The Priesthood of Christ
Versus the Priesthoods of Men
A Comparative Theological Analysis:
“Are Mormons Christian?” Series
Introduction
Few doctrinal matters so decisively distinguish the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from historic Christianity as the theology of priesthood and ecclesiastical authority. While many religious discussions focus on peripheral matters of practice or tradition, the question of priesthood strikes at the very heart of how fallen humanity relates to the holy God, how salvation is mediated, and whether the finished work of Christ on the cross stands as sufficient for all time or requires ongoing human supplementation. I have become convinced that the LDS understanding of priesthood represents not merely a difference of emphasis or interpretation, but a fundamental departure from the biblical witness that has been consistently affirmed by the Christian church across two millennia.
The importance of this examination cannot be overstated. The official teaching materials of the LDS Church present a priesthood theology that operates through two distinct orders—the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods—allegedly restored in the nineteenth century through angelic visitation. According to LDS teaching, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is governed by the priesthood. The priesthood, which is always associated with God’s work, ‘continueth in the church of God in all generations, and is without beginning of days or end of years.’” (Gospel Principles, Chapter 14, churchofjesuschrist.org). This claim places the LDS Church in direct tension with the historic Christian understanding articulated in the New Testament and defended throughout church history.
This article will demonstrate through careful exegesis of Scripture, engagement with LDS sources, and appeal to the testimony of the early Church Fathers, that the LDS priesthood system contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture concerning Christ’s unique and unrepeatable priesthood, and that orthodox Christianity’s doctrine of the priesthood of all believers represents the authentic biblical and apostolic faith.
The Latter-day Saint Theology of Two Priesthoods
The Aaronic (Lesser) Priesthood
The LDS Church maintains a hierarchical priesthood structure that begins with what they term the “Aaronic” or “lesser” priesthood. According to official LDS teaching materials, “The lesser priesthood is an appendage to the Melchizedek Priesthood. It is called the Aaronic Priesthood because it was conferred on Aaron and his sons throughout all their generations. Those who hold the Aaronic Priesthood have authority to administer the outward ordinances of the sacrament and baptism.” (Gospel Principles, Chapter 14).
LDS theology teaches that this priesthood was lost from the earth following the apostolic era and was restored on May 15, 1829, when John the Baptist allegedly appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery near Harmony, Pennsylvania. The LDS New Era magazine explains this restoration narrative: “Each of the divisions in the priesthood—Aaronic and Melchizedek—was restored separately through Joseph Smith, and we still have both of them today.” (Why Do We Have Two Priesthoods?, New Era, April 2014, churchofjesuschrist.org).
Within the LDS Church, the Aaronic Priesthood is conferred upon young men beginning at age twelve, with offices progressing from deacon to teacher to priest. At age eighteen, worthy young men may then receive the Melchizedek Priesthood and be ordained to the office of “elder,” which explains why those young men in white shirts and ties who may appear periodically at your door wear name tags bearing the title “Elder” despite their obvious youth. These missionaries, typically between eighteen and twenty-one years of age, hold what the LDS Church considers the higher priesthood and carry the formal title of their office as they conduct their two-year proselytizing missions. This entire system represents a dramatic departure from the biblical qualifications for both priesthoods. The Aaronic priesthood required Levitical descent—a lineage neither Joseph Smith nor any Gentile convert could possess. The Melchizedek priesthood, as we shall examine in detail, belongs according to Scripture exclusively to Christ Himself. Yet the LDS Church confers both of these titles upon young men based not on lineage or unique divine qualification, but on age, gender, and standing within the organization. The incongruity of teenagers bearing ancient priestly titles that Scripture either restricts to a specific bloodline or reserves for the eternal Son of God alone illustrates the fundamental disconnect between LDS priesthood theology and the biblical witness.
The Melchizedek (Higher) Priesthood
Above the Aaronic Priesthood in LDS theology stands the Melchizedek or “higher” priesthood. According to LDS Doctrine and Covenants 107:2-4, this priesthood was originally called “the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God,” but the name was changed to avoid frequent use of the divine name. The LDS teaching maintains that Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery sometime after John the Baptist’s visitation to confer this higher priesthood.
Gospel Principles states that “Those holding the Melchizedek Priesthood have the power and authority to lead the Church and direct the preaching of the gospel in all parts of the world. They administer all the spiritual work of the Church.” The offices within this priesthood include elder, high priest, patriarch, seventy, and apostle.
The FAIR LDS apologetics organization attempts to harmonize this teaching with Hebrews 7 by employing a metaphor: “The LDS would use a different metaphor to explain things: they might compare the Aaronic Priesthood to a glass of water that is filled only partway. Instead of being replaced by an entirely different drink, more water is poured into it until it is a full glass (the Melchizedek Priesthood).” (fairlatterdaysaints.org). This apologetic, however creative, cannot withstand careful biblical scrutiny, as we shall see.
The Claim of Exclusive Authority
Central to LDS priesthood theology is the claim of exclusive authority. Without proper priesthood ordination, LDS teaching asserts, no ordinances can be validly performed. As the Mormonism Research Ministry observes, “The authority of the priesthood is so important to the Mormon that without it, male members are not enabled ‘to act in God’s name for the salvation of the human family.’” (mrm.org/mormon-priesthood). This creates an ecclesiastical framework in which all non-LDS Christianity lacks divine authorization to perform baptisms, administer communion, or carry out any saving ordinances.
This is further discussed at MRM.org with an extensive examination of the Mormon priesthood in light of a sweeping array of Biblical references. “There Is No Biblical Authority for the Aaronic Priesthood Today.”
The Orthodox Christian Understanding of Priesthood
The Old Testament Priesthood as Shadow and Type
Orthodox Christianity has consistently understood the Levitical priesthood as a shadow pointing forward to its fulfillment in Christ. The entire sacrificial system—the tabernacle, the temple, the priests, the offerings—served pedagogical and typological purposes, preparing God’s people to recognize and receive the ultimate High Priest when He appeared.
The author of Hebrews makes this abundantly clear: “Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?” (Hebrews 7:11, ESV). The very existence of the Melchizedekian promise in Psalm 110 demonstrated that the Levitical system was never intended to be permanent or sufficient.
The limitations of the Aaronic priesthood were built into its very structure. The priests themselves were sinners who needed to offer sacrifices for their own transgressions before ministering on behalf of others. They served in an earthly sanctuary that was merely “a copy and shadow of the heavenly things” (Hebrews 8:5, ESV). Most significantly, they died—generation after generation, priest after priest passed from the scene, and the sacrifices had to be offered anew. As Hebrews 7:23-24 states: “The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever.”
It is further explained at Tabletalk Magazine: The Levitical Line and the Priestly Order
After the exile, the increasing corruption of the priesthood made it clear that something fundamental was wrong with the institution. The author of Hebrews gives the reader the right perspective. The priesthood of Aaron and his descendants and those who followed them in the postexilic period represented a temporary institution. It was never intended to last forever. “The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office” (Hebrews 7:231The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office,). The priestly office of the Old Testament lacked permanence because it was occupied by impermanent people. For an adequate sacrifice and an adequate officiant, someone permanent was needed. That role could not be fulfilled by a descendant of Aaron. Instead, the model became the priesthood of Melchizedek, representing an eternal priest. That Priest is Jesus Christ. He alone is “holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens” (v. 262For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.). Because of His sinlessness, He had no need to offer sacrifice for His own sins, and He Himself embodied the perfect sacrifice. He became both Priest and sacrifice. He is both Teacher and Shepherd. He fulfills what the Old Testament priests and Levites only pictured and promised.
Christ as the Fulfillment and Termination of the Levitical Order
The New Testament presents Christ not as one who perpetuates or restores the Levitical system, but as the One who fulfills and thereby terminates it. Hebrews 7:12 delivers a pivotal declaration: “For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.” This change is not merely administrative but covenantal—the entire Mosaic arrangement gives way to the New Covenant in Christ’s blood.
Ligonier Ministries captures this truth powerfully: “Forever—that is how long Christ will be our High Priest. We know His priesthood will endure because God has sworn by Himself an oath to that effect, and the Lord cannot and will not violate His vows. This proves the superiority of the Melchizedekian priestly order of Christ, for God made no oath to confirm the Levitical order, proving its temporary nature and ultimate inability to secure what it, and the Mosaic law, pictured—atonement and the perfection of God’s people.”
The superiority of Christ’s priesthood rests on several interconnected realities. First, Christ offered Himself, not bulls and goats, but His own sinless life as the sacrifice for sin. Second, He offered this sacrifice once for all, not repeatedly as the Levitical priests did. Third, He entered not an earthly copy but the true heavenly sanctuary. Fourth, He lives forever to make intercession for His people. Hebrews 7:25 declares: “Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.”
The Priesthood of All Believers
Perhaps no doctrine so clearly distinguishes Protestant Christianity from LDS theology as the priesthood of all believers. This teaching, recovered with particular clarity during the Reformation, affirms that all Christians—not a select class of ordained males—now have direct access to God through Christ and share in priestly ministry.
Gospel Coalition: The Priesthood of All Believers
In contrast to the beliefs of the medieval church, the Protestant doctrine of the priesthood of all believers holds that there is no longer a priestly class of people within God’s people, but that all believers share in Christ’s priestly status by virtue of their union with Christ. Although there was a select group of priests in the OT, who mediated the knowledge, presence, and forgiveness of God to the rest of Israel, Christ has come and fulfilled the priestly role through his life, death, and resurrection. Therefore, Christ was the final priestly mediator between God and his people, and Christians share in that role through him. This means that Christians are not dependent upon the priests within the church to interpret Scripture for them or affect God’s blessing of forgiveness for them; all Christians are equally priests through Christ and stand upon the same ground before the cross.
The Apostle Peter applies to the church language originally spoken to Israel at Sinai: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” (1 Peter 2:9, ESV). Similarly, Revelation 1:6 declares that Christ “made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father.”
Got Questions explains this doctrine clearly:
Most Protestants today recognize only Christ as a mediator between themselves and God (1 Timothy 2:53For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,). The Epistle to the Hebrews calls Jesus the supreme ‘high priest,’ who offered himself as a perfect sacrifice (Hebrews 7:23–28423 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, 24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. 25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. 26 For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. 27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. 28 For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.). Protestants believe that through Christ they have been given direct access to God, just like a priest; thus the doctrine is called the priesthood of all believers.
Martin Luther articulated this truth with characteristic boldness, writing that “this word priest should become as common as the word Christian” because all Christians are priests. As the Institute for Faith, Work and Economics observes, “When Luther referred to the priesthood of all believers, he was maintaining that the plowboy and the milkmaid could do priestly work. In fact, their plowing and milking was priestly work.”
Comparative Analysis: Critical Points of Divergence
The Nature of the Melchizedekian Priesthood
The most fundamental disagreement concerns who may hold the Melchizedek priesthood. Orthodox Christianity, following the clear teaching of Hebrews, maintains that this priesthood belongs uniquely and exclusively to Christ. The Institute for Religious Research summarizes this well: “There is no literal ‘order’ of Melchizedek in the Bible; the book of Hebrews uses the expression figuratively to refer to Melchizedek as a type or foreshadowing of Jesus Christ as the eternal, heavenly high priest.”
The qualifications for the Melchizedek priesthood, as described in Hebrews, are qualifications that only Christ can meet. Dennis McCallum of Dwell Community Church explains: “The office of the Melchizedek Priesthood is held by only one person. His name? Jesus Christ. Hebrews 7:21-24 says: ‘(For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.’”
Hebrews 7:24 describes Christ’s priesthood with the Greek word aparabatos, which the ESV renders as “permanent.” While some LDS apologists have argued this word means “unchangeable” rather than “untransferable,” the context makes clear that Christ holds this priesthood precisely because He alone meets its qualifications: He is without sin, He offered the perfect sacrifice, He rose from the dead, and He lives forever to intercede for His people. These are not qualifications that can be conferred by angelic visitation or ecclesiastical ordination.
The LDS apologetic argument concerning aparabatos in Hebrews 7:24, while impressively documented with lexical sources (see this article), commits a fundamental error by divorcing a single word from its controlling theological context. Even if we grant that aparabatos means “permanent” or “unchangeable” rather than “untransferable”—a point on which reasonable scholars differ—the argument entirely misses the forest for a single tree. The author of Hebrews is not merely commenting on the duration of Christ’s priesthood but on its exclusive qualifications. The immediately preceding verses establish that Jesus holds this priesthood “by the power of an indestructible life” (7:16), that He is “without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life” as typified by Melchizedek (7:3), and that God swore an oath to Him alone declaring “You are a priest forever” (7:21). These are not transferable credentials. No LDS elder possesses an indestructible life; none lacks genealogy; none has received a divine oath of eternal priesthood. The question is not whether the word aparabatos technically permits transfer, but whether the contextually-defined qualifications for this priesthood permit anyone other than Christ to hold it. They manifestly do not. Furthermore, Hebrews 7:27 declares that Christ “has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily”—yet LDS priesthood holders perform ordinances continually. The entire argument of Hebrews 7-10 is that Christ’s priesthood rendered the old system obsolete precisely because His once-for-all sacrifice needs no repetition and His intercession needs no successor. To claim participation in Christ’s Melchizedek priesthood while performing the very repetitive ordinances that His priesthood made unnecessary is to contradict not a single Greek word, but the entire soteriological architecture of the epistle.
The Question of Aaronic Priesthood Restoration
The LDS claim to have restored the Aaronic priesthood faces insurmountable biblical obstacles. First, the Aaronic priesthood was by divine design restricted to the male descendants of Aaron within the tribe of Levi. Numbers 3:10 makes clear: “And you shall appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall guard their priesthood. But if any outsider comes near, he shall be put to death.” (ESV). Joseph Smith was not a Levite, Oliver Cowdery was not a Levite, and no Gentile convert can claim Levitical descent.
Second, and more fundamentally, the New Testament explicitly declares that the Aaronic priesthood has been superseded. The Mormonism Research Ministry notes:
According to the author of Hebrews, the Aaronic Priesthood was inadequate to bring salvation to men and therefore was no longer necessary due to the great sacrifice of Christ. This is why New Testament Christians have never had to utilize the temple and sacrifice lambs and bulls.
Hebrews 7:18-19 delivers the decisive verdict: “For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.” (ESV). To “restore” what God has “set aside” is to work against the divine economy of redemption.
Historical Problems with the Restoration Narrative
Beyond the theological problems, significant historical difficulties attend the LDS priesthood restoration claims. The Institute for Religious Research observes:
Joseph Smith claimed that in 1829, the year before he founded the LDS Church, he received these priesthood orders from resurrected biblical figures; however, no one heard any such claim until about 1833 or 1834. References in Doctrine & Covenants to his receiving the priesthood were added years later to earlier ‘revelations’ that originally made no mention of the supposed event.
This retroactive insertion of priesthood claims into earlier documents raises serious questions about the authenticity of the restoration narrative and presents an extremely problematic challenge for LDS apologists to explain. When the LDS Church was organized on April 6, 1830, both Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were ordained simply as “elders”—with no mention whatsoever of Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood distinctions that would later become absolutely central to LDS ecclesiology. The founding document of the church, known as the “Articles and Covenants” (now Doctrine and Covenants Section 20), makes no reference to angelic ordinations, John the Baptist, or Peter, James, and John conferring priesthood authority. It speaks only of divine commandments delivered by angels in general terms.
If the dramatic visitations described in later accounts had actually occurred—if John the Baptist had appeared in radiant glory to confer the Aaronic Priesthood in May 1829, and if the chief apostles of Christ had subsequently appeared to confer the Melchizedek Priesthood—one would reasonably expect these extraordinary events to feature prominently in the church’s founding documents and earliest missionary preaching. Instead, there is a conspicuous silence. The detailed priesthood restoration narratives do not appear in print until 1834-1835, some five to six years after the events allegedly occurred, and key passages in the Doctrine and Covenants describing these visitations were added to previously existing revelations that originally contained no such claims. This pattern of retroactive elaboration—where the foundational claims of exclusive priesthood authority were inserted into the historical record years after the fact—stands in stark contrast to the New Testament, where the apostles immediately and consistently proclaimed the events they had witnessed from the very beginning of their ministry.
Implications for Faith and Practice
The Sufficiency of Christ’s Work
At stake in this debate is nothing less than the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning work. If human priesthood holders must mediate ordinances necessary for salvation, then Christ’s sacrifice was not sufficient in itself. The author of Hebrews anticipated this error: “But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” (Hebrews 10:12-14, ESV).
The phrase “he sat down” carries profound significance. Unlike the Levitical priests who stood continually to perform their never-finished duties, Christ sat down because His priestly work of atonement is complete. There remains nothing to add, nothing to supplement, no ongoing priestly activity needed to apply His finished work.
Direct Access to God
The LDS priesthood system interposes human mediators between believers and God, but the New Testament proclaims that the veil has been torn. Hebrews 4:16 invites every believer: “Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” (ESV). This access comes not through priesthood ordination but through faith in Christ.
As the Institute for Faith, Work, and Economics explains: “In the Old Testament, only the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies. Today, we have the privilege of direct access to God through Christ. We can come boldly unto the throne of grace. According to Ephesians, it is because of Christ that ‘we have boldness and confident access through faith in Him.” Every believer, by virtue of union with Christ, possesses this priestly privilege.
The Nature of Christian Ministry
Orthodox Christianity does recognize ordained offices within the church—pastors, elders, deacons—but these differ fundamentally from the LDS priesthood concept. Church officers in the New Testament are servants who teach, shepherd, and administer the church’s affairs; they are not mediators who dispense grace through exclusive priestly authority.
The Institute for Religious Research correctly notes: “Although priests were a major office in Israel under the Mosaic covenant, the New Testament never refers to any mortal as holding the office of priest in the Christian church. The apostle Peter referred to the Christian church as a whole—not to authorized individuals within the church—as ‘a royal priesthood.’” This corporate priesthood stands in sharp contrast to the LDS hierarchical model.
Conclusion: Can LDS Priesthood Theology Be Considered Christian?
The evidence examined in this article leads to a sobering but necessary conclusion: the LDS priesthood theology cannot be reconciled with historic Christianity as defined by Scripture and defended throughout church history. This is not a matter of denominational preference or ecclesiastical politics; it touches the very heart of the gospel.
The LDS system claims to restore what Scripture declares fulfilled and set aside. It claims for multiple men what Scripture reserves for Christ alone. It interposes human priests where Scripture proclaims direct access through faith. It adds ongoing ordinances where Scripture announces a finished work. In each of these areas, LDS theology moves in a direction opposite to the biblical witness.
The practical implications are significant. When LDS missionaries teach that only their priesthood can perform valid baptisms or provide valid temple ordinances necessary for exaltation, they are effectively declaring that the historic Christian church has been without saving ordinances for nearly two millennia. This claim cannot stand alongside the Lord’s promise in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church.
We do not offer this analysis to condemn LDS individuals, many of whom are sincere seekers after God. Rather, we write in the spirit of Paul, who proclaimed to the Galatians: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8, ESV). The apostle’s words carry particular force, given the LDS claim that angels delivered their priesthood.
The Christian gospel declares that Jesus Christ is our great High Priest, who by His once-for-all sacrifice has perfected forever those who are sanctified. He ever lives to intercede for us, and through Him alone we have confident access to the Father. No additional priesthood is needed; no supplementary ordinances must be performed. The work is finished, the veil is torn, and the way into the Holy Place stands open to all who come by faith in Christ.
May those who are seeking truth find in Christ alone the fulfillment of every priestly promise—the One who is “holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens” (Hebrews 7:26, ESV). In Him, and Him alone, we have all that we need for life and godliness.
Sources Consulted
Gospel Principles, Chapter 14: Priesthood Organization. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
“Why Do We Have Two Priesthoods?” New Era, April 2014.
FAIR Latter-day Saints. “Question: Why do Mormons use the Aaronic Priesthood?”
Johnson, Eric. “Is the Mormon Priesthood Really of Ancient Origin?” Mormonism Research Ministry.
Bowman, Robert M. Jr. “Priesthood in the New Testament and in Mormonism.” Institute for Religious Research.
Lindsley, Art. “Unpacking the Priesthood of All Believers.” Institute for Faith, Work & Economics.
“Priesthood of All Believers.” Wikipedia.
“Is the Priesthood of All Believers Biblical?” Got Questions.
“Christ’s Eternal, Effectual Priesthood.” Ligonier Ministries.
McCallum, Dennis. “Melchizedek and the Priesthood of Christ.” Dwell Community Church.