The concept of the priestly Messiah in Hebrews and Second Temple Judaism

Interpreters of Hebrews have long questioned whether prior traditions influenced the presentation of Jesus as messianic high priest in Hebrews. Suggestions have ranged from earlier Jewish (especially Philonic) or Christian traditions to Gnosticism, while others have asserted that the motif arose solely from the theological creativity or exegetical skills of the author. The significance for this inquiry of manuscript finds among the Dead Sea Scrolls has been paradoxical---discovery of texts at Qumran concerning a priestly Messiah and heavenly Melchizedek dealt a blow to the leading theory of the era, that Hebrews was indebted to the Middle Platonism of Philo of Alexandria. Proponents of Qumranic origins for Hebrews' messianic priestly thought overreached their evidence, however, and soon their theories too were widely rejected.;This study provides a reconsideration of the shared views evidenced in the Qumran texts (and those underlying their priestly messianism) and Hebrews. Though legitimate differences are present in these traditions, one must consider whether the differences have been overemphasized to the detriment of an appreciation of their similarities, especially since these are the only extant texts unquestionably from Second Temple Judaism that discuss priestly messianism and an angelic Melchizedek. This study includes an analysis of Hebrews' presentation of Jesus as priest, a survey of proposals for the background of Hebrews' priestly thought, and examination of the relevant Qumran texts. It concludes with the assertion that Qumran's priestly messianic and Melchizedek traditions likely influenced Hebrews' presentation of Jesus as priest with significant overlap in three areas---the expectation of a heavenly priest, the significance of eschatological sacrifices of atonement, and the understanding of Melchizedek as a heavenly figure.