Questions for Jews re: Kings and Priests

[rosends]

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.)

You are missing some of the verse:
11 - Take silver and gold and make crowns. Place [one] 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 Branchg shall branch out from the place where he is, and he shall build the Temple of the LORD.

note that the speaker is instructed by God to tell the priest about the Branch -- as someone aside from the priest. Why you draw them together confounds me as the text specifically separates them.

As for Psalms, you are limited in your understanding. Here is how the 4th verse's reference to "priest" (not exactly what the Hebrew means, but it will have to do) was explained over 1000 years ago, and this is predicated on understanding that God, in verse 1 is speaking to Abraham.

"From you will emerge the priesthood and the kingship that your children will inherit from Shem your progenitor, the priesthood and the kingship, which were given to him."

The Malbim (from 800 or so years later) says the person being spoken to by God is King David, and he sees verse 4 as referring to Malki-Tzedek's role as a king of Jerusalem and the "priest" role being a unique one specifically created by and attested to and allowed by God (which explains the strange phrase "al dibrati" in the verse).

 

[TrueBeliever37]

You are missing some of the verse:
11 - Take silver and gold and make crowns. Place [one] 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 Branchg shall branch out from the place where he is, and he shall build the Temple of the LORD.

note that the speaker is instructed by God to tell the priest about the Branch -- as someone aside from the priest. Why you draw them together confounds me as the text specifically separates them.

As for Psalms, you are limited in your understanding. Here is how the 4th verse's reference to "priest" (not exactly what the Hebrew means, but it will have to do) was explained over 1000 years ago, and this is predicated on understanding that God, in verse 1 is speaking to Abraham.

"From you will emerge the priesthood and the kingship that your children will inherit from Shem your progenitor, the priesthood and the kingship, which were given to him."

The Malbim (from 800 or so years later) says the person being spoken to by God is King David, and he sees verse 4 as referring to Malki-Tzedek's role as a king of Jerusalem and the "priest" role being a unique one specifically created by and attested to and allowed by God (which explains the strange phrase "al dibrati" in the verse).

Why did you change it from his name is the Branch to a man called the Branch? The Hebrew has "his name" is the Branch.

So you are telling me Psalms 110:1-4 was speaking to Abraham when Abraham had already been dead for over 800 years?

Commit to something, Who is the Branch?

 

[rosends]

So you are telling me Psalms 110:1-4 was speaking to Abraham when Abraham had already been dead for over 800 years?

I'm saying that the authoritative understanding dating back 1000 years is that it is, indeed, speaking of a conversation between God and Abraham.

Commit to something, Who is the Branch?

I recall saying that the text is explained with the branch being either Zerubavel or the future messianic king. You have yet to explain your random association of it with Joshua, the high priest.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I'm saying that the authoritative understanding dating back 1000 years is that it is, indeed, speaking of a conversation between God and Abraham.

I recall saying that the text is explained with the branch being either Zerubavel or the future messianic king. You have yet to explain your random association of it with Joshua, the high priest.

How could Joshua the high priest behold the future Messiah? Someone had to be representing the future Messiah - But you say I am wrong that it wasn't Joshua the high priest himself. So who was it that he was to behold?

Zechariah 3:8 says Joshua and his associates were men wondered at - symbolic

 

[rosends]

How could Joshua the high priest behold the future Messiah?

He could behold the idea as represented by the crown. He could be foretold of something that would happen (which is what the verses are doing).

Someone had to be representing the future Messiah

or something had to be, like the second crown.

- But you say I am wrong that it wasn't Joshua the high priest himself. So who was it that he was to behold?

Either Zerubavel or another future messianic figure as symbolized by the second crown.

Zechariah 3:8 says Joshua and his associates were men wondered at - symbolic

No, 3:8 says that the men with Joshua are the ones who are "worthy to have miracles performed for them". You do know how to read the Aramaic targum to the verse, right?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I'm saying that the authoritative understanding dating back 1000 years is that it is, indeed, speaking of a conversation between God and Abraham.

I recall saying that the text is explained with the branch being either Zerubavel or the future messianic king. You have yet to explain your random association of it with Joshua, the high priest.

1. So you are saying Abraham is the "adonai" in Psalms 110:1? If so will you please show me another scripture where someone other than YHWH was called adonai?

2. And you are saying Abraham was a King, as per Psalms 110:2? If so when?

3. And you are saying God said to Abraham - you will be a priest forever after the order of Melchidzedeq - Psalms 110:4? (Also note that Melchidzedeq was not from the tribe of Levi.)
And it just hit me - Melchidzedeq is an example of someone being both King and High Priest.

I have tried to explain that Joshua the high priest was symbolic of the Messiah to come. The Messiah would be both King and High Priest, and his name would be YHWSH. (Most of Christianity has the Messiah's name wrong.) Joshua is an attempt in English, of saying the name YHWSH (which is what the Messiah's true name is in Hebrew)

 

[rosends]

1. So you are saying Abraham is the "adonai" in Psalms 110:1? If so will you please show me another scripture where someone other than YHWH was called adonai?

No, I don't recall saying anything of the sort. Not sure where you got that from. The text is pretty straightforward לְדָוִ֗ד מִ֫זְמ֥וֹר נְאֻ֤ם יְהֹוָ֨ה ׀ לַֽאדֹנִ֗י . Now, if you are looking for another instance when Abraham was called אדֹנִ֗י then try Gen 23:6 שְׁמָעֵ֣נוּ ׀ אֲדֹנִ֗י

2. And you are saying Abraham was a King, as per Psalms 110:2? If so when?

Verse 2 never says that he was a king. Maybe you are taking a bad translation of "מַטֵּֽה" and assuming it means "a king's scepter." Except it doesn't. On its own, it means "stick, staff or rod" or "tribe."

3. And you are saying God said to Abraham - you will be a priest forever after the order of Melchidzedeq - Psalms 110:4? (Also note that Melchidzedeq was not from the tribe of Levi.)
And it just hit me - Melchidzedeq is an example of someone being both King and High Priest.

As I quoted earlier, Abraham was blessed by God, "From you will emerge the priesthood and the kingship that your children will inherit from Shem your progenitor, the priesthood and the kingship, which were given to him." So that doesn't mean that Abraham himself was a priest. Also, as I posted in post 4, the rules of kingship were fixed once the Davidic dynasty was established and the priesthood (not that Malki-tzedek was a formal "priest" in Judaism any more than Jethro was) was established by Moses for the time after him. Since you are now asking about a time before both Moses and King David, your questions are non-starters.

I have tried to explain that Joshua the high priest was symbolic of the Messiah to come.

No, you have tried to claim it. You haven't explained anything because the text goes against what you have claimed.

The Messiah would be both King and High Priest, and his name would be YHWSH. (Most of Christianity has the Messiah's name wrong.) Joshua is an attempt in English, of saying the name YHWSH (which is what the Messiah's true name is in Hebrew)

No he wouldn't. The messiah is from one tribe and the priest from another. The text you started with makes it very clear that it discusses two separate people. Ignoring the words and the grammar is not helping your cause.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Verse 2 never says that he was a king. Maybe you are taking a bad translation of "מַטֵּֽה" and assuming it means "a king's scepter." Except it doesn't. On its own, it means "stick, staff or rod" or "tribe."



As I quoted earlier, Abraham was blessed by God, "From you will emerge the priesthood and the kingship that your children will inherit from Shem your progenitor, the priesthood and the kingship, which were given to him." So that doesn't mean that Abraham himself was a priest. Also, as I posted in post 4, the rules of kingship were fixed once the Davidic dynasty was established and the priesthood (not that Malki-tzedek was a formal "priest" in Judaism any more than Jethro was) was established by Moses for the time after him. Since you are now asking about a time before both Moses and King David, your questions are non-starters.

No, you have tried to claim it. You haven't explained anything because the text goes against what you have claimed.

No he wouldn't. The messiah is from one tribe and the priest from another. The text you started with makes it very clear that it discusses two separate people. Ignoring the words and the grammar is not helping your cause.

Psalms 110:2 says he will rule from Zion in the midst of his enemies. And what is a King's rod if not a scepter? You seem to conveniently make words be what you want. Like you can say a King's throne is just a chair. And when God said Behold the man whose name is the Branch, you say it was a crown he was to behold. ( A crown is not the man.) To me, you are the one ignoring the text and grammar.

Psalms 110:4 says you will be a priest. But you are trying to say it doesn't meant that. You are changing it to mean his descendents would be a priesthood. The prophecy was that there would be a priest after the order of Melchidzedeq, who was not a Levite. And as I pointed out previously Melchidzedeq was a King and a Priest. So it wouldn't be referring to the Levitical priesthood like you are claiming.

The text isn't going against what I say. You are just able to make things like a throne just be a chair. So you can choose an alternate translation and make something like "and he will be priest on his throne" become "and there will be a priest on his chair".

 

[TrueBeliever37]

No, I don't recall saying anything of the sort. Not sure where you got that from.

I got it from what you said below in post#21.

As for Psalms, you are limited in your understanding. Here is how the 4th verse's reference to "priest" (not exactly what the Hebrew means, but it will have to do) was explained over 1000 years ago, and this is predicated on understanding that God, in verse 1 is speaking to Abraham.

 

[rosends]

Psalms 110:2 says he will rule from Zion in the midst of his enemies.

No, it doesn't. It says "God will send forth the staff of your power". The word "rule" is not in there. And, if the text is speaking of Abraham, then it is speaking of Abraham's fighting in the war in Gen 14.

And what is a King's rod if not a scepter?

It never says anything about a king's rod; the second person (YOUR strength) refers to Abraham. He wasn't a king.

You seem to conveniently make words be what you want. Like you can say a King's throne is just a chair.

Actually, i say (and show) how textually, the word means "chair" and when it is connected to a king explicitly then it makes sense to call it a throne. You have yet to show me otherwise. In this case, the word in hebrew means "rod" or "staff" or "tribe" -- these are all actual textual uses. You want to use the wrong English word because it (circularly) supports your position.

And when God said Behold the man whose name is the Branch, you say it was a crown he was to behold. ( A crown is not the man.) To me, you are the one ignoring the text and grammar.

Since you can't actually read the text, this is a strange opinion to have. The text is really clear and you seem to be missing it. The text has the speaker speaking to the priest about a third party ("Behold a man" who will build the temple and sit separately from the priest) who is then symbolized by the second crown. You are getting very confused.

Psalms 110:4 says you will be a priest. But you are trying to say it doesn't meant that.

Again, your lack of understanding of the Hebrew is a problem here. The text says אַתָּֽה־כֹהֵ֥ן לְעוֹלָ֑ם עַל־דִּ֝בְרָתִ֗י מַלְכִּי־צֶֽדֶק
First, you are taking the word "כֹהֵ֥ן" and assuming it means "priest." It sometimes doesn't -- it also means "chieftan" or "leader" (see 2 Sam 8:18). And even when it means "priest" it is not necessarily an Aaronic priest (or a Jewish one for that matter). And even when it means "Aaronic priest" calling someone by that name does not make that person a priest (see Ex 19:6 for that one). If you insist on glomming on to someone else's English rendering and deciding what it must mean, then you will always be a few steps behind in understanding.

You are changing it to mean his descendents would be a priesthood.

Actually, I am citing from an authority from over 1000 years ago. If you want to deny that Jewish scholars from well before you were born knew how to understand the text, and only you have it right, then say so. I need to know the basis upon which I will ignore your opinion.

The priest was going to be after the order of Melchidzedeq, who was not a Levite. And as I pointed out previously Melchidzedeq was a King and a Priest. So it wouldn't be referring to the Levitical priesthood like you are claiming.

If the text says that God will make the descendents "priests" within the levitical system then it is speaking about those specific Levites who became priests, descending from Abraham. There is no "order of Malki-tzedek". There is the phrase עַל־דִּ֝בְרָתִ֗י מַלְכִּי־צֶֽדֶק with the difficult word "dibrati". Why you assume it means "order" escapes me. It might mean "in the manner of" which would simply mean "in the same way that he followed God, you will follow God" (but since he wasn't bound by levitical rules, nothing else would follow) or "for the same reason as" -- God decided to make him a kohen in some sense, and he will do the same to Abraham. He did -- Abraham was made a chieftan who worshipped God. Again you are starting with a flawed translation and deciding that it supports your beliefs. But a bad start leads to a bad end.

The text isn't going against what I say. You are just able to make things like a throne just be a chair. So you can choose an alternate translation and make something like "and he will be priest on his throne" become "and there will be a priest on his chair".

The text is clearly going against what you say. I note that each time I give other citations and explanations, you move to a different point. You have yet to give counter facts to support your position or undercut mine. I have shown where the words you have in your translation simply aren't in the text and you havent shown me otherwise.

 

[rosends]

I got it from what you said below in post#21.

As for Psalms, you are limited in your understanding. Here is how the 4th verse's reference to "priest" (not exactly what the Hebrew means, but it will have to do) was explained over 1000 years ago, and this is predicated on understanding that God, in verse 1 is speaking to Abraham.

Yes, there are two different words and one refers to Abraham. The other, the one you claimed in post 26 I said was Abraham is NOT Abraham and I never claimed it was.

You asked "So you are saying Abraham is the "adonai""
and the answer is, No, I never said that. I said verse 1 has God speaking to Abraham. You need to keep the words straight and keep track of what you said and I answered.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Yes, there are two different words and one refers to Abraham. The other, the one you claimed in post 26 I said was Abraham is NOT Abraham and I never claimed it was.

You asked "So you are saying Abraham is the "adonai""
and the answer is, No, I never said that. I said verse 1 has God speaking to Abraham. You need to keep the words straight and keep track of what you said and I answered.

YOU ARE SO CONFUSING.

You told me Psalms 110:1 has God speaking to Abraham. David wrote the Psalm, and it says YHWH said to my adonai - correct? Then I said so you are saying Abraham is adonai. Then you say no I never said that. (Of course I wasn't meaning you said the actual words "Abraham is adonai.")

But if God is talking to adonai, and you are saying he was talking to Abraham. Then how in the world is that not the same as saying that Abraham is adonai in that verse?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

No, it doesn't. It says "God will send forth the staff of your power". The word "rule" is not in there. And, if the text is speaking of Abraham, then it is speaking of Abraham's fighting in the war in Gen 14.

It never says anything about a king's rod; the second person (YOUR strength) refers to Abraham. He wasn't a king.

Actually, i say (and show) how textually, the word means "chair" and when it is connected to a king explicitly then it makes sense to call it a throne. You have yet to show me otherwise. In this case, the word in hebrew means "rod" or "staff" or "tribe" -- these are all actual textual uses. You want to use the wrong English word because it (circularly) supports your position.

Since you can't actually read the text, this is a strange opinion to have. The text is really clear and you seem to be missing it. The text has the speaker speaking to the priest about a third party ("Behold a man" who will build the temple and sit separately from the priest) who is then symbolized by the second crown. You are getting very confused.

Again, your lack of understanding of the Hebrew is a problem here. The text says אַתָּֽה־כֹהֵ֥ן לְעוֹלָ֑ם עַל־דִּ֝בְרָתִ֗י מַלְכִּי־צֶֽדֶק
First, you are taking the word "כֹהֵ֥ן" and assuming it means "priest." It sometimes doesn't -- it also means "chieftan" or "leader" (see 2 Sam 8:18). And even when it means "priest" it is not necessarily an Aaronic priest (or a Jewish one for that matter). And even when it means "Aaronic priest" calling someone by that name does not make that person a priest (see Ex 19:6 for that one). If you insist on glomming on to someone else's English rendering and deciding what it must mean, then you will always be a few steps behind in understanding.

Actually, I am citing from an authority from over 1000 years ago. If you want to deny that Jewish scholars from well before you were born knew how to understand the text, and only you have it right, then say so. I need to know the basis upon which I will ignore your opinion.

If the text says that God will make the descendents "priests" within the levitical system then it is speaking about those specific Levites who became priests, descending from Abraham. There is no "order of Malki-tzedek". There is the phrase עַל־דִּ֝בְרָתִ֗י מַלְכִּי־צֶֽדֶק with the difficult word "dibrati". Why you assume it means "order" escapes me. It might mean "in the manner of" which would simply mean "in the same way that he followed God, you will follow God" (but since he wasn't bound by levitical rules, nothing else would follow) or "for the same reason as" -- God decided to make him a kohen in some sense, and he will do the same to Abraham. He did -- Abraham was made a chieftan who worshipped God. Again you are starting with a flawed translation and deciding that it supports your beliefs. But a bad start leads to a bad end.

The text is clearly going against what you say. I note that each time I give other citations and explanations, you move to a different point. You have yet to give counter facts to support your position or undercut mine. I have shown where the words you have in your translation simply aren't in the text and you havent shown me otherwise.

You seem to just skirt around the fact that there was going to be a priest in the future like Melchidzedeq. And Melchidzedeq was both king and high priest. He was not a Levite, so it wasn't referring to the Levitical priesthood.

And Zechariah 6:13 says he will sit and rule upon his throne. This is definitely a King, so his chair is called a throne. And "he shall be a priest upon his throne" is one of the ways the next part can be translated. And since he is also priest, he is sitting on the King's throne as High Priest also. It is against what you want to believe, so you can use alternate translations. And you can believe anything you want.

But It's difficult to debate someone who won't specifically commit to something. So, are you now saying cohen in Psalms 110:1-4 is NOT referring to a priest?

You yourself said in your post above one of the possible meanings was "rod" or staff or tribe. Then when I used rod, you say it never says anything about a king's rod.

And then you say IF it is talking about Abraham, it means this. And when you say it is Abraham he is talking about, you haven't proved it to begin with. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. You aren't picking just one position. You pick multiple possible views, so when I make a point you can just choose the other possibility you have available. You aren't choosing a fixed viewpoint that I can undercut.

 

[rosends]

YOU ARE SO CONFUSING.

You are allowed to be confused but that doesn't make me confusing.

You told me Psalms 110:1 has God speaking to Abraham. David wrote the Psalm, and it says YHWH said to my adonai - correct?

Incorrect. It says God spoke to adoni. Different word. Adoni means "my master" and is not the same word as adonai.

 

[rosends]

You seem to just skirt around the fact that there was going to be a priest in the future like Melchidzedeq. And Melchidzedeq was both king and high priest. He was not a Levite, so it wasn't referring to the Levitical priesthood.

You seem to ignore that it doesn't say "like Malki-tzedek". If you are starting with a bad translation, you will draw erroneous conclusions.

And Zechariah 6:13 says he will sit and rule upon his throne.

No, it says "chair" but since he is a king it can be assumed that the chair would be considered a throne. I showed you examples textually of how the word doesn't always mean "throne". You seem to have ignored those examples.
A priest is not a king, so if you want to interpret it as "on" (which, as I showed, is not the only way to interpret it) the word would just mean "chair." Of course, if you would prefer, you can rely on the dictionary definition of throne, "a ceremonial chair for a sovereign, bishop, or similar figure" which means that it is the chair of a bishop [note, religious functionary] who isn't a king so the word throne just indicates prominence and not royalty. So just calling it a throne doesn't make the person sitting in it a king according to the dictionary. You are starting with a need to find a way to turn a priest into a king and are failing at every turn in both Hebrew and English. But clearly, your need to support your mistaken belief is blinding you to the actual text and meaning of the words.

So, are you now saying cohen in Psalms 110:1-4 is NOT referring to a priest?

The word "kohen" in the bible refers to a variety of things including the member of the Levitical priesthood. Why have you decided that, of all the different uses of the word in the bible, that's the specific meaning in that verse?

You yourself said in your post above one of the possible meanings was "rod" or staff or tribe. Then when I used rod, you say it never says anything about a king's rod.

Because even when it means "staff" it doesn't say "king's" anything. As I said, if the subject is Abraham and he wasn't a king, why would his "rod" be a king's rod?

Just because you say it doesn't make it so. You aren't picking just one position. You pick multiple possible views, so when I make a point you can just choose the other possibility you have available. You aren't choosing a fixed viewpoint that I can undercut.

Actually, I'm referencing commentary from 1000 years ago which is quoting a substantially older explanation which is linguistically tied to another verse in Genesis. You are trying to shoehorn in a particular explanation which is not supported at all by the actual text and you don't like that I'm pointing out how the words don't and can't mean what you want even if there are many possible meanings. None supports you. That's why you can't undercut it.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

You are allowed to be confused but that doesn't make me confusing.

Incorrect. It says God spoke to adoni. Different word. Adoni means "my master" and is not the same word as adonai.

No you are definitely confusing. I know adoni and adonai are two different words. But we both know there are no vowels in the written Hebrew. So first of all it could have been either one. But let's assume it is adoni as you say. Commit to who adoni is in this verse? It is a Psalm of David, and Abraham had died over 800 years earlier. These verses are referring to things still in the future, that hadn't come to pass yet.

Whoever God is talking about in Psalms 110:1 was going to be a priest like Melchidzedeq forever. Psalms 110:1-4
It can't be referring to the Levitical priesthood as you claimed earlier. First of all Melchidzedeq was not a Levite. Second it says YOU will be a priest (not a priesthood) like Melchidzedeq. What kind of priest was Melchidzedeq? - He was a King, and he was priest of God Most High. Genesis 14:18
You can show all the possible variations for "cohen" (priest) you want. But in this verse, it has to be referring to whatever kind of priest Melchidzedeq was.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Because even when it means "staff" it doesn't say "king's" anything. As I said, if the subject is Abraham and he wasn't a king, why would his "rod" be a king's rod?

Because Abraham wasn't the subject. The Messiah to come was the subject. And he was going to be both King and Priest.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The word "kohen" in the bible refers to a variety of things including the member of the Levitical priesthood. Why have you decided that, of all the different uses of the word in the bible, that's the specific meaning in that verse?

Psalms 110:1-4 can't be talking about a Levitical priesthood. Because Melchidzedeq was not a Levite, and he was both King and Priest. Genesis 14:18 It means whatever kind of "cohen" Melchidzedeq was.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

No, it says "chair" but since he is a king it can be assumed that the chair would be considered a throne. I showed you examples textually of how the word doesn't always mean "throne". You seem to have ignored those examples.
A priest is not a king, so if you want to interpret it as "on" (which, as I showed, is not the only way to interpret it) the word would just mean "chair." Of course, if you would prefer, you can rely on the dictionary definition of throne, "a ceremonial chair for a sovereign, bishop, or similar figure" which means that it is the chair of a bishop [note, religious functionary] who isn't a king so the word throne just indicates prominence and not royalty. So just calling it a throne doesn't make the person sitting in it a king according to the dictionary. You are starting with a need to find a way to turn a priest into a king and are failing at every turn in both Hebrew and English. But clearly, your need to support your mistaken belief is blinding you to the actual text and meaning of the words.

I'm not ignoring your examples. But you haven't proven it is just a chair. Because just as you say the King's chair can definitely be called a throne. And you know in the first instance in this verse it is talking about a King. So the chair can be called a throne. And you know the second part of the verse can definitely be translated as "and He shall be priest upon his chair/throne". Zechariah 6:13 (You may not like it, but it could accurately be translated that way. Just admit it.)

The counsel of peace shall be between them both doesn't necessarily mean between two individuals. It can mean between both offices.

 

[rosends]

No you are definitely confusing. I know adoni and adonai are two different words. But we both know there are no vowels in the written Hebrew. So first of all it could have been either one.

Wait, what? You realize that the text has the two words spelled completely differently, right? One has the 4 letter name using the imported vowels, and the other specifically does NOT have the 4 letter name, but other letters completely. So deciding that you think the other word could be with other vowels is more than capricious. You might as well say that it "could" be pronounced "udanei". That word doesn't exist.

But let's assume it is adoni as you say. Commit to who adoni is in this verse? It is a Psalm of David, and Abraham had died over 800 years earlier. These verses are referring to things still in the future, that hadn't come to pass yet.

As I have said (more than once) the conventional understanding is that it refers to Abraham. The verse is starting by discussing an event in the past. You can assert that it means something else, but that's not a very convincing claim and is based on nothing.

Whoever God is talking about in Psalms 110:1 was going to be a priest like Melchidzedeq forever. Psalms 110:1-4

No (and putting it in bold doesn't change that). No where does it say that anyone is going to be anything. That section of the verse is in present tense. When you start by not knowing what the text actually says, it makes your conclusions really suspect.

It can't be referring to the Levitical priesthood as you claimed earlier.

I said that the word refers to many things including a Levitical priesthood. I did not say that in this verse that's what it necessarily means. If you wish to represent my position, please do so accurately.

Second it says YOU will be a priest (not a priesthood) like Melchidzedeq.

No, it is in present tense.

What kind of priest was Melchidzedeq? - He was a King, and he was priest of God Most High. Genesis 14:18

You also should realize that no where in the text does the speaker say that anyone would be anything "like" Malki-tzedek. So trying to make a comparison and draw conclusions when the text says nothing of the sort is not a useful approach.

You can show all the possible variations for "cohen" (priest) you want. But in this verse, it has to be referring to whatever kind of priest Melchidzedeq was.

Well, not exactly because it really isn't about being "like" him. But if you want to understand it that way, then you can go back to the explanation of the Metzudat David who explains it as "you are a priest in the same way that Malki-Tzedek was a priest". And since Malki-tzedek was only a priest in a loose and non-religious sense, the subject could only be considered a priest like that -- not one able to discharge any of the office of an actual Levitical priest. If you prefer that, then go ahead.