Son of God and Son of the Most High.

What is the drive in the Qumran text?

The battling Messiah in the Aramaic Apocalypse (Q246), dated to the last quarter of the first century BC, was initially understood as a Davidic figure (E. Puech), then as a heavenly character (Florentino Garcia Martinez) and ink is still spilling to pin him down. Disclaiming a messianic message, Joseph A. Fitzmyer has postulated an earthly king to come, successor of the one on the throne, but why would the sectarians write such a useless story on Judean dynasties?

Considering that the sanctuary started in holiness and turned into quarrels, we will assume that the scribe is adding a coat of ideological paint onto one of the party clans. Then on what side of the Qumran split is the sectarian writer really advertizing? The avant-garde gathering under the banner of a Priestly Messiah onto whom Melchizedek sheds his spirit? Or the traditionalists, remaining closer to Temple culture and submissive to the Scriptural David?

In this Daniel-like story we find an interpreter of the future squatted at the foot of the throne where a monarch is troubled by his dreams. The diviner announces what will happen at the end of days. After troubled times he foresees a new King will rise with the people of God and bring peace. The intriguing titles ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of the Most High’ do not allow deciding between king David or King Melchizedek as ultimate saviors. The other attributes given to the formidable King advantage however Melchizedek. Borrowing from Genesis and (11Q13), he responds to a Prince of Peace, a judge of righteousness, everlasting. He will be called by the name of God, by his strength he shall judge the holy ones of God and all the gods of justice will come to his aid to attend to the destruction of Belial. In the heights (God’s realm) are the Sons of God. No abysses will prevail.

The italics focus on the main features of the formidable savior that find close correspondence within Scripture and earlier sectarian texts. The most striking similitude concerns "he will be called by the name of God". Melchizedek is the only one to be distinguished and called elohim.

The composition winds up into the hands of the avant-garde publicizing support from a heavenly Priest.