Melchizedek Speculations

The role of Melchizedek is also clearly relevant for understanding the high priesthood of Jesus in Hebrews, something that has also been recently revisited by Mason. Most of the references to Melchizedek in Second Temple Jewish literature are of the ‘mundane’ variety and are essentially rewritten versions of Genesis 14 (e.g. 1Q20 XX-XXII; Jub. 13; Ps.-Eup. [Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.17.5-6]; Philo, Abr. 235; Congr. 99; Leg. 3:79-82; Josephus, J. W. 6:438; Ant. 1:179-81). It is only in the scrolls from Qumran that we find a heavenly Melchizedek must be partially restored, it seems likely that the Songs of Sabbath Sacrifice portray this figure as an angelic (high) priest of the celestial temple. This seems to be confirmed in 11QMelchizedek, which portrays Melchizedek as an angelic warrior who mediates eschatological judgment (cf. 4Q544 [4QVisions of Amramb ar]; 1Q33 XIII; XVII), although, as we have seen, this is associated with an eschatological Yom Kippur (11Q13 II 7-9), which implies a high priestly status for Melchizedek.

With regard to Hebrews, Mason, among others, notes that, like the more ‘mundane’ presentations, Melchizedek in Hebrews was a king-priest of Salem who encountered Abraham and received tithes (Heb 7:102), and like Philo (Leg. 3:79) and Josephus (J.W. 6:438; Ant. 1:179-81), the author plays with the etymological significance of Melchizedek’s name (Heb 7:2). In 7:3 Melchizedek is said to be like the Son of God and an eternal—presumably angelic—priest (cf. 7:8, 15-17). These statements clearly indicate an exalted status for Melchizedek in the thought of the author and strongly echo the conception of Melchizedek as an angelic heavenly priest in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and 11QMelchizedek. Moreover, the fact that the author asserts on numerous occasions that Christ’s priesthood is of the Melchizedekian order (e.g. 5:10; 6:20; 7:17), and ascribes to Christ certain prerogatives given to Melchizedek at Qumran (e.g. heavenly exaltation, eschatological redemption), suggests some familiarity with the kind of Melchizedek speculation at Qumran.

Mason distances himself from those who claim a direct connection between Hebrews and Qumran, but concludes that the two elements contributing to the priestly Christology of Hebrews—namely, ‘the notion of a heavenly priesthood and an angelic understanding of Melchizedek—are best paralleled in ideas found in the Dead Sea Scrolls’. Although Mason’s analysis of the Scrolls is thorough and perfectly plausible, it is unfortunate that so much rests upon fragmentary texts, some of which may be sectarian in origin. Nevertheless, he makes a cogent case for his modest conclusion. The notions of a heavenly priesthood and an angelic Melchizedek were clearly embraced at Qumran, and the former of these was certainly more widespread in late Second Temple Judaism. The evidence for exalted Melchizedek speculation outside Qumran is lacking, although in view of his role in Hebrews, and a range of later sources (e.g. 2 En. 68-73; Melch. (NHC IX, 1); Hippolytus, Haer. 7.24; b. Sukkah 52b; Song Rab. II, 13, 4), it seems likely that this was more widespread (unless Hebrews is directly dependent upon Qumran traditions). Mason is probably correct to identify Melchizedek speculation, as well as elevated Levi traditions and priestly messianism, as precedents to, and possible influences on, the author of Hebrews. It should be stressed, however, that none of this has been merely adopted in an uncritical fashion, but is sifted, modified and remoulded in the service of the author’s unique vision of Jesus.

It is surprising that Mason makes no reference to the work of Martha Himmelfarb and her contention that heavenly transformations are often understood in terms of priestly investiture in Jewish and Christian apocalypses. Given the exclusively heavenly orientation of Christ’s priesthood in Hebrews, the possibility that this particular antecedent may have facilitated and influenced the conception of Christ’s priesthood in Hebrews also deserves to be explored.