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:
|
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.
Great article Joseph, thought provoking
Pingback: Was King David a Priest Forever According to the Order of Melchizedek? | eChurch Christian Blog
Amen
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.
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???
Certainly there were other priest-kings. But how many were righteous I do not know.
The laity of the Jewish people are the gentiles.
Do Jews atone for Gentile sin in any way?
Nobody can ‘atone’ for another. However in the temple gentiles brought sacrifices, and we see that Avraham could pray for Avimeleich that he should be forgiven.
Great article, Joseph!
Thanks everyone for the encouraging comments
” 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.
BTW,non-Jews had their own priesthoods, which have no relationship to Israel and the priesthood set up at Sinai.
So you’re saying David had a priesthood like the priesthood of non-Jews: a priesthood which you consider had (a) no relation to Torah and (b) no relation to Sinai?
I am saying that David was a priest in the sense that Shemos 19 says.
Both Shemos 19 & Tehilim 110 are future prophecies.
Shemos is not really a prophecy. It says Do X and the I will do Y. Unless G-d is a liar, then Y is really included in X. (i.e. by doing X one is automatically Y)
“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)
Right, notice how all those verses mention atonement.
Who did David offer atonement for?
Joseph, I am sorry that David’s Psalms do not inspire you to want to be closer to G-d.
Of course they do, but that doesn’t make David a priest according to definitions in the Bible, as the verses Yirmeyahu provides only confirm.
Joseph, refuting your point (that Kohanim don’t bring people closer to God) is not a “confirmation” of you point. You were wrong, despite the fact that you think you can twist this information.
Incidentally, the verses I cited illustrate that the verse you cited is a faulty for implying that sin cannot be forgiven through the Aaronic priesthood.
http://www.teshuvashaminim.com/psalms110.html
David is one of the ‘kingdom of priests’.
Who else is?
Lots of cultures have the leader having a role in their religion.
Nice one Joseph, you’re running rings round Moshe & Yirmeyahu!
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?
“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.
When you have a sacrificial atonement, that makes you a priest, without one of course your actions can’t of themselves bring anyone closer to God.
Where was David’s sacrifice? Where was his atonement?
“When you have a sacrificial atonement, that makes you a priest,”
Repeating a claim isn’t the same as providing evidence.
2nd Samuel 2:24.
>>> 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?
Great article Joseph, I missed a cracking debate while I was away!
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.
Pingback: David Priest-King - Christian Forums
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.
Pingback: Justice vs. mercy - King David, Rahab, and situational ethics (ATTN: Easy G, esp.) - Christian Forums
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.