Melchizedek Scroll

Does the Melchizedek Scroll (11Q13) Prove That Some Jews Believed the Messiah Was God?

One of the Dead Sea Scrolls frequently cited in discussions of Christology is 11QMelchizedek (11Q13). Some have argued that this document demonstrates that certain Jews before the time of Christ expected a divine Messiah and therefore provides historical support for the New Testament doctrine of Christ’s deity. (You can read the manuscript in full at the end of this study)

The scroll is undoubtedly important. It reveals much about the theological expectations of one Jewish community during the Second Temple period. However, its significance should not be exaggerated. Careful distinction must be made between what the document actually states and the conclusions later interpreters draw from it.

The Scroll Does Not Prove a Divine Messiah

The first and most important point is methodological.

Even if one were to accept that the figure described in 11QMelchizedek is both Melchizedek and the coming deliverer, the scroll still would not prove that Judaism as a whole expected a divine Messiah.

At most, it would demonstrate that one Jewish sect interpreted certain Old Testament passages in this particular way.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are not inspired Scripture. They are valuable historical documents reflecting the beliefs of the Qumran community. As such, they tell us what some Jews believed, not what Scripture itself teaches.

This distinction is essential.

The scroll may demonstrate the existence of a particular interpretation, but it cannot establish that the interpretation is correct.

The Scroll Uses the Language of Elohim

Much attention is given to the fact that 11QMelchizedek applies the title Elohim to Melchizedek.

This is often presented as though it automatically proves that Melchizedek is identified as Yahweh Himself.

However, that conclusion does not necessarily follow.

The Hebrew word Elohim is not used exclusively of Yahweh throughout the Old Testament.

For example:

• Yahweh is called Elohim.
• Moses is called elohim before Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1).
• Israel’s judges are referred to as elohim (Exodus 21:6; 22:8–9), according to one common interpretation.
• Psalm 82 refers to elohim, a passage that has itself been interpreted in different ways throughout history. Some understand it to describe God’s heavenly council of divine beings, while others understand it to refer to Israel’s judges or rulers exercising delegated authority.

The important point is not which interpretation of Psalm 82 is ultimately correct. Rather, it is that the biblical use of the word elohim is demonstrably broader than a title reserved exclusively for Yahweh.

Consequently, the mere application of the title Elohim to Melchizedek does not, by itself, establish that he is Yahweh.

The context must determine how the term is being used.

The Qumran Community Appears to Understand the Passage Within a Divine Council Framework

Although Psalm 82 itself is debated, 11QMelchizedek appears to interpret its language within a heavenly or divine council framework.

In other words, the scroll seems to understand Melchizedek as an exalted heavenly figure exercising God’s authority among heavenly beings.

Whether that interpretation of Psalm 82 is correct is a separate question.

The important observation is that the scroll reflects the Qumran community’s interpretation of these Old Testament texts. It tells us how this particular Jewish community understood them, not necessarily how the Old Testament itself must be understood.

Even if the author of 11QMelchizedek believed Melchizedek belonged to a heavenly council of elohim, this still would not require the conclusion that Melchizedek is identical with Yahweh. Within such a framework, there is still a distinction between Yahweh, the supreme God of Israel, and other heavenly beings who may be designated elohim because of their status or delegated authority.

Thus, the scroll may provide evidence that the Qumran community believed in a heavenly council populated by exalted heavenly beings. It does not, however, prove that they identified Melchizedek as Yahweh Himself, nor does it demonstrate that Second Temple Judaism generally expected the Messiah to be God.

The Context Is the Divine Council

The immediate context of 11QMelchizedek strongly suggests that the scroll is operating within the familiar Old Testament concept of the heavenly council.

The language recalls passages such as Psalm 82, where God stands among the elohim and pronounces judgment.

Within that worldview, heavenly beings may properly be designated elohim without implying that they are Yahweh Himself.

Consequently, when the scroll speaks of Melchizedek using this terminology, it does not require the conclusion that Melchizedek is the God of Israel.

Rather, it may simply be describing him as a heavenly ruler or exalted member of the divine council exercising God’s delegated authority.

That is entirely consistent with Old Testament usage.

The Difference Between “An Elohim” and “Yahweh”

This distinction is often overlooked.

The Old Testament regularly distinguishes between being called an elohim and being Yahweh.

The category elohim is broader than the unique identity of Yahweh.

Every instance of Yahweh is Elohim.

Not every elohim is Yahweh.

Therefore, the burden of proof lies with anyone claiming that the title necessarily identifies Melchizedek with Yahweh Himself.

The scroll never explicitly says:

“Melchizedek is Yahweh.”

That conclusion must be inferred.

The text itself simply employs terminology that already possesses a broader semantic range within the Hebrew Scriptures.

Interpretation Versus Demonstration

This illustrates an important hermeneutical principle.

Some scholars argue that the scroll presents Melchizedek as a divine, heavenly redeemer who shares in God’s authority.

Others understand the document as portraying an exalted angelic or heavenly priest acting as God’s chief representative.

Still others dispute whether the figure should even be understood as the historical Melchizedek rather than an angelic being associated with his name.

These differing interpretations demonstrate that the document is far from self-evident.

Consequently, while one may certainly argue that 11QMelchizedek reflects an expectation of an exalted heavenly deliverer, it cannot honestly be presented as proof that Jews generally expected the Messiah to be God, nor can it be used as evidence that the title Elohim automatically identifies its subject with Yahweh.

The scroll shows that one Jewish community developed a particular interpretation of several biblical passages. Whether that interpretation is correct is an entirely separate question—one that must ultimately be answered from the Scriptures themselves, not from the beliefs of the Qumran community.

Conclusion

The Melchizedek Scroll (11Q13) is undoubtedly one of the most fascinating documents discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. It provides an invaluable window into the theological expectations of the Qumran community and demonstrates how one group of Jews interpreted passages such as Leviticus 25, Isaiah 52 and 61, Daniel 9, and Psalm 82 in anticipation of a coming age of redemption.

Yet the significance of the scroll should not be overstated.

At its strongest, 11QMelchizedek demonstrates that some Jews during the Second Temple period held an exalted view of Melchizedek and interpreted certain Old Testament passages in a way that associated him with God’s final work of deliverance. That historical observation is important. It reminds us that Second Temple Judaism contained a diversity of messianic and eschatological expectations.

However, this is very different from claiming that the scroll proves Jews generally expected the Messiah to be God, or that it establishes the deity of Christ.

The document is not Scripture. It is a theological work produced by a particular Jewish community. As such, it tells us what that community believed, not what the Old Testament itself necessarily teaches.

Likewise, the scroll’s application of the title Elohim to Melchizedek should not be pressed beyond what the evidence allows. Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the word elohim is applied in a variety of contexts and does not automatically identify its subject as Yahweh. Whether referring to God, heavenly beings, Moses, or—according to one interpretation—Israel’s judges, the term possesses a broader semantic range than is often acknowledged. Consequently, the mere use of the title Elohim cannot by itself establish that Melchizedek is Yahweh.

The same principle applies to the scroll’s apparent understanding of Psalm 82. While 11QMelchizedek seems to interpret the passage within a heavenly or divine council framework, that reflects the theology of the Qumran community. Psalm 82 itself has been understood in different ways throughout Jewish and Christian history, and therefore the scroll cannot be used to settle that debate.

Perhaps most importantly, the document never explicitly states many of the conclusions that are often drawn from it. Assertions that Melchizedek is Yahweh, that he is the Messiah, or that the scroll proves belief in a divine Messiah all require additional interpretive steps beyond the explicit wording of the text. They may be argued for, but they cannot simply be asserted as though the manuscript itself leaves no alternative.

This distinction is crucial.

Historical documents can tell us what people believed. They cannot, by themselves, establish that those beliefs were correct. Nor can they be used to override the testimony of Scripture itself.

For that reason, 11QMelchizedek should be appreciated for what it genuinely offers: a remarkable insight into one strand of Second Temple Jewish interpretation. It may contribute to our understanding of the religious world into which Jesus was born, but it cannot be presented as a definitive proof that Judaism expected a divine Messiah, nor as conclusive evidence for the deity of Christ.

Ultimately, the same principle that governs responsible biblical interpretation applies here as well: we must carefully distinguish between what a text explicitly says, what its original author intended to communicate, and the theological conclusions that later readers draw from it. The Melchizedek Scroll is an important witness to ancient Jewish interpretation, but it should never be mistaken for an inspired commentary that settles the meaning of Scripture.

Contents of the scroll English translation

And concerning that which He said, In [this] year of Jubilee [each of you shall return to his property (Lev. xxv, 13); and likewise, And this is the manner of release:] every creditor shall release that which he has lent [to his neighbour. He shall not exact it of his neighbour and his brother], for God’s release [has been proclaimed] (Deut. xv, 2). [And it will be proclaimed at] the end of days concerning the captives as [He said, To proclaim liberty to the captives (Isa. lxi, 1). Its interpretation is that He] will assign them to the Sons of Heaven and to the inheritance of Melchizedek; f[or He will cast] their [lot] amid the portions of Melchize]dek, who will return them there and will proclaim to them liberty, forgiving them [the wrong-doings] of all their iniquities. And this thing will [occur] in the first week of the Jubilee that follows the nine Jubilees. And the Day of Atonement is the e[nd of the] tenth [Ju]bilee, when all the Sons of [Light] and the men of the lot of Mel[chi]zedek will be atoned for. [And] a statute concerns them [to prov]ide them with their rewards. For this is the moment of the Year of Grace for Melchizedek. [And h]e will, by his strength, judge the holy ones of God, executing judgement as it is written concerning him in the Songs of David, who said, ELOHIM has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgement (Psalms lxxxii, 1). And it was concerning him that he said, (Let the assembly of the peoples) return to the height above them; EL (god) will judge the peoples (Psalms vii, 7-8). As for that which he s[aid, How long will you] judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah (Psalms lxxxii, 2), its interpretation concerns Belial and the spirits of his lot [who] rebelled by turning away from the precepts of God to … And Melchizedek will avenge the vengeance of the judgements of God… and he will drag [them from the hand of] Belial and from the hand of all the sp[irits of] his [lot].And all the ‘gods [of Justice’] will come to his aid [to] attend to the de[struction] of Belial. And the height is … all the sons of God… this … This is the day of [Peace/Salvation] concerning which [God] spoke [through Isa]iah the prophet, who said, [How] beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who proclaims peace, who brings good news, who proclaims salvation, who says to Zion: Your ELOHIM [reigns] (Isa. lii, 7). Its interpretation; the mountains are the prophets… and the messenger is the Anointed one of the spirit, concerning whom Dan[iel] said, [Until an anointed one, a prince (Dan. ix, 25)] … [And he who brings] good [news], who proclaims [salvation]: it is concerning him that it is written… [To comfort all who mourn, to grant to those who mourn in Zion] (Isa. lxi, 2-3). To comfort [those who mourn: its interpretation], to make them understand all the ages of t[ime] … In truth … will turn away from Belial… by the judgement[s] of God, as it is written concerning him, [who says to Zion]; your ELOHIM reigns. Zion is …, those who uphold the Covenant, who turn from walking [in] the way of the people. And your ELOHIM is [Melchizedek, who will save them from] the hand of Belial. As for that which He said, Then you shall send abroad the trump[et in] all the land (Lev. xxv, 9) .

If you liked this study please subscribe here

You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here 

Help me keep this site free for all. Join our Patreon membership here