Tag Archives: Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood

What does the Oath promise about the Melchizedek Priesthood?


Months and months ago I did a lot of reading on Hebrews and what it says about oaths and covenants related to the priesthood. I won’t do that research justice today (in part because I’m writing a quick blog post as my children are waking up and ready for breakfast, and in part because I’m sure I’ve unfortunately forgotten most of what I read). But I wanted to record a few things that impressed me as I reviewed Hebrews 5-8 this morning.

In Hebrews, the “oath” seems to mainly serve to guarantee that the position of priest will extend beyond the grave. Aaronic priests under the law of Moses served while they were alive in this world, but there was no promise given that their priesthood would remain after this world. Second, this promise changes the way we receive certain covenants. The author of the Hebrews suggests that certain promises, like those associated with Abraham, were never actually realized under the Law of Moses. But Christ was promised by an oath of the Father, that His priesthood would last forever.

On top of that, Christ resurrected, meaning that his life will last forever.

And even beyond that, Hebrews says He set himself up as a guarantor of the promises (that is, like a co-signer, someone who can fulfill a promise given by another). The idea is that Christ now sits at the side of the Father, and he is a guarantor of covenants and promises. He will make sure that the promises are fulfilled, even when earthly priests can’t quite make that sure.

The Melchizedek priesthood is the priesthood after the order of the Son. Perhaps then, these priests are effective on earth because they are servants according to His position of Eternal Savior, Eternal Son (by the side of the Father), and Eternal Priesthood Holder. By virtue of His position, Melchizedek priesthood holders can do what they do — perform ordinances, promise blessings, be a prince of peace even, because of Christ.

So what does D&C 84 mean by something being according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood? What is according to that? And why does every priesthood holder (who obtains these two priesthoods and becomes renewed) also receive this oath and covenant? Isn’t that just something Christ received?

Well, one possible reading is that like Christ, those who obtain and magnify the Melchizedek Priesthood assignment are promised, like Christ, that their priestly role will continue beyond death. That would make sense of the practice of ordaining deceased men by proxy in the temple before they receive an endowment. These also receive a covenant too, though? Are they the bearers of the covenant — the messengers?

The topic at hand when this language appears is the promise of eternal life, and receiving all that the Father hath. Is this the covenant that a priesthood holder receives as well? The promise that they too can receive all the Father has? But also these verses are talking about those who receive priesthood servants. Is the covenant that anyone can receive all the Father hath? If so, then they, as a human, have that promise extended to them, and also they, as servants, declare that promise to others?

And is that really what the Abrahamic Covenant amounts to, as well? Blessings possible for those of Abraham’s family, but also blessings that they are supposed to declare to everyone not in their family?


Receiving the Blessings of the Oath and Covenant


More many years I’ve heard and thought about the idea of enjoying the blessings of the oath and covenant of the priesthood. At first it seemed so general, something like “enjoying the blessings of the priesthood” like blessings when you’re sick, etc. Then I took it to mean something a little stronger, such as ordinances that have been restored because of the restoration of the priesthood through Joseph Smith. When I went to the temple, I thought about temple ordinances. But what about the oath and covenant of the priesthood? How do you enjoy that? So I’ve spent years and years studying what the oath and covenant might be. Sometimes it’s led me back to the beginning: the oath and covenant is just another way of saying priesthood generally, so the blessings of it are the same as the blessings of the priesthood. My recent studies in Hebrews, D&C 84, and D&C 132 lead me in a somewhat opposite direction: the oath and covenant has something to do with those who receive the highest priesthood, the keys of the priesthood, who are prophets and exalted on earth. But of course, that seems to have little to do with me, except for the idea or promise that potentially anyone could build a Zion and have it translated up to heaven and/or have their calling and election made sure while here on earth, etc. etc. But those are things you wait for. You don’t seek after appointments to higher ordinances.

And yet, there’s a sense in our discourse at least (and I think in the scriptures?) that the blessings of the oath and the covenant are meant to be felt now, and by  many. So I’ve been thinking about that. And I think I’ve finally hit on something that makes sense to me. The “oath and covenant of the priesthood” may very well be something grand and attached to the highest forms of priesthood, such as the keys held by the president of the high priesthood (President Monson, currently). But the fact that those keys are on the earth has ripple effects that do bless me and millions of others.

It’s something like the distance that D&C 84:39 uses in its wording. Our blessings are “according to” the oath and covenant, which “belongeth to” the priesthood. It doesn’t belong to me, nor does it need to, in order for the blessings to be poured out and reach to my home. The blessings aren’t just for those who receive the oath and covenant themselves; the blessings are “according to” or “in accordance with” or “follow from” or “exist because” someone holds the keys of the priesthood.

Perhaps this is actually exactly what the verses in D&C 84 leading up to verse 39 are trying to say:

36 For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me;

37 And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father;

38 And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.

39 And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood.


A few notes from Study Group on D&C 84:39


  • The words “oath” and “covenant” from D&C 84:39 are clearly drawn from Hebrews, as any one in Joseph’s time would have recognized.
  • Note that God made oath and covenant, that it’s His (D&C 84:40). Not actually a covenant we make with God! This is one sided when it is made, and then we are told/asked to receive it.
  • D&C 132:22-25 are very worth looking at, as well as JST Genesis 14!
  • The language of confirmed is related to oaths and covenants in Bible.
  • Where else does “oath and covenant” come up together, as a phrase? In the Book of Mormon! But it always means oaths and covenants of robbers, bad secret society. Is the priesthood meant to be thought of as the “good” secret society? The one that counters the bad?
  • The consequence for breaking an oath or covenant in a bad secret society is usually death! Severe consequence. D&C 84:41 is also severe.
  • Interesting that it’s not about this life, as D&C 132 talks about (hard time this life, ok in next)
  • The good secret society. It is a fundamental change in how we relate to other people. [Tangent here about how even when we as Latter-day Saints don’t understand all that this gospel is or how deep and wonderful the covenants are, there is still a change in how we relate to others. There are all sorts of “fringe benefits”that come even from the watered-down version of things. And the real vision is still buried in there, still being carried along by the church members even though we don’t realize it.
  • Now, some notes/thoughts from what Don shared with us:
  • “According to” usually means we’re referring to something just talked about, or to something clearly established. This “accords” with that previous thing.
  • This seems to accord with Hebrews, which refers back to Psalms
  • But also, look at Gen 14 “order of the covenant” also “oath by himself”
  • JST Hebrews was worked on only 7 months earlier, and Joseph had just gone back through it about this time. So not only would the audience have thought about Hebrews, Joseph was thinking about Hebrews a lot during this time
  • Some sort of “everlasting covenant” talked about in stories of David and others but Hebrews might be only place in NT (Heb 13:20).
  • The JST of Hebrews 9 changes testament to covenant
  • JST Hebrews 7:19 adds “without an oath” Law was administered without an oath
  • JST Deut 10:2 adds “save words of everlasting covenant of priesthood” (second tablets did not have words of the covenant)
  • So with JST changes, Deut says law did not have words of covenant, and Hebrews says law did not have oath
  • D&C 84:25 God took Moses and priesthood out from them (=took words of covenant & no oath?)
  • Similar to 1 Ne 13 – took plain and precious from gospel, even many covenants. Then took from book.
  • D&C 132:19 – what is “it”?  everlasting covenant (later in 19: as hath been sealed upon their heads)
  • b/c everlasting covenant from JST Gen 14 = godhood, this makes sense.
  • D&C 132:19 and JST Gen 14 both use principalities and powers
  • D&C 84:42 “by mine own voice” also in JST Gen 14:29 and Hebrews (and Alma 13 – called)
  • Oaths – Hebrews talks about Abraham’s oath, and Christ’s priesthood oath
  • “confirm” talked about in Hebrews 7 and D&C 84:39-42
  • D&C 132:59 by mine own voice Aaron Hebrews also says called of God
  • back to covenants taken out: Covenant given to Adam etc, then missing until Abraham, then missing until Moses, then missing until Christ, then missing until Joseph Smith
  • covenant is received, as we emphasized earlier. Given by God, oath made by God. Receive covenant, receive oath, over and over. Alma 13, God ordains. God calls. D&C 84:40, D&C 66:  , D&C 132:27.
  • Consequences come after that is clear D&C 132:27, D&C 84:41
  • In 1831 office of high priest given, thought of as sealing lots of things, even sealing up to eternal life
  • D&C 84 was in 1832 developed, but think context of sealing up to eternal life
  • Joseph Smith’s later discourses, Moses’s people won’t accept last stage the gift of eternal life. Why did they reject? don’t know. D&C 84 says same thing didn’t want to enter God’s rest, see face to face. See discourses maybe March 1844
  • Receive everlasting covenant, not obey everlasting covenant.
  • Joseph Smith’s creativity with everything (laws on polygamy, etc.) may reflect his position of receiving this higher law and power, like Nephi (in Helaman), Enoch, etc. They had power to move rivers, mountains, create famines, etc.
  • did Joseph’s confidence come from lost 116 pages? God has many ways of doing His work, He is wise, I can’t ruin it, in for the ride

Oath & Covenant, which belongeth


I’m still perplexed by D&C 84:39 and what exactly this oath & covenant is. The language is so wonderfully elusive. It simply says that what comes before it is “according to” this oath and covenant, and then that this oath and covenant “belongs” to the priesthood.

In my latest reflections on this verse, I’ve been thinking through Hebrew’s assertion that the Aaronic priesthood does not need to be received with an oath and the Melchizedek priesthood does. If that is the case, then I think the language of “belonging” to the priesthood probably means that an oath & covenant is associated or belongs or is necessary for the Melchizedek priesthood. (That would also mean that “priesthood” here means Melchizedek priesthood.)

What I’ve gathered from the Hebrews Interpretation commentary is that that author is setting up a comparison between Christ as a Melchizedek figure and the current temple priesthood as Aaronic/Levitical. The Aaronic priesthood performs outward rituals that aren’t lasting (they need to be repeated) and their priesthood doesn’t go with them into the grave. But Christ, as a Melchizedek figure, performs rituals that are lasting (that only need to be performed once) and His priesthood does extend past the grave. The reason that last point is important is because when we extend past the grave, He is there as our priest to guide us back to the Father Himself.

The Interpretation commentary isn’t, of course, thinking of Melchizedek priesthood as a Mormon would. We don’t think of Christ and Melchizedek as uniquely holding the Melchizedek priesthood. The commentary gives the sense that Christ, as eternally holding the priesthood, was the last priest necessary. If He still holds it and officiates for us, why would any new priests be necessary? That’s what happens in the Aaronic priesthood, not the Melchizedek.

So, I’ve got to work around that idea when I read D&C 84. I think the section agrees with a lot of what the book of Hebrews says about Aaronic versus Melchizedek priesthood. Except, that Moses and others also had the Melchizedek priesthood. And, also, that they “sought diligently” to use that authority to bring their people into the presence of God while on earth, and not only when they passed beyond into the heavens.

When those are combined, what do we make of D&C 84:39? The previous verses talk about coming into the presence of God and receiving what God has. This sounds similar to what Hebrews says Christ can do because He is a high priest forever. (Because He is still our priest after death, He can take us to God Himself in the true temple — that is, in Heaven.) If that idea is what D&C 84 has in mind, then this idea is being applied to any person with Melchizedek priesthood. Those who receive God’s servants who have this priesthood can also enter into God’s presence. And this promise is according to oath & covenant of the priesthood, which promises this priesthood will last forever.

Maybe?


D&C 84 is a mix of both halves of Hebrews


So that title doesn’t make much sense but it was feeling I had rereading through D&C 84. In the commentary I’m reading on Hebrews the author is constantly showing how Hebrews compares the old priesthood to the new covenant. But in the commentary, this means letting go of priesthood itself. The only priesthood that remains is Christ as high priest, but that role replaces the earthly priesthood. The earthly temple is replaced by heaven itself, etc.

That may very well be what Hebrews is explaining (indeed it seems it is). So when Joseph Smith comes along and restores some more information, I can see why he is so interested in the book of Hebrews. It’s like D&C 84 wants to agree with everything Hebrews is saying, except adding in the idea that the Melchizedek priesthood existed before and meant to do all those same things that Christ did when he came (take us to the Father, for example!).

Currently, I think what Hebrews is adding to my thoughts on “oath and covenant” in D&C 84 is that the Melchizedek Priesthood office is given for now and after this life, so therefore a priest in that order can keep taking us to God after this life. Because a priest in an eternal order can commune with God and walk into His presence, then those following that priest have the chance to do the same. So, therefore:

35 And also all they who receive this priesthood receive me, saith the Lord;

36 For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me;

37 And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father;

38 And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.

39 And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood.

That’s my best connection so far, but I hope to get a lot more out of this study before I’m done.


Old/New Covenants, and Oaths/Covenants (from Bible.org)


I’m spending some time again this morning reading from Bible.org. I am quite fascinated by how a non-Mormon reads the New Covenant, Old Covenant, and Abrahamic Covenant. In reality, the reading at Bible.org and elsewhere is very similar to the Book of Mormon view. For example, the Law of Moses was a lesser law, but it came after the higher law of the Abrahamic Covenant (and the New Covenant is re-establishing it). Also, the Law of Moses was not just foreshadowing the sacrifice of Christ, but it is dependent upon the sacrifice of Christ to make any sense. It assumes the work of Christ in its structure and logic. This sounds very much like the Book of Mormon! I’m feeling a bit sheepish that I didn’t know non-Mormon Christians had this same idea. 🙂

Also, I’m curious about the point being made at Bible.org that the covenant with Abraham was made with an oath, and the promise that Christ was a high priest forever was made with an oath, but that the Law of Moses covenant was not made with an oath. Also, there seems to be the idea that a covenant made with an oath is unconditional, but a covenant made without an oath is conditional. But then, I think that implies that if you don’t follow through with a covenant that is conditional, you simply don’t get the blessings. You and God are both off the hook, as it were. But, a covenant that is unconditional, implies that if you break the covenant, then there are real serious consequences (such as D&C 84:41 But whoso breaketh this covenant after he hath received it, and altogether turneth therefrom, shall not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor in the world to come).

I want to keep thinking about oaths & covenants further, but I think these articles I’m reading might be on to something!


Is D&C 84 giving rebirth to the covenant described in the New Testament?


I spent some time reading Christian comments on the idea of “oath” and “covenant” in the book to the Hebrews. As I read through their comments, I noticed how they traced the idea of a new covenant through Jeremiah and Isaiah, and even connected it when the Abrhamic Covenant. They showed that the new covenant of the New Testament was to be written in our hearts, and so the penalty of breaking such a covenant would surely be greater than breaking the law of Moses.

All of this sounds so much like D&C 84. The new covenant here is also connected to Abraham, and also suggests that this is a covenant written inside you, and has drastic consequences for breaking! It also suggests that this new covenant can take us into the presence of God.

So maybe when verse 48 and 57 talk about a new covenant or a renewed covenant, they are specifically referring to the new covenant that the 1830’s/1840’s audience would have recognized as the new covenant brought by Christ. But D&C 84 is suggesting that this new covenant has to now be renewed because between the early Church and Joseph Smith, things got off track. A restoration of the new covenant brought about by Jesus is what is being restored to them.

This makes sense, but isn’t exactly how I had seen this section before. It’s good for me to put myself into a position where I hear things as a non-Mormon Christian would here them, and then realized that this is how Joseph Smith’s follower would have heard these things. I have focused so much on how latter-day texts like the book of Abraham or Moses shed light on the oath and covenant that I forgot to first hear how these words would sound to the audience who first received them. (And then later, I should bring back those additional texts to see how they add even more knowledge on top of that.)