“... Heb. vii. 3 and vii. 8 implies that Melchizedek's priesthood still continues and that he is still living. At first blush this view of Melchizedek seems remarkably similar to that of the 11Q Mel- chizedek.1 In the 11Q, Melchizedek, Melchizedek will make atonement for the Sons of Light on the last jubilee (lines 6, 8). Further, since the text calls Melchizedek an Elokim, it is reason- able to assume that he is regarded as immortal. However, the theme of Melchizedek's immortality is of no importance what- sover in the 1 iQ, Melchizedek as we have it, and Melchizedek's priestly function is never brought into connection with his im- mortality: Melchizedek will offer a single act of atonement on the tenth jubilee. [...] It is not impossible to see how a Christian writer, privy to Qumranite speculation about Melchizedek, might pattern Christ's priesthood upon that supra-mundane model. In doing so, however, it would be difficult to escape a subordination of Christ to Melchizedek similar to the subordination found in some of the Melchizedekian heresies. This subordination would conflict seriously with the view of the author of Hebrews in chapters i and ii that Christ is superior to the heavenly beings, and that in putting all things in subjection to Christ, God ex- empted nothing, including a heavenly Melchizedek (cf. Heb. ii. 8). To conclude that Christ is a priest according to the order of a heavenly Melchizedek would be to conclude that the author of Hebrews in chapter vii is departing from a principle he thought important enough to demonstrate in his initial chapters. [...] Hebrew's notion of a perpetual priesthood for Melchizedek is derived from exegesis of Gen. xiv. There is no need for the additional hypothesis that this exegesis was augmented by concepts similar to those in the 11Q, Melchizedek. At the very least this would be to multiply hypotheses without need. Also this would point to a fundamental contradiction in the argument of Hebrews. ...”