Solo

In Hebrews Jesus is called High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. Noting that the priestly Messiah of the Qumran community was to derive from Aaron and was distinct from the Davidic Messiah, what significance this might have had in the original Nazarene faith ?

Here is a scenario that I have been playing with. In the general expectation of a Messiah in Israel, the Messianic stock would play very important role for the sectarian apocalyptics to position themselves, with respect to the Temple functions after the fervently desired victory. It appears that the Aaronite credentials were claimed elsewhere. The Melchizedek order would have been then a a "sectarian marker" for James' apocalyptic congregation, expecting a Davidic Messiah. In my tentative theory of adoption, Jesus in his martyrdom was to James originally the priestly "intercessor" to serve Davidic Messiah's victory, as Melchizedek was in Abram's over the four kings. When James was killed, and the dispersed church started to mingle and argue with the Paulinist Jesus worshippers, this function quickly changed from a high-priest servant of Messiah to Davidic Messiah himself returning to conquer.

Any reason why this theory would not work ? Much obliged.

Jiri

RED DAVE

In my opinion, it was a propagandistic slogan. It was a way of grafting JC into the priesthood while he was obviously not of a priestly family.

Same bullshit was the geneologies, which tried to make him a descendant of the royal house.

Xtians been sucking on those straws ever since.

RED DAVE

Solo

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply.

Jiri

Cege

I think the Letter to the Hebrews attempted to establish that Jesus fulfilled what the writer perceived as a prophecy found in Psalm 110. According to the writer, the receipients were Jewish-Christians in some unnamed place who appeared to be losing their faith.

Hebrews was written after all the Pauline letters and dated to about 70, according to the NIV introduction. Some scholars have dated it as late as 100CE.

Those Hebrew-Christians-- maybe because they began to feel they'd been misled about the imminent return of Jesus in political power to establish a kingdom of God on earth-- were given a new take on the divinity of Jesus: he was High Priest to believers, replacing the need for the Levite priesthood of Judaism.

None of the letters in the NT, including Hebrews, mention the virgin birth of Jesus that the gospels of Matthew and Luke declare. The only books of the
NT that mention a virgin birth also list (differing) genealogies of Joseph who "was supposed" the father of Jesus. (I've never understood why those genealogies were supposed to be persuasive that Jesus was in the lineage of David if Joseph wasn't his actual and biological father, and maybe it wasn't to these Jewish converts)

Maybe the revival of the mysterious Melchizedek in reference to Jesus was thought to be an encouraging enticement for those Jewish-Christians in order to hold onto the beliefs that had been preached to them earlier about the divinity of Jesus.

I know I didn't address your question about the Qumran community, but maybe I've added to the discussion. I hope so.

Solo

There is definitely that (1:13) but my query was to the development of Jesus cult within the James church, which we know predated Paul, and was substantially different than the model established by him. Paul did not recognize the theme of adoption, and Jesus' function of apostle or high priest.

Maybe that, but I am thinking that the dual blow of James' death and the fall of Jerusalem radically changed the Jewish Jesus scene. The Nazarenes were not Christians; Jesus was likely just one of their prophets of doom. For the historical model of Jesus to work, the figure would have had to pass from martyr to Messiah in sectarian Judaism that had Temple association for thirty years. We know that Paul created his own Messianic cult when he failed to win acceptance in the inner circle of the Nazarene hierarchy. But the remains of the Nazarene confession, scattered and fractured by the Christian successors as they are over Hebrews, James, the Revelation, Matthew, and later reports of the Ebionite heretics, seem to indicate that indeed Jesus (at the right hand of God) was an enabler of Messiah to come, not the Messiah himself. Hebrews 3:1 would be a strong indicator of that. That he was thought of as high priest of the order of Melchizedek, again indicates a service-man to the Davidic king. This would be when James was alive.
When James died and Jerusalem fell, the Nazarenes dispersed (except for small groups hanging together in Palestine) and immediately came into contact with the Messianic cult of Jesus that Paul left behind. Naturally, being much more inward-looking sectarian Jewish cult than Paulines they wanted to hang on to the law and observances, but they would be seriously disadvantaged in competition for converts with Pauline churches, had they kept their Baptist and Yeshu in their previous stature of proclaimers and martyrs of the last days. So, a significant upsizing of Jesus took place, in which like in Pauline branch, he himself would become Messiah and with a Davidic pedigree to effect the vision of Psalm 110.
I do not believe that Jesus in the James' church was thought of as the man to come back as Davidic Messiah, but as the Melchizedek high priest to confirm him. I can't think of another scenario where splitting Jesus into these two functions would make sense. Hebrews was written at time where the "priestly, apostolic Jesus" was still in fresh memory but was quickly being overwritten by the "new covenant" a la Paul. (2 Cr 3:6)

Does this make sense ?

Jiri

Cege

Are you thinking, then, that Hebrews was written after the fall of Jerusalem rather than before? and by a Nazarene promoting an upsizing of the status of Jesus?

Was the order of Melchizedek already important to 1st century Hebrews for establishing the prophecied Jewish messiah? or did Hebrews come up with the idea/comparison all by himsef?

I think it's curious that Melchizedek, who is mentioned only in 4 verses of the OT, becomes so prominent in the view of the author of Hebrews--and only in Hebrews in the NT-- and I don't understand the emphasis coming decades after the death of Jesus.

Solo

Yes.

As I said, I think Jesus as (post-mortem) high priest of Melchizedek order, would have originated in James' church, perhaps as a counter to the Aaronite priestly 'Messiah' that was traditioned at Qumran.

I had exactly the thought, as you have. Why would Melchizedek be traditioned side by side with what is obviously the "leading role" of the Conqueror ? So, I am thinking, this (and Heb 3:1 reference to his apostolate) was the preceding tradition which was referenced by the writer of Hebrews (for continuity purposes) but "repackaged" for Jesus as the Davidic Messiah after the flight to Pella.

Jiri

Larsguy47

This is rather confusing, isn't it?

Larsguy47

Solo

What do you find confusing ?

Jiri