The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The ... - josephprestonkirk

220 THE SCROLLS’ IMPACT ON SCHOLARSHIP ON HEBREWS
priest, judge, and teacher, Melchizedek is associated with the eschatological
reign of God envisioned as a perfect Jubilee. Whether the Melchizedek
of this text is to be identified with some other eschatological figure known
from Qumran, such as Michael, remains debated. 70 Further evidence of
Melchizedek as a priestly angel is found in other fragmentary texts. 71
In the New Testament book of Hebrews the treatment of the figure of
Melchizedek displays similarities with the imagery of the scrolls. Like
Melchizedek, Christ the High Priest sits enthroned among the angels
and is considered a divine being (1:5, 8), however that divinity is to be
understood. Moreover, his followers belong to a new covenant, and for
them he has provided atonement. Yet other features of the midrash are
absent. Hebrews does not explicitly draw upon the eschatology of the
Jubilee. At most, an allusion appears in the notion of sabbatical rest in
4:11. 72 Unlike the scrolls, and the Gospels, 73 Hebrews does not involve
a proclamation of Isaianic “good news.” Neither does Christ as High
Priest play a role as eschatological judge. Here again the contrast with
early Gospel traditions (Mark 13:24–27; Matt 25:31–46) is of interest.
Hebrews knows of a coming judgment, a “day” that draws nigh (10:25),
but in that final assize it is God who will exact vengeance (10:27–31),
God who is the Judge (12:23). Jesus, as High Priest enthroned beside the
divine majesty (1:3), serves as a defense attorney, who empathizes with
the weakness of sinners (4:15–5:2), an intercessor for those who
approach God (7:25), a covenantal mediator (7:22; 12:24), whose blood
cries out, like that of Abel, but cries for mercy. 74 But the judicial role
70. Some scholars doubt the association, including Fred L. Horton, The Melchizedek
Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and in the Epistle to
the Hebrews (SNTSMS 30; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976); and
Bodinger, “L’énigme,” 325–26. For arguments in favor of the identification, see
Kobelski, Melchizedek, 71–74, who relies particularly on Visions of Amram b (4Q544), discussed
on 26–36, but the key phrase, giving three names (Michael, Prince of Light,
and Melchizedek, according to Kobelski) of the angelic prince, must be restored.
71. See 4Q401 frag. 11 1.3, published in Qumran Cave 4.VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts,
Part 1(ed. E. Eshel et al.; DJD 11; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 205; and 11Q17 col. 2
frag. 3 line 7, in Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31 (ed. F. García Martínez, E. J.
C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude; DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 269–70.
72. On this motif see Judith Hoch Wray, Rest as a Theological Metaphor in the Epistle to
the Hebrews and the Gospel of Truth: Early Christian Homiletics of Rest (SBLDS 166; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1998).
73. Cf. Matt 11:2–5; 12:18–21; Luke 4:18–19. Cf. also 4Q521 frag. 2 2.12, which
includes, among the works of a Messiah, his “preaching good news to the poor.” See
Collins, ibid., 117.
74. The precise point of the “blood crying out” at Heb 12:24 is debated, but the
other references to the effect of Christ’s blood indicate its positive, cleansing, atoning
functions. Cf. Heb 9:14; 10:22.