A Priest, A Prophet and A King?

Factual Questions
1

IIRC the Jews around the time of Jesus (couple hundred years on either side) expected more than a Messiah - they expected a priest, a prophet and a king.

The prophet could have been John the Baptist.

Was Jesus the priest?

Doesn’t seem like it. He didn’t seem to establish much in the way of rules or regulations or proceedure or priestly organization - just the last supper rites.

Was Jesus the king?

At least this was discussed.

Ideas?

Oh, I’m gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.

2

Jesus couldn’t have been both priest and king. Priests (kohanim) are all male lineal descendants of Aaron, of the tribe of Levi. The king was supposed to have been of the House of David, who was of the tribe of Judah (although the two very different geneologies given for Yeshua haNotzri by Matthew and Luke are both of lines disqualified for kingship and Messiahhood). Q.E.D.

“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”

3

The traditional Christian interpretation is that Jesus was all of these three.

Jewish thought on the exact nature of the Messiah (which only means “anointed one”) is divided. I believe the Lubavitchers are still convinced that their late Rebbe was he.

John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams

4

The prophet and king parts are easily attributable to Jesus. The sticking point may be priest. If you want to maintain that the priesthood is only for descendents of Levi, that is.

However, Psalm 110, verse 4 states, “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.’”

Melchizedek was met by Abram, who was blessed by him, and who gave him a tenth of everything he had.

This thread is picked up in Hebrews, chapter 5, with the author likening Christ to the High Priest Melchizedek, who could not have been from the lineage of Levi, since not even Isaac had been born at the time.

I guess the point being made is that, for Israel, Levi was (and is) the priestly lineage, but that God is not bound by the laws of Israel, and had already set a precedent by the high priesthood of Melchizedek. As Mel was appointed high priest by God, so was Jesus, lineage notwithstanding.

The Dave-Guy
“since my daughter’s only half-Jewish, can she go in up to her knees?” J.H. Marx

5

. . . walk into a bar. The bartender looks up and says, “What is this, some kinda . . .”

Oh. Oops.

6

Of course, Jesus was a Jew, supposedly without sin (Hebrews 4:15) and incapable of violating a single mitzvah (Matthew 5:17-19). Thus, it can only be concluded that, since by Christian doctrine the Mosaic Law wasn’t abolished until his death (Colosians 2:14), Jesus could not have been a legitimate priest, and any alleged Melchizedekite priesthood (which, in order of time, was replaced for Jews by the Aaronic priesthood) is not relevant.
He couldn’t actually have been a legitimate king, either. If we accept the genealogy given in Matthew 1:1-16, which traces his lineage through Jehoiakim (Jeconiah, Coniah), then, of course, he is disqualified from the throne (and thereby the Messianic office) by the curse pronounced on Jehoiakim by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36:30-31). If, on the other hand, we accept the very different genealogy given in Luke 3:23-38 (which diverges from Matthew’s at David), we see that Jesus was not a descendant of Solomon, which also disqualifies him from the throne and, therefore, the Messianic office (2 Samuel 7:12-16).

“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”

7

Darn, I thought this was going to be a joke: A priest, a prophet, and a king walk in to a bar… :slight_smile:

And since Jesus wasn’t genetically Joseph’s son, he wouldn’t be heir to any throne.

Or did God just deliver Joseph’s seed to Mary in a way as to not violate her virginity?

Judges 14:9 - So [Samson] scraped the honey into his hands and went on, eating as he went. When he came to his father and mother, he gave some to them and they ate it; but he did not tell them that he had scraped the honey out of the body of the lion.

8

Akatsukami, you’re ignoring what I said about God superceding Mosaic law (and Christian doctrine, for that matter). Jesus didn’t so much abolish Mosaic law, he transcended it. And Christian doctrine (or at least Church doctrine)is man-made and after the fact.

The point I was making is that the precedent for a high priest outside the lineage of Levi was established with Melchizedek. The Psalms pick up this thread as it relates to a Messiah who is a victorious warrior, a king and a priest. And the New Testament continues it in ascribing to Jesus the attributes of a priest “in the order of Melchizedek.”

If, as you’ve stated, a Melchizedekite priesthood was irrelevant because the Aaronic priesthood replaced it, why would it be referred to in Hebrew poetry (Psalms) and a letter written to Hebrew Christians in an effort to bolster their faith in Christ? Melchizedek (and by extension, the notion of a priest outside the lineage of Levi) still had validity for the Jews throughout the Old Testament period and into the First Century.

The Dave-Guy
“since my daughter’s only half-Jewish, can she go in up to her knees?” J.H. Marx

9

Sorry, Dave-Guy, but I must demur. As we read in Bava Metzia 59b,

Thus, we learn that even though a voice purporting to be from Heaven attempts to alter the Torah (and the quotation is from an Aggadah in which Rabbi Eliezer the Great performs various miracles, and even calls on the Holy One Himself, to affirm his (incorrect) interpretation of Torah in the teeth of the Sanhedrin), we are not to listen to it.
Moreover, Rambam writes in Seder haMada:

(Indeed, this is one of two classic indications of the false prophet.)
Now, in the case of the Melchizedekite priesthood, we note that is not a mandate of Torah, and therefore has no Halakhic validity (although Noachides are required not to worship idols, if they do not do so, they are permitted to worship in their own fashion, so the Melchizedekite priesthood is permitted, but not mandatory). The Halakhah does mandate the Aaronic priesthood among Jews, and does so from the time of Moses and Aaron, descendants of Abraham Avinu, the contemporary of Melchizedek. Thus, even if the Torah were imagined to be plastic and amendable, it would have been amended to mandate the Aaronic priesthood among Jews, and Jesus was not a kohan. Moreover, even if we stipulate that the Melchizedekite priesthood had some overriding significance to Noachides (and the Melchizedekite priesthood had been extinct some thousand years at this time), Jesus was still a Jew, and thus could not have claimed the Melchizedekite priesthood.
Conclude from this :).

It is often said that “anything is possible”. In fact, very few things are possible, and most of them have already happened.

10

Weren’t descendants of Moses priests? (Mushite priests?) And ditto for Aaron’s descendants? Weren’t they priests at one time or another?

What’s the date for Rambam and the Seder haMada?

Oh, I’m gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.

11

Akatsukami,

Jesus never intended to change or abolish the law. In fact, he states in Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Jesus never introduced new laws or sought to cancel existing ones. Quite the contrary, since he goes on to say in Matthew 5:18, “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” Therefore, it is hardly fair to call Jesus a false prophet. My own understanding is that he actually understood and kept the Law better than most others, including the Parisees. His interpretation of the law may have been different from the prevailing interpretation of the day, but I don’t believe it was in incorrect interpretation.

Regarding a “high priest in the order of Melchizedek”, your point is taken and understood regarding the Aaronic priesthood. I do not wish to downplay the importance of God’s mandate on the tribe of Levi.

Still, I think you misunderstand the application of Melchizedek as it applies to Jesus and his designation as a high priest. The high priest was an intercessor between man and God, for the atonement of sins. This is the work Christ did at his crucifixion. Hebrews 2:17 states “…(Jesus) had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.” Moreover, Paul states in Romans 8:34, “Christ Jesus, who died – more than that, who was raised to life – is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.”

It is for these reasons that, although not of the tribe of Levi, Jesus is given the designation of high priest, and that in the order of (or in the same way as) Melchizedek. Just as God ordained the priesthood of a non-Hebrew in Melchizedek, He also ordained the priesthood of a non-Levite in Jesus. The seeming contradiction you allude to of a Jew being a Melchizedekian priest does not enter the picture, if it is understood not to be in the literal order of this particular priesthood.

One final thought on the designation of the priestly tribe: I believe God established this for the benefit of man, so that the people would have a clear understanding of the importance of the priestly lineage among men. But I do not feel God Himself is bound (i.e. restricted) by this same establishment. His purposes for the Children of Israel are served with an Aaronic priesthood. He (and He alone) may transcend these same strictures if it suits His eternal purpose.

On a more personal note, I can understand and respect your refusal to accept this or any other explanations I may offer. I am not a seminarian, merely a layman, and my intent is not to sway your mind, but only to inform you of my point of reference in such spiritual matters. I have actually enjoyed this debate, and appreciate your open-minded and very civil discourse with me. You’ve informed and enlightened me very much.

The Dave-Guy
“since my daughter’s only half-Jewish, can she go in up to her knees?” J.H. Marx

12

Let me ask this again:" 1. Weren’t descendants of Moses priests? (Mushite priests?) 2. And ditto for Aaron’s descendants? 3. Weren’t they priests at one time or another? 4. What’s the date for Rambam and the Seder haMada?"

VIA Josephus: Agrippa raised the status of the Levites who were acncestrally assigned ot Temple duties to be enrolled in the guilds of Temple singers.

Also that Levites were non-priestly Temple servants.

So wouldn’t a priest from Levi be an oddity instead of the norm?

Oh, I’m gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.

13

[list=1][li]No, the descendants of Moses were never priests. Moses was never a priest; he was the civil leader of the Israelites.[/li]
I am aware that some “skeptics” have tried to interpret the joining of various threads in the Tanakh as the evidence of a power struggle between a “Mushite” line of priests at Shiloh and an “Aaronid” line at Hebron and Jerusalem. As far as I can tell, however, this idea has been made up out a nothingness roughly as total as the idea that Roswell was the site of an alien spacecraft crashing. Perhaps David B would be willing to weigh in on this subject.
[li]Certainly Aaron’s descendants were priests; that is essentially the definition of priest among Jews. This is the “Aaronic” priesthood of which DAVEW0071 and I were writing, the right having been granted to Aaron’s male descendants in perpetuity.[/li][li]Actually, the answer to #3 is, I think, inherent in the answers to #1 and #2. To mention some of the unnumbered questions, however, Aaron was a Levite, i.e., a member of the tribe of Levi. Thus, all priests (kohanim) are Levites, although not all Levites are priests.[/li]
Agrippa (I assume Agrippa I; I don’t know where my copy of The Jewish War has gone) may well have altered the status of the Levites who, long before his time, were associated with both the First and Second Temples in non-priestly roles. He didn’t have the Halakhic right to do so; OTOH, he did have the backing of Claudius I, which moots the former point.
[li]Rambam, a/k/a Maimonides (Rabbi Moses Ben Maimun = RaMBaM; get it? :slight_smile: ) lived 1135-1204CE. I don’t know offhand the exact date(s) that he wrote Seder haMada; cmkeller may know this, and, of course, I can check the dates for you if you like.[/list=1][/li]

It is often said that “anything is possible”. In fact, very few things are possible, and most of them have already happened.

14

Tanakh=acronym from Heb.(Tanach in my Webster’s, is that an English/Hebrew change?)Stands for Holy Scriptures of Judaism. Don’t think I’ve ever seen that word before.

This

is probably exactly (except for the spacecraft/Roswell) comes from a book CKDEXxxx recommended. It deals with the strands that compose (most of) the OT. The idea has been running around for a hundred or so (more) years and has a lot of support.

The new part of this book (Again, new to me.)“Who Wrote The Bible?” by R.E. Friedman, was that the author assigned the “J” strand to one high priestly family and the “E” strand to a different one. And it read very convincingly.

Moses was Aaron’s brother, but not a Levite?

Thank you, I just wanted to know B.C.E. or C.E…

I couldn’t find this: kohanim - does it include all Levites or only those eligible to be high priests?

Thank you! I appreciate your patience.

15

Slightly off thread - When Melchizidek met Abraham, also (my memory may not serve me here) when Zadok met (was it) David?

I was confused as there seems to be this priest line doing it’s own thing in Jerusalem, and these other “Children of God” wandering around in the wilderness.

How do Melchizedek and Zadok fit into the line of Adam-Noah-Abraham, etc.??

Thanks for ignoring my ignorance of the particular players…

16

Hey, it’s 2:xx AM so I’m going to toss in the Melchizedek story–Genesis xiv.

Abram’s kinsman Lot was living in Sodom (with family and all) and taken prisoner during some battles in which Abram was not involved.
Genesis xiv:13–A survivor came to tell Abram the Hebrew, who was living at the Oak of the Amorite Mamre, the brother of Eshcol and Aner; these were allies of Abram. When Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, he mustered his supporters, the members of his household from birth, numbering three hundred and eighteen, and led them in pursuit as far as Dan. He and his servants fell on them by night and defeated them, pursuing them as far as Hobah, north of Damascus.

He recaptued all the goods, along with his kinsman Lot and his posessions, together with the women and people.

When Abram came back after the defeat of Chedor-laomer and the kings who had been on his side, the king of Sodom came to meet him in the valley of Shaveh. Melchizedek king of Salem brought bread and wine; he was a priest of El-Elyon. He pronounced this blessing:

Blessed be Abram by El-Elyon, creator of heaven and earth and blessed be El-Elyon for handing over your enemies to you.

And Abram gave him a tithe of everything.

The king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the people and take the posessions for yourself.”

But Abram replied to the king of Sodom, “I raise my hand in the presence of Yahweh, God Most High, creator of heaven and earth; not one thread, not one sandal strap, nothing will I take of what is yours; you shall not say, ‘I have enriched Abram.’ For myself, nothing. There is only what my men have eaten and the share belonging to the men who came with me, Eshkol, Aner and Mamre; Let them take their share.”

The Jerusalem Bible

It is an odd little bit because the word “Hebrew” is not applied elsewhere to the Isrealites, except by outsiders–or for self identification to foreigners. Some think it is a strong bit of presumptive evidence that this document did not originate with the Isrealites. (Spencer/Genesis/pp103)

I’ll look for the other unless someone else finds it first.

17

Jois writes:

Ah, what is the proper transliteration of letters such as het and tav? I’ve decided to be a coward and let anyone give their favorite approximation of them without challenge.
(Just as an aside: “ch” is always the German “ch”, never like the English “ch”, in pronouncing such words. This and “h” are, in their Anglo-German representations, equally good (or bad) approxinations of the actual pronounciation.)

Careful on conflation of ideas. That the Hexateuch (Pentateuch plus Joshua) is composed of various sources is an accepted idea that has been circulating for quite a while. Indeed, both Rambam and Ramban (a/k/a Nakhmanides, 1194-1270CE) set forth the idea that Torah could not be read for literal truth; they got that idea from even earlier sources.
That the writing-down of the various threads and their assembly reflects the power struggles of Mushite vs. Aaronid priests is the idea that I am attacking. That idea, SFAIK, has no basis except arcane textual criticisms that assume more than they clarify.
I could easily (well, not that easily; my literacy in Hebrew is rather poor) write an essay asserting that defective vs. plene orthography in the Torah (whether certain letters – the matres lectiones – representing vocalizations and grammatical functions are present or not) shows the incorporation of the theology of a non-Hebrew-speaking priesthood. I don’t expect that anyone would take that essay seriousy, though.

No, Moses was a Levite. His descendants (through his son Gershom) would have been accorded the usal roles and privileges of Levites (serving the non-sacrifical roles in the Temple, receiving first tithe, etc.)

The kohanim are all of the descendants of Aaron who are fit to serve in the Temple. Since priests are not permitted to marry or have sexual relations with divorcees, the son of such an event is termed a halal. Although considered legitimate and his father’s son in all other ways, he does not inherit the priestly character. Thus, he is not granted the priestly duties and privileges (to eat terumah (the portion of the harvest set aside for priests) and sacrifices, etc.).
Levites are all of the descendants of Levi. L’havdil, we can draw a similar distinction among the descendants of the Stuarts, where only those who are descended through Sophia Electress of Hanover are also eligible for the British throne. Thus, there would have been (and are) many who are descended from Levi through lines of descent other than through Aaron, and who are Levites, but not kohanim (in fact Moses is such an example).

It is often said that “anything is possible”. In fact, very few things are possible, and most of them have already happened.

18

I’ve been trying to go from book to OT and back to see how arcane this looks - slow going since I’m easily sidetracked.
Also checking to see where Zadok is mentioned but his history is just plain vanilla compaired to Melchizedek.

(For the first time I am noticing how many times the priest, prophet and king are strung together.)

Have you seen “Mushite vs. Aaronid priests” discussed here before?

Oh, I’m gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.

19

Jois asks:

Never that I can remember. I tried the search functions also, and it came up with nothing but this thread. Of course, I won’t claim perfection for either the search function or my memory.

It is often said that “anything is possible”. In fact, very few things are possible, and most of them have already happened.

20

The only odd priest I’ve found is one of David’s: Ira the Jairite. (1 Kings iv:13) But, Ira would be pre-Temple and not count.

So if others served at the high places or centers, I haven’t found their names unless they were already mentioned in Ahitub’s line.

Maybe arcane is looking better!

Oh, I’m gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.