Christ’s high priesthood and delegated ministry

Earlier priests died and had to be succeeded. Jesus lives forever, keeps His office, and continues to intercede.

You state the contrast in Hebrews 7:23–25. Its point is the permanence of Christ’s saving ministry.

It is mostly distinguishing one priesthood title from another.

The contrast goes deeper than the titles. Hebrews connects death to succession and Christ’s continuing life to His ability to save.

I can grant that He never hands over His office. I’d still ask whether sending someone to teach or baptize requires them to take His place.

That separates succession from a commission. The risen Christ claims all authority and sends His disciples to teach and baptize.

The answer depends entirely on proving that nontransferable is an impossible translation.

You can engage the strongest reading without settling that vocabulary dispute. A permanent office and the ability to authorize servants are compatible.

They mean authority to administer and serve under Christ. They do not claim the person assumes His saving office or repeats His sacrifice.

That reflects the LDS distinction between conferral for ministry and Christ’s unique work. Hebrews 10 attributes the single offering for sins to Christ.

They mean that each high priest becomes a mediator in the same sense that Christ is.

That misstates the Latter-day Saint claim. Doctrine and Covenants 107 describes authority to administer in spiritual things.

The argument shows why Christ’s permanent office doesn’t rule out authorizing servants. The account of restored authority has to be examined separately.

You distinguish compatibility with Hebrews from evidence for a historical and revelatory claim. D&C 27 gives a specific account to examine.

Yes. The biblical possibility of delegated ministry proves that the LDS ordinations happened.

Showing that an event could happen does not show that it happened. Compare the Restoration records and what they actually say.