Jews only: Psalms 110:4

[TrueBeliever37]

Isn't this passage in Psalms 110:4 referring to the Messiah, as being the one who would be a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek?

And the Messiah (the righteous Branch) is also to be the king who will sit on the throne of David.
As per verses such as Psalms 110:2 , and Jeremiah 33:14-18 (which mentions never lacking a man as king, nor a man in the priests position) , Jeremiah 23:5-6 , Zechariah 6:12-13 (the Branch will be both king and priest)

So ultimately my question is:

Since the king is to be a descendant of David, of the tribe of Judah, while the priesthood is limited to someone of the tribe of Levi. How can the Messiah be both king and priest, as the scripture lets us know he will be? (Unless you believe there was a change in the law.)

 

[Drew Henefer]

Isn't this passage in Psalms 110:4 referring to the Messiah, as being the one who would be a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek?

And the Messiah (the righteous Branch) is also to be the king who will sit on the throne of David.
As per verses such as Psalms 110:2 , and Jeremiah 33:14-18 (which mentions never lacking a man as king, nor a man in the priests position) , Jeremiah 23:5-6 , Zechariah 6:12-13 (the Branch will be both king and priest)

So ultimately my question is:

Since the king is to be a descendant of David, of the tribe of Judah, while the priesthood is limited to someone of the tribe of Levi. How can the Messiah be both king and priest, as the scripture lets us know he will be? (Unless you believe there was a change in the law.)

Who's throne does David sit on? (Adam's) Jesus Has the required sanctity for priesthood as well as the confirmation of being the King of the Jew's?

 

[Flankerl]

It never ceases to amaze me how Christians do not understand what Tehillim are.

 

[Tumah]

Isn't this passage in Psalms 110:4 referring to the Messiah, as being the one who would be a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek?

No, it's not. I don't see the word Messiah anywhere in the chapter.

And the Messiah (the righteous Branch) is also to be the king who will sit on the throne of David.

The Messiah is a descendant of David who will sit on David's throne.

As per verses such as Psalms 110:2

I don't see anything in this verse that has references the Messiah.

and Jeremiah 33:14-18 (which mentions never lacking a man as king, nor a man in the priests position) ,

No, it says that there will be lacking someone who could potentially perform these jobs. In other words, their lineages would never end, there will always be male descendants of Levi, Aaron and David to fulfill the functions of the Levite, Priest and king.

Jeremiah 23:5-6

This verse speaks about the descendant of David who will be a king.

Zechariah 6:12-13 (the Branch will be both king and priest)

No, it says that the shoot of David will build the Temple and rule on his throne and there will also be a priest who will sit on his (ie. the priest's) throne (as the High Priest). And there will be peace between the king and the priest.

So ultimately my question is:

Since the king is to be a descendant of David, of the tribe of Judah, while the priesthood is limited to someone of the tribe of Levi. How can the Messiah be both king and priest, as the scripture lets us know he will be? (Unless you believe there was a change in the law.)

There is no change to the Law, you're just reading into the chapter things that are not there. No where does the chapter mention or reference the Messiah. Jewish sources understand it as talking about either Abraham or David himself.
The fact that it says the word "priest" doesn't mean that it's talking about the Aaronic priests. See 2 Sam. 8:18 where David's sons are called "priests". A "priest" just means some who serves in an officiating position.
The word that you are translating "order", I believe you are misunderstanding as meaning "class, rank" when in that translation it's coming from the root dvr meaning "speech". So for that translation, "order" means "command".
The word "Melchi-tzedek" doesn't need to be a proper noun, it can also be an adjective meaning: righteous king.

So in conclusion, no, this is not a Messianic prophecy. Obviously a male descendant of Aaron can't also be a male descendant of David, so it's impossible for a priest of Aaronic lineage to also be a kind of Davidic lineage. The Hasmoneans did make themselves kings, however they were punished as all their descendants were killed. As for this chapter of Pslams, i can be understood when translating it in one way to be talking about someone who was both a king and priest, in which case we understand it is referring to Abraham who took the priesthood from Melchitzedek and passed it to his own descendants. If you translate it another way, then it's not talking about someone who is a priest at all, in which case it can be understood to be talking about David, the righteous king who would forever serve G-d as the righteous king.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

No, it's not. I don't see the word Messiah anywhere in the chapter.


The Messiah is a descendant of David who will sit on David's throne.


I don't see anything in this verse that has references the Messiah.


No, it says that there will be lacking someone who could potentially perform these jobs. In other words, their lineages would never end, there will always be male descendants of Levi, Aaron and David to fulfill the functions of the Levite, Priest and king.


This verse speaks about the descendant of David who will be a king.

No, it says that the shoot of David will build the Temple and rule on his throne and there will also be a priest who will sit on his (ie. the priest's) throne (as the High Priest). And there will be peace between the king and the priest.


There is no change to the Law, you're just reading into the chapter things that are not there. No where does the chapter mention or reference the Messiah. Jewish sources understand it as talking about either Abraham or David himself.
The fact that it says the word "priest" doesn't mean that it's talking about the Aaronic priests. See 2 Sam. 8:18 where David's sons are called "priests". A "priest" just means some who serves in an officiating position.
The word that you are translating "order", I believe you are misunderstanding as meaning "class, rank" when in that translation it's coming from the root dvr meaning "speech". So for that translation, "order" means "command".
The word "Melchi-tzedek" doesn't need to be a proper noun, it can also be an adjective meaning: righteous king.

So in conclusion, no, this is not a Messianic prophecy. Obviously a male descendant of Aaron can't also be a male descendant of David, so it's impossible for a priest of Aaronic lineage to also be a kind of Davidic lineage. The Hasmoneans did make themselves kings, however they were punished as all their descendants were killed. As for this chapter of Pslams, i can be understood when translating it in one way to be talking about someone who was both a king and priest, in which case we understand it is referring to Abraham who took the priesthood from Melchitzedek and passed it to his own descendants. If you translate it another way, then it's not talking about someone who is a priest at all, in which case it can be understood to be talking about David, the righteous king who would forever serve G-d as the righteous king.

Hi Tumah,

Alright, now with what you have said, tell me who is being spoken to in Psalms 110:1.

Because whoever it is speaking about, it says in verse 2 that he will rule and have a mighty scepter (that makes him a king), and in verse 4 that he will be a priest forever.

Note also per your own usage of Melchi-tzedek, he will be a priest forever after the order of a righteous king. So once again, he would be both priest and king.

Please comment also on how he would be a priest forever.

 

[Quintessence]

*** Thread Moved to Biblical Debates ***​

This thread was originally posted in the Religions Q&A forum, which is non-debate. The staff felt it was better suited for a debate forum. You may now debate freely!

 

[Tumah]

Hi Tumah,

Alright, now with what you have said, tell me who is being spoken to in Psalms 110:1.

Because whoever it is speaking about, it says in verse 2 that he will rule and have a mighty scepter (that makes him a king), and in verse 4 that he will be a priest forever.

Note also per your own usage of Melchi-tzedek, he will be a priest forever after the order of a righteous king. So once again, he would be both priest and king.

Please comment also on how he would be a priest forever.

You are conflating two different interpretations here. The interpretation where priest means Temple priest, does not go with the translation of melchi-tzedek as "righteous king" but as the proper noun Melchi-tzedek. In that translation, David records that G-d says to Abraham that he should sit to His right while He fights his battles. If you recall, in Gen. 14 Abraham goes to war against the kings and beats them all. After that, he meets up with the priest Melchitzedek. Here David is saying that Abraham received the priesthood from Melchitzedek and it would forevermore remain in his lineage. In Jewish Midrashic sources, Psa. 110:4 should actually be translated as "because of the words of Melchitzedek" and mean that Melchitzedek was punished with the priesthood being transferred to Abraham and his descendants because in Gen. 14:19, he blesses Abraham before he blesses G-d and that is not correct conduct for a priest of G-d. But as to the salient point, the forever part means that Abraham would retain the priesthood in his line forever.

The translation where melchi-tzedek is translated as righteous king is when we see the subject as being David himself. In which case in verse 110:1 G-d is speaking to David himself telling him to sit at His right while he fights his battles. In this interpretation, David isn't being called a priest, but an officer, an officer of G-d. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the Hebrew word "kohen" which normally refers to Temple priests, can also be used to refer to officers as it is used for David's sons (who were of course, also not priests) in 2 Sam.

 

[rosends]

Hi Tumah,

Alright, now with what you have said, tell me who is being spoken to in Psalms 110:1.

Because whoever it is speaking about, it says in verse 2 that he will rule and have a mighty scepter (that makes him a king), and in verse 4 that he will be a priest forever.

Note also per your own usage of Melchi-tzedek, he will be a priest forever after the order of a righteous king. So once again, he would be both priest and king.

Please comment also on how he would be a priest forever.

If you look into the use of the word "kohen" you will find that it is not always a reference to the Aaronic (lineage based) priestly family. In fact, the first use of it would be in the reference to Malchitzedek, himself, and he was alive BEFORE Aaron. Yitro was also called a "kohen" but he wasn't of that family.

Take a look at the commentaries to 2 Sam 8:18 and you will see that there is reason and precedent to see the word here as pointing to position and importance, not priestly family ties.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

You are conflating two different interpretations here. The interpretation where priest means Temple priest, does not go with the translation of melchi-tzedek as "righteous king" but as the proper noun Melchi-tzedek. In that translation, David records that G-d says to Abraham that he should sit to His right while He fights his battles. If you recall, in Gen. 14 Abraham goes to war against the kings and beats them all. After that, he meets up with the priest Melchitzedek. Here David is saying that Abraham received the priesthood from Melchitzedek and it would forevermore remain in his lineage. In Jewish Midrashic sources, Psa. 110:4 should actually be translated as "because of the words of Melchitzedek" and mean that Melchitzedek was punished with the priesthood being transferred to Abraham and his descendants because in Gen. 14:19, he blesses Abraham before he blesses G-d and that is not correct conduct for a priest of G-d. But as to the salient point, the forever part means that Abraham would retain the priesthood in his line forever.

The translation where melchi-tzedek is translated as righteous king is when we see the subject as being David himself. In which case in verse 110:1 G-d is speaking to David himself telling him to sit at His right while he fights his battles. In this interpretation, David isn't being called a priest, but an officer, an officer of G-d. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the Hebrew word "kohen" which normally refers to Temple priests, can also be used to refer to officers as it is used for David's sons (who were of course, also not priests) in 2 Sam.

Some of what you are saying doesn't even make sense. Psalms 110:1-7 is a psalm of David (meaning written by David).
Why would you then say the one David is calling "my lord" in verse 1, is David himself? Why would David be calling himself "my lord"? That would also then mean that it was David who was being told he would be a priest forever after the order of Melchitzedek.

I am using Melchitzedek as a proper noun here, the way I was originally using it. The name of the one Abraham met.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

*** Thread Moved to Biblical Debates ***​

This thread was originally posted in the Religions Q&A forum, which is non-debate. The staff felt it was better suited for a debate forum. You may now debate freely!

Thanks - Should I put questions like this in this section to begin with, if I think there is any chance it could evolve into a discussion/debate. Or just let you guys move it if necessary?

 

[Tumah]

Some of what you are saying doesn't even make sense. Psalms 110:1-7 is a psalm of David (meaning written by David).
Why would you then say the one David is calling "my lord" in verse 1, is David himself?

Perhaps there's a mistake with your assumption. This particular Psalm starts off "For David, a Psalm". That can either mean that the Psalm was written for David, or that David wrote the Psalm.

Why would David be calling himself "my lord"?

He wouldn't. Using the interpretation that it's David, it was written by a third party about David, for him in fact.

That would also then mean that it was David who was being told he would be a priest forever after the order of Melchitzedek.

That doesn't follow whatsoever.

I am using Melchitzedek as a proper noun here, the way I was originally using it. The name of the one Abraham met.

And as I mentioned originally, the translation of "order" here probably means "command" not "class" as I don't even know if there is a word for "class" (maybe min - 'type'?) in Biblical Hebrew and the root word here is dvr which means "speech" or "thing".

 

[Quintessence]

Thanks - Should I put questions like this in this section to begin with, if I think there is any chance it could evolve into a discussion/debate. Or just let you guys move it if necessary?

If something is controversial, it is usually best to put it in a debate section. The Q&A is intended for asking questions about a religion to learn about a religion from those who either practice it or are knowledgable about it. It's basically an alternative to asking in DIRs, where non-members of the area are limited to respectful questions only (no debate or commentary).

 

[TrueBeliever37]

No, it says that the shoot of David will build the Temple and rule on his throne and there will also be a priest who will sit on his (ie. the priest's) throne (as the High Priest). And there will be peace between the king and the priest.

You gave the above as a response to my use of Zechariah 6:12-13

Explain using the Hebrew how what you say can be true. Because it looks to me that the Hebrew is saying "and he will be" priest on his throne. (still referring to the Branch)

or are you making the claim that cohen here, means something besides a Temple priest?

Also note that in one of the following verses, both crowns were put on the head of the man who was symbolic of what was to come.

BTW, I do appreciate it that we are able to debate this in a civil manner.

 

[Tumah]

You gave the above as a response to my use of Zechariah 6:12-13

Explain using the Hebrew how what you say can be true. Because it looks to me that the Hebrew is saying "and he will be" priest on his throne. (still referring to the Branch)

or are you making the claim that cohen here, means something besides a Temple priest?

BTW, I do appreciate it that we are able to debate this in a civil manner.

The word "v'haya" can mean "and he will be" and it can all mean "and it will be" (eg. Ex. 13:5). So there's a break in the verse:
והוא יבנה את היכל ה' והוא ישא הוד וישב ומשל על כסאו - and he (the Shoot) will build the sanctuary of G-d, and he will raise the glory and sit an rule on his throne.
והיה כהן על כסאו - and it will be [that there will be] a priest on his [own] throne
ועצת שלום תהיה בין שניהם - and a council of peace shall be between both of them (ie. the king and the priest).

I don't think it would flow as well to say that it's talking about the same person for two reasons:
- The first time it says throne, there's a verb describing the subjects relationship to it, while the second time it's a noun. To make it flow better, it should have said "and he shall rule on his throne and he shall minister (v'kihen) on his throne...", or take out the "v'haya" altogether as it introduces a break in the reading. As two separate people, it makes more sense since you're reading it like a new sentence.
- The last line of the verse, that there would be peace between both of them, indicates that there are two people here. We know the second person is not Joshua the High Priest as he would not prove to be alive when this prophecy would take place. So the two people must be those that are internal to the prophecy, the king and priest mentioned.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The word "v'haya" can mean "and he will be" and it can all mean "and it will be" (eg. Ex. 13:5). So there's a break in the verse:
והוא יבנה את היכל ה' והוא ישא הוד וישב ומשל על כסאו - and he (the Shoot) will build the sanctuary of G-d, and he will raise the glory and sit an rule on his throne.
והיה כהן על כסאו - and it will be [that there will be] a priest on his [own] throne
ועצת שלום תהיה בין שניהם - and a council of peace shall be between both of them (ie. the king and the priest).

I don't think it would flow as well to say that it's talking about the same person for two reasons:
- The first time it says throne, there's a verb describing the subjects relationship to it, while the second time it's a noun. To make it flow better, it should have said "and he shall rule on his throne and he shall minister (v'kihen) on his throne...", or take out the "v'haya" altogether as it introduces a break in the reading. As two separate people, it makes more sense since you're reading it like a new sentence.
- The last line of the verse, that there would be peace between both of them, indicates that there are two people here. We know the second person is not Joshua the High Priest as he would not prove to be alive when this prophecy would take place. So the two people must be those that are internal to the prophecy, the king and priest mentioned.

It makes more sense to me for it to be one man, that will have both positions. Especially since the one man here who is symbolic of what is to come, has both crowns put on his head.

You added all that in about [that there will be] , so once again it makes more sense for it to be "and he will be". If you try to choose "it", then what would the it be referring to?

(Also, Correct me if I am wrong here, but I don't think the break would be found in the actual text of the scroll.) Either that or I don't understand what you mean by a break.

It seems like the language is so flexible, that many different meanings/translations can be deduced for almost every word, sentence, etc that is made. For instance you don't even know for sure whether Psalms 110 is talking about Abraham or David. And it could be talking about the Messiah as I believe.

To me it doesn't prove what I have said to be wrong, just that there are numerous possibilities someone can try to state for the meaning.

What is your response regarding both crowns being put on the man who was symbolic of what was to come? One crown representing being King and one representing being Priest. Why were they both put on one man?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The word "v'haya" can mean "and he will be" and it can all mean "and it will be" (eg. Ex. 13:5). So there's a break in the verse:
והוא יבנה את היכל ה' והוא ישא הוד וישב ומשל על כסאו - and he (the Shoot) will build the sanctuary of G-d, and he will raise the glory and sit an rule on his throne.
והיה כהן על כסאו - and it will be [that there will be] a priest on his [own] throne
ועצת שלום תהיה בין שניהם - and a council of peace shall be between both of them (ie. the king and the priest).

After reading it again, I think I understand what you were trying to do with [that there will be]. Please give me some other verses where this expression would be rendered this way. It seems you are saying it can mean - "and he will be" or " and it will be" or "and there will be". Is that what you are saying?

 

[rosends]

After reading it again, I think I understand what you were trying to do with [that there will be]. Please give me some other verses where this expression would be rendered this way. It seems you are saying it can mean - "and he will be" or " and it will be" or "and there will be". Is that what you are saying?

Sorry to butt in -- are you looking for a verse like Gen 4:14 "and it will be that all who find me will kill me" v'hayah chol motz'i y'hargeini" וְהָיָ֥ה כָל־מֹצְאִ֖י יַֽהַרְגֵֽנִי or 24:14 "and it will be that the young woman" (v'hayah hana'arah) or 31:44 or 48:21 which states "behold I am going to die and there will be God among you"?

 

[Tumah]

It makes more sense to me for it to be one man, that will have both positions. Especially since the one man here who is symbolic of what is to come, has both crowns put on his head.

You added all that in about [that there will be] , so once again it makes more sense for it to be "and he will be". If you try to choose "it", then what would the it be referring to?

(Also, Correct me if I am wrong here, but I don't think the break would be found in the actual text of the scroll.) Either that or I don't understand what you mean by a break.

What is your response regarding both crowns being put on the man who was symbolic of what was to come? One crown representing being King and one representing being Priest. Why were they both put on one man?

I'm not sure I get what you're saying about the crowns. The prophet was instructed to make two crowns. One of the crowns was to be placed on the head of Joshua the High Priest (as it says "and place it", not "and place them"), the other crown was put away in the Sanctuary (v. 14). The symbolism here is that Joshua has merited the crown of High Priesthood for him and his descendants. The other crown was put away indicating it's use is for a later date, there would be someone who would merit to wear the crown of kingship after the exile. From there, the prophet carries on about the king who would rule and the priest (presumably now understood to be a descendant of Joshua) who would minister and the peaceful relationship between them.

It seems like the language is so flexible, that many different meanings/translations can be deduced for almost every word, sentence, etc that is made. For instance you don't even know for sure whether Psalms 110 is talking about Abraham or David. And it could be talking about the Messiah as I believe.

To me it doesn't prove what I have said to be wrong, just that there are numerous possibilities someone can try to state for the meaning.

It's not that I'm not sure whether Psalm 110 is talking about Abraham or David. It's that I believe it was talking about both of them. The Messiah is also another possible figure that it's referring to (and I see this interpretation is offered by the Seforno), although naturally in that case again, we'll use the same translation for kohen as we do for David.

After reading it again, I think I understand what you were trying to do with [that there will be]. Please give me some other verses where this expression would be rendered this way. It seems you are saying it can mean - "and he will be" or " and it will be" or "and there will be". Is that what you are saying?

The word v'haya is in third person singular masculine with the vav turning the word from the perfective to the imperfective. So the literal translation of the word is "and he will be". But because Hebrew doesn't have a neutral form, the masculine and feminine forms are also used in place of the English "it", so "and it will be". The "it" here is referring to the situation, the word v'ahaya is and introduction to a description of the state of things at that point. But in English, you can't just say "and it will be a priest on his throne", that's just not correct English. So I added in the word "that there will be" to make it a complete English sentence. Another way to have worded it could be "and it will be [that] a priest [shall be] on his throne".
Examples of this can be found in @rosends following post such as Gen. 4:14 where again we start with the word v'haya introducing the situation, but words are added to make a complete English sentence, "and it will be [that] all [who] find me, shall kill me".

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I'm not sure I get what you're saying about the crowns. The prophet was instructed to make two crowns. One of the crowns was to be placed on the head of Joshua the High Priest (as it says "and place it", not "and place them"), the other crown was put away in the Sanctuary (v. 14). The symbolism here is that Joshua has merited the crown of High Priesthood for him and his descendants. The other crown was put away indicating it's use is for a later date, there would be someone who would merit to wear the crown of kingship after the exile. From there, the prophet carries on about the king who would rule and the priest (presumably now understood to be a descendant of Joshua) who would minister and the peaceful relationship between them.


It's not that I'm not sure whether Psalm 110 is talking about Abraham or David. It's that I believe it was talking about both of them. The Messiah is also another possible figure that it's referring to (and I see this interpretation is offered by the Seforno), although naturally in that case again, we'll use the same translation for kohen as we do for David.

Here is what I am talking about regarding the crowns. Zechariah 6:11 has crowns (plural) being put on the head of the man that was symbolic of the Branch. Then in Zechariah 6:14, the crowns (plural) are put in the temple as a memorial.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

If you look into the use of the word "kohen" you will find that it is not always a reference to the Aaronic (lineage based) priestly family. In fact, the first use of it would be in the reference to Malchitzedek, himself, and he was alive BEFORE Aaron. Yitro was also called a "kohen" but he wasn't of that family.

But the thing is Melchitzedek was a priest before the levitical priesthood, and someone referenced in Psalms 110: 1-7 will be a priest forever after the order of Melchitzedek. (Who is Yitro?)