Questions for Jews re: Kings and Priests

[TrueBeliever37]

According to the law of Moses, could a future King of Israel be from the tribe of Levi, or would he be required to be of the lineage of David?

According to the law of Moses, could a descendent of David be a Priest?

 

[dybmh]

As far as I know the two are mutually exclusive. You're either in the tribe of Judah or the tribe of Levi not both.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

As far as I know the two are mutually exclusive. You're either in the tribe of Judah or the tribe of Levi not both.

Right, I know the two tribes are separate tribes and you wouldn't be in both. I am asking regarding kings and priests.

In other words, according to the law of Moses, could a King be a Levite? Or does the King have to be a descendant of David?

and could a Priest be from the Tribe of Judah (of David's lineage)?

 

[rosends]

According to the law of Moses, could a future King of Israel be from the tribe of Levi, or would he be required to be of the lineage of David?

According to the law of Moses, could a descendent of David be a Priest?

Kings, once the Davidic line was established, were to be from Judah and priests (as per biblical rules) from Levi. This was an intrinsic problem with the Hasmonean dynasty.

Were the Chashmonaim Right? by Ari Michael — Kol Torah

 

[rosends]

and could a Priest be from the Tribe of Judah?

No. The priestly line comes from a sub-family within the tribe of Levi, and only from that group.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

No. The priestly line comes from a sub-family within the tribe of Levi, and only from that group.

Your answer was exactly what I thought.

Now with that in mind, please explain how without a change in the law, Zechariah 6:11-13 would ever be fulfilled. Because they made a crown and placed it on the head of YHWSH the high priest, and were saying he represented The BRANCH who would sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne.

Also Isn't it the Jewish belief that the BRANCH is referring to the Messiah (the future descendant of King David)?

 

[rosends]

Your answer was exactly what I thought.

Now with that in mind, please explain how without a change in the law, Zechariah 6:11-13 would ever be fulfilled. Because they made a crown and placed it on the head of YHWSH the high priest, and were saying he represented The BRANCH who would sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne.

Also Isn't it the Jewish belief that the BRANCH is referring to the Messiah?

2 crowns for two people

11 -- Take silver and gold and make crowns. Place it on the head of High Priest Joshua son of Jehozadak,

12 -- and say to him, “Thus said the LORD of Hosts: Behold, a man called the Branch. shall branch out from the place where he is, and he shall build the Temple of the LORD.

13 -- He shall build the Temple of the LORD and shall assume majesty, and he shall sit on his throne and rule. And there shall also be a priest and harmonious understanding shall prevail between them.”

while some see an extended meaning as pointing to the future messiah and the separate priest, most commentators explain that verse 11 is explicitly referring to Zerubavel who is called in 3:8 "Branch".

So what's the question again?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Your answer was exactly what I thought.

Now with that in mind, please explain how without a change in the law, Zechariah 6:11-13 would ever be fulfilled. Because they made a crown and placed it on the head of YHWSH the high priest, and were saying he represented The BRANCH who would sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne.

Also Isn't it the Jewish belief that the BRANCH is referring to the Messiah (the future descendant of King David)?

That is changing the subject. The OP is about something else. It is a bit rude to get people to spend time answering a question and then say you already knew the answer and just wanted to get people involved so you could then challenge on your true topic. Why not just be friendly and say up front what your challenge is?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

2 crowns for two people

11 -- Take silver and gold and make crowns. Place it on the head of High Priest Joshua son of Jehozadak,

12 -- and say to him, “Thus said the LORD of Hosts: Behold, a man called the Branch. shall branch out from the place where he is, and he shall build the Temple of the LORD.

13 -- He shall build the Temple of the LORD and shall assume majesty, and he shall sit on his throne and rule. And there shall also be a priest and harmonious understanding shall prevail between them.”

while some see an extended meaning as pointing to the future messiah and the separate priest, most commentators explain that verse 11 is explicitly referring to Zerubavel who is called in 3:8 "Branch".

So what's the question again?

Are you saying the High Priest wore a crown of silver and/or gold and not a turban?

It said make crowns, and place on the head of the High Priest (No one else is mentioned here.) Why would it say make crowns - and then say place it on the head of the high priest? How would they even know which one to place if that were the case?

in verse 13 - you have left out the part about the priest on his throne. A priest doesn't sit on a throne does he?

Wasn't Zerubavel from the tribe of Judah? I'm not sure (maybe I am wrong on that), but if that is true, how could the Branch be represented by the high priest?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

That is changing the subject. The OP is about something else. It is a bit rude to get people to spend time answering a question and then say you already knew the answer and just wanted to get people involved so you could then challenge on your true topic. Why not just be friendly and say up front what your challenge is?

Just because I thought that was the answer I would get doesn't always mean it will be.

 

[rosends]

Are you saying the High Priest wore a crown of silver and/or gold and not a turban?

At that point, there was, indeed, a metal crown made for the high priest. It wasn't for when he was performing the service and it was intended to last beyond him and remain as a marker of the priesthood into the future.

It said make crowns, and place on the head of the High Priest (No one else is mentioned here.) Why would it say make crowns - and then say place it on the head of the high priest? How would they even know which one to place if that were the case?

It says to make crowns (plural) and place it (singular) on the head of the priest, and then, later to put both aside as a memorial to the people who donated the materials to make the crowns.

in verse 13 - you have left out the part about the priest on his throne. A priest doesn't sit on a throne does he?

Actually, in neither place does it say "throne". It says "kis'o", his chair. People assume that a king's chair WOULD BE a throne. But if a priest's chair wouldn't be a throne, why use the word "throne" for a very simple Hebrew word that means chair? Psalms 94:20 uses the same word as "seat". Proverbs 9:14 uses it as "chair." It just so happens that the majority of uses are referring to the seat that a king or God sits on so the English "throne" is appropriate. But where it is just a seat, the text uses it as "seat." People have to sit somewhere I guess.

A couple of commentators make note of the fact that the text never says that the priest will sit anywhere -- it says he will be on the chair, and they understand that to mean that he doesn't sit -- he stands in front of the king who is sitting on the throne. This, linguistically, is tied at another use of the same relationship which explains that the priest goes before the king in Sam 2.

 

[stvdv]

That is changing the subject. The OP is about something else. It is a bit rude to get people to spend time answering a question and then say you already knew the answer and just wanted to get people involved so you could then challenge on your true topic. Why not just be friendly and say up front what your challenge is?

I didn't feel it that way, more the opposite
But I always give others the benefit of doubt. In this case though, I felt no doubt

And I wish more would do it the way @TrueBeliever37 did when talking about God (stuff). Not all interpret verses the same

And he did not claim "I already knew the answer". He said:

Your answer was exactly what I thought.

Meaning "he thought exactly the same but did not know if it was a true fact and/or if they were both on 1 line, because what he 'thinks' need not be true"

Now being on 1 line it's a good start to discuss things.

Similar when meeting a woman, serious people don't have sex on the first time they meet, first they check out if it's a match by talking etc.

 

[Luchito Prays]

According to the law of Moses, could a future King of Israel be from the tribe of Levi, or would he be required to be of the lineage of David?

According to the law of Moses, could a descendent of David be a Priest?

Moses died having God as the maximum authority ruling over the tribes of Israel. The petition for having a king was made way after Moses.

Moses left rules for priesthood and priests.

Perhaps the blessings of Jacob and Moses can serve as a guide to find out what tribe must be the chosen one to rule over the Israelite, but so far I never heard such was a law given by Moses.

You can help a lot if you please provide the text you are based on, in order to make your question.

 

[dybmh]

I never heard such was a law given by Moses.

Hello Luchito, welcome to RF. I hope you don't mind the interjection. The lineage of kings coming from tribe of Judah comes from Jacob in Genesis 49:10.

 

[Luchito Prays]

Hello Luchito, welcome to RF. I hope you don't mind the interjection. The lineage of kings coming from tribe of Judah comes from Jacob in Genesis 49:10.

I thought so.

My point was given to the question made: " According to the law of Moses, could a future King of Israel be from the tribe of Levi, or would he be required to be of the lineage of David?"

A blessing is not a law.

 

[dybmh]

I thought so.

My point was given to the question made: " According to the law of Moses, could a future King of Israel be from the tribe of Levi, or would he be required to be of the lineage of David?"

A blessing is not a law.

That's a fair point. Although I would consider Gen 49:10 more than a blessing. It could be considered prophecy?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

2 crowns for two people

11 -- Take silver and gold and make crowns. Place it on the head of High Priest Joshua son of Jehozadak,

12 -- and say to him, “Thus said the LORD of Hosts: Behold, a man called the Branch. shall branch out from the place where he is, and he shall build the Temple of the LORD.

13 -- He shall build the Temple of the LORD and shall assume majesty, and he shall sit on his throne and rule. And there shall also be a priest and harmonious understanding shall prevail between them.”

while some see an extended meaning as pointing to the future messiah and the separate priest, most commentators explain that verse 11 is explicitly referring to Zerubavel who is called in 3:8 "Branch".

So what's the question again?

1. So which crown was placed on the head of Joshua the high priest? (Shouldn't your answer be that it would be the crown of the high priest?)
Yet here the high priest was symbolic of the Branch. In your previous post you said the Branch would represent either Zerubbabel or some think a future Messiah. According to Zechariah 6:13 the Branch was going to sit and rule on his throne. So how would putting the high priests crown on the high priest be symbolic of the Branch? (Unless you are going to change your view and say the Branch was going to be a high priest.)

OR they were putting the King's crown on the high priest because the future Branch was going to be both King and High Priest. Which would be even further confirmed by Psalms 110:1-4 with verse 2 showing he would be King and verse 4 saying he would be a priest forever.

Can you see your dilemma? You either have the high priest (symbolic of the Branch) having a King's crown put on him. Which would indicate the Branch would be both King and High Priest.
Or you have the high priest (symbolic of the Branch) being given a crown that would represent a high priest, yet verse 13 clearly lets us know the Branch would be King and sit and rule on his throne. EITHER way the Branch would be both King and High Priest.

 

[rosends]

1. So which crown was placed on the head of Joshua the high priest? (Shouldn't your answer be that it would be the crown of the high priest?)

The Metzudat David says that the silver one went on the high priest's head and the gold remained unused. Other commentators seem to opine that the two crowns were both made form the gold and silver so one went on the high priest's head and the other didn't

Yet here the high priest was symbolic of the Branch.

I don't know where you get that -- it isn't what the verses say at all.
I said that the branch represents Zerubavel or the messiah and that's the one who is going to sit on the throne. Your problem is that you are starting assuming that the priest is somehow the branch but the text is careful not to say that.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I didn't feel it that way, more the opposite
But I always give others the benefit of doubt. In this case though, I felt no doubt

And I wish more would do it the way @TrueBeliever37 did when talking about God (stuff). Not all interpret verses the same

And he did not claim "I already knew the answer". He said:

Meaning "he thought exactly the same but did not know if it was a true fact and/or if they were both on 1 line, because what he 'thinks' need not be true"

Now being on 1 line it's a good start to discuss things.

Similar when meeting a woman, serious people don't have sex on the first time they meet, first they check out if it's a match by talking etc.

Thank you for being reasonable.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The Metzudat David says that the silver one went on the high priest's head and the gold remained unused. Other commentators seem to opine that the two crowns were both made form the gold and silver so one went on the high priest's head and the other didn't

I don't know where you get that -- it isn't what the verses say at all.
I said that the branch represents Zerubavel or the messiah and that's the one who is going to sit on the throne. Your problem is that you are starting assuming that the priest is somehow the branch but the text is careful not to say that.

What I said was the high priest was representing/symbolic of the Branch. Verse 12 - Behold the man whose name is the Branch;

Please comment on what I said about Psalms 110:1-4 (Verse 2 indicates he is King and verse 4 indicates he will be high priest forever.)