Among the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), a scroll was found in cave 11 at Qumran portraying Melchizedek as a heavenly divine Being. What made this document rather interesting is that texts about YHWH and God were attributed to him (Cf. Pss. 7:7-8; 82:1; Isa. 52:7), as well as OT citations typically associated with the Messiah (Cf. Ps. 110; Isa. 61; Dan. 7; 9).

Suffice it to say, this has else some scholars to conclude that Melchizedek is being described as the second Divine Power who is both personally distinct from and identified with YHWH. Certain scholar even go as far as to argue that Melchizedek is simply another name/title for YHWH God himself!     

One such authority is Rick Van de Water who an article titled, “Michael or Yhwh? Toward Identifying Melchizedek in 11Q13,” in Journal for the study of the Pseudepigrapha, Vol 16.1 (2006), pp. 75-86, 2006, Sage Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA, and New Delhi) DOI: 10.1177/0951820706069186 http://JSP.sagepub.com.

In this post I will be taking excerpts from his article highlight his position that Melchizedek is both YHWH and distinct from YHWH, being one of the “Two Powers” in heaven, which was widespread Jewish belief at that time. All emphasis will be mine.

Since the initial publication of 11QMelch, the figure ‘Melchizedek’ has usually been described as an angel (Michael or otherwise).¹ F. Manzi, however, has recently argued against such an identification.² His argument is based on the long-observed appropriation for Melchizedek of a number of biblical statements concerning Yhwh.³ This leads him to conclude that, rather than referring to an intermediary of Yhwh, ‘Melchizedek’ is simply a divine title for Yhwh himself.⁴ While his point is a valid one, Manzi admits that there remains much to be said for the idea that Melchizedek is an intermediary.⁵ The purpose of this article is to argue that the identification of Melchizedek as an intermediary can be reconciled with Manzi’s thesis that ‘Melchizedek’ is a divine title.

The expression ‘two Powers’ … recurs in early rabbinic polemic against belief that God has a divine mediator who shares his throne.⁶ According to A.F. Segal, the biblical theophanies constitute ‘a most important part of the tradition’.⁷ Since Philo and some apocalyptic writings show awareness of it, Segal has concluded that the interpretation of the biblical theophanies in terms of a divine intermediary must predate the second century CE.⁸ Supporting his view is the mention by medieval Karaite commentators of the ‘Magharians’, a first-century Jewish sect believing in a celestial being who created the world, was placed over all creation, and was God’s intermediary who appeared to the patriarchs and spoke to the prophets.⁹ Qirqisani explained the name ‘Magharians’ as derived from the discovery of their writings in caves.¹⁰ Since the Essenes are not mentioned in Qirqisani’s presentation of early Jewish sects, ‘Magharians’ may simply be an ad hoc name for them.¹¹ Though their belief has been related to Philo’s concept of the divine Logos, their alleged existence prior to the Christian era makes his influence on them unlikely.¹² What is more probable is that Philo’s interpretation of the intermediary of the biblical theophanies reflects a more widespread belief in certain early Jewish sectors.¹³ What will be argued below is that 11QMelch reflects belief comparable to that of Philo and the Magharians. That this is not unthinkable is argued by the fact that a similar idea appears in other writings found at Qumran. The reference to ‘the God of Israel and the Angel / Messenger of his truth’ in 1QS 3.24, for example, has been noted in this regard.¹⁴ The latter title, moreover, is widely considered to refer to the figure Melchizedek of 11QMelch 2.13.¹⁵

8. Segal, Two Powers, pp. 260-61.

9. L. Nemoy (ed.), Ya’qub Al-Qirqisani, Kitab Al-Anwar Wal-Maraqib: Code of Karaite Law (New York: Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1939), p. 55 § I. 2.8; idem, Karaite Anthology: Excerpts from the Early Literature (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952) 50; H.A. Wolfson, ‘The Pre-Existent Angel of the Magharians and Al-Nahawandi’, JQR 51 (1960), pp. 91-93; W. Bacher, ‘Qirqisani, the Karaite, and his Work on Jewish Sects’, in P. Birnbaum (ed.), Karaite Studies (New York: Harmon, 1971), p. 275.

10. Qirqisani, Kitab Al-Anwar, I.2.8. Some of their writings were found in the ninth century in a cave near Jericho and significantly influenced the beliefs of the Karaites of Jerusalem (cf. R. de Vaux, ‘A propos des manuscrits de la Mer Morte’, RB 57 [1950], pp. 417-29 [421-42]).

11. J. Fossum, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism (WUNT, 36; Tübingen: Mohr, 1985), p. 330.

12. Wolfson, ‘Pre-Existent Angel’, pp. 95-96. Qirqisani recorded that the book of the ‘Alexandrian’ was among the scrolls found in the ninth century (cf. Bacher, ‘Qirqisani’, p. 275); see also D.T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey (Assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), pp. 15-16.

13. For Philo as a compiler of traditions, rather than an innovator, cf. W.L. Knox, ‘Pharisaism and Hellenism’, in H. Loewe (ed.), Judaism and Christianity. II. The Contact of Pharisaism with Other Cultures (repr.; New York: Ktav, 1969 [1937]), pp. 61-111 (62); G. Bertram, ‘Philo und die jüdische Propaganda in der antiken Welt’, in W. Grundmann (ed.), Christentum und Judentum: Studien zur Erforschung ihres gegenseitigen Verhältnisses (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1940), pp. 79-105. For the striking parallels between Philo’s traditions and those of the Karaites, cf. B. Revel, ‘The Karaite Halakah and its Relation to Sadducean, Samaritan and Philonian Halakah’, in Birnbaum (ed.), Karaite Studies, pp. 1-88.

14. Segal, Two Powers, pp. 20-21.

15. Cf. van der Woude, ‘Melchisedek’, p. 369; Y. Yadin, The Scroll of ‘The War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness’ (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1957), pp. 234-36; P. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchireša‘ (CBQMS, 10; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981), p. 139; J.T. Milik, ‘4QVisions de ‘Amram et une citation d’Origène’, RB 79 (1972), pp. 77-79 (86); C. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), p. 37. Also 4Q177 12-13.7: ‘…his Angel of Truth will help all the children of light from the power of Belial’. 16. Manzi, Melchisedek, pp. 64-65. (Pp. 76-78)

… There is much to suggest that, rather than referring to the priest of Gen. 14.18, ‘Melchizedek’ alludes to the priest like Melchizedek in Ps. 110.4, who is called ‘my Lord’ and is invited to sit at the right hand of the Lord (110.1).²⁹

That he is portrayed as a heavenly priest bolsters the argument for his being the agent of the expiation achieved on the Day of Atonement (11QMelch 2.7-8) in inauguration of the tenth jubilee (Lev. 25.9).³⁰ Though it was traditionally the high priest who performed the atonement rite on that day (Lev. 16), the expiation presented in 11QMelch is more eschatological than liturgical.³¹ In biblical tradition, as well as in other Qumran documents, it is Yhwh who not only avenges, but also atones.³² Likewise 11QMelch presents the eschatological atonement as a work of God.33 Since Melchizedek performs Yhwh’s roles in liberating, judging, avenging and ruling, is it unreasonable to conclude that it is also his act of atonement that delivers those ‘of his lot’ from the vengeance? This is the apparent meaning of the fragmentary phrase in 11QMelch 2.6: ‘and he proclaimed liberty for them to set them free [] from all their iniquities’.³⁴ In light of biblical prophecy, his eschatological act of atonement would thus constitute yet another affirmation that he is Yhwh.

26. Aschim, ‘Melchizedek and Jesus’, p. 132.

27. Kobelski, Melchizedek, p. 64; Aschim, ‘Melchizedek and Jesus’, p. 139. Due to the lacuna, de Jonge and van der Woude (‘11QMelchizedek’, p. 306) questioned Melchizedek’s priesthood, though the latter had previously suggested that kaphar in 11QMelch 2.6-8 was in reference to Melchizedek (‘Melchisedek’, p. 363).

28. For Isa. 61.1-10 as the discourse of a high priest, cf. P. Grelot, ‘Sur Isaïe LXI: La première consécration d’un grand prêtre’, RB 97 (1990), pp. 414-31 (422).

29. Kobelski, Melchizedek, p. 54; Milik, ‘Milkî-sedeq’, p. 138; Flusser, Judaism, p. 188; Puech, ‘Notes’, p. 512; Aschim, ‘Melchizedek and Jesus’, p. 136; cf. also Heb. 7.15, 24.

30. Though the nature of this act of expiation is not clear, the biblical notion of kaphar usually implies a blood sacrifice (Lev. 17.11).

31. Aschim, ‘Melchizedek and Jesus’, p. 140.

32. Deut. 32.43; CD 2.5; 4.7; 20.34. 33. Milik, ‘Milkî-sedeq’, p. 125. 34. The Hebrew text of this phrase is given in n. 22. (P. 80)

The generally accepted restoration of 11QMelch 2.18-20, moreover, identifies this Messiah-herald as the comforter (Isa. 61.3).³⁷ What is striking about this attribution is that throughout Isaiah’s Book of the Consolation, it is Yhwh who is referred to as the comforter.³⁸ Again the logical implication is that the Messiah-herald ‘Melchizedek’ is Yhwh. This agrees with what has already been seen in the portrayal of Melchizedek as the Messiah-herald of Isaiah 61 (11QMelch 2.5-6), as well as God reigning in Zion (2.24).³⁹ Since Isa. 52.9b joins Yhwh the comforter to the herald’s message to Zion, ‘your God reigns’ (52.7), the application to Melchizedek of God reigning in Zion and comforting implies that he is also the herald-comforter of Isa. 52.7…

The extant text of 11QMelch thus exhibits numerous indications that Melchizedek is YHWH, along with other suggestions that he is distinct from el. This dual image parallels the concept of the biblical Angel/Messenger of the Lord.⁴² It also recalls the one ‘like a son of man’ in Dan. 7.13-22. Both are given the role of eschatological judge.⁴³ Melchizedek’s ‘return on high’ (Ps. 7.8) in 11QMelch 2.11 also parallels the ascent of the ‘one like a son of man’ to the heavenly throne (Dan. 7.13-14). Even the dual image of Melchizedek as God judging (11QMelch 2.11), yet distinct from God as the executor of his judgments (2.13), resembles the OG version of Daniel’s figure who is distinct from, yet ‘like’ (hos) the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7.13).

‘Return on high’ (11QMelch 2.11) implies, moreover, that Melchizedek is a celestial being who has been to earth. The nature of that visit to earth is suggested by the assertion that he is the Anointed One foretold by both Isaiah and Daniel (2.6, 18). That identification implies that he is human.⁴⁴ That he is said to be the Anointed One ‘cut off’ (Dan. 9.26), moreover, implies his death. Since the ‘cutting off’ of Daniel’s Messiah is associated with ‘atonement for sin’… it is not inconceivable that the death of Melchizedek was taken to be the act of expiation delivering ‘those of his lot’ from the vengeance.⁴⁵ The elaborate collage of biblical images in 11QMelch argues that its full text presented Melchizedek, not only as a heavenly priestly Messiah, but also as a human suffering Messiah.⁴⁶

Melchizedek’s roles of judging the wicked and destroying them (11QMelch 2.9, 13), as well as ruling over a kingdom (2.24-25) agree, moreover, with what other early Jewish sources ascribe to messianism.⁴⁷ Nor is his portrait as a cosmic Messiah foreign to other Qumran documents.⁴⁸ An echo of Dan. 7.14, for example, can be found in the first line of 4Q521, which speaks of all heaven and earth listening to ‘his Messiah’.⁴⁹…

38. Isa. 40.1-2; 49.13; 51.3; 52.9; 57.18; 61.2; 66.13.

39. The idea of a divine Messiah is not particularly innovative, since OG Amos 4.13 identifies the Messiah as kyrios ho theos pantokrator (cf. E.E. Ellis, ‘Biblical Interpretation in the New Testament Church’, in M.J. Mulder [ed.], Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity [Philadelphia: Fortress; Assen: van Gorcum, 1988], pp. 691-725 [719]). The orthographic similarity between the MT ma sekho and the Vorlage of the OG ton christon autou (= mshicho) suggests that the MT has been altered to remove the identification of the Anointed One as Yhwh Sabaoth.

42. Milik’s restoration of 11QMelch 2.14 with the citation of Mal. 3.1-2 concerning the Angel of the Covenant follows the same line of thought. Milik held that 11QMelch is part of a larger document on the Ages (cf. CD 16.3-4) which included 4Q180 2-4 and 5-6, dealing with the theophanies to Abraham (‘Milkî-sedeq’, pp. 106, 119, 122-25). See J. Starcky, ‘Le Maître de Justice et Jésus’, MDB 1.4 (1978), p. 57; F. García Martínez, ‘Two Messianic Figures in the Qumran Texts’, in D. Parry and S. Ricks (eds.), Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ, 20; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996), pp. 14-40 (22-24); A.F. Segal (Rebecca’s Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986], p. 89) exemplifies current dependence on apocalyptic literature, explaining this attribution of divinity as participation granted to some principal angels.

43. Starcky, ‘Le Maître’, p. 57; Flusser, Judaism, pp. 188, 191; M.A. Knibb, ‘Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha in the Light of the Scrolls’, DSD 2.1 (1995), pp. 165-84 (173). For a list of parallels between Melchizedek of 11Q13 and the one like a ‘son of man’ in Dan. 7.9-14, cf. Kobelski, Melchizedek, p. 133. See also the Angel of the Lord in Zech. 3.

44. Cf. P. Rainbow, ‘Melchizedek as a Messiah at Qumran’, BullBibRes 7 (1997), pp. 179-94.

45. See 1QMelch 2.7 (his act of expiation in the tenth jubilee); 2.18 (‘he is the [A]nointed of the Spiri[t] of whom D[aniel spoke..]’. For the restoration, cf. Fitzmyer, ‘Further Light’, p. 29.

46. A parallel concept can be seen in 1QIsaa 52.14, where the ‘anointing’ of the suffering Servant casts him as a Messiah who suffers in expiation to establish a universal covenant (52.15) and who will be exalted (52.13b).

47. J.H. Charlesworth, ‘From Messianology to Christology: Problems and Prospects’, in idem (ed.), The Messiah (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), pp. 3-35 (7).

48. Cf. García Martínez, ‘Two Messianic Figures’, pp. 18-24.

49. Cf. E. Puech, ‘Une apocalypse messianique (4Q521)’, RevQ 15 (1992), pp. 475- 519 (486). García Martínez (‘Two Messianic Figures’, p. 39 n. 40) notes that frag. 2 of 4Q521 speaks of a Davidic messiah, frags. 8-9 of a priestly messiah, and frags. 5-6 of an eschatological messiah. (Pp. 81-83)

It has been argued above that the way in which Melchizedek is presented in 11Q13 is best explained, not in terms of a created angel (Michael or otherwise), but rather in terms of belief in ‘two Powers in heaven’, comparable to that of Philo and the Magharians.61 The author of 11QMelch uses Pss. 7.8; 82.1; 110.1; Isa. 52.7; 61.1; Dan. 7.13; 9.26 to portray Melchizedek as Yhwh and at the same time as God’s intermediary. ‘Melchizedek’ embodies the high-priestly Messiah, the suffering Servant, the herald of peace, Yhwh reigning in Zion and the eschatological judge, or Son of Man. This collage of biblical images resembles Philo’s presentation of the divine Logos, including his assertion that as intermediary and intercessor, the Logos is the true High Priest, Melchizedek.⁶² The application of several messianic titles to one person can be seen as a natural development of their seminal overlapping in biblical tradition. That overlapping encourages seeing some of the Qumran ‘son of God’ texts as further descriptions of the same figure, despite the absence there of the title ‘Melchizedek’. He exhibits most clearly the belief of the Qumran covenanters in ‘two Powers’. This conclusion is made all the more conceivable by the dating of 11QMelch to the Herodian period, according to current paleographic theory.⁶³

That Melchizedek represents belief in what the early rabbis called a second ‘Power in heaven’, on the other hand, does not contradict Milik’s convincing equation of him with Michael in 1QM 17.6. What has been seen above is that in 11QMelch, a literary play on the name of a biblical figure has transformed the title ‘Melchizedek’ into God’s designation for the sharer of his throne. It is worth considering that literary play is likewise present in the case of Michael in 1QM. Rather than a mere reference to the archangel Michael, it can be seen as another title for Melchizedek ‘who is like God’. It thus constitutes another conceptual parallel to the OG interpretation of Dan. 7.13, where the one ‘like a son of man’ is said to be ‘like’ (hos) the Ancient of Days. Though space does not allow pursuing in more detail this proposed interpretation of the figure Michael in 1QM, it is worth further consideration in regard to the issue at hand.

62. Philo, Migr. 102; Som. 2.231-3; Her. 205-206; Leg. All. 3.25-6, 79-82.

63. Van der Woude, ‘Melchisedek’, p. 357. (Pp. 85-86)

FURTHER READING

MELCHIZEDEK REVISITED

Is Michael the Ruler of Israel? The Witness of the Dead Sea Scrolls

Doesn’t the Bible (also) present Melchizedek as possessing divine attributes?

The Dead Sea Scrolls and God’s Uniplurality: Some Observations on Melchizedek