Zedeq or Zadok?

Zedeq or Zadok?

It is with some trepidation I approach this topic. As the cause of the Melkizedeq Priesthood goes forward this is becoming an increasingly reoccurring issue. We must have the lines drawn straight and the concepts clear in our own minds.

Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith YHWH:…

Reason involves Intelligence; Intelligence involves making finer distinctions correctly based on Truth.

There are those that in their understandable excitement and fervent zeal; just charge off in a direction that does not fully account for all the pieces. They assert multi page articles with links to more links, videos, sites and more multi page documents – a sea of rhetoric and litany. I don’t have the time to read – process thru, answer or have an on-going debate – running down everyone’s rabbit (or Rabbi) trail. Out of self-defense I have chosen what I call ‘bottom-line theology’ – if the foundation is faulty; so is the structure, no matter how elaborate, extensive or grand – much more manageable.

There are those that assert that the (so named; their name) “’Zadok priesthood’ :- …Have been Divinely given an eternal (without end) covenant of “intimate high order service” to YHWH” – whatever that means? Sounds austere even impressive – no doubt to inspire the highest order of awe and reverence.

The problem with making absolute statements is that they are rarely absolute.

1st off; – ‘eternal’ or in this case (more correctly) ‘everlasting’ (without end) from the Hebrew ‘olawm’ – to a point out of mind – does not always or only mean our concept of forever. Explained our concept of ‘eternal’ means no beginning with no end; while ‘everlasting’ has a beginning with no end – Neither captures the concept variant fullness (which include limiting ‘options’) of the Hebrew ‘olawm’.

2Sam 8:17 And Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, were the
priests; and Seraiah was the scribe;

2nd – there is a difference between the man named Zadok and the verb Zedek (any form) – the 1 is not the other. The man named Zadok is still a Son of Aaron – a Levite and would be included at Mt.11:11.

3Rd – Proponents seek to make some kind of spurious point that because John the baptist was Yahshua’s 2nd cousin that makes Yahshua a Levite? And some use the fact that Elizabeth (John’s mother married to Zachariah a Levite – John’s father) was Mary’s cousin that means Mary had Levite blood ??? And if you stand in a garage that makes you a car? – (Isa.11:1; Rom.1:3; Rev.5:5)

Consider this quote; – “The only lineage information on Mary that we have, if we can call it that, is that she was somehow related to Elizabeth who was of the ‘daughters of Aaron’ (Lk. 1:5, 36). This doesn’t make Mary of the House of Aaron or Levi as she could have been related by marriage and not by ‘blood.’ In other words, Mary’s mother or father’s brothers or sisters, etc., could have married one of Elizabeth’s mother or father’s sisters, brothers, uncles, aunts or cousins, etc., which would make Mary related to Elizabeth but it still leaves us in the dark as to Mary’s lineage. The other possibility is that Mary was from the Tribe of Levi but there’s absolutely no Scripture to support this, and Yeshua is never once referred to as having any ancestry or link to Levi or Aaron. Just the opposite is the case as Hebrews 7:13-14; 8:4 states.” – http://www.seedofabraham.net/TheDavidicLineage.html

4th – Then Proponents will even quote this next – this very verse saying it proves their assertion – that just the opposite proves their theology an error – but they have no awareness – it doesn’t register.

Mt.11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not
risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom
of heaven is greater than he.

Mt.11:11 is saying what Heb.7:7 says – That no (including the lowest) Melkizedeq Priest will ever be under even the Highest Levitical Priest; even the Great Yochanan/John the baptizer/immerser.

5th – They will assert things like “Master Yahshua, (was) Born The Fulfillment Of The Seed Of High Priest Zadok Of The Aaronic Priesthood, And The Seed Of King David, According To The Flesh!”

Really? This is a half truth; Yahshua was “The Seed Of King David, According To The Flesh!” But – Where is the other stated in the Bible? Exactly with like verbiage with reference numbers. Please love me enough and supply the proof if you can – For I seriously need to adjust and factor this in if so.

I have had that notion presented before – not 1 has been able to prove that position by Bible – what’s more that position ignores Heb.7:13-15 that clearly states confirming Num.3:12 that Yahshua was a Jew from Judah and not eligible (like most of Israel and all of us) to ever be a Levitical Priest.

Upon hearing “not eligible to ever be a Levitical Priest” to some this might seem like a ‘take away’ – until you realize that it actually makes sense that Yahshua was in truth ‘protected’/ ‘shielded’ by Yah’s design from ever being a part of this concession Plan ‘B’ because of Covenant Breach Levitical Priesthood.

The Plan ‘A’ Melkizedeq Priesthood is forever separate from all lines of the Plan ‘B’ Covenant Breach Levitical Priesthood. All forms of the Plan ‘B’ Levitical Priesthood was ‘glorious’ (2Cor.3:11) a concession made by YHWH instead of – certainly better than complete annihilation (Ex.32:10). This included Aaron and his Sons! After all; Aaron made the Gold Calf (Ex.32:3-4) – then lied about it (Ex.32:24). He, his sons and All of Israel were never again eligible to be Ex.19:5-6 Melkizedeq Priests in this life (Num.3:12); until the Birth, Death and Resurrection of Yahshua our Melkizedeq High Priest.

There is a huge difference between being a Plan ‘A’ Nation ‘of’ firstborn Melkizedeq Priests and being a Plan ‘B’ Nation ‘with’ Levite only Levitical Priests. (Num.3:12, 8:16-18, 18:1, Ezk.20:24-25)

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

This ‘change’ means a reversion back to the original Plan ‘A’ Melkizedeq Priesthood (2.Cor.3:11 – ‘remains’); it does not mean ‘blended with’, ‘in tandem to’ or in some co-equal (therefore in-competition with) capacity along with or along side any form of Plan ‘B’ or its Levitical Priesthood splinter groups.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Zedeq or Zadok?

  1. What a great study Brother. But we must keep in mind that when referring to the Melkizedeq in the book of Genesis, there was no vowel point system in use. The only way to see the true pronunciation of that noun is to get into an Ancient Hebrew Lexicon (like Jeff Benners) to study this spelling all the way back to its purist form which is 2 separate Heb. words. This type of book will lead anyone to the fact that his name was indeed made up of the Heb. words Malak & Zadok no matter how you cut the pie. You seemed a little matter of fact in not referring to him by his true name if the Brit Ha’dasha is indeed speaking of the same person. Only because of the modern vowel point system is there even a difference in the spelling from Torah to N.T. Ofcourse Zadok and Melkizedeq are not the same person, but it is showing us something concerning just WHO is worthy of altar service in ‘The Order of MalakZadok’ = King of Righteousness & Sons of Righteousness, thus by the definition of the 2 separate Heb. words that make up the name itself. And by the way, Anciently, the Heb. word Zadok was used to convey ‘STRAIGHTNESS’ which is now abstractly been defined by Helenistic Jews as righteousness. Anyway, just thought that I would relate this to you. May you be blessed in Messiah YAHSHUA…o’lam!

    Shabbat Shalom,
    Teddy Wilson

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s