Melchizedek in
11QMelchizedek and Its Relation to Hebrews 7
The third issue concerns the
relationship between Heb 7 and 11QMelchizedek. 11QMelchizedek (11Q13) has many interesting
literary elements in relation to the figure of Melchizedek. Eschatological elements
(11Q13 II,4, 5-6) and the atoning motif (11Q13 II,8) with a reference to the
Day of Atonement (11Q13, II,7) are found in the text. Melchizedek is depicted
as the liberator from a debt of iniquities of the inheritance of Melchizedek at
the end of days (11Q13 II,5-6). According to the text, Melchizedek at the end
of days (11Q13 II, 13). We have an explicit expression “the messenger is the
anointed of the spirit (or the messiah of the spirit)” (והמבשר הו[אה ]משיח הרו[ח],
11Q13 II,18) and “And ‘your G[o]d is [ Melchizedek who will fr]ee [them from
the han]d of Belial” (ואל[ו]היך הואה [… מלכי
צדק אשר, יצי]ל[מה מי]ד בליעל 11Q13 II, 24-25).
The variety of these literary features
encourages some scholars to identify Melchizedek of 11Q13 in various ways. De
Jonge and van der Woude have portrayed Melchizedek in 11Q13 as a heavenly being
who is performing deliverance and judgment on behalf of God. Milik has asserted
that God is associating himself with Melchizedek in this text. Manzi develops
Milik’s point, arguing that Melchizedek is a descriptive title for Yahweh in
11Q13.
Although there is still a dispute over
the identity issue in terms of the role of Melchizedek 11Q13, scholars seem to
have reached an agreement that the prominent role of Melchizedek is a “Messianic
role in a priestly base.” The “Messianic role” involves Melchizedek’s
performing deliverance and judgment on behalf of God, and the “priestly base”
is derived from the idea that his deliverance is from the debts of iniquities
of the eschatological Day of Atonement.
The messianic picture of Melchizedek
can be distinguished from the description of Melchizedek in other contemporary
compositions, even among other DSS. The distinctiveness appears to reinforce
Manzi’s argument that the understanding of Melchizedek evolved at Qumran. This
messianic picture of Melchizedek in 11Q13 is suspected of being indirectly influential
on the writing of Hebrews. However, the portrait of Melchizedek in Hebrews is
somewhat different from 11Q13. The differences between the figure of
Melchizedek in the two texts overwhelms the general similarities. If 11Q13 has
an influence on Hebrews, it is more on the portrait of Jesus than on that of
Melchizedek. Possibly, the author of Hebrews argues against 11Q13 by saying that
Jesus was the one whom 11Q13 has identified with heavenly Melchizedek. However,
it seems unlikely that the author of Hebrews would have been acquainted with
11Q13, although he may have known something of its line of interpretation. In
terms of the relationship between Melchizedek in the two texts (Hebrews and
11Q13), Longenecker’s opinion is plausible, namely, that the author’s intention
was to direct the readers’ attention to Melchizedek’s true OT significance. (Dongshin
Don Chang, Phinehas, The Sons of Zadok, and Melchizedek: Priestly Covenant
in Late Second Temple Texts [Library of Second Temple Studies 90; London:
T&T Clark, 2022], 195-98)
