A completely baseless assertion. At most you could say there were no Israelite priesthood at the time. But Jethro wasn't an Israelite, he was a Midianite, a descendent of Midian. Midian was the step-brother of Isaac, a son of Abraham by Keturah. Hebrews tells us the Levi payed respects to Melchizedek through Abraham "because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor" (Heb. 7:10), so the same applies to Midian: he and his descendents (including whatever priests came out of them) would be inferior to Melchizedec, because Abraham was inferior to him. If the argument of inferiority doesn't apply to Midian, neither would it apply to Levi.The Goose said:Jethro was a priest after the order of Melchizedek. That was the only order of priests there was at that time.
Furthermore, to whom did God make the promise - the one that Jesus fulfills - Melchizedec or Abraham? And which priesthood did God choose to consecrate this promise? Moses and the Levitical priesthood (Moses also belonged to the house of Levi) - "for on the basis of it the law was given to the people" (Heb. 7:11). And from the Levites, only Aaron and his descendants could minister at the altar and enter the Holy sanctuary as high priests (see below). This was ordained by God, and the Melchizedec priesthood (if it ever continued in office as you believe) was so irrelevant to this law and promise that it is never once mentioned. For his ordinances were not given with the purpose to provide people with a means to exercize authority or gain a place in heaven, but to expose sin and judge it: "The law was added so that the trespass might increase" (Romans 5:20) "...but where sin increased, grace increased all the more" until Christ came to fulfill the law and the deliver the promised grace, the coup de grâce.
Hebrews 7:28
For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.
For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.
Here's an analogy from the Bible. Some of the Levites, under Korah, rose up against Moses and Aaron, saying "You have gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the LORD is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the LORD's assembly?". They wanted to have the same priesthood authority as Aaron, so Moses replied:The lesser aaronic priesthood hadn't yet been set up, so he was a high priest. Priesthood isn't passed down by who had the most in comman with the guy it was named after. That would be rediculous. Just because Jethro wasn't a king, just because the Bible tells more about his histroy than that of Melchizedek, does not mean that he was not a priest of the most high God, or a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Melchizedek had a father and had a mother, and probably had a wife and kids, too. It just isn't talked about. Where it says that he had no father and mother in Heb 7:3, that's a confusing translation. It doesn't mean the Melchizedek had to family. It is the order that has no father, mother, geneology (meaning it's not passed down through geneologies like the aaronic priesthood) beggninning or end. And when it says "he remains a priest forever" the "he" is anybody who holds the priesthood, because those who are ordained into the priesthood get to be a part of something the Jesus was a part of, and get to have that priesthood forever.
Numbers 16:9-10 "Now listen, you Levites! Isn't it enough for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the rest of the Israelite community and brought you near himself to do the work at the LORD's tabernacle and to stand before the community and minister to them? He has brought you and all your fellow Levites near himself, but now you are trying to get the priesthood too.
Moses told these men to make an offering to God along with Aaron, to see if God would accept their offerings. But He didn't and a fire consumed all of them, so that only the censers were left.Num 16:29-40 So Eleazar the priest collected the bronze censers brought by those who had been burned up, and he had them hammered out to overlay the altar, as the LORD directed him through Moses. This was to remind the Israelites that no one except a descendant of Aaron should come to burn incense before the LORD, or he would become like Korah and his followers.
Now, if I'm not mistaken, most Mormons consider themselves to be of the tribe of Ephraim and Manassah, not descendants of Levi (not to mention Aaron) at all. Since no member of Israel can claim any authority greater than Abraham (John 8:53), such priests cannot even keep the law required of Israel, and then what authority do they have to minister the grace of Christ which superceded it? "For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law" (Heb. 7:12). Was the law only changed for the Jews? No, because through Christ, God also grafts gentiles into Israel (not out of it into a world of gentile laws and priesthoods; Melchizedec had no Jewish genealogy: he was a gentile), and it is faith in Him - not laws - that marks us as His children (Rom. 10:6-13). Only Christ merges the two priesthoods, and fulfils them completely. Which Mormon priest claims to save anyone completely because of their Melchizedec authority? Yet this is the claim that is made for Christ: "but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them". Tell me, Marlin, do Mormons save? Because if they cannot even save, how do they presume to exalt? If Joseph Smith ever was a ordained to be a high priest, he was an non-Aaronic anomaly, and his office ended with his death (like the first Melchizedek's office must have if he was mortal, since he could not transfer it). And that's an office not even Jesus held on earth ("If [Jesus] were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law" 8:4)
The Bible teaches only Christ is "exalted" (Philippians 2:9), and that "law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers" (1 Tim. 1:9). We already know clearly enough by the commandments that we are lawbreakers, and nobody are worse sinners because they fail to meet Mormon requirements. Even if we were - Christ died for those sins as well, and his grace and authority extends as far beyond Mormon priests as Melchizedec's office extended past mortal priesthoods. "Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant" (Heb. 7:22) not "Jesus has delegated the guarantee of a better covenant".
What's this new covenant? Does it consists of new rituals and legalistic requirement by which men may find fault with each other? No, "They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings — external regulations applying until the time of the new order" and "by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Rom. 3:20). God made that covenant obsolete , and said: "I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts" (the justification by faith that Paul speaks about in Rom. 10), "And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." That is the sign of the Lamb (Ex. 3:16; Rev. 22:4), who writes our names into the Book of Life. Read Rev. 20:15 - if you're life is still going to be judged by what you have done according to a law or an ordinance, you're in great trouble.
Last edited: