Mormon apologists may note that this priesthood is an "everlasting" one (Numbers 25:10-13; Exodus 40:15). The word used in these verses for "everlasting" is the Hebrew 'olam... Does this mean, though, that the thing described will last forever? Probably not. One may argue that the thing described is intended to last forever, but 'olam is clearly used in places to describe something which will end... The covenant and priesthood was intended to last forever, but obviously did not.

What, then, of Melchizedek's priesthood? A key verse here is Hebrews 7:24:

> But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

"This man" refers to Christ, and Christian apologists argue that the word "unchangeable" carries the meaning "untransferable" so that any claim by Smith to have acquired the rights, so to speak, to this priesthood are in direct opposition to Hebrews 7:24. Griffith cites "the best Greek scholars" -- including Leon Morris and W. E. Vine -- who says that this interpretation is not justified.

Perhaps not -- but the context indicates that the intent in saying that the priesthood is "unchangeable" is in effect declaring that Jesus is the last of the line. 7:23 says, "And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death..." Verse 16 refers to Christ's "endless life." The high priest served until death under ordinary circumstances; under Rome he might serve till removal, but either way no priest could serve eternally -- until Jesus. That's because He will not die, and no one will remove Him. Therefore, even allowing the "unchangeable" interpretation, the argument that Smith was in conflict with Hebrews 7:24 in claiming the Melchizedek priesthood remains intact.

One could not claim it unless Jesus were to pass away or be removed from His eternal office—neither of which is possible.