The Melchizedek Priesthood and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Melchizedek Priesthood of LDS and Dead Sea Scrolls Perspectives

Research by Kerry A. Shirts

It is claimed by opponents of Mormonism that the Melchizedek Priesthood in the church cannot be accurate because at Hebrews 7:24 the Greek term "aparabaton" means "intransmissible", hence Christ is the only one with the Melchizedek Priesthood. But lets look a little closer and see how the opponents misstate the case.

In the Liddell-Scott Lexicon of the Greek Language we note something interesting when we look up this Greek word "Aparabatos":

apara-ba^tos, on, unalterable, heirmos aitiôn Stoic.2.266; epiplokê, of causation, Chrysipp.IBID=au=Stoic. 2.293=lr; taxis Plu.2.410f; hê tês kinêseôs idea Ocell.1.15; infallible, prorrêseis Iamb.VP28.135, cf. Philum.Ven. 4.14; also of persons, Cat.Cod.Astr.8(4).215. Adv. -tôs Chrysippsipp.Stoic.2.279.

2. inviolable, kuria kai a. PRyl.65.18 (i B.C.), cf. PGrenf.1.60.7 (vi A.D.).

3. permanent, perpetual, hierôsunê Ep.Hebr.7.24.

4. Act., not transgressing, J.AJ18.8.2; a. tôn kathêkontôn Hierocl.in CA10p.435M. Adv. -tôs Arr.Epict.2.15.1.

Notice how it means "unalterable", "infallible", "inviolable", "not transgressing", nay, even "permanent", and "perpetual" but not even once does it mean "intransmissible."

There are several articles by leading scholars on the Melchizedek Priesthood in the Dead Sea Scrolls which are of interest. What they have all noted is that there were those who would share Melchizedek's lot, i.e., hold his Priesthood with him! The understanding that Jesus would be the last high priest was a rather late Christian teaching put onto the text of Hebrews with absolutely no justification. The Greek word "aparabaton" does not mean "intransmissible", but rather "unchangeable", as the Qumran Community understood it as well, since, of course, there were expected other priests to arise after the order of Melchizedek. And no contemporary Greco-Roman source ever used the term "aparabaton" with the meaning of "intransmissible", but it always meant "unchangeable", as the Liddell-Scott Lexicon demonstrates as well. (S. Kent Brown, "The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Mormon Perspective", in "BYU Studies", Vol 23, Winter 1983, #1, pp. 56f).

Paul, it is well known, stayed fairly close to his Psalms text when expounding Hebrews 7 anyway. Christ, it is true, would never lose his Priesthood, for he is a "priest forever" (Heb 7:21). Thus at Hebrews 7:3 "forever" gives the same thought as Hebrews 7:24, i.e., the "unchangeable priesthood." (Richard Lloyd Anderson - "Understanding Paul", p. 215).

In light of this, an interesting aside was published by, of all people, Frank Moore Cross, who noted that when the Bible was put together by the later councils of the church, "the rabbi's selected preferred texts"... while excluding "wholly other works with claims of sacred status... books attributed to prophets or patriarchs *before* Moses were excluded: the Enoch literature and works written in the name of Abraham and other Patriarchs..." ("New Directions in the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls", in "BYU Studies" 25(Summer 1985):9, p. 4.

Perhaps this is one obvious reason why we don't hear more of Melchizedek or Abraham in the Bible, and especially Enoch! Their full story is simply not known to us because it was excluded and lost, according to the finest Dead Sea Scrolls experts on the planet. Hence, another reason to find Joseph Smith and the Restoration so very interesting! Of all the Patriarchs he brings writings back about, he picked the big three: Abraham, Enoch, and Moses, and we now have bushels of documents to check into what Smith said about them in the LDS scriptures. In the meanwhile, the LDS are not out to lunch on the Melchizedek Priesthood being passed on at all, nor in claiming that Christ is the head of that priesthood, the "high priest forever".

Theodor Gaster in his fine translation of the scrolls "The Dead Sea Scriptures", notes that the future Messianic king in the scrolls would be Melchizedek (p. 26). Gaster also notes, very interesting here (!), that The "Melech zedek" - the "King of Righteousness" was mistakenly interpreted through Psalms 110:4 to be the man himself, rather than the priesthood which was eternal. (p. 309).

The startling translation of the 11Q Melchizedek fragment of Florentino Garcia Martinez, in his "The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated", deserves more recognition for the incredible doctrine it teaches!

He notes that "Elohim will stand up in the assembly of God, in the midst of the gods he judges... all the sons of God, and he will preside over this assembly..." [called "the sons of justice"], and Melchizedek himself will free them [the deniers, or the "rebels"], from Belial. So Melchizedek takes the lead in helping the rebellious ones repent and come back to the "Zion" of God in the Dead Sea Scroll texts. (p. 139f).

In collaboration with this, John J. Collins notes in his "The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other Ancient Literatures" that the "sons of El", are, to be sure, "most often heavenly beings in the Hebrew Bible, examples include Genesis 6, Psalms 82, Deut. 32:8-9..." (p. 161).

Collins also notes that Melchizedek in 11Q Melchizedek, is called "Michael, Melchizedek, and the Prince of Light were three names for the same figure." (p. 176). I find this interesting in light of the current Adam-God doctrine discussion going around. There are many Adams, which is an office as well as many other names for him, as well as for Enoch and Melchizedek, as now attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Melchizedek was also in charge of the eternal process of creation, who by the spark, ignited light into the worlds, hence an organizer of the worlds with the gods. God's assistants, "the faithful servants of Melchizedek", rescue and preserve light particles lest any be lost in space.

A. S. Van Der Woude in his article "Melchisedek als Himmlische Erlosergestalt in den Neugefundenen Eschatalogischen Midraschim aus Qumran Hohle XI" (Melchizedek as Heavenly Savior Figure in the Newly Found Eschatalogical Midrash From Qumran Cave 11) in "Oudtestamentische Studien", Deel XIV, E.J. Brill, 1965, pp. 354-373 deals extensivley with the heavenly Melchizedek and his prominant place, as well as the close ties with Michael the Archangel. The assembly of the Gods and their discussion among themselves are also discussed.

The LDS are not incorrect in noting and making Melchizedek as a prominant part of our theology. Not a bit. It is now coming out that Melchizedek was far more prominant than we had supposed, and the reason why we haven't known this, is because, as the Bible scholars tell us, it has been expunged from the Bible.