Was King David a Priest Forever According to the Order of Melchizedek?

In her post on JewishIsrael about the Messianic Jewish interpretation of Psalm 110, Penina Taylor writes:

According to the Ibn Ezra and the Radak, Tehillim 110 is not a Psalm of (by) David, but one that was composed by an unnamed psalmist, possibly one of his soldiers, about his king. The Psalmist here is saying that David, like Melchizedek, recognizes and serves the One True God, in his righteousness, and he will be responsible for setting events into motion which will ultimately bring all people closer to God – the role of a priest.

This raises some interesting issues.

According to the Bible itself, Psalm 110 is a psalm of David, beginning “לְדָוִד, מִזְמוֹר” – “a Psalm of David”.

Throughout the Tehilim, whenever a Psalm is written by David, it starts off by saying “of David.” No less than 73 of the 150 Psalms are ascribed to David, many containing personal information, such as Psalm 34, written when David pretended to be insane before Abimelech, Psalm 51, written after David became aware with his sin following the Bathsheba affair, and Psalm 56 written when the Philistines had seized David at Gath. These are just three examples from the dozens of Davidic psalms.

If, then, Penina is going to argue that a Psalm “of David” was not actually written by David but by one of his servants, surely the burden of proof is on her to show how this is the case. Quoting the medieval rabbi the Radak does not prove anything other than that the Radak thought Psalm 110 was about David.

Verse 4 is the key verse for us:

ד נִשְׁבַּע יְהוָה, וְלֹא יִנָּחֵם–    אַתָּה-כֹהֵן לְעוֹלָם
עַל-דִּבְרָתִי,    מַלְכִּי-צֶדֶק.
4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent: ‘Thou art a priest for ever
according to the order of Melchizedek.’

|

Let us consider Penina’s proposition that Psalm 110 is about David. According to Penina, God swears to David – and no-one else – that he is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. Yet God did not allow David to build the Temple in which his priests would serve.

In 1 Chronicles 17, we read about how David wanted to build a house for God in verse 1:

א וַיְהִי, כַּאֲשֶׁר יָשַׁב דָּוִיד בְּבֵיתוֹ; וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִיד אֶל-נָתָן הַנָּבִיא, הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי יוֹשֵׁב בְּבֵית הָאֲרָזִים, וַאֲרוֹן בְּרִית-יְהוָה, תַּחַת יְרִיעוֹת. 1 After David was settled in his palace, he said to Nathan the prophet, “Here I am, living in a palace of cedar, while the ark of the covenant of the LORD is under a tent.”

|

The prophet Nathan tells David to do what is in his heart in verse 2, yet then receives a word from the Lord in verse 4:

ד לֵךְ וְאָמַרְתָּ אֶל-דָּוִיד עַבְדִּי, כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה:  לֹא אַתָּה תִּבְנֶה-לִּי הַבַּיִת, לָשָׁבֶת. 4 ‘Go and tell David My servant: Thus saith the LORD: Thou shalt not build Me a house to dwell in;

|

Why could David not build God’s house?

David explains to his son Solomon in 1 Chronicles 22:7-8:

ז וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִיד, לִשְׁלֹמֹה:  בנו (בְּנִי)–אֲנִי הָיָה עִם-לְבָבִי, לִבְנוֹת בַּיִת לְשֵׁם יְהוָה אֱלֹהָי. 7 And David said to Solomon: ‘My son, as for me, it was in my heart to build a house unto the name of the LORD my God.
ח וַיְהִי עָלַי דְּבַר-יְהוָה, לֵאמֹר, דָּם לָרֹב שָׁפַכְתָּ, וּמִלְחָמוֹת גְּדֹלוֹת עָשִׂיתָ:  לֹא-תִבְנֶה בַיִת, לִשְׁמִי–כִּי דָּמִים רַבִּים, שָׁפַכְתָּ אַרְצָה לְפָנָי. 8 But the word of the LORD came to me, saying: Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars; thou shalt not build a house unto My name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in My sight.

|

So because David had shed blood, he could not build the Temple.

David had shed blood because he had fought wars as King of Israel. It was because of the kingly duties of fighting wars that David was not permitted to construct the Temple where the priestly Levites would serve. Instead, God would command David’s son Solomon to build the Temple, and so intentionally gave him a peaceful reign.

God essentially told David that the wars which he was duty-bound to fight as a king prevented him from being able to build the Temple for the priests. And so David’s kingly office clashed with the priestly office. Compare this with the eternal priest of Tehilim 110 whose priestly and kingly duties do not clash at all.

We know that Melchizedek himself was both a king and a priest from Bereshit 14:18:

יח וּמַלְכִּי-צֶדֶק מֶלֶךְ שָׁלֵם, הוֹצִיא לֶחֶם וָיָיִן; וְהוּא כֹהֵן, לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן. 18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was priest of God the Most High.

|

From this verse we see how the king-priest Melchizedek brought forth bread and wine – as Yeshua eventually would.

David meanwhile ate the bread which had been consecrated by the priests, as we read in 1 Samuel 21:1-6. David tells Abimelech in verse 2 that he is alone because the king has charged him with a matter, and thus he has gone about his business. After speaking with Abimelech, we read in verse 6 (verse 7 in Hebrew Bible):

ז וַיִּתֶּן-לוֹ הַכֹּהֵן, קֹדֶשׁ:  כִּי לֹא-הָיָה שָׁם לֶחֶם, כִּי-אִם-לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים הַמּוּסָרִים מִלִּפְנֵי יְהוָה, לָשׂוּם לֶחֶם חֹם, בְּיוֹם הִלָּקְחוֹ. 7 So the priest gave him holy bread; for there was no bread there but the showbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.

|

Thus David’s obedience to the kingly decree leads him to eat the bread that has been sanctified by the priests, which further shows how the priestly and kingly offices clashed for David. Compare this with Melchizedek, the King of Salem who offered bread and wine to God, combining his priestly and kingly offices without any tension.

So it seems a stretch for Penina argue that a psalm of David, written about one who is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek, was actually written about David.

Furthermore, it is odd that Penina chooses to describe the role of a priest as someone who ‘ultimately brings all people closer to God.’ Where has Penina taken this idea from?

There is nowhere in the Bible which suggests that the actions of a priest may actually bring other people closer to God – that is until you meet the Great High Priest, the Cohen haGadol Yeshua haMashiach, whom we read of in Hebrews 9:11-15:

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.

It is clear that only King Yeshua, and not King David, is able to fulfil the priestly office of Melchizedek, and to be a priest forever.

73 thoughts on “Was King David a Priest Forever According to the Order of Melchizedek?

  1. Pingback: Was King David a Priest Forever According to the Order of Melchizedek? | eChurch Christian Blog

  2. Unfortunately there were so man errors in here that I do not know where to start. You make a big deal that the king of Salem (Jerusalem) was both king and priest as if that was something unusual. The Hoshmonian line was also.

    The word ‘kohen’ while usually meaning a ‘priest’ means one who serves G-d, and so applies to David as it does to the whole Jewish people as is says in Shemos 19:6. I don’t think anyone thinks it means that everyone of the people will be performing sacrifices or another temple service.

    This is what the commentaries are saying that David can be compared to this King who was also a great servant of G-d. (That he was a servant of G-d can be seen from the fact that Avraham went to see him.)

    • You make a big deal that the king of Salem (Jerusalem) was both king and priest as if that was something unusual. The Hoshmonian line was also.

      So blame the Bible.

      Why didn’t the Psalmist say “thou art a priest for ever according to the order of the Hoshmonians”? You point to Melchizedek being king and priest of Salem, the future Jerusalem – just as Yeshua is the king and priest of the future Jerusalem.

      The word ‘kohen’ while usually meaning a ‘priest’ means one who serves G-d, and so applies to David as it does to the whole Jewish people as is says in Shemos 19:6.

      Right, so what’s special about this priest – he’s (a) eternal and (b) according to the order of Melchizedek – what does that mean??

      That he was a servant of G-d can be seen from the fact that Avraham went to see him.

      He wasn’t just a “servant of God”, he was a priest of God.

      And as for Shemos 19:6, “you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”, this is a prophecy about when all Jews will be priests of Yeshua’s new covenant, as will happen when all Israel believes in Yeshua.

      • :) I don’t know where to start. You guys accuse me of making this up and look at what you have written.

        Of course the Psalmist didn’t mention the Hoshmanoyim. For two reasons: 1. They lived a very long time in the future. 2. They usurped the Davidic families rights.

        What made him special is that Avraham considered him special enough to visit him. Nothing more and nothing less.

        Shemos 19 does NOT refer to Jesus’ as it says specifically that being a priest is tied up with following the laws that were being given on Mount Sinai.

      • Of course the Psalmist didn’t mention the Hoshmanoyim. For two reasons: 1. They lived a very long time in the future. 2. They usurped the Davidic families rights.

        There we go, you’ve proved my point: there’s something unique and special about the priesthood of Melchizedek that isn’t true of the Hoshmanoyim.

        What made him special is that Avraham considered him special enough to visit him. Nothing more and nothing less.

        Can you find me another in the Bible who is both king and priest, apart from Melchizedek?

        Shemos 19 does NOT refer to Jesus’ as it says specifically that being a priest is tied up with following the laws that were being given on Mount Sinai.

        Are you a priest, Moshe?

      • Joseph the specialness was the man shown by Avraham meeting him. You are beginning to sound like a Mormon. Are you a member of the M priesthood?

        Yes I am a priest in the meaning of that verse. Guess who the laity are?

      • So you agree there’s no other priest-king apart from Melchizedek in the Bible?

        Joseph the specialness was the man shown by Avraham meeting him.

        Abraham met with many people who aren’t mentioned in the Bible, why is Melchizedek mentioned?

        Yes I am a priest in the meaning of that verse. Guess who the laity are?

        Mormons??? :)

  3. ” Yet God did not allow David to build the Temple in which his priests would serve.”

    Nonsense. The “priesthood” described clearly is not one that would engage in the Aaronic Priesthood. The Aaronic Priesthood is an eternal one and an outsider may not infringe upon that. C’mon, even the book of Hebrews acknowledges this.

    • The “priesthood” described clearly is not one that would engage in the Aaronic Priesthood.

      How do you mean Yirmeyahu?

      re. Hebrews, are you referring to this verse?

      If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

      • Joseph you are confusing terms here. The Levitical priests have a specific function with regards to the Jewish people. A priest like Malkitzedek, who lived before Sinai, has a different function. That was to serve G-d (or his gods if he was a pagan.) This is the meaning of priest in Shemos referring to the whole Jewish people who are to serve G-d by keeping his Torah. So Malkitzedik is a priest like the whole Jewish people are, but not like those who are descendants of Aharon. In that sense, it makes sense to say that David is also like that.

  4. “There is nowhere in the Bible which suggests that the actions of a priest may actually bring other people closer to God ”

    Try reading last weeks parshah:

    “thus shall the Kohen provide him atonement for his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.” (Lev. 4:26)

    “and the Kohen shall provide him atonement, and it shall be forgiven him.” (Lev. 4:31)

    “and the Kohen shall provide him atonement for his sin that he committed, and it shall be forgiven him.” (Lev. 4:35)

    “And the Kohen shall provide him atonement for his sin that he committed, and it shall be forgiven him” (Lev. 5:10)

    “The Kohen shall provide him atonement for the sin that he committed regarding any of these, and it will be forgiven him” (Lev. 5:13)

    “Then the Kohen shall provide him atonement with the ram of the guilt-offering and it shall be forgiven him.” ( lev. 5:16)

    • Noster, maybe if running in rings is another way of saying talking in circles.

      First he says kohanim cannot bring people closer to God, then he concedes that they can provide forgiveness of sins (in opposition to the book of Hebrews). He’s changing his position without missing a beat…

      • How do you mean? You must see how the priests themselves could not bring people closer to God unless they had an atonement to offer.

        Where was the atonement offered by King David – in what sense was David a priest?

        • David offered attonement often for himself in his conversation with GOD and his people this made him a priest for GOD

  5. “How do you mean? You must see how the priests themselves could not bring people closer to God unless they had an atonement to offer.”

    You have no logic behind your inference. Just because sacrifices were a means of bringing people to God, which you initially denied they had ANY means of doing so, doesn’t mean there aren’t others.

    “in what sense was David a priest?”

    I’m not arguing he is, per se, but it could very well be in the same sense which his descendants were:

    http://www.teshuvashaminim.com/psalms110.html

    • Just because sacrifices were a means of bringing people to God, which you initially denied they had ANY means of doing so, doesn’t mean there aren’t others

      No I didn’t. I don’t define a priest as someone who merely “brings all people closer to God” – priest is a specific role, offering sacrifices to atone for sins, as Yeshua did when he became our atoning sacrifice.

      What atoning sacrifice did David offer?

    • “you initially denied they had ANY means of doing so, doesn’t mean there aren’t others”

      No I didn’t.

      You certainly did:
      “There is nowhere in the Bible which suggests that the actions of a priest may actually bring other people closer to God”

      “I don’t define a priest as someone who merely “brings all people closer to God” – priest is a specific role, offering sacrifices to atone for sins”

      Your” definition means little to me (nothing personal). You have no scriptural basis, note for example Israel’s role as a “kingdom of priests”. To superimpose your own private definition on a word is the fallacy of illicit redefinition.

    • He was a priest,after the order of melchizedek?-possibly only one would not know specifically due to the attention he provided himself while a Melchizedekian priest is primarily concerned with only the affairs of GOD, even he was better thn most levitican priest where he did not always have to use the Urim and thummim for specific communication with GOD in that the LORD would visit him.

  6. >>> So because David had shed blood, he could not build the Temple. <<<

    Curious anyone. We read in the NT that Messiah will (yet future) take large numbers of human life.

    1. Do observants believe Messiah will also? If so, how does that affect their interpretation of Temple restoration by Messiah.

    2. Do MJs etc believe that Messiah will come again AFTER the restoration of the Temple?

  7. L’David, “Of David,” can mean either “by” or “about” just as it does in English. Context matters.

    While David was not of the priestly tribe of Levi
    (neither was Jesus), David was priestly in leading people to God with his psalms and these endure forever. They are not diminished by either his leadership in war or failure to build the Temple.

    One might almost say that a chapter such as Ps. 110 was intentionally placed immediately before Psalm 111. For, beginning with 111 till the end of the Book of Psalms, we have before us chapters that, for the most part (except perhaps Psalms 140-143) are generally of instructive nature, and they have become part of our national liturgy.

  8. Pingback: David Priest-King - Christian Forums

  9. I have several questions and observations. I am not an expert in this field but I have thought about Melchizedek for many years.
    It seems to me that Melchizedek, as priest of El Elyon (Most High God), would have been a pagan priest. Doesn’t “elyon” infer “highest in a series,” as does the translation “most high?” That would be a pagan conception.
    It also seems to me that Abraham came to share tithes because Melchizedek was basically his overlord. Again and again, the weakness of Abraham is shown: had to take a weak hanger-oner (Lot) with him out of Ur, had to save him several time, thought he had to give up Sarah in order to stay in Egypt (or worse yet, did he pimp her out?), has to impregnate a servant girl to have the ‘promised son,’ had to give up that son, had to go up on Mount Moriah to sacrifice the real promised son, etc. So, even when he wins a great battle he still has to pay tithes to a more powerful overlord.
    When David takes Jerusalem as a military commander, among the ‘spoils,’ so to speak, is the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, which belongs to king of Jerusalem. The Psalm confirms that David is granted this priesthood. Had he not received it, would he have been the full-fledged king of Jerusalem? But at this point it is HaShem who confirms the priesthood rather than the ‘Most High God.” The priesthood is still good. El Elyon as a name of God is still good. In a sense, David has allowed HaShem to become El Elyon and HaShem has allowed David to become a priest after the Order of Melchizedek.
    Finally, Jesus, the heir of David, ends the reign of the Temple and the Aaronic priesthood, and becomes king and priest of Jerusalem. The only priesthood left over is that of Melchizedek, which now belongs to Jesus.
    The author of Hebrews, who it seems to me was writing when the Temple was still in use, is inspired to set down on paper the fact that this change has occurred. Because the Bible is a sort of collection of the important covenants between God and man, this detail must be noted.

    • Yes the most high would translate into a series if it is understood that there are 7 specific spirits who work togther as one individual with 7 diff aspects and perceptions,we are only introduce to 3 in the meeting of him but like u can c in the lamb in revelations we shall know them all by the end of our journey with JESUS.

      • I am trying to be historical here. I think it is clear that Melchizedek is a pagan king/priest. The name El Elyon is commonly found in Hebrew prayers today, so clearly it was adopted into Judaism as an acceptable name for God. We must therefore conclude that Melchizedek himself is an acceptable representative of God, despite his pagan background. This name and its adoption by Judaism indicates that God is a plurality in one. Judging from the doctrines common to the pagans, a sevenfold hierarchy with El Elyon at the top makes sense. But this would have to be transformed into a sevenfold hierarchy within El Elyon to be acceptable to Jews, Christians, and God. I doubt El Elyon refers to the Trinity, but they can be described as sequential. Your idea that the trinity is all we know of a sevenfold God is exciting, however, indicating that there is so much more to know.

  10. Pingback: Justice vs. mercy - King David, Rahab, and situational ethics (ATTN: Easy G, esp.) - Christian Forums

  11. Melchizedek of Salem. Melchizedek means King of Righteousness. Salem means Peace. Jeru means City Salem means still Peace. Jerusalem means City of Peace. Melchizedek of Salem means: King of Righteousness (&) of Peace (& so is Jesus). Priestly order of Melchizedek ran along side and started before Tabernacle & Temple Priests, Jesus wasn’t a temple priest. The high priest in the order of Melchizedek was a democratic position. The people voted him in. (Hebrerws) Don’t know why the order gets such a low profile but perhaps it’s something to do with; how do hierarchical organisation control their priests if they appointed by God and not the organisation. How would an individual become a Priest in the order of Melchizedek? see EX 19v5.

    • Jesus gave u instructions how to perform this feat in various instructions and the figuring out of the parables which should show u a the way to this achievement,i am not a liberty to show the way i used unless a great love/righteousness is proffered to GOD,this is why the way is spoken in parables.

  12. according to leviticus 22… david could be purchased by the high priest … to eat the shewbread…

    david and his men had not been with women for 3 days qualifying them for this law….

    that is found in 1samuel 21…. especially vs 7

    being a believer in the faith hall of fame … david is of the house of christ… and a brother…. according to luke 5 he is the father of JESUS…

    now JESUS coming from all eternity and being GOD … the lamb and the priest of the sanctuary made without hands…. has no beginning no end … and served once as melchizedek…

    the believers in the “promise ” of abraham … are the sons of GOD… and brethren of JESUS
    joint heirs … having the seed of the promise within… the holy spirit…. according to john the apostle … we believers are to possess through adoption the HOLY SPIRIT FOREVER….

    by faith the believers in the promised seed of JESUS… ARE JOINT HEIRS… and according to revelation were are a holy people priests and kings… of the eternal order not an earthly order…

    for the aaronic order is temperal…. but the Jesus IS FOREVER AND WE are heirs of the promise…

    if david were not purchased by the 85 priests who died for him and the city of nob… he and his men would have died… as did the sons of aaron who used common fire before the LORD….

    david wore the ephod from the time forward when inquiring to the LORD… THE EPHOD is the clothing of the priest…. not just a king… the psalms are repleat with tons of information about the sanctuary… and some may have been written by davids priests … but david clearly spoke of looking into the sanctuary … not just spiritually.. but with mortal eyes… and he also spoke of desiring to be before the LORD in his presence … forever … while gazing upon the beauty of the LORD… THIS IS THE HEAVENLY … MELCHIZEDEK TYPE SANCTUARY… THAT JESUS is HIGH PRIEST OF…. NOT THE SONS OF AARON

        • This is the diffrence of a priest of the Order of Melchezidek ferom the Levitican priesthood,Mel priest consistentantly live with GOD,”thus eternal Life”while Levi priests have appointed times to serve God,there is no Sabbath for the Mel Priests,no rest from the knowledge of God,b’cuz the priest is forever in God’s presence without ritual accepted as Gods equal in the affairs of GOD-being that he’s informed-andseeks GOD in entirety not assumming anywork good or bad is merit unless warranted by GOD himself…thus explainining the righteousness of Abraham though to kill is against the 10 commandments….

    • which is the actual place in heaven while on earth-this is what David saw,even though his flesh did not stay incorruptible that he may keep it at his permanent entrance to heaven(death- being reallly from life to life for the righteous),which we know is not posssible as of yet through scripture.

  13. the priesthood difff is also according to the degree of conversation u r able to elicit from GOD,knowing this shows rank even amongst levi priest b;cus the highest levi priest can use the Urim and Thummim,accessibility to the very living word of GOD considers ur rank in the church,remem the Lamb in revelations who was able to take the scroll from GOD’s hands(access to GOD’s Word)

    • the living word not the 2000yr old map,but the word that comes from the express spirits of GOD,remem Jesus sez ppl search the script thinkn they hav eternal life but refuse to come unto Him who the script talks about,therefore stating the bible is a map…..
      to the spirit that u mite worship Him In Spirit and Truth…..
      this walk takes sacrifices…..

  14. the more convo u can gain from God the more u r esteemed of HIM and worthy of esteem from the universe in the HIS commands is for all……

  15. Most ppl hav to pray and wait for and answer from HIM,where i’m blessed that i get and immediate answer 2 wherei dont hav 2 wait, not only that but HE will rouse me anytime during which He wants to speak 2 me…lol…Praise GOD!

    • remem hearing GOD’s express word is the highest form of knowledge so therefore Jesus being closer to GOD then David was looked to as the LORD of David and remem that Jesus is the only thing ever brought forth by the Father,and everything else was brought forth by the father’s word which took on a life of it’s own being that it rested with the father and had the life of the father in it-which has a name or a couple,Jesus, Emmanuel,et Yeshua

  16. There is that that GOD will reward a man according to his achievements in understanding through the gospel which is only introducing to GOD as one brand new from ther u must strive to seek GOD continuously,the 1 with the most effort shall be the one who gets the closest and therefore the on most esteemed by GOD,AMEN

  17. thus faith alone is no good,faith without works is dead?….both works on ur part as well as GOD”s…the LORD is tired of the world’s complacency in their learning of HIM and desires 1 who shall seek HIM with all their heart…..

  18. Omg!the Aaronic preisthood is 4evr?So y thn r all the sacrifices accordingly gone since the coming of Chrst?Doesn’t state in the Bible that that the Melchizedkian priesthood is a priesthood after eternal life,Aaron was in charge of the levitican priesthood and still couldn’t talk to GOD like MOses….the more u get a response frome God the Holier the place!And while i would kknow a priest bettr thn Moses it is clear that the Levitican priesthood is subservient to the Melchizedekian who is also called a king!

  19. Wow…its kinda pathetic that we sit and review who was who in the bible,really only tring to show each othr how smart we r to each othr(seeker’s of Man’s glory)when wat the important part of Jesus’s message was how to get to GOD(sekker’s of GOD’S Glory).

  20. Well, I for one am interested in your conversation, though I am also interested in the history behind Melchizedek, Abraham, David, and Jesus. Wish you’d be a little more careful of your spellings, etc., as I find them hard to follow at times.

    You are right. . . to be Priest Forever. . . that is pretty intense. If David, flawed as he was, could be Priest after the Order of Melchizedek, as well as Jesus, then there is some flexibility in membership.

    Personally, I think such the possibility of Priesthood forever is worth contemplation. It is not something that had dawned on me before you folks brought it up. If this is something we can aspire to or learn from, great.

    The other interesting point is the fact that the O of M justifies paganism, to some extent or in some context. That is why I was trying to figure out the actual means by which the Priesthood of M becomes part of the J/C transmission. As I wrote—-you guys seemed not to be interested—it appears to me that Abraham had to share tithes with M because the latter was his overlord. That would make the Abrahamic inheritance in some measure subject to the Melchizekian. This is not the popular view in Biblical criticism, but it seems the only historically justified reading of the text.

    Later, David conquers Jerusalem and inherits the Order from the pagan kings who had ruled before him. This, perhaps, now makes the Priesthood of M subject to the Judaic dispensation. Christ inherits through the genetics of the Davidic line. Or, also, by his own actions.

    How do we inherit? Is it by a simultaneous incorporation of pagan, Jewish, and Christian religion or spirituality into ourselves? What would that be like?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s