Jono & Jason – The Melchizedek Priesthood?
Jono, together with Jason Spiritualbabies from SpiritualBabies.net investigate as to whether an “order of Melchizedek” can be supported in the Hebrew text.
[audio:https://truth2u.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Truth2U-Sir-SpiritualBabies-Melchizedek-Priesthood.mp3|titles=Truth2U – Sir SpiritualBabies – Melchizedek Priesthood]
Dibrat is merely the fem. sg. construct form of the feminine noun dibrah, thus “word of…”.
Dibrati is the fem. sg. absolute form with 1 com sg pronominal suffix, “my word”; the “al” preposition can mean by, with, above, over, alongside, after etc.
In this case I agree that the best translation would be “by/after/according to my word.”
Re the book of Hebrews, Rico Cortes makes the point that the entire Letter to the Hebrews is written around the context of the Temple service on Yom Kippur. If you don’t understand Yom Kippur, you’ll never get Hebrews. It is a treatise written around or just before the destruction of the temple, explaining to the Hebrew believers in Israel HOW atonement was made without the temple, and how that atonement stands although they can no longer bring the Yom Kippur offerings.
The LXX text actually pre-dates the MT by some centuries. It is very possible that the MT (Masoretic Text) has been edited by the scribes (a Scribal Tikkun – emendation) to change the reading at a later date. Another example of this occurs in Genesis, where it says that Abraham stood before YHVH. This is OK because the lesser stands before the greater. The original reading read, “YHVH stood before Avraham” which was a real problem for the rabbis.
There are also two ancient versions of the septuagint, the older of which (the Alexandrian LXX) agrees much more closely with the NT texts than the later (redacted) versions. There is an interesting article on the Alexandrian LXX here:
http://www.setterfield.org/Septuagint_History.html
I think it is very possible that the LXX reading is OLDER than the MT reading (and thus perhaps more accurate). It would be interested to see if there is any evidence to support either in the DSS archives.
Another comment – Malkiy-tzedeq is also a construct chain. Malkiy is the 1 m sg construct form of melekh (king) WITH 1st person pronominal suffix “my”, thus ” my king of righteousness” (not “righteous king”).
BUT there is something VERY strange in the Hebrew text of Ps 110:4…
The verse begins, “nish’ba yǝhova vǝlo yinachem…”, and herein lies the problem.
The second verb is nacham – to change one’s mind, regret, rue. It is interesting that Strong’s does not give a definition for the qal form because here it appears in the 3rd person masc. sg. qal yiqtol conjugation “He will regret” (but it is negated by the negative particle vǝlo – and not)
The FIRST verb is “shava” (shin-bet-ayin) which means to swear an oath, to make a declaration or decree (but not to make a vow – that is a different word), but it appears here in the 1st person common PLURAL yiqtol conjugation.
The verse literally reads, “WE have sworn YHVH and He will not regret/change his mind…”
Most render this as “YHVH has sworn, but the plural conjugation of “we have sworn” is a problem if YHVH is the actor and YHVH is echad.” I’ll leave that to you to dwell on, Jono. 🙂
The next part is, “atah kohen lǝolam al-dibrati malkiy-tzedeq”
“You are a priest to the age (forever) by my word my King of Righteousness”.
This was a wonderful word study, I love learning the real Hebrew origins of the Torah. I do not speak hebrew or greek so this is very helpful. thank you also for source information and for spiritualbabies. Blessings from michigan
Love you guys! This was such a great study. Thank you both for your time!!
Melchi Zedek – The main man whom ruled & ministered the Kingdom of YHVH
ADAM = 1st
CAIN = no
ABEL = no
SETH = 2nd
ENOS = 3rd
CAINAN = 4th
MAHALALEEL = 5th
JARED = 6th
ENOCH = no
METHUSELAH = 7th
LAMECH = no
NOAH = 8th
SHEM = 9th – The Melchizedek that met Abraham with bread & wine
ARPHAXAD = no
SALAH = no
EBER = 10th
PELEG = no
REU = no
SERUG = no
NAHOR = no
TERAH = no
ABRAHAM = no
ISHMAEL = no
ISAAC = 11th
ESAU = no
JACOB = 12th
LEVI = 13th
AARON = 14th
Great study guys. Big thanks to the both of you.
Jono, I’ve been continuing to research this today and I think we have all made a very basic error regarding the root dalet-bet-resh.
The qal form davar means, “to speak, declare, converse, command, promise, warn, threaten, sing etc.” i.e. everything to do with speaking and words. According to TWOT, there are actually 2 ancient roots with these three same consonants with disparate meanings. The one we’re concerned with is the second. There are numerous derivatives of this consonantal root to be found in the scriptures:
[in each case this is a soft “beyt” pronounced “v”]
– dabar (davar) – word, speaking, speech, thing, matter etc.
– deber – pestilence
– dober – pasture
– dobrot – floats, rafts
– dibra – cause, reason, manner, succession, ORDER
– dǝborah – bee (yes, the insect)
– dǝvir – I oracle, II a city in Judah
[The next lot have the hard “b” sound]
– dibber – speaker, word
– dabberet – words
– midbar – I mouth, II wilderness.
All of these synonyms have something in common – they all describe a specific “order” of things.
Specifically looking at “divra”, it occurs 7 times (not 4) and means cause, sake, intent, order, estate, end, regard.
The compound al-divrat(iy) found in Ps 110:4 seems to be be particularly problematic for scholars. According to the BHS Critical Apparatus (I am indebted to a friend for this info) some ancient manuscripts use a “cholam vav” ending rather than the chiriq maley, rendering it al-divrato – HIS cause/order/estate/end. Regardless, it appears that this IS a feminine construct form, thus, “his order OF…”
The phrase malkiy-tzedeq is also considered problematic by scholars. Some ascribe the chiriq-maley ending (the “iy”) as an ancient genitive form. Not all manuscripts have this ending either from what I can gather.
So, after reviewing ALL of the information available to me (and not relying on Strong’s concordance and my still-developing knowledge of Biblical Hebrew) I would humbly suggest that, in fact, the LXX writers got it right, and ORDER of malkiy-tzedeq (which could still be a proper noun) is closest to correct.
For an additional witness, research the DSS MS 4Q11 Melchizedek and see how the Qumran community viewed it. These MSS are much older than the MT and will attest to the LXX reading being correct, as I understand it.
Wowee, wow, wow! We had all kinds of versions open and they all seemed to conflict with each other – Ach! Thank you so much for this study. We were just discussing this over the week – the tithe portion etc…and “there it is…” as you would say, my husband brings it up this study on the iPad. It was GREAT! While we are NOT scholars of linguistics, we are studying what the Word says and learning Hebrew whenever we can. Nice to hear Jason too. This is the first time we’ve heard him speak. We’ll be checking out Spiritualbabies.com. G-day Jono, and todah raba!
oops! spiritualbabies.net!!! Also thanks Jono for the visual, it was so helpful.
Jono, while we’re on Ps 110, one more thing I’ve noticed which raises a question or two:
Many Psalms begin with the phrase, “A psalm of David” (or have it somewhere in the first verse. Usually, the Hebrew is “mizmor l’daviyd” but in 3 or four cases that I’ve been able to find, the word order is reversed; “l’daviyd mizmor”. In the cases of Ps 101 and 109, this exact phrase is still rendered, “A Psalm of David” or, in my Stone’s Edition Tanakh, “Of David, a Psalm” which is more literal.
However in Ps 110, the exact same phrase is rendered “Regarding David, a Psalm”.
Really? In 36/37 occurrences, it says “A Psalm of David” or “Of David, a Psalm”, but in 1/37, specifically Ps 110 about the “King of Righteousness”, they render it “Regarding David, a Psalm”?
Something doesn’t smell right…
BTW, all of the English translations that I’ve checked have it consistent with all the other 36 occurrences, as do the Latin Vulgate and the LXX.
This seems to be a deliberate attempt on the part of the Stone Edition translators/editors to change the subject of Ps 110 for some reason…
I am the one with the Melckizedeq essay that Jono was tallking to and had the exchange about and the Melkizedeq Priesthood
Jono -himself states in this show – dibrah/ti/at; laleeah – to talk, say, speech, to call upon to witness as to order, rank or status
Qa`ra – Taxis – order, rank or status
Then says dibrah/ti/at has nothing to do with ‘call’ – Quote – “absolutely no connection”
But chooses to ignore Ex.19:5-6 which is not only Torah but Book of the Covenant as well and pre-dates all the non – Torah verses referenced that he used
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
“an holy nation” – All Tribes and Converts not just Livites
“if ye will obey my voice” – to talk, say, speech, to call upon to witness
“ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests”, and an holy nation. – witness as to order, rank or status
“These are the words which thou shalt speak” – talk, say, speech, to call upon to witness
“a kingdom of priests” – order, rank or status – a definite national ‘grouping’ ie hood
The same ‘priest’-grouping (hood) that we are being called back into
1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal (Melek-King) priesthood, an holy nation, …
Heb 7:12 For the **priesthood** being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. – (to another **priesthood** )
This is a reversion back to the original Melkizedeq Priesthood
The Israelites lost their Melkizedeq Priesthood, ‘Holy Nation” standing when they made the ‘Gold Calf’ and broke the covenant (Ex.32:10). They were thrust under the Levitical Priesthood (Num.3:12; 8:16) for the next 15 centuries until Yahshua became the Melkizedeq High Priest – calling us (all Tribes and converts) back into that priest – grouping ie hood
Heb 7:13 For he (Yahshua) of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe (Judah), of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Messiah sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning **priesthood** (Levitical Priesthood -Heb.7:11).
Jono said that (Melkizedeq Priesthood) proponents place so much on an obscure word –
It is actually he who “places so much on an obscure word” to disprove the Melkizedeq Priesthood while ignoring Torah and supporting New Testament/Covenant text.
There is much more but for the sake of space this will have to suffice
I do have 2 books and a dissertation on the subject – you may contact me here on FB or yst@YahsSpiritofTruth.com.
Yah’s Esteem
G’day Dr Dave,
You are confused. What I said (around the 17th minute) is that “there’s absolutely no connection between the two definitions”, that is, the definition of the Greek word “Tax-is” meaning “a successive rank, order, or status” and the Hebrew word “Dibrati” meaning simply “my word”. Hence your assertion that the “kingdom of priests” mentioned in Exodus 19:6 is a “Melchizedek priesthood” is totally unfounded, purely speculative, and based on a mistranslated word in the Septuagint. This is the platform of your elaborate imaginings and extensively misleading paper.
Thank you for furthering my point.
jono
Dear Jono, thank you for your programs, I enjoy them very much.
I thought of giving a comment on this subject as an Israeli- native Hebrew speaker.
The word “dibrati” as you said in the program is “my word”. The word דבר is the root and it depends on the context what is the meaning.
For example the book of Deughteronomy start as follows: “אלה הדברים אשר דבר משה…”= These are the words that Moses spoke…
clearly from the context those are word of speach.
But if you take the phrase “דבר יהוה”=the word of Yehova, then the word “davar” is in a sense of decree or proclamation.
So in this case of psalm 110 it is better to say “according to my decree”.
But what does this have to do with order?
Well, there was an idea in ancient Jewish literature that the Messiah is going to come in the order of Malkitzedek. So maybe the LXX translators gave their interpretation…I don’t know.
But, even in the text itself in Hebrews it doesn’t change the meaning. In the modern Hebrew text of the NT it is written “Al divrati” and not as the English says it. If you read the context carfully, the writer is basing his argument not on the “order” but rather on the “decree”.
In the Hebrew it says “You are a priest forever, according to my word king of righteousness”. It can be also “MY king…” (Malki).
So because of the wording of this king, the author of Hebrews ties it back to the Malkitzedek in Genesis. Basically what he’s saying is this: (Starting with Hebrew 6:20). Yeshua is the priest forver is it was declared “according to my decree king of righteousness” (tieing back because of the word Malkitsedek), and who is Malkitsedek? Isn’t he a high priest to the most high and king of Shalem who blessed Abraham? So if the Levitical priesthood was perfect, why didn’t He say “according to my decree, Aharon”.
See, even if the verse in psalm 110 would have said “Al divrati Aharon”, you’de have to go back to the Torah to find out what did God decreed over Aharon. What you’ll find out is that you are looking for the “priesthood” or “order” of Aharon because that is the decree.
So the author is taking the decree over Malkitsedek. Meaning, he goes back to the Torah to see what is written about Malkitsedek to find out what his “priesthood” or “order” means.
And I understand it from the Hebrew NT text that doesn’t even have the word “order” in it.
Thank you
Doron J.
Wonderful Jono, I finally understand what you were saying those other times that Psalm 110 came up in conversation. I also liked the video portion. It was a big help in seeing the words to quickly assimilate the meaning. I have hearing loss and I have trouble when I miss a word following what is said. Thanks so much for all you do. YHWH bless you, your Family and your mission with success. May you be brought forth in the first resurrection. Jim
G’day Chrisso,
What verses would you give to support this?
Hey Jonno… G’day Chrisso, What verses would you give to support this?
Without trying to be arrogant, the O.T. genealogy is my source… So, many sources and references… The evidence is seen when all the characters are mapped out…
PS. When are you heading over to Israel mate…?
Chrisso, just a couple of specific verses from the Tanakh will be fine.
PS. I’m off to Israel at the end of this month.
And a special thanks to Rodney Baker for the history of the Septuagint.
Thanks to you both; finally got to listen today. Well done and, Jason, awesome slides! Kudos to you both! 🙂
Shalom,
I just noticed you have been doing these things and I wanted to correct a mistake in one of the comments. Rodney has said that the verb נשבע- to take an oath is in the plural c. Yiqtol. This is incorrect, it is in the 3ps perfect Niphal form and the common translation is correct.
The Greek Septuagint – order is translated from taxis in Psalms regarding Melichzedek.
The English word “order” could refer either to a command or decree or to a rank or status. I wonder if we could translate the original Hebrew root word as “decreed status/order” or “commanded rank.”
To be fair it should be stated that the Septuagint was only ever a Greek Torah, not a complete Tanakh like the LXX. It is a fallacy to say LXX = Septuagint. Also, there is no complete Septuagint in existence from 250 BCE. All there are is a collection of 11 scraps (out of of 7000 extant LXX Documents) that date from that period and they’re all Torah. The earliest full copy of the LXX is likely Alexandrinus from 450CE, well after the Councils of Nicea where a great many things were decided for the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, including separating from Hebrew/Jewish roots.
Take is all for what it’s worth. Most of this debate is a distraction from the fact that we all need to work on ourselves to lead folks to Torah by example. But it is much easier to express our piety by busying ourselves with unsolvable academic puzzles and linguistic pursuits instead of attacking our weaknesses.
Deu 10:12-13 “And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require of you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments and statutes of the LORD, which I am commanding you today for your good?
Mic 6:7 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to WALK HUMBLY with your God?