David and Melchizedek

It does not take long while reading the book of Hebrews to see that the author connects Jesus not only to the kingship of David via geneology, but also to a mysterious “priesthood of Melchizedek.”

It is easy to see how he uses Psalm 110 to describe Jesus as both ancestor and descendant of David. After all, Jesus does so himself (Luke 20:41-43). What is much harder to fathom how he connects Psalm 110’s reference to the priesthood of Melchizedek to Jesus.

Perhaps the main clue comes from the liturgical use of Psalm 110. In plain English, Psalm 110 was sung or chanted during the ceremony in which a new king was crowned in Israel or Judah. Of course that begs the question of what a reference to a priesthood has to do with the king of Israel.

There are a few odd things that King David does that may shed light on this reference. For instance, in 1 Samuel 23:1-12 David asks the priest to bring him the ephod because he needs to inquire of the Lord. Why is the ephod important to David? Is the priest inquiring on his behalf? Or is David wearing the ephod to inquire of God directly?

We find a potential answer in 1 Samuel 30:1-8, where a similar situation arises. In this case we are told that the priest gives the ephod to David. It becomes clear that David is contacting God directly for answers. And God does!

OK. So what is an ephod supposed to represent? In Ex. 28:4 we are told that this is a garment made specifically for the high priestly family of Israel, to mark them as God’s chief servant.s

So that brings up an important question. What authority does David have to wear the ephod?

And it gets even worse. In 2 Sam 6:12-18 we find David not only wearing a linen ephod, but even sacrificing animals as if he were a priest! Not only that, but he then turns around and blesses the people!

What is going on here?

We have other examples of kings deciding to make offerings. Saul lost his opportunity to establish a dynasty for his trouble (1 Sam. 13:7-14). King Uzziah, who was otherwise a reasonably good king of Judah, tried to offer sacrifices at the Temple and was afflicted with leprosy, ending his public reign and preventing him from ever entering the Temple grounds for the rest of his life (2 Chronicles 26:16-21).

This suggests that not every king was allowed to act like a priest.

Believe it or not, there is even more strangeness in David’s relationship with the priesthood. I suspect that most biblical scholars are aware that David organized the priesthood’s duties in preparation for the Temple his son Solomon would build.

I am not really a biblical scholar, so I may have missed papers on this, but I can’t recall seeing one particular implication of David’s doing so. Let’s explore that a bit.

We learn in 1 Chron. 23:1-7 that David divides the priesthood into 24 “courses” with rotating duties in the Temple. Somehow David organizes teams and their work schedule. Nowadays we would call that a supervisory function. It gets even better in 1 Chron. 25:1-6 because David not only organizes the musicians, but also becomes overall supervisor of the music and prophecy department. (Yes, there was a prophecy department at the Temple!)

Again, where does he get the authority?

There is one other clue as to what is going on here. As many Christians are aware, the original name of Jerusalem in Abraham’s time was Salem. For some reason, after David conquers Jerusalem from the Jebusites he decides to establish the city as the capital of Judah and Israel. We noticed above in 2 Sam 6:12-18 that he even had  the ark of God moved to Jerusalem, also making it God’s capital city.

Why Jerusalem of all of the cities in Israel? Sure it was more centrally located than his previous home, but is there another reason?

What we know about Melchizedek provides the final clue (Heb. 7:1-7). Melchizedek was both the king of Salem (later Jerusalem) and a priest of the true God. He even blessed Abraham in their one recorded encounter.

So here we have David, King of Salem, functioning as a priest of God, able to supervise the Aaronic priesthood at Jerusalem. Then you have Psalm 110, an enthronement psalm, that identifies an Israelite king as the recipient of a promise of priesthood of the order of Melchizedek.

The introduction to the psalm, “Of David. A Psalm,” does not necessarily mean that the psalm was written by David. In Hebrew it can just as easily mean that the psalm is “about David.” This may be the case since the end of Psalm 72 notes that that is the end of the prayers of David. In the final canonical form, Psalm 72 is also the end of Book 2 of the five books of Psalms.

A logical conclusion is that David seems to have been a priestly king similar to Melchizedek in stature before God and therefore “of the order of Melchizedek.”

According to the writer of the letter to the Hebrews this promise to David of a Melchizedek priesthood finds it ultimate fulfillment in  his ultimate descendant: Jesus Christ.

Praise be to our Great High Priest forever!