This post consists of my own personal reflections on what I find to be a particularly fascinating but perplexing expression in Psalm 110:4. I welcome the opinions of other interested posters on how the text is best interpreted:
This rare Hebraic idiom - ‘dibratiy’ - is found here in Psalm 110:4b and (in its absolute state dibrah) in but a few other verses of the Tanakh (see: (Job 5:8), (Psalm 110:4), (Ecclesiastes 7:14),(Daniel 2:30), (Daniel 4:17)). Its paucity of references makes it a notably challenging word to translate.
For such a rare and seemingly puzzling expression, it has, however- mediated through its subsequent and widely dispersed translations into Greek as τάξις (kala ten taxin "an arrangement or grouping of people appointed for a purpose" in the LXX), Latin as ordinem ('order' in the Vulgate) and Syriac as badmuteh ('likeness of' in the Peshetta) - proved to be enormously influential; with a very long and controversial 'afterlife' in later Patristic and Rabbinic exegesis.
This is particularly so in a Christian context, owing to its citation from the Greek septuagintal version by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (70 - 100 CE) in the New Testament. His quotation from the LXX in Hebrews 7 shapes the epicentre of a critical theological argument, which can be read as a kind of midrash on Genesis 14:18-20 and Psalm 110, in which the anonymous author declares Jesus Christ to be a “a priest forever after the manner of Melchizedek” (Hebrews 7:17).
Indeed, it is said that no Psalm has been more frequently cited by the authors of the New Testament than this one.
The entire psalm, however, abounds in textual and exegetical problems (as numerous scholars have noted, including KRAUS 1960:752-764; HORTON 1976: 23-34; FITZMEYER 2001) and not merely in verse 4, although that is the focus of this discussion.
It is exceedingly difficult to figure out the identity of the person we - as the readers or listeners - are meant to understand as the speaker and his addressee: (a) is it someone referring to David or to a Davidic ruler? (b) Is it David himself referring to another predecessor as his 'lord', such as Abraham, or to a future successor as his 'lord' (i.e. Messianic)? (c) Should "malki-sedeq" even be interpreted as a personal name at all or, rather, as an epithet (literally "righteous king")?
In terms of the last question, there seems to be a consensus among contemporary scholars in favour of it being a proper noun and personal name - Melchizedek - as the most plausible inference, so I will proceed with that as an assumption.
But as concerns (a) and (b), Christians - taking their interpretative cue from the New Testament - have almost universally understood the text in light of a traditional messianic paradigm. Jewish exegetes, on the other hand, have apparently entertained the Davidic (i.e. Rashi, Gershonides), Abrahamic (Nedarim 32a) and Messianic (Avot of Rabbi Natan (34:6)) exegeses.
Recent scholarship tends to situate the psalm in the context of early Israelite kingship (M. GILBERT & S. PISANO, Bib 61 356). According to this modern exegesis, it contains two 'oracles' addressed to a king-to-be (presumably by a prophet) in verses 1 and 4. The former is a kind of enthronement-formulae which promises divine sanction for the new ruler; the latter, introduced by a divine oath, declares this same individual to be a 'priest' forever......and this is where the vexing phrase above comes in.
There's a somewhat similar phrase "priest forever" or parallel usage of such a saying in 1 Maccabees 14:41: "The Jews and their priests have resolved that Simon should be their leader and high priest forever", which may be an attempt by the pro-Maccabean dynastic historian to allude to the language of the psalm for the newly independent theocracy.
I am fairly certain that the saying refers (as does the aforementioned) to a proper cultic, priestly person who is at once also a 'ruler'.
I would thus have to disagree, albeit respectfully, with Rashi's hypothesis that kohen in this psalm may refer to a merely ministerial, statist role without any sacral connotations. His argument by way of 2 Sam. 8:18, where sons of David are described as having been appointed as 'priests' (kohanim) by their father, does not seem persuasive to me. Although the Mishnah and Talmud, presuppose that all references to Israelite priests in biblical literature should be understood as implying Aaronide priests, modern scholarship using the historical-critical method has significantly complicated this traditional account.
In this respect, Professor Mark Leuchter in an article for thetorah.com has argued that: "the biblical text mentions multiple priestly families, some of whom are not Aaronide", amongst whom he includes the 'sons of David' in 2 Samuel; in addition to a term in Deuteronomy seemingly equating all Levites with priests (“levitical priests") and not just the direct descendants of Aaron; evidence of a class of 'Mush-ite priests' (Judges 18:30) in the pre-exilic period which could explain the priestly lineage of Eli, the priest of Shiloh and the Zadokites (Ezekiel 40:46) (2 Samuel 8:17), which Saul M. Olyan (“Zadok’s Origins and the Tribal Politics of David,” Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982)) understands as originally consisting of "a priestly family that served in Judah, David’s own tribe", only subsequently re-cast as Aaronides from Ezra 7 on.
With this in mind, I personally think the 'sons of David' were literally assigned as priests in 2 Samuel - this text alluding to a time when "priestly status was not hereditary, and was more permeable and fluid, a hallmark of early Israelite social conditions", to quote Leuchter.
In the Talmud (b. Nedarim 32b), as noted in passing earlier on, Rabbi Zechariah and Rabbi Ishmael conduct a remarkable exegesis on Psalm 110, whereby they interpret the key line "You are a priest forever" as an address to Abraham and as meaning that Melchizedek's priesthood is superseded by Abraham and consequently by that of his seed or progeny in the form of Levi.
They conclude thusly, on the understanding that even though Melchizedek was first priest referred to as a priest in the Torah that he disappointed God when he blessed Abraham before blessing God, and that God accordingly transferred the priesthood from his descendants to the descendants of Abraham. In this interpretation, the 'you are a priest forever' refers less to an individual priest-ruler (as in 1 Maccabees 14:41) as it does to the idea that there will always be a descendant of Abraham ready to take up the functions of the Aaronic priestly office.
I think this is a bold and exegetically brilliant interpretation of this challenging text, however I'm not sure that I am personally convinced by Rabbi Ishmael's linguistic argument, namely:
Using the Mishnaic Hebrew translation of the Biblical דִּבְרָתִי dibratiy and דּבְרֵי dibrey, Rabbi Ishmael appears to make a (intentional or unintentional?) misreading, in which he takes the word dibratiy (order of) and renders it as if it were a different word sharing the same root (ד.ב.ר (d.b.r)) - namely, dibrey (the words of).
No, since they share a common root, dibratiy and dibrey share a close semantic relationship which - according to a professional linguist I consulted - "in unpointed Hebrew would differ only in one consonant (ת t): דברתי (dbrty) vs דברי (dbry)".
He explained to me that roots by themselves have no syntactic meaning in Hebrew but they often share the same consonant sequence with words which are derived from the root. For example, דבר (d.b.r) as it is ordinarily written without vowels can be interpreted as דָּבָר dābār (word), with context determining meaning. The root ‘d.b.r’ thus only becomes ‘word’ when given as דָּבָר. Otherwise it is just a 'root' without syntactic meaning in itself.
In terms of consonant sequence, there seem to be two ancient roots with these three same consonants with hugely disparate meanings when applied in context with suffixes. Examples include:
– dabar (davar) – word, speaking, speech, thing, matter etc.
– deber – pestilence
– dober – pasture
– dobrot – floats, rafts
– dibra – cause, reason, manner, succession, ORDER
– dǝborah – bee
– dǝvir – I oracle, II a city in Judah
– midbar – wilderness.
(continued....)
“al dibratiy malki-sedeq”
אתה כהן לעולם על דברתי מלכי צדק
אתה כהן לעולם על דברתי מלכי צדק
For such a rare and seemingly puzzling expression, it has, however- mediated through its subsequent and widely dispersed translations into Greek as τάξις (kala ten taxin "an arrangement or grouping of people appointed for a purpose" in the LXX), Latin as ordinem ('order' in the Vulgate) and Syriac as badmuteh ('likeness of' in the Peshetta) - proved to be enormously influential; with a very long and controversial 'afterlife' in later Patristic and Rabbinic exegesis.
This is particularly so in a Christian context, owing to its citation from the Greek septuagintal version by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (70 - 100 CE) in the New Testament. His quotation from the LXX in Hebrews 7 shapes the epicentre of a critical theological argument, which can be read as a kind of midrash on Genesis 14:18-20 and Psalm 110, in which the anonymous author declares Jesus Christ to be a “a priest forever after the manner of Melchizedek” (Hebrews 7:17).
Indeed, it is said that no Psalm has been more frequently cited by the authors of the New Testament than this one.
The entire psalm, however, abounds in textual and exegetical problems (as numerous scholars have noted, including KRAUS 1960:752-764; HORTON 1976: 23-34; FITZMEYER 2001) and not merely in verse 4, although that is the focus of this discussion.
It is exceedingly difficult to figure out the identity of the person we - as the readers or listeners - are meant to understand as the speaker and his addressee: (a) is it someone referring to David or to a Davidic ruler? (b) Is it David himself referring to another predecessor as his 'lord', such as Abraham, or to a future successor as his 'lord' (i.e. Messianic)? (c) Should "malki-sedeq" even be interpreted as a personal name at all or, rather, as an epithet (literally "righteous king")?
In terms of the last question, there seems to be a consensus among contemporary scholars in favour of it being a proper noun and personal name - Melchizedek - as the most plausible inference, so I will proceed with that as an assumption.
But as concerns (a) and (b), Christians - taking their interpretative cue from the New Testament - have almost universally understood the text in light of a traditional messianic paradigm. Jewish exegetes, on the other hand, have apparently entertained the Davidic (i.e. Rashi, Gershonides), Abrahamic (Nedarim 32a) and Messianic (Avot of Rabbi Natan (34:6)) exegeses.
Recent scholarship tends to situate the psalm in the context of early Israelite kingship (M. GILBERT & S. PISANO, Bib 61 356). According to this modern exegesis, it contains two 'oracles' addressed to a king-to-be (presumably by a prophet) in verses 1 and 4. The former is a kind of enthronement-formulae which promises divine sanction for the new ruler; the latter, introduced by a divine oath, declares this same individual to be a 'priest' forever......and this is where the vexing phrase above comes in.
There's a somewhat similar phrase "priest forever" or parallel usage of such a saying in 1 Maccabees 14:41: "The Jews and their priests have resolved that Simon should be their leader and high priest forever", which may be an attempt by the pro-Maccabean dynastic historian to allude to the language of the psalm for the newly independent theocracy.
I am fairly certain that the saying refers (as does the aforementioned) to a proper cultic, priestly person who is at once also a 'ruler'.
I would thus have to disagree, albeit respectfully, with Rashi's hypothesis that kohen in this psalm may refer to a merely ministerial, statist role without any sacral connotations. His argument by way of 2 Sam. 8:18, where sons of David are described as having been appointed as 'priests' (kohanim) by their father, does not seem persuasive to me. Although the Mishnah and Talmud, presuppose that all references to Israelite priests in biblical literature should be understood as implying Aaronide priests, modern scholarship using the historical-critical method has significantly complicated this traditional account.
In this respect, Professor Mark Leuchter in an article for thetorah.com has argued that: "the biblical text mentions multiple priestly families, some of whom are not Aaronide", amongst whom he includes the 'sons of David' in 2 Samuel; in addition to a term in Deuteronomy seemingly equating all Levites with priests (“levitical priests") and not just the direct descendants of Aaron; evidence of a class of 'Mush-ite priests' (Judges 18:30) in the pre-exilic period which could explain the priestly lineage of Eli, the priest of Shiloh and the Zadokites (Ezekiel 40:46) (2 Samuel 8:17), which Saul M. Olyan (“Zadok’s Origins and the Tribal Politics of David,” Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982)) understands as originally consisting of "a priestly family that served in Judah, David’s own tribe", only subsequently re-cast as Aaronides from Ezra 7 on.
With this in mind, I personally think the 'sons of David' were literally assigned as priests in 2 Samuel - this text alluding to a time when "priestly status was not hereditary, and was more permeable and fluid, a hallmark of early Israelite social conditions", to quote Leuchter.
In the Talmud (b. Nedarim 32b), as noted in passing earlier on, Rabbi Zechariah and Rabbi Ishmael conduct a remarkable exegesis on Psalm 110, whereby they interpret the key line "You are a priest forever" as an address to Abraham and as meaning that Melchizedek's priesthood is superseded by Abraham and consequently by that of his seed or progeny in the form of Levi.
They conclude thusly, on the understanding that even though Melchizedek was first priest referred to as a priest in the Torah that he disappointed God when he blessed Abraham before blessing God, and that God accordingly transferred the priesthood from his descendants to the descendants of Abraham. In this interpretation, the 'you are a priest forever' refers less to an individual priest-ruler (as in 1 Maccabees 14:41) as it does to the idea that there will always be a descendant of Abraham ready to take up the functions of the Aaronic priestly office.
I think this is a bold and exegetically brilliant interpretation of this challenging text, however I'm not sure that I am personally convinced by Rabbi Ishmael's linguistic argument, namely:
"Immediately [the priesthood] was given to Abraham, as it is said, ‘the word of the LORD to my lord: sit and my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.’ Afterward it is written, ‘The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent: “Thou art a priest for ever after the manner (dibrati) of Melchizedek.”’ After the utterance (dibburo) of Melchizedek." (b. Nedarim 32b)
Using the Mishnaic Hebrew translation of the Biblical דִּבְרָתִי dibratiy and דּבְרֵי dibrey, Rabbi Ishmael appears to make a (intentional or unintentional?) misreading, in which he takes the word dibratiy (order of) and renders it as if it were a different word sharing the same root (ד.ב.ר (d.b.r)) - namely, dibrey (the words of).
No, since they share a common root, dibratiy and dibrey share a close semantic relationship which - according to a professional linguist I consulted - "in unpointed Hebrew would differ only in one consonant (ת t): דברתי (dbrty) vs דברי (dbry)".
He explained to me that roots by themselves have no syntactic meaning in Hebrew but they often share the same consonant sequence with words which are derived from the root. For example, דבר (d.b.r) as it is ordinarily written without vowels can be interpreted as דָּבָר dābār (word), with context determining meaning. The root ‘d.b.r’ thus only becomes ‘word’ when given as דָּבָר. Otherwise it is just a 'root' without syntactic meaning in itself.
In terms of consonant sequence, there seem to be two ancient roots with these three same consonants with hugely disparate meanings when applied in context with suffixes. Examples include:
– dabar (davar) – word, speaking, speech, thing, matter etc.
– deber – pestilence
– dober – pasture
– dobrot – floats, rafts
– dibra – cause, reason, manner, succession, ORDER
– dǝborah – bee
– dǝvir – I oracle, II a city in Judah
– midbar – wilderness.
(continued....)
Last edited:
There might be a non-Levitical priest 400 years before there were Levites? NO!
