit -- to be sanctified is to be set apart for holy use; this is the language of temple service, as of Israel before Mt. Sinai, when they were to stand before God and enter into His covenant (Exodus 19:10). the apostles of Christ taught that all believers should serve God, that all believers should worship God, that all believers should minister to one another, that all believers should go boldly before the throne in prayer and supplication, that all believers should offer themselves as living sacrifices, and that all believers should abide in the presence of God. the only duty of a priest (according to the law of Moses) that is not conferred to every believer is to make atonement for sin -- because Christ has done this, and His priesthood is eternal. 


if all these things are true, why do i need an human, earthly priest? what remains? 

But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.
(1 John 2:27) 

Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.
(Acts 17:11-12) 


even now, He has given me the robe of a priest: 
 

I will clothe her priests with salvation,

and her faithful people will ever sing for joy.
(Psalm 132:16) 

[mordorbund]

Where does Jethro fit in all this discussion?

[Vort]

Where does Jethro fit in all this discussion?

 

Jethro fits in wherever he likes. That guy has a sixth-grade education.

 

[Crypto]

D&C 1:38

"38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."