The appeal to Melchizedek here parallels information that is available in the Old Testament. In relation to Abraham paying tithes to Melchizedek, we read:
Gen. 14:18-20
18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
The Old Testament gives us virtually nothing more about Melchizedek, but there was clearly some lore about Medlchizedek that was transmitted outside of the documentary path, as the New Testament adds significant information about him. Some of that New Testament material is also echoed in the Book of Mormon. Understanding the probable provenance of the material, as well as the function of the material in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon will help us understand more of what is going on in Alma (as opposed to the way Paul used Melchizedek).
First, we find that the New Testament follows some of the Old Testament information about Melchizedek:
Heb. 7:1-3
1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Paul begins with the reference to the textual Old Testament material by noting that Melchizedek was king of Salem, and that Abraham paid him tithes. This point of paying tithes is now repeated in three scriptural works, the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Book of Mormon. Why was it so important to indicate that Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek?
It is not so much the tithes, and the person paying them that is important. Abraham is the father, and the payment of tithes to the king of Salem shows that even Father Abraham considered Melchizedek a man due deference and support. As with everything else in the ancient world, the tithes were not simply a political payment of taxes, but the religious payment of an obligation to God. Thus the paying of tithes signifies Abraham’s recognition of Melchizedek in his religious role as well as his political role.
What follows in Paul is the statement that Melchizedek is “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life.” This certainly is not the description of a mortal. It is also information absent from the textual tradition of the Old Testament. It is probable that this is information that depends upon oral tradition with which Paul was familiar. Such exaggerations are not unusual in oral traditions, and they would serve the same purpose to which Paul puts the phrases, which is to set up Melchizedek as a powerful and important model.
Parallel to Paul’s use of Melchizedek is a document discovered with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Typically identified as 11QMelchizedek, this document is a different type of expansion on what was apparently an available oral tradition. In the fragment’s usage, Melchizedek is an active agent of God, and is presented as a future Messiah. Importantly for the parallel to Paul, his authority is highlighted, though the Dead Sea Scroll fragment traces Melchizedek’s authority to Aaron, where Paul suggests that it was apart even from Aaron (Akenson, Donald Harmon. Surpassing Wonder. Harcourt, Brace & Company, 1998, p. 175. See also Wise, Michael, Martin Abegg, Jr, and Edward Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls. A New Translation. HarperSanFrancisco, 1996, pp. 455-457).
What is confirmed by the Dead Sea Scroll fragment is that there was an active lore of Melchizedek available. While we have little of it, it appears that the information in the Book of Mormon represents an earlier variant of that story.
The important information that Paul adds here is the connection between Melchizedek and priesthood: “but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.” Genesis 14:18 told us that Melchizedek was a priest of the most high God. Paul picks up on that. Why is this important?
Once again, the answer appears to lie in information that we do not have, but was sufficiently common that Paul could refer to it with assumed cognition on the part of his audience. Melchizedek is a priest, but not a Levite, nor a priest after the order of Aaron:
Heb. 7:11
11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Paul assumes that his audience understands that there is a difference between priests with the Levitical priesthood, priests after the order of Aaron, and priests after the order of Melchizedek. He uses that assumption of difference to hold up Melchizedek as a legitimate priest, and therefore a model for the priesthood of Jesus:
Heb. 7:12
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
This is Paul’s argument for the priesthood of Jesus. Remember that he was preaching to those who did not understand Jesus, but must have understood the lines of authority as they were typically used.
Verses 12-14 of Hebrews 7 concentrate on the apparently well known fact that Jesus was from the line of Juda and not of Levi or Aaron. Verse 14 states the problem very clearly, Jesus is of Juda, and Moses never said anything about Juda and the priesthood. That leaves Christians with a potential problem, they have Jesus as their authority, as their “priest,” but Jesus does not appear to have a legitimate claim upon the priesthood.
Paul claims priesthood for Jesus by appeal to Melchizedek. That Melchizedek was known to be a priest, was respected of Abraham, and was not of Levi or Aaron, provides the perfect model and justification for the priesthood of Jesus. Paul also uses the material: “Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God…” to move Melchizedek to extra-worldly proportions, and thus be an even better model for a resurrected Jesus.
At this point we must now consider the comparison between the use of Melchizedek in Paul and Alma. There are certainly some similarities, and instances where the language we have in Alma is dependent upon Joseph’s reading of Paul. However, there are marked differences in the conception and development of the arguments.
First, the story of Melchizedek must have been available to the Nephites, and apparently the brass plates contained some of the material to which Paul refers, but which is not in the Old Testament. Secondly, it is also clear that the priesthood of Melchizedek had already been called into service as the model for Nephite priesthood. This is evident in that Alma assumes that the priesthood he claims is legitimate through Melchizedek, while Paul makes that argument. This is a subtle but important difference. Alma is assuming what Paul must contend. Both Paul and Nephi faced an important difficulty in the establishment of the gospel. Both had the truth, but neither had the traditional access to the lineal priesthoods of Levi or Aaron. While Nephi never tells us of his solution, Alma makes it clear that the priesthood had been traced to Melchizedek, and that priesthood was the one that had been used to teach the Nephite gospel.
Both Paul and Alma use the story of Melchizedek with the assumption that it is familiar to their audience. They use that story in very different ways, however. While both deal with the concept of authority, for Paul it is the primary thing he is trying to prove. Alma not only accepts it, but uses the assumption of acceptance in his listeners to underscore an entirely different point, that of the need for repentance and belief in the Savior.
This subtle difference also appears in the ways Alma and Paul refer to the order of this priesthood. For Paul, it is a priesthood after the order of Melchizedek which justifies Jesus’ priesthood. For Alma, it is the priesthood after the order of the Son that justifies Melchizedek.