Commenting
on Psa 110:4 and the phrase, “you are a priest forever according to the order
of Melchizedek,” J.R. Dummelow, a Protestant, affirmed that it was not written
with only the eschatological Messiah in view, but also the (human) Davidic
Kings:
The king is to be priest as well. This might
be true of a Davidic prince: cp. 2 S[am]614, or of Simon Maccabaeus,
cp. 1 Mac 1021. But it is ultimately most certainly Messianic: cp.
Zech 611-13. ‘After the manner (RM) of Melchizedek,’ who was king
and priest in Salem, i.e. Jerusalem: cp. Gn1418. (J.R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible [London:
Macmillan and Co., 1909], 371)
This flies
in the face of the naïve interpretation of Psa 110:4 by some Protestants that
this psalm was only about the
then-future Messiah (i.e., Jesus), and was never applied to the human Davidic
King. This also blows holes into the naïve misreading of Heb 7:24-25 that only Jesus ever held the Melchizedek
Priesthood.
Indeed, note
the following about the Davidic Kings being priests after, not the priesthood
of Levi, but Melchizedek, from a modern
biblical scholar:
The Cultic Role of David
The sacral character of the ancient Near Eastern monarch manifested itself in the priestly function of the king. As Keel observes:
Throughout the entire ancient Near East, but especially in ancient Sumer, cultic responsibilities devolve upon the king. The ancient Sumerian Ensi was as much priest as prince. He resides in the temple and is responsible for the welfare of the city god . . . As late as the Neo-Sumerian period, Ur-Nammu appears not only as temple builder but also in a priestly capacity. Iconographic evidence for the priestly functions of Mesopotamian kings are extant well into the latest Assyrian epoch. (O. Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World, pp. 278-79)
The reference to king as כהן in Ps. 110.4 testifies to the survival of this aspect of kingship in Israel, even though the priestly nature of Israelite kingship remain ambiguous in some Old Testament texts. (William Riley, King and Cultus in Chronicles: Worship and the Reinterpretation of History [JSOT 160; Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1993], 58)
In a footnote commenting on certain texts that seem, at first reading, to be ambiguous as to whether it is proper for a Davidic king to also serve as a priest, Riley noted:
Indeed, passages such as 1 Sam. 13.8-14 and 2 Chron. 26:16-20 seem to condemn kings who take it upon themselves to exercise a priestly function. However, the biblical author may not have placed the emphasis in 1 Sam. 13.8-14 on the cultic action as it appears at first place. Cultic activity was not incompatible with military or tribal leadership in pre-monarchial Israel, as can be seen from Jud. 6.24-26 or from the figure of Samuel himself. H.W. Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, p. 106, interprets the sin of Saul as having no patience and allowing ‘the disturbing situation to be the most important factor in his decision’. Such an interpretation, which takes the emphasis from the cultic nature of Saul’s impatient action, also resonates with the demand of the holy war that fear be excluded since the nation depends utterly on the victorious presence of Yahweh (cf. Deut. 20.3-4, 8). Similarly, it is possible that the condemnation of Uzziah’s action in 2 Chron. 26.16-20 may not be a statement against the priestly nature of kingship so much as the delineation of a priestly action not permitted to kings in the later Priestly legal tradition (Exod. 30.7-10; Num. 16.40); cf. Rudolph, Chronikbücher, p. 286; J. Becker, 2 Chronik, p. 87. The Chronicler might even here be addressing a specific cultic problem of the illicit offering of incense, given the large number of incense altars excavated from Persian period Palestine (including over two hundred at Lachish alone); cf. A. Rolla, ‘La Palestina Postesilica alla luce dell’archeologia’ pp. 117-18. (Ibid., 58-59, n. 5)
For more on
Psa 110:4, Heb 7:24-25, and other key texts, see my book:
After the Order
of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint
Theology of the Priesthood
