Note to Readers: The following piece was originally written in 2014, a pivotal time when I first re-engaged with apologetics from a Latter-day Saint perspective. During this period, I encountered numerous challenges and questions that shaped my understanding of faith and doctrine. While the original message remains intact, I have taken the time to revise and expand this version significantly to better address current questions and provide a more comprehensive analysis. This updated content not only reflects my personal growth and deeper insights but also engages with contemporary issues faced by Latter-day Saints today, ensuring that readers can find relevant and thought-provoking material that resonates with their experiences and spiritual journeys.

Introduction

Glen E. Chatfield’s article, “The Melchizedek Priesthood”, aims to demonstrate that Latter‑day Saints cannot legitimately claim possession of the Melchizedek Priesthood. His argument is sincere; however, it should be noted that it relies heavily on later Jewish traditions, selective readings of the book of Hebrews, and certain assumptions not firmly grounded in mainstream biblical scholarship.

While it is essential to engage with Chatfield’s claims respectfully and with a focus on understanding, it’s equally important to clarify some misconceptions presented in his work. This response is not constructed to “win” a debate but rather to model clarity, charity, and intellectual integrity. The intention here is to provide a well-rounded critique of Chatfield’s position, addressing his arguments on their strongest terms while correcting factual and historical inaccuracies.

The Melchizedek Priesthood is a complex topic within religious discourse, steeped in both history and theological interpretation. A more accurate representation of how the Melchizedek tradition is understood in biblical studies reveals a rich tapestry of meaning that goes beyond the confines of Chatfield’s interpretation. Rather than dismissing the claims of Latter-day Saints outright, it is worthwhile to delve deeper into the historical context of Melchizedek and the varying interpretations surrounding his priesthood.

In biblical studies, scholars recognize that Melchizedek’s priesthood signifies a unique order that transcends the traditional Levitical priesthood. This ordination suggests an eternal priestly role, applied in various sects, including early Christian communities. Understanding this context helps clarify why Latter-day Saints assert their claim to the Melchizedek Priesthood as part of their theological framework. By engaging with the contours of the biblical narrative and the nuances of Jewish tradition, we can foster a more comprehensive dialogue that honors the multifaceted approaches to this priesthood, ultimately enriching our understanding of its significance in different faith traditions.

This response aims to do three things:

1. Treat Chatfield’s concerns charitably—no caricatures, no dismissiveness.
2. Engage his claims with actual biblical scholarship, not folklore or polemics.
3. Offer clarity for readers—LDS, Evangelical, or otherwise—who want to understand what the Bible actually says about Melchizedek and priesthood.

This is not written to “win” an argument; rather, it is crafted with the intention to model the kind of careful, evidence‑based, and charitable reasoning that builds bridges rather than walls. In a world filled with polarized opinions and divisive rhetoric, it becomes increasingly vital to foster discussions that prioritize understanding and empathy over mere victory. By engaging in a thoughtful exchange, we can illuminate various perspectives and cultivate a space where diverse ideas can coexist harmoniously. Such an approach encourages us to listen actively, consider the evidence presented, and recognize the humanity in each other, ultimately leading to more constructive dialogues and effective solutions for the challenges we face together.

I. Logical Fallacies in Chatfield’s Argument

Below are the major fallacies present in the article. These are not insults; they are analytical tools that help us understand where an argument goes wrong and uncover the underlying weaknesses in reasoning. By identifying these fallacies, we can critically assess the validity of the claims made, engage in more rational discussions, and ultimately refine our own arguments. Recognizing common fallacies such as straw man, slippery slope, and ad hominem not only enhances our analytical skills but also fosters a deeper appreciation for logical consistency in both written and spoken discourse. This awareness encourages a more informed and skeptical approach to the information we encounter daily, allowing us to navigate complex debates with increased clarity and insight.

1. Argument from Silence

Chatfield repeatedly argues that because Scripture does not explicitly say others held the Melchizedek Priesthood, therefore no one else ever did.

But arguments from silence are logically invalid. The Bible also never says:

1. That women cannot prophesy or hold spiritual authority.
2. That the apostles were the only ones to perform miracles.
3. That Gentiles were excluded from covenants and blessings.
4. That an individual must have an explicit title or recognition to perform acts of faith or service.
5. That only one lineage could possess divine authority.

The absence of any mention in Scripture about others holding the Melchizedek Priesthood does not inherently prove that no one else had this status. This reasoning overlooks the complexities and nuances of spiritual authority and priesthood dynamics as seen throughout history, as well as the possibility of unwritten traditions or practices existing alongside or prior to written texts. In many religious contexts, divine authority can manifest in myriad ways that may not be specifically documented in sacred texts. Therefore, relying solely on the argument of silence can lead to a restricted and potentially flawed understanding of divine principles and historical religious practices.

• Melchizedek was Shem
• His priesthood was “a priesthood of one”
• His priesthood could not be conferred
• Only Jesus could ever hold it

Yet Chatfield treats these as established facts, presenting them with a confidence that suggests a deep understanding of the subject matter. His approach is marked by an unwavering conviction, as if he believes that such assertions are universally accepted truths, which can mislead those who may not be familiar with the complexities surrounding the topic. By emphasizing these points without acknowledging potential counterarguments or differing perspectives, he risks oversimplifying the discourse and limiting the reader’s understanding of the multifaceted nature of the issue at hand.

2. Circular Reasoning

His core argument presents a logical structure that claims: “Only Jesus can hold the Melchizedek Priesthood; therefore, the LDS Church cannot hold it; therefore, only Jesus can hold it.” The statement can be easily identified as circular reasoning because it repeats the same premise to reach the same conclusion.

In essence, the argument begins with the assertion that the Melchizedek Priesthood is exclusively held by Jesus. From this starting point, it concludes that the LDS Church, which claims to hold this priesthood, must logically be incapable of so doing. Consequently, the argument returns to emphasize the original assertion that only Jesus can possess this priesthood.

This type of reasoning is problematic as it fails to provide new information or evidence to support the claim. Circular reasoning, by its very nature, rests on presuppositions that are not substantiated by external analysis or interpretation. Instead, it reiterates points in a loop without advancing the discussion through logical exposition or exegesis.

In theological discussions, particularly those concerning priesthoods and religious authority, such reasoning may lead to misunderstandings or misrepresentations of beliefs and doctrines. For a thorough examination of the Melchizedek Priesthood and its implications within the context of the LDS Church, one must engage in critical analysis and consider a variety of perspectives, rather than relying solely on circular arguments that do not foster genuine dialogue.

3. Equivocation

Chatfield conflates three distinct concepts regarding Melchizedek that possess unique theological and historical significances: Melchizedek’s historical priesthood, as outlined in Genesis 14; The typological priesthood presented by the author of Hebrews; and Later rabbinic speculation which equates Melchizedek with Shem.

1. Melchizedek’s Historical Priesthood: In Genesis 14, Melchizedek is portrayed as the king of Salem and a priest of the Most High God. This narrative emphasizes his role in the ancient Near Eastern religious context, describing a priestly figure who blesses Abram and receives tithes from him. This foundational story serves to illustrate Melchizedek’s significance in the genealogical and covenantal narrative of the Hebrew Scriptures.
2. Typological Priesthood in Hebrews: The author of Hebrews draws on Melchizedek to argue for a superior priesthood that foreshadows the high priestly role of Jesus Christ. This typological interpretation connects the eternal and unchanging nature of Christ’s priesthood with Melchizedek, who is described as “without father or mother” and having a priesthood that is unique and everlasting. This comparison is key to understanding the theological implications of Christ’s role and the new covenant.
3. Later Rabbinic Speculation: The idea that Melchizedek could be equated with Shem reflects later Jewish interpretive traditions that sought to connect figures in the Torah with one another, thus enriching the narrative and theology of the Scriptures. This speculation presents an interpretation that is not rooted in the earlier texts but rather develops as rabbinic literature evolves.

These concepts are distinct from one another and treating them as interchangeable can lead to significant confusion about their theological importance and historical contexts. Each perspective provides a different layer of understanding regarding Melchizedek’s role in religious history and conflating them risks oversimplifying the intricate tapestry of biblical interpretation and tradition. Consequently, it is crucial to delineate these ideas clearly to appreciate the rich significance of Melchizedek across various theological frameworks.

4. Selective Use of Sources (Cherry‑Picking)

Chatfield relies heavily on a few specific resources, such as Bridges for Peace newsletters, Medieval Jewish midrash, and Rabbinic speculation. These sources form the backbone of his arguments and interpretations, allowing him to weave a particular narrative that emphasizes specific theological perspectives. However, this approach comes with notable limitations.

In stark contrast, he tends to ignore a variety of significant scholarly contributions that provide a more comprehensive view of the subject matter. For instance, mainstream biblical scholarship offers critical insights that can enrich the understanding of biblical texts, while Second Temple literature, including works like 11QMelchizedek, engages with the historical context and interpretations of religious ideas during a pivotal time in Jewish history. Furthermore, the Early Christian interpretations of biblical narratives offer valuable perspectives that can challenge or augment Chatfield’s conclusions. Most importantly, he overlooks the actual argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is crucial for a nuanced understanding of the text.

This selective sourcing leads Chatfield to conclusions that are not only narrow but also lack support from the broader scholarly community. By disregarding a wealth of perspectives and critical analyses, his arguments may appear persuasive within certain circles but ultimately fall short of being robust in the wider academic discourse. Engaging with diverse sources and acknowledging mainstream scholarship could provide a more balanced and credible framework for his interpretations.

5. Non Sequitur

He argues that Melchizedek was a priest-king and that Jesus is also a priest-king. From these premises, he concludes that therefore no one else can hold the priesthood. However, this conclusion does not logically follow from the premises presented.

To elaborate, while it is true that both Melchizedek and Jesus occupy significant roles as priest-kings, the argument assumes exclusivity without substantiating why these two figures alone could possess such a status. In other words, just because Melchizedek and Jesus are highlighted as priest-kings does not imply that no other individuals can fulfill the role of priesthood.

A stronger argument would need to provide additional context or reasoning to support the claim of exclusivity regarding the priesthood. It must address the potential for other individuals to hold similar positions, perhaps by examining the nature of their priesthood compared to that of Melchizedek and Jesus, or by exploring the historical and theological implications of priesthood throughout various traditions. In essence, while the initial premises lay a foundation, they do not adequately support the final conclusion drawn.

6. Category Error

He treats “priesthood” as if it must function identically across several distinct contexts:

1. Pre‑Mosaic Patriarchal Religion: In this setting, the concept of priesthood is often tied to familial lineage and the roles that individuals play within their immediate communities as mediators between the divine and the people. This early form of priesthood is characterized by a more personal and informal relationship with God, reflecting the socio-cultural dynamics of the time.
2. The Levitical System: Here, the priesthood becomes formalized and institutionalized. In the Mosaic Law, the Levites are designated as the priestly tribe, with specific duties and regulations governing their conduct, rituals, and interactions with the people. This system is marked by a clear hierarchy and a set of rules that must be adhered to in order to maintain purity and sanctity.
3. The Typology of Hebrews: The New Testament book of Hebrews introduces a different understanding of the priesthood, emphasizing Christ’s role as the ultimate high priest. This typological interpretation draws contrasts and connections between the historical Levitical priests and the new covenant established through Jesus, reshaping the identity and understanding of priesthood from a Christian perspective.
4. Modern Christian Ecclesiology: In contemporary Christian thought, the concept of priesthood is interpreted in various ways across denominations, often relating to the priesthood of all believers versus the ordained ministry. This modern approach reflects not only theological perspectives but also includes considerations of community, leadership, and the nature of worship.

These categories are not equivalent, as each represents a unique understanding of priesthood shaped by different historical, theological, and cultural contexts. The book of Hebrews itself emphasizes these distinctions, underscoring that while there may be thematic connections, the operational realities of priesthood in each category cannot be conflated without losing the richness of their individual meanings and implications.

II. Steelman: The Strongest Possible Version of Chatfield’s Position

To respond fairly, here is Chatfield’s argument in its strongest, most coherent form—stripped of fallacies and presented as sympathetically as possible.

1. Melchizedek was a unique priest‑king appointed directly by God. His priesthood predates the Law and is superior to the Levitical priesthood.
2. Psalm 110 and Hebrews teach that the Messiah alone fulfills the Melchizedek typology. Jesus is the eternal High Priest “after the order of Melchizedek.”
3. Because Jesus’ priesthood is eternal and non‑transferable, no human institution can claim to possess it. Hebrews emphasizes the uniqueness and finality of Christ’s priesthood.
4. The LDS claim to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood contradicts the New Testament. Since Scripture never describes the Melchizedek Priesthood as conferred on others, LDS claims are theologically illegitimate.

This is the best version of his argument—and it deserves a careful, scholarly response.

III. Rebuttal Overview

Before diving into the detailed rebuttal, here are the three most important scholarly points Chatfield’s article overlooks:

1. Second Temple Judaism did not view Melchizedek as a “priesthood of one.”

The Dead Sea Scrolls (11QMelchizedek) portray Melchizedek as a heavenly figure whose authority is shared, not isolated. This understanding is crucial as it reflects the broader theological context of Second Temple Judaism, which recognized the plurality of priestly roles and the significance of community-based religious leadership. In this light, Melchizedek serves not just as an individual but as a representative of a larger, divine order that encompasses more than a singular priestly identity.

2. Hebrews uses Melchizedek typologically, not exclusively.

The author of Hebrews engages with the figure of Melchizedek typologically, meaning that Melchizedek serves as a type or foreshadow of Christ rather than standing alone as the sole priestly authority. The argument advanced in Hebrews emphasizes that Christ’s priesthood transcends and surpasses the Levitical priesthood, which was central to the Jewish religious structure. Thus, the author does not contend that the Levitical priesthood has been entirely abolished, but rather that Christ introduces a new and superior covenant that fulfills and elevates the existing understandings of priesthood.

3. Early Christians saw themselves as a “royal priesthood.”

Scriptural references such as 1 Peter 2:9, Revelation 1:6, and Revelation 5:10 paint a picture of early Christians identifying as a “royal priesthood.” This self-understanding was foundational to their identity and mission, indicating that every believer holds a share in the priestly function. This aligns more closely with LDS theology, which supports the idea of a shared priesthood among believers, contrasting significantly with Chatfield’s exclusivist reading that seems to limit priesthood to specific lineages or roles. By embracing the concept of a collective priesthood, early Christians rejected hierarchical restrictions and fostered a more inclusive understanding of spiritual authority and service within the faith community.

1. “One of the claims of the Mormon church is that they have the Melchizedek priesthood…”

Chatfield opens with a framing that assumes LDS claims are inherently suspect. But the idea of a restored Melchizedek priesthood is not foreign to biblical scholarship. In fact, Second Temple Judaism expected the reappearance of a Melchizedek figure who would mediate divine authority, teach righteousness, and participate in eschatological judgment. This expectation is especially remarkable when examined through the lens of various texts from that period, notably the Dead Sea Scrolls text 11QMelchizedek, where Melchizedek is portrayed as a heavenly deliverer who acts on behalf of God.

In the context of 11QMelchizedek, he is depicted not merely as a historical figure but rather as an emblem of divine intervention, one who fulfills a prophetic role that resonates with the eschatological hopes of the community. This portrayal reflects a complex understanding of priesthood, one that transcends the limitations of earthly institutions and suggests a more cosmic and spiritual reality. The expectation surrounding Melchizedek during the Second Temple period underscores a rich theological framework in which divine authority is shared among various agents, rather than being confined to a singular priestly lineage.

Scholars such as John J. Collins, George Nickelsburg, and James VanderKam have shown that Melchizedek was not viewed as a “priesthood of one,” but as a heavenly archetype whose authority could be represented or shared. This understanding allows for a dynamic interpretation of priesthood that can accommodate multiple figures acting in divine roles, a standpoint that aligns closely with the LDS perspective on priesthood authority. The Melchizedek Priesthood, as understood within the Latter-day Saint tradition, embodies this multidimensional approach, inviting a broader dialogue about the nature of divine authority and its manifestations in human history.

Thus, the LDS claim is not an outlier—it fits within a known Jewish interpretive tradition. It opens up possibilities for exploring how ancient beliefs and expectations continue to resonate in modern faith communities. By situating the LDS understanding of the Melchizedek priesthood within this historical and theological context, we can appreciate the continuity of these concepts throughout religious history, as well as their evolving interpretations in contemporary settings. This framework not only enriches our understanding of LDS claims but also highlights the intricate tapestry of beliefs that characterize the Jewish and Christian traditions alike.

2. “Melchizedek was King of Salem… first priest mentioned in the Bible…”

Chatfield’s summary of Genesis 14 is accurate in terms of presenting the events, but his interpretation falls short of capturing the essence and nuances of the biblical text. The account does not provide clarity on several important aspects concerning Melchizedek, including how he became a priest, whether his priesthood was hereditary, if it was exclusive to certain individuals, or whether it could be conferred upon others.

The narrative simply introduces Melchizedek as a priest-king, emphasizing his role in blessing Abram and receiving tithes, without delving into the specifics of his priesthood. This minimalistic approach in the text suggests a deliberate ambiguity, leaving much of Melchizedek’s identity and status open to interpretation.

Consequently, much of Chatfield’s interpretation seems to rely on later Jewish speculation rather than the canonical Scriptures themselves. This introduces an element of uncertainty, as the original text lacks elaboration on Melchizedek’s nature and role.

In contrast, modern scholarship, such as the insights offered by Nahum Sarna in his work Genesis from the JPS Commentary, highlights the depiction of Melchizedek as a mysterious and independent priest. This perspective is significant because it frames Melchizedek’s authority as not being tied to lineage or established priestly orders, which is a key point that the Book of Hebrews later develops. This understanding can enrich our appreciation for the complexity of Melchizedek’s character, positioning him as a pivotal figure whose influence transcends conventional boundaries of priesthood.

By acknowledging Melchizedek’s distinct role as a priest-king, we can engage with the text at a deeper level, contemplating the implications of his blessings to Abram and the act of receiving tithes, which serves to establish connections that reverberate throughout biblical history and theology. His enigmatic presence invites further exploration and contemplation, underpinning a legacy that continues to resonate with readers and scholars alike.

3. “The interesting thing here is that the victory laurels were Abram’s…”

Chatfield suggests that God “sent Melchizedek” to remind Abram of humility. This interpretation leans more towards a devotional view rather than a strictly textual analysis. It’s important to recognize that the Book of Genesis does not explicitly state that God sent Melchizedek, nor does it frame the encounter between the two figures as a rebuke or admonition for Abram.

The narrative’s primary purpose is multifaceted, focusing on profound theological and relational aspects. First, it illustrates that Abram acknowledges and respects a legitimate priesthood authority outside his own lineage. This recognition signifies a willingness to accept spiritual leadership that precedes his own—a concept that is fundamental to understanding the unfolding biblical narrative.

Additionally, Melchizedek blesses Abram in the name of “God Most High,” which is a pivotal moment. The blessing not only affirms Melchizedek’s role as a priest but also reinforces the idea of divine authority in the interaction. It emphasizes the fact that blessing can flow through established priestly lines that are not directly related to Abram.

Moreover, Abram’s act of paying tithes to Melchizedek further acknowledges the latter’s priestly status and authority. This monetary gesture is not merely transactional; it carries significant weight in recognizing Melchizedek as a spiritual leader. By doing so, Abram showcases his humility and reverence, which are crucial traits for anyone in a position of covenantal leadership.

This is particularly significant: Abram submits to a priesthood older and higher than his own covenantal line. This submission has far-reaching implications, as it suggests a deeper understanding of spiritual hierarchy and authority. In the New Testament, the book of Hebrews expands on this theme, illustrating that Melchizedek serves as a prototype for Christ’s eternal priesthood. It is essential to note that the author of Hebrews builds on these foundational ideas rather than the later traditions that Chatfield cites. By doing so, it establishes a continuity between the Old and New Testament teachings regarding priesthood and divine authority, underscoring the importance of humility and recognition of higher spiritual truths within the faith journey.

4. “The question is, how did Abram recognize him as a priest…?”

Chatfield asks a good question but answers it with rabbinic folklore, not Scripture. The Bible does not say Melchizedek was Shem. That idea appears in medieval Jewish midrash and is rejected by nearly all modern scholars.

The Epistle to the Hebrews explicitly treats Melchizedek as a typological figure, not a patriarch with a known genealogy. This distinction is essential in understanding the significance of Melchizedek’s role in the context of biblical theology. The author of Hebrews points out that Melchizedek embodies certain priestly qualities that transcend the traditional Levitical priesthood established through Moses.

The characteristics of Melchizedek’s priesthood can be further elaborated upon as follows:

1. Non‑Levitical: Unlike the Levitical priests, who descend from Aaron and belong to a specific tribe of Israel, Melchizedek’s priesthood is not confined to a particular lineage. This aspect signifies a shift in the understanding of priesthood from hereditary lines to a more universal concept that is not limited by human ancestry.
2. Non‑genealogical: The author highlights a unique aspect of Melchizedek: he appears without recorded genealogy, which serves to enhance his status as a timeless figure representing a priesthood that is not bound by earthly ties. This idea conveys a sense of eternal significance and divine ordination.
3. Based on divine calling: The nature of Melchizedek’s priesthood is firmly rooted in divine appointment rather than human agency. This divine calling underscores the legitimacy and authority of his role, establishing a direct link to God’s covenant promises.
4. Superior to Abraham’s line: The author of Hebrews further argues that Melchizedek’s priesthood is superior to that of Abraham, the father of the nation of Israel. This assertion is grounded in the encounter between Melchizedek and Abraham, where Abraham gave him a tithe, acknowledging Melchizedek’s greater status and divine favor.

This very logic reinforces the nuanced interpretation of priesthood within the Christian faith, suggesting that a restored priesthood, akin to that of Melchizedek, is plausible and meaningful. It highlights the transformative nature of spiritual leadership that is not confined by genealogy or traditional roles, emphasizing a broader understanding of how individuals can serve in spiritual capacities based on divine purpose. By examining Melchizedek’s priesthood, believers are invited to contemplate the spiritual implications of leadership and service that transcend conventional boundaries.

5. “Hebrew tradition says he was Shem… This is the assumption I take…”

This is the most significant methodological flaw in the entire article.

Chatfield builds his argument on a foundation that is quite precarious, as it hinges upon:

• medieval rabbinic speculation,
• not the Bible,
• not early Christian interpretation,
• not Second Temple literature,
• and not mainstream scholarship.

These elements point to a problematic approach that may misrepresent the nuances and complexities inherent in Biblical texts. The reliance on medieval rabbinic speculation raises questions about the validity of his conclusions, especially in light of established theological interpretations.

Moreover, the “Melchizedek = Shem” theory, which is central to Chatfield’s argument, is not broadly accepted by modern scholars for several compelling reasons:

1. Contradicts the literary argument of Hebrews 7: The author of Hebrews presents Melchizedek in a specific literary and theological framework that is integral to his arguments about priesthood and covenant. By proposing a connection between Melchizedek and Shem, Chatfield undermines this careful construction.
2. Relies on genealogical harmonization foreign to the text: This approach forces a harmonization that is not present in the original texts. The genealogical connections drawn by Chatfield do not align with the literary intentions and purposes of the scriptural authors.
3. Collapses typology into literalism: In doing so, Chatfield compromises the rich typological insight that Melchizedek represents. This typology serves a crucial role in theological discussions, particularly concerning Christ’s priesthood.

Hebrews intentionally emphasizes Melchizedek’s lack of genealogy as part of his typological function. This absence of genealogy enhances Melchizedek’s significance as a forerunner of Christ, establishing a priesthood that transcends traditional boundaries. Identifying him as Shem destroys the author’s argument, as it imposes an unnecessary and limiting identity upon a figure that was meant to symbolize a deeper theological truth. The implications of such a misinterpretation can lead to a skewed understanding of the text’s message and its relevance for contemporary readers.

6. “Jewish sages say…” (long section on Shem, titles, traditions)

This entire section is midrash—not Scripture, not history, not scholarship.

Midrash serves as a fascinating tool for enriching our understanding of Jewish imagination and tradition. It delves into the nuances of texts, exploring layers of meaning that might not be immediately visible in the canonical writings. However, it is crucial to recognize that midrash lacks the authority required for foundational Christian theology. In the context of Christian doctrinal discussions, especially concerning divergent beliefs, it is essential to differentiate between what is derived from Scripture and what is interpreted through midrashic lenses.

Notably, the author of Hebrews does not incorporate or endorse these midrashic traditions within his writings, underscoring the notion that reliance on such sources may not align with the theological frameworks set forth in the New Testament. This absence can lead to questions about the validity of using midrashic interpretations as a basis for arguments regarding Christian beliefs, particularly when addressing doctrinal discrepancies with Latter-day Saints (LDS).

Moreover, Chatfield’s reliance on these midrashic materials seems to contradict his expressed goal of employing Scripture as the sole foundation for refuting LDS claims. If the argument against LDS theology is to be firmly grounded in Scripture alone, then the same standard must apply to the framework of the arguments put forth. This necessary consistency implies that any attempt to use midrash as a supportive element may dilute the strength of the scriptural critique he aims to establish.

In essence, if LDS theology must be judged by Scripture, then Chatfield’s argument also warrants examination through the same scriptural lens. Maintaining this principle ensures that discussions remain rooted in authoritative texts rather than secondary interpretations, preserving the integrity of theological discourse. Employing a consistent criterion for evaluating theological claims fosters clarity and prevents the potential for the discourse to drift into areas that lack the foundational support necessary for sound argumentation.

7. “Okay, so now that we see who Melchizedek was…”

We do not “see who Melchizedek was.” We see who later rabbis imagined him to be through various interpretations and textual expansions.

The biblical text gives us a few critical details:

• A priest: Melchizedek is recognized as a priest, which establishes his role as a religious figure with authority and responsibilities within the spiritual community.
• A king: His designation as a king indicates a level of governance and leadership that extends beyond mere religious duties. This dual role embodies a unique combination of sacred and secular authority.
• Of Salem: Being identified as the king of Salem adds geographical context and historical depth, though interpretations of Salem vary, with some linking it to Jerusalem.
• Who blesses Abram: The act of blessing Abram (later known as Abraham) signifies an important theological moment, emphasizing Melchizedek’s role in the unfolding narrative of God’s covenant with Abraham and, by extension, the Israelite people.
• And receives tithes: The tithes offered to Melchizedek point to his high status and the acknowledgment of his authority, suggesting the practice of giving tithes as an expression of respect and reverence.

Despite these foundational elements in the biblical narrative, everything else in Chatfield’s reconstruction must be viewed through a lens of speculation. The interpretations and theorizing by later rabbis often reflect a desire to fill in the gaps left by the biblical text, weaving intricate narratives that may not have direct support in the original scriptures. These imaginative reconstructions have shaped various traditions and understandings of Melchizedek, yet they remain interpretations rather than definitive historical accounts. As a result, the essence of who Melchizedek was continues to be shrouded in an air of mystery, fueled by the rich tapestry of religious thought that has developed over the centuries.

8. “It is a perpetual priestly order… only filled by the Messiah…”

This is the heart of Chatfield’s argument—and it is not supported by Scripture.

Hebrews teaches:

Jesus is the eternal High Priest. His priesthood is not only eternal but also transcends and surpasses the Levitical system that was central to Jewish worship.

His priesthood is superior to the Levitical system. This comparison underscores the limitations of the Levitical priests, whose sacrifices were ongoing and could never fully atone for sin. In contrast, Christ’s priesthood brings a finality to the sacrificial system.

His sacrifice is once for all. This pivotal aspect emphasizes that Jesus’ sacrifice was complete and perfect, removing the need for continual offerings that characterized the old covenant. It signifies the ultimate fulfillment of God’s redemptive plan.

But Hebrews never says:

• no one else can hold priesthood, which raises important questions about the availability of priesthood within the New Covenant community.
• priesthood cannot be conferred, suggesting that there is a broader understanding of priesthood that extends beyond Christ alone.
• believers cannot participate in Christ’s priesthood, indicating that the faithful have a role in this divine office.

Melchizedek’s order is exclusive to Christ, which would imply a restriction that the text does not explicitly endorse.

In fact, the New Testament repeatedly calls believers:

• “a royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9), which highlights their participation in a priestly role that is vital for worship and ministry.
• “priests unto God” (Revelation 1:6; 5:10). These titles affirm that believers are not merely passive recipients of salvation but active participants in the priesthood established through Christ.

This understanding aligns with the broader biblical narrative that emphasizes the call of all believers to minister, intercede, and serve, embodying the priestly function within the church and the world. Thus, the implications of Hebrews extend beyond the exclusivity of Christ’s priesthood and invite believers into a shared and active role in God’s redemptive mission.

This designation of believers as a royal priesthood emphasizes the inclusive nature of participation in Christ’s priestly work. The language used in these passages suggests that all believers—regardless of their specific roles or callings—are invited into this divine relationship and are empowered to act as intermediaries in their service to God and others.

Early Christians saw themselves as participating in Christ’s priestly work. They understood that through their faith, they were not just spectators of Christ’s sacrifice but were drawn into a living relationship that allowed them to embody the priestly characteristics outlined in the New Testament. This shared experience of priesthood reflects a community deeply rooted in the understanding of grace and the universal call to holiness.

This aligns more closely with LDS theology than with Chatfield’s exclusivist reading. Both perspectives recognize the inherent dignity and responsibility of believers to engage in priestly activities, fostering a sense of belonging and active participation in the spiritual life of the community. In this light, the argument that only a select few can hold a priesthood does not resonate with the holistic and inclusive vision of the New Testament, which seeks to empower all believers to fulfill their calling as ambassadors of Christ.

9. “Jesus fulfilled the Levitical priesthood… no more offerings…”

This is correct—but irrelevant.

LDS theology does not claim:

• to restore animal sacrifice,
• to revive Levitical temple rituals,
• or to replace Christ’s atonement.

It’s important to understand that the teachings within the Latter-day Saint tradition emphasize a distinct approach to priesthood and temple practices. The LDS Melchizedek Priesthood is not merely a return to ancient Levitical law; rather, it represents a deeper participation in the non‑Levitical, non‑genealogical, Christ‑centered priesthood described in the Book of Hebrews. This understanding highlights the belief that the Melchizedek Priesthood functions within a new covenant established by Christ, which transcends the requirements and restrictions of the Old Testament law.

Instead of focusing on rituals like animal sacrifices and temple ordinances characteristic of the Levitical priesthood, LDS theology accentuates the transformative power of Christ’s atonement and the priesthood’s role in facilitating personal and communal spiritual growth. It is through this perspective that members believe they can engage in sacred responsibilities that are aligned with the teachings of Jesus Christ, promoting a direct relationship with the divine that supersedes traditional forms of worship associated with the ancient priesthood.

Furthermore, the notion of a priesthood that is non-genealogical signifies an inclusivity that welcomes individuals regardless of their ancestry or previous religious background. This principle underscores the belief that all are called to participate in God’s work through revelation and service, which emphasizes the universal nature of the gospel message as articulated by modern prophets and leaders within the LDS Church. Thus, while respecting the historical foundations of scripture, contemporary LDS beliefs encourage a living faith that seeks to apply these eternal truths in present-day circumstances, fostering individual testimony and collective community strength.

10. “The Melchizedek priesthood was a priesthood of ONE…”

This is the most demonstrably false claim in the article.

There is no biblical text that says:

• Melchizedek’s priesthood was solitary,
• non‑transferable,
• or exclusive.

This idea comes entirely from later Jewish tradition—not Scripture.

The interpretation of Melchizedek’s priesthood as solitary and non-transferable appears to stem from the traditions and writings developed after the biblical texts were completed. Scholars have pointed out that the early Jewish context did not emphasize these attributes in the same way later interpretations did. Instead, they often focused on the broader implications of Melchizedek’s role as a priest-king and the connections to the covenant made with Abraham.

Hebrews 7:3’s language (“without father, without mother… without descent”) is typological, not literal. The author is using Melchizedek as a literary symbol to explain Christ’s priesthood, not to define a metaphysical rule about priesthood transmission. This typological approach is common in Scripture, where figures from the Old Testament are employed to illustrate and foreshadow the work and significance of Christ in the New Testament. Rather than signifying an isolated and unique priesthood, the use of Melchizedek serves to highlight the eternal and superior nature of Christ’s mediation on behalf of humanity.

In discussing the implications of Melchizedek, one must recognize that many aspects of biblical interpretation involve understanding the cultural and historical contexts in which these texts were written. It is essential to approach such discussions with careful consideration of the original texts and their meanings rather than solely relying on later traditions or interpretations that may not align with the foundational messages found within the Scriptures themselves.

11. Final Conclusion: “Mormons do NOT have any Melchizedek priesthood…”

Chatfield’s conclusion rests on several points that merit further exploration. First, it is influenced by speculative rabbinic tradition, which often adds layers of interpretation that may not have direct support in the canonical texts. This can lead to conclusions that, while interesting, stray from what is explicitly presented in Scripture.

Furthermore, Chatfield’s argument leans on assumptions that lack a foundation in Scripture. These assumptions may raise questions about their validity, as they do not find confirmation within the biblical texts themselves. It is essential to anchor interpretations of scriptural principles in the actual verses and contexts they originate from, rather than relying on external traditions or conjectures.

Moreover, the conclusion reflects a misunderstanding of the typology found in the book of Hebrews. Hebrews develops a complex understanding of various figures from Scripture, using them as types that foreshadow the ultimate fulfillment in Christ. To overlook this nuanced typological approach diminishes the richness of the biblical narrative and its connections across both the Old and New Testaments.

In contrast, a more textually grounded reading reveals important aspects of Melchizedek’s priesthood. It predates the Law, emphasizing its significance beyond the confines of the Mosaic covenant. Additionally, Melchizedek’s priesthood is not tied to genealogy, which sets it apart from the Levitical priesthood that relies heavily on lineage for its authority.

Moreover, Melchizedek’s priesthood is fundamentally based on divine calling rather than human lineage or institutional requirements, indicating a direct divine appointment that transcends traditional qualifications. This approach underscores the unique nature of his role within the biblical narrative.

Lastly, Melchizedek’s association with revelation and covenant further enhances the understanding of his priesthood as a special and divine institution. This aligns closely with the LDS (Latter-day Saints) understanding of priesthood, which emphasizes a direct connection to heavenly authority and divine revelation, reinforcing the importance of priesthood in the context of eternal covenants. This perspective allows for a richer and more profound understanding of priesthood beyond mere ritualistic or genealogical frameworks.

Conclusion: What the Evidence Actually Shows

Glen E. Chatfield’s article reflects a sincere desire to defend Christian truth, but his argument ultimately rests on:

• later Jewish midrash, not the biblical text,
• assumptions not found in Scripture,
• a misunderstanding of Hebrews’ typology, and
• a selective use of sources that excludes mainstream scholarship.

When we step back and examine the evidence—biblical, historical, and scholarly—a different picture emerges:

1. Melchizedek’s priesthood predates the Law, is not genealogical, and is grounded in divine calling.
2. Second Temple Judaism did not treat Melchizedek as a “priesthood of one,” but as a heavenly archetype whose authority could be represented or shared.
3. Hebrews uses Melchizedek typologically, not exclusively, to explain Christ’s superiority over the Levitical system.
4. Early Christians saw themselves as a “royal priesthood”, participating in Christ’s priestly work.
5. Nothing in Scripture forbids the conferral of priesthood authority among Christ’s followers—indeed, the New Testament assumes it.

The Latter‑day Saint understanding of priesthood—as a divine calling, not a genealogical right—fits comfortably within this broader biblical and historical framework.

Chatfield’s conclusion, therefore, does not follow from the evidence he presents.

Why This Matters

This discussion is not about “winning” a theological contest. It is about intellectual honesty, charity, and respect for the text.

When we approach Scripture with humility rather than polemics, we discover:

• The Bible is richer than our traditions.
• The ancient world was more diverse than our assumptions.
• And the priesthood of Melchizedek is far more expansive than a narrow, exclusivist reading allows.

The Restoration claim is not an aberration—it is one coherent way of understanding a very old, very complex biblical tradition.

References & Suggested Reading

Below is a curated list of peer‑reviewed and scholarly sources that support the analysis above. These are not LDS‑exclusive; they represent mainstream biblical scholarship.

Biblical Commentaries & Academic Works

• Nahum Sarna, Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary).
• John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination.
• James VanderKam, An Introduction to Early Judaism.
• George W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah.
• Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Yale Bible).
• Harold Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia Commentary).
• William Lane, Hebrews (Word Biblical Commentary).

Second Temple Literature

• 11QMelchizedek (Dead Sea Scrolls), in Florentino García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated.
• Carol Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran.

Early Christian Sources

• 1 Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, and Justin Martyr, which all discuss priesthood typology.
• 1 Peter 2:9, Revelation 1:6, Revelation 5:10 on the “royal priesthood” of believers.

Latter‑day Saint Scholarship (for comparison)

• Terryl Givens, Wrestling the Angel.
• Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling.
• Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Temple Themes in the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood.

These sources allow readers—LDS, Evangelical, or otherwise—to explore the topic with depth and integrity.

A Personal Invitation

If you are LDS, Evangelical, or simply curious, I invite you to do something radical in today’s polarized religious climate:

Read the text for yourself. Read the scholarship for yourself. And let the evidence speak louder than the polemics.

Melchizedek stands at the crossroads of covenant, revelation, and divine calling. His priesthood is not a weapon to be used against one another. It is a symbol of God’s desire to draw humanity into His work.

If we approach this topic with humility, we may find that the real invitation of Hebrews is not to argue about who has priesthood—but to draw near to Christ, the great High Priest, who calls all of us into His service.