Alma’s citation of Melchizedek here parallels Old Testament information:
And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand.
And he gave him tithes of all. (Gen. 14:18–20)
The Old Testament says virtually nothing more about Melchizedek, but some lore about Melchizedek was transmitted outside the documentary path, for the New Testament also contains significant additions about him, some of which also appear in the Book of Mormon. Understanding the probable provenance of the material, and 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 in contrast to how Paul used Melchizedek.
Some of the New Testament information on Melchizedek follows that of the Old Testament:
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;
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;
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. (Heb. 7:1–3)
Paul begins with Melchizedek’s kingship and Abraham’s tithes to him. He also references Psalm 110:4 in Hebrew 7:3: “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” Richard D. Nelson, professor of Old Testament at the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, discusses Paul’s use of the Melchizedek material:
For the enlightened reader of scripture, the mysterious figure of Melchizedek is a key to understanding the transcendent nature of Jesus’ priesthood. From an exegesis of Genesis 14 and Psalms 110:4, the author [Paul, in Hebrews] seeks to demonstrate that Christ’s priesthood “according to the succession of Melchizedek” surpasses the temple priesthood. Without any explicitly expressed genealogy or beginning or end of life, Melchizedek shares with Jesus a perpetual priesthood ([Hebrews] 7:3, 8, 24–25; the “forever” of Ps. 110:4). This contrasts with the temporary nature of the Levitical priests (7:23–24). Even Jesus’ lack of Levitical descent (7:13–14) is not a problem, but is converted into a virtue, for Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedek implies Levi’s subservience to any Melchizedek-like priest (7:4–10).
Abraham’s tithe-paying appears in the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Book of Mormon. Why was this point so important? I argue that the tithes were not the point—Abraham was. He was father of the covenant; his payment of tithes to the king of Salem shows that even so central a figure as Father Abraham considered Melchizedek a man to whom deference and support were due. Tithes were not simply a political payment of taxes, but the religious payment of an obligation to Yahweh. Abraham thus recognized Melchizedek in his religious role as well as his political role.
What follows in Hebrews is a description of Melchizedek as “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life.” This certainly is not the description of a mortal man. It is also information absent from the Old Testament and therefore probably from an oral tradition. Such exaggerations are not unusual in oral traditions and would serve Paul’s purpose of exalting 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 this fragment, Melchizedek is an active agent of Yahweh, a future Messiah. Importantly for the parallel to Paul, the fragment highlights his authority, although it identifies its origin as Aaron where Paul suggests that Melchizedek’s authority differed qualitatively from Aaron’s. Despite these differences, the Dead Sea Scroll fragment confirms that Melchizedek lore was readily available. Although we have little of it, the information in the Book of Mormon apparently represents an earlier variant of that story.
For this is the time decreed for “the year of Melchiz[edek]’s favor” (Isa. 61:2, modified), [and] by his might he w[i]ll judge God’s holy ones and so establish a righteous ki[n]gdom, as it is written about him in the songs of David, “A godlike being has taken his place in the council of God; in the midst of the divine beings he holds judgment” (Ps. 82:1). Scripture s[ays] about him, “Over [it] take your seat in the highest heaven; A divine being will judge the peoples” (Ps. 7:7–8).
Concerning what Scripture s[ays, “How long will y]ou (plural: you-all) judge unjustly, and sh[ow] partiality to the wick[e]d? [S]el[ah]” (Ps. 82:2), the interpretation applies to Belial and the spirits predestined to him, becau[se all of them have rebe]lled, turn[ing] from God’s precepts [and so becoming utterly wicked.] Therefore Melchizedek will thoroughly prosecute the veng[ea]nce required by Go[d’s] statu[te]s. [Also, he will deliver all the captives from the power of B]elial, and from the power of all [the spirits predestined to him.] Allied with him will be all the [“‘righteous’ divine beings” (Isa. 61:3). The. . .] is that wh[ich… al]l the divine beings.…
. . . just as it is written concerning him, [“who says to Zi]on ‘Your divine being reigns’” (Isa. 52:7). [“Zi]on is [the congregation of all the sons of righteousness, who] uphold the covenant and turn from walking [in the way] of the people. “Your di[vi]ne being” is [Melchizedek, who will del]iv[er them from the po]wer of Belial.
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 “the priest of the most high God,” a theme upon which Paul focuses. Why is this important?
We no longer have that information, but it was sufficiently common that Paul could simply allude to it, assuming that his audience would understand the reference. Melchizedek is a priest, but not a Levite, nor a priest after the order of Aaron: “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?” (Heb. 7:11). Paul assumes that his audience understands the 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 as a model for Jesus’s priesthood:
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. (Heb. 7:12–17).
This is Paul’s argument for Jesus’s priesthood. Paul preached to those who did not understand Jesus but who must have understood the lines of authority as they were typically described.
Hebrews 7:12–14 concentrates on the apparently well known fact that Jesus was from the line of Judah, not Levi or Aaron. Verse 14 states emphatically: Jesus is of Judah, but Moses never said anything about Judah’s priesthood. Where does that leave Christians? Jesus is their authority—their “priest”—but Jesus apparently has no legitimate claim to (lineal) priesthood.
Paul answers this dilemma by appealing to Melchizedek for Jesus’s priesthood. Melchizedek was known to be a great high priest, one to whom Abraham deferred, yet he was not of Levi or Aaron. Thus, he provides the perfect model and precedent for Jesus’s priesthood. The writer of Jubilees used the same logic to justify the Maccabeean combination of the ruler and priest into the same person, also a non-Levite. Paul also uses the material: “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God” (Heb. 7:3) to endow Melchizedek with extra-worldly characteristics, thus making him an even better model for a resurrected Jesus.
At this point, we must now consider how Paul and Alma use the Melchizedek figure. There are certainly some similarities; sometimes Alma’s language depends on 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. Apparently the brass plates contained some of the material to which Paul refers, but which is not in the Old Testament. Second, 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 prove. Both Paul and Nephi had the truth, but neither belonged to the lineage of Levi or Aaron with its traditional claims on priesthood. While Nephi never tells us of his solution, Alma makes it clear that the priesthood had been traced to Melchizedek; Melchizedek’s priesthood had been used to teach the Nephite gospel.
While Paul and Alma deal with the concept of authority, Paul focuses his efforts on proving the connection. Alma not only accepts the connection but assumes that his audience does as well and goes on to underscore an entirely different point: the need for repentance and belief in the Messiah.
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’s priesthood. For Alma, it is the priesthood after the order of the Son that justifies Melchizedek.