Hebrews 7:9

7:9-10 we might even say: The author recognizes that what he is about to say, that the Levites . . . paid a tithe to Melchizedek, is not literally true, since Levi wasn’t born yet. Abraham represented all his descendants in paying his tithe to Melchizedek. Levi was united with Abraham because the seed from which he came was in Abraham’s body. All the people issuing from Abraham were one with him. Thus, his act could be considered their act.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Heb 7:9. Ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν) When, in the explanation of any subject something of the highest importance must be unexpectedly said after the other parts, which had been and might be treated of, where the particle denique is an apt expression in Latin, this courteous phrase, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, or ὡς εἰπεῖν, not to be met with elsewhere in the New Testament, has been generally used by the Greeks to avoid hyperbole and the prolixity of a somewhat precise discourse, or for the sake of anticipatory mitigation[42] and softening the expression, by which it was intimated that the matter can scarcely be told unless it be expressed in the present words, and yet that it must be told. See Not. ad Chrys. de Sacerd., p. 494.—ΛΕΥΐ, Levi) the progenitor of the priests.—λαμβάνων, who receiveth) Heb 7:5.

[42] Ποοθεραπεία. Append.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Heb_7:9-10. Third point of superiority. In Abraham, Levi the receiver of the tithes has also already been tithed by Melchisedec.

The formula ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, of very common occurrence with classic writers, as likewise frequently met with in Philo, is found in the N. T. only here. It denotes either: to say it in one word (in short), or: so to say, i.e. in some sense. Theophylact: Τὸ δὲ ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν ἢ τοῦτο σημαίνει ὅτι καὶ ἐν συντόμῳ εἰπεῖν, ἢ ἀντὶ τοῦ ἵνʼ οὕτως εἴπω. In the former sense our passage is apprehended by Camerarius, Jac. Cappellus, Er. Schmid, Owen (preferably), Elsner, Wolf, Bengel, Heumann; in the latter,and this is here the more correct one,the Vulgate, Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Schlichting, Grotius, Carpzov, Kypke, Heinsius, Böhme, Kuinoel, Stuart, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Hofmann, Woerner, and the majority. The author himself feels that the thought he is on the point of expressing has something singular and unusual about it. Thus he mitigates and limits the harshness thereof by ὠς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, whereby he indicates that the ensuing statement is, notwithstanding its inner truth, not to be understood literally.

διʼ Ἀβραάμ] by Abraham, i.e. by the fact that Abraham gave the tenth. Ἀβραάμ is a genitive. Mistaken; Augustine (de Genes. ad lit. x. 19): propter Abraham; Photius (in Oecumenius): διὰ τὸν δεκατωθέντα Ἀβραάμ φησι τρόπον τινὰ καὶ ὁ ἐν τῇ ὀσφύϊ αὐτοῦ ἔτι ὢν Λευῒ δεδεκάτωται.

Λευΐς] As is shown by the participle present in the addition ὁ δεκάτας λαμβάνων, we have not to think of the mere individual personality of Levi, but of him in connection with his posterity, thus of Levi as ancestor and representative of the Jewish priests.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Heb 7:9 . καὶ ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν , “And, I might almost say,” adding a new idea with a phrase intended to indicate that it is not to be taken in strictness. It is frequent in Philo, see examples in Carpzov and add Quis rer. div. her. , 3. Adam’s note on Plato, Apol. Soc. , 17A, is worth quoting “ ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν i. q. paene dixerim: in good authors hardly ever, if at all = ut ita dicam. The phrase is regularly used to limit the extent or comprehension of a phrase or word. It is generally, but by no means exclusively, found with f1οὐδείς and πάντες , οὐδεὶς ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν ‘hardly anyone’; πάντες ὡς ἔ . εἰπ . = nearly everyone.” A significant use occurs in the Republic , p. 34IB, where Socrates asks Thrasymachus whether in speaking of a “Ruler” he means τὸν ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν ἢ τὸν ἀκριβεῖ λόγῳ . The phrase is discussed at great length by Raphel. The further idea is, that “through Abraham even Levi, he who receives tithes, has paid tithes,” the explanation being ἔτι γὰρ ἐν τῇ ὀσφύϊ … “for he [Levi] was yet in the loins of his father [Abraham] when Melchizedek met him,” Isaac not yet having been begotten. There was a tendency in Jewish theology to view heredity in this realistic manner. Thus Schoettgen quotes Ramban on Gen 5:2 “God calls the first human pair Adam [man] because all men were in them potentially or virtually [virtualiter]”. And so some of the Rabbis argued “Eodem peccato, quo peccavit primus homo, peccavit totus mundus, quoniam hic erat totus mundus.” Hence Augustine’s formula “peccare in lumbis Adam,” and his explanation “omnes fuimus in illo uno quando omnes fuimus ille unus” ( De Civ. Dei , xiii. 14). On Traducianism see Loofs’ Leitfaden , p. 194.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

A double amplification: The first, that Melchizedek took the tenths, as one immortal (to wit, in respect, that he is the figure of Christ, for his death is in no place made mention of, and David setteth him forth as an everlasting Priest) but the Levitical Priests, as mortal men, for they succeed one another: the second, that Levi himself was tithed in Abraham by Melchizedek. Therefore the Priesthood of Melchizedek (that is, Christ’s who is pronounced to be an everlasting Priest according to his order) is more excellent than the Levitical.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

as I may so say--to preclude what he is about to say being taken in the mere literal sense; I may say that, virtually, Levi, in the person of his father Abraham, acknowledged Melchisedec's superiority, and paid tithes to him.

who receiveth tithes--(Compare Heb 7:5).

in Abraham--Greek, "by means of (by the hand of) Abraham"; through Abraham. "Paid tithes," literally, "hath been tithed," that is, been taken tithes of.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 9. And as I may so say] και ως επος ειπειν. And so to speak a word. This form of speech, which is very frequent among the purest Greek writers, is generally used to soften some harsh expression, or to limit the meaning when the proposition might otherwise appear to be too general. It answers fully to our so to speak - as one would say - I had almost said - in a certain sense. Many examples of its use by Aristotle, Philo, Lucian, Josephus, Demosthenes, AEschines, and Plutarch, may be seen in Raphelius and Kypke.

Payed tithes in Abraham.] The Levites, who were descendants of Abraham, paid tithes to Melchisedec δια through, Abraham, their progenitor and representative.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

9. Levi also, etc. He advances farther, and says, that even Levi himself, who was then in the loins of Abraham, was not exempt from the same subordination; for Abraham, by paying tithes, made himself and his posterity inferior to the priesthood of Melchisedec. But here one, on the other hand, may say, that in the same way Judas also of whose seed Christ was born, paid tithes. But this knot can be easily untied, when one considers two things which are settled beyond all dispute among Christians: first, Christ is not to be counted simply as one of the sons of Abraham, but is to be exempted by a peculiar privilege from the common order of men; and this is what he himself said, “If he is the son of David, then does David call him his Lord?” (Matthew 22:45;) secondly, since Melchisedec is a type of Christ, it is by no means reasonable that the one should be set in opposition to the other; for we must remember that common saying, that what is subordinate is not in opposition: hence the type, which comes short of the reality, ought by no means to be opposed to it, nor can it be, for such is the conflict of equals.

These five particulars, mentioned by the Apostle, complete the comparison between Christ and Melchisedec, and thus is dissipated the gloss of those who seek to show that the chief likeness between them is in offering of bread and wine. We see that the Apostle carefully, and even scrupulously, examines here each of these points; he mentions the name of the man, the seat of his kingdom, the perpetuity of his life, his right to tithes, and his benediction.

There is, forsooth! in these things, less importance than in the oblation! Shall we say that the Spirit of God, through forgetfulness, omitted this, so that he dwelt on minor things, and left unnoticed the chief thing, and what was most necessary for his purpose? I marvel the more that so many of the ancient doctors of the Church were so led away by this notion, that they dwelt only on the offering of bread and wine. And thus they spoke, “Christ is a priest according to the order of Melchisedec; and Melchisedec offered bread and wine; then the sacrifice of bread and wine is suitable to the priesthood of Christ.” The Apostle will hereafter speak largely of the ancient sacrifices; but of this new sacrifice of bread and wine he says not a word. Whence then did ecclesiastical writers derive this notion? Doubtless, as one error usually leads to another, having of themselves imagined a sacrifice in Christ’s Supper without any command from him, and thus adulterated the Supper by adding a sacrifice, they afterwards endeavored to find out plausible arguments here and there in order to disguise and cover their error. This offering of bread and wine pleased them, and was instantly laid hold on without any discretion. For who can concede that these men were more intelligent than the Spirit of God? Yet if we receive what they teach, we must condemn God’s Spirit for inadvertence in having omitted a matter so important, especially as the question is avowedly handled!

I hence conclude, that the ancients invented a sacrifice, of which Moses had never thought; for Melchisedec offered bread and wine, not to God, but on the contrary to Abraham and his companions. These are the words, “Melchisedec, king of Salem, went out to meet him, and brought forth bread and wine; and the same was priest to the most high God, and blessed him.” (Genesis 14:18.) The first thing mentioned was a royal act; he refreshed those wearied after the battle and their journey with sustenance; the blessing was the act of a priest. If then his offering had anything mystical in it, the completion of it is to be found in Christ, when he fed the hungry and those wearied with fatigue. But the Papists are extremely ridiculous, who though they deny that there is bread and wine in the Mass, yet prattle about the sacrifice of bread and wine.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(9) And as I may so say.—Or, so to speak: an apologetic mode of introducing an expression which might seem strange. In the thought itself there is no real difficulty, if we are careful to take into account the principle which prevailed throughout, that pre-eminence depended upon descent alone. Had Judah possessed an inherent superiority over his brother Levi, the descendants of Judah (in such a system as is here before us) might have claimed the like pre-eminence over the descendants of Levi. “Through Abraham even Levi, who receiveth tithes, hath payed tithes.” The descendants of Abraham cannot but occupy a lower position in presence of one who appears as Abraham’s superior.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9. as I may so say] Rather, “so to speak;” shewing the writer’s consciousness that the expression is somewhat strained, especially as even Isaac was not born till 14 years later. The phrase is classic, and is common in Philo, but occurs here only in the N.T.

Levi … payed tithes] This is the fourth point of superiority.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For he was yet in the loins of his father,.... Abraham; namely, Levi and his whole posterity; which is to be understood seminally, just as all mankind were in the loins of Adam, when he sinned and fell, and so they sinned and fell in him; and so Levi was in Abraham's loins,

when Melchisedec met him; which, as it proves Melchizedek to be greater than Levi, and much more Jesus Christ, who is a priest of his order, which is the grand thing the apostle has in view; so it serves to illustrate several points of doctrine, in which either of the public heads, Adam and Christ, are concerned, with respect to their seed and offspring; such as personal election in Christ, an eternal donation of all blessings of grace to the elect in him, eternal justification in him, the doctrine of original sin, and the saints' crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and session in Christ, and together with him.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

Ver. 9. Levi also paid tithes] If any shall object, so did Christ also, sith he was in the loins of Abraham too; it may be answered, that though Christ was of Abraham, yet he was not by Abraham. But Levi was both.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And as I may so say - So to speak - ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν hōs epos eipein. For numerous examples in the classic writers of this expression, see Wetstein in loc. It is used precisely as it is with us when we say “so to speak,” or “if I may be allowed the expression.” It is employed when what is said is not strictly and literally true, but when it amounts to the same thing, or when about the same idea is conveyed. “It is a “softening down” of an expression which a writer supposes his readers may deem too strong, or which may have the appearance of excess or severity. It amounts to an indirect apology for employing an unusual or unexpected assertion or phrase.” “Prof. Stuart.” Here Paul could not mean that Levi had actually paid tithes in Abraham - for he had not then an existence; or that Abraham was his representative - for there had been no appointment of Abraham to act in that capacity by Levi; or that the act of Abraham was imputed or reckoned to Levi, for that was not true, and would not have been pertinent to the case if it were so. But it means, that in the circumstances of the case, the same thing occurred in regard to the superiority of Melchizedek, and the inferiority of the Levitical priesthood, as if Levi had been present with Abraham, and had himself actually paid tithes on that occasion. This was so because Abraham was the distinguished ancestor of Levi, and when an ancestor has done an act implying inferiority of rank to another, we feel as if the whole family or all the descendants, by that act recognized the inferiority, unless something occurs to change the relative rank of the persons. Here nothing indicating any such change had occurred. Melchizedek had no descendants of which mention is made, and the act of Abraham, as the head of the Hebrew race, stood therefore as if it were the act of all who descended from him.

Levi - The ancestor of the whole Levitical priesthood, and from whom they received their name. He was the third son of Jacob and Leah, and was born in Mesopotamia. On account of the conduct of Simeon and Levi toward Shechem, for the manner in which he had treated their sister Dinah Gen 34:25, and which Jacob characterized as “cruelty” Gen 49:5-6, Jacob said that they should be “scattered in Israel.” Gen 49:7. Afterward the whole tribe of Levi was chosen by God to execute the various functions of the priesthood, and were “scattered” over the land, having no inheritance of their own, but deriving their subsistence from the offerings of the people; Num 3:6 ff. Levi is here spoken of as the ancestor of the tribe, or collectively to denote the entire Jewish priesthood.

Who receiveth tithes - That is, his descendants, the priests and Levites, receive tithes.

Payed tithes in Abraham - It is the same as if he had payed tithes in or by Abraham.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

And as I may so say: the Spirit now sets this priesthood above the Levitical by instance, which instance being not so proper or direct, his form of introducing it is considerable, as ως επος ειπειν, as to say the word, which is a Greek elegancy of speech, when that is uttered which is remarkable, and yet hard to be understood; and it is not only conclusive to what was spoken before, I will speak a word more, and then end the discourse, but interpretative of what he was about to say concerning Levi, born a hundred and sixty-two years after this transaction; As I may so say, or, in some sense it may be said.

Levi also; Levi, not so much taken personally as collectively, for the tribe that sprung of him, who were priests or ministers to Israel, which Levi personally was not. He was the third son of Jacob, and his seed God separated for, and consecrated to, his service, settling the priesthood in Aaron’s family, which was a branch of that tribe, and making all the rest servants to them.

Who received tithes, paid tithes in Abraham; these did receive these tenths by God’s law from their brethren, and these paid tenths by or in Abraham, and so showed them to be inferior in office to Melchisedec, who received this homage from them as due to God, and to him as his high priest. This was not properly, but figuratively; true parents and children being accounted here as one person before they exist, as well as after; Levi, not actually existing then, but virtually in his parent. Christ was in his loins virtually too, as to his humanity, but not to descend of him by natural propagation, but by miracle; and in him as an antitype to this Melchisedec, and one to be set above him, in whom Melchisedec himself was to be blessed, and therefore could not pay tenths to him in Abraham.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

9, 10. Point third. Levi himself, in the loins of Abraham, conceptually paid tithes to Melchizedek, and so Melchizedek is superior to the whole Aaronic line.

9. May so say—Indicating that he must be understood to speak, not literally nor physically, but conceptually. Levi had no literal existence with or in Abraham. He could not be, literally, responsible for Abraham’s act, nor chargeable with any crime of his. Notes on Rom_5:12, and Eph_2:3. Yet, by the natural law of descent, the founder of a race usually fixes the condition and rank of the race. Aaron and all his descendants acknowledged their inferiority to their great founder, Abraham. And hence, when Abraham performed this act, so typical of the future, he humbled all his race, save one, before this priest forever. That one was Christ, who had no Abrahamic father, and whose divine descent placed him above the Abrahamic line.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 9, 10. And, so to say, through Abraham even Levi, who receiveth tithes, hath paid tithes. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchizedek met him. Or, in other words, "Nay, further, Melchizedek may be said to have tithed Levi himself and his priestly tribe." For, inasmuch as the whole position of Levi and his tribe, in the old dispensation, came by inheritance from the great patriarch who received the promises, the subordination of the patriarch to one above himself involved that of all who so inherited, it is not simply the physical descent of Levi from Abraham, but the peculiar position of the latter as "the patriarch," that justifies the assertion that Levi paid tithes through him. And thus, while we remember how Abraham is elsewhere viewed in Scripture as the representative of the chosen people, and also how the lives of individual patriarchs (notably so in the case of Jacob and Esau) are so told and referred to as to prefigure the positions and fortunes of the races they represent, we may recognize in this assertion no mere rabbinical fancy, but an interpretation true to the spirit of the Old Testament. Be it further observed that the original significance of Abraham"s action as bearing upon his descendants is enhanced by the fact that, while it was after the receiving of the promise, it was before the birth of Isaac. He, and consequently his descendant Levi, was yet (eti) in the loins of Abraham; on which point, "Proles e parenlis poteslate egressa in suam venit tutelain: sod quoad in parentis potestate, imo in lumbis est, illius conditionem sequitur" (Bengel).

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And even Levi, who received tithes - Not in person, but in his successors, as it were, paid tithes - In the person of Abraham.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

By Levi here we are to understand the Levites, or the Levitical priesthood; they being in Abraham’s loins are said to pay tithes in Abraham to Melchizedek, which the apostle produces as an evidence, that Melchizedek is superior to the Levites, and greater than they: and consequently, that Christ, whom Melchizedek did typify, must needs be more excellent than they also.

The argument runs thus: "They who receive tithes of others, are certainly superior to them of whom they do receive them; but Melchizedek received tithes of Abraham, and of Levi in Abraham’s loins; therefore he is superior to them, and of a more excellent order than they:" Which is the great truth he had been so industriously proving.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9. Levi also, who receiveth tithes. The sacred tribe of Israel, the tribe to whom tithes are paid, paid tithes to Melchizedek.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

9, 10. BECAUSE EVEN THE YET UNBORN LEVI PAID HIM TITHES, IN THE PERSON OF ABRAHAM

9. ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, “so to speak”; shewing the writer’s consciousness that the expression is somewhat strained, especially as even Isaac was not born till 14 years later. The phrase is classic, and is common in Philo, but is the only example of the adverbial infinitive in the N. T. (Winer, p. 399), and the only instance in which ως expresses design (id. p. 563). Theophylact says it may mean either ἐν συντόμῳ εἰπεῖν or ἵνʼ οὔτως εἴπω. The latter is clearly the meaning here.

Λευεὶς … δεδεκάτωται, “Levi … hath been tithed.” This is the FOURTH point of superiority.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9.] The Jew might reply, that it was nothing to him, if Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedek: for Abr. was no priest, and therefore paid tithes naturally to a priest: the Writer therefore proceeds to a third proof, shewing that in Abraham even Levi himself, the patriarch of the Jewish priesthood, paid tithes. So Chrys., Thdrt. And so to speak (τὸ δέ, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, ἢ τοῦτο σημαίνει, ὅ τι καὶ ἐν συντόμῳ εἰπεῖν, ἢ ἀντὶ τοῦ ἵνʼ οὕτως εἴπω· ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τόλμημα ἐδόκει τὸ εἰπεῖν ὅτι ὁ Λευῒ μήπω εἰς γένεσιν παραχθεὶς ἐδεκατώθη παρὰ τοῦ Μελχισεδέκ, ἐκόλασε τοῦτο. Thl. The former of these meanings, ‘in a word,’ is taken by Camerarius, Jac. Cappellus, Erasmus Schmid, Elsner; the latter by vulg. (“ut ita dictum sit”), Erasm., Luther, Beza, Schlichting, Grot., and most Commentators. Bleek has gone into both these meanings, and proved by many examples that either is legitimate. Both in fact run into one. The phrase is used when any thing is about to be said that is unexpected, or somewhat strained, not likely to be universally recognized, at least in the general way in which it is asserted. So sometimes it is used for ‘roughly,’ ‘improperly’—Plato, Legg. ii. 656 e, μυριοστὸν ἔτος.… οὐχ ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν μυριοστόν, ἀλλʼ ὄντως. So that it may be here regarded as introducing and softening a strong saying: as Thl. above) by means of Abraham (Ἀβρ. is genitive, not accusative, as Aug. de Genesi ad lit. x. 19 (34), vol. iii. pt. ii., “propter Abraham,” and Phot. (διὰ τὸν δεκατωθέντα Ἀβραάμ)) Levi also, who receiveth tithes (who is the head and representative of the tithe-taking tribe. Indeed the name here is almost a collective one, the personal reference being taken up in the next clause), hath been taken tithes of (on the perfect, see above, ver. 6):

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Levi himself, in the person of Abraham, was tithed by Melchisedec. As I may say [ως επος ειπειν] . = so to speak. N. T. o. o LXX Introducing an unusual statement, or one which may appear paradoxical or startling to the reader, as this statement certainly is, to a modern reader at least. In Abraham [δι αβρααμ] . Lit. through Abraham.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

9. καὶ... δ "ABpady ... δεδεκάτωται) And through Abraham, as tho roprosentative of the whole Jewish people, Levi also...te tithed. Vulg. Bt...per (August. propter) Abraham et Levi

...decimatus est. The descendants of Abraham were included in him, not only as he was their forefather physically, but also because he was the recipient of tho divine promisos in which the fulness of the race in its manifold developments was included. And Levi includes his descendants in his own person just as he was himself included in Abraham.

It must be observed that Levi is not represented as sharing in tho act (δεκάτην ἔδωκεν), but in tho cuousequences of the act passively (δεδεκάrerat, Latt. dectmatus est). Tho act of his father determinod his relation to Melchizedek, just as if Abraham hed made himself Melchizedek’s yas-

ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν] Vulg. ut ita dictum sit. V. L. quemadmodum dicam (Aug. φέσι oportet dicere).

This classical phrase doos not occur elsewhere in the N.T. or in txx., but is found in Philo (49. De plant. Now i. 353 M.). It serves to introduce a atatemeut which may startle a roader, and which requires to be guardod from misinterprotation.

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901), The Epistle to the Hebrews (1889) and The Epistles of St John (1883) — public domain (pre-1929). Text recovered from Internet Archive / Google Books OCR scans. Westcott’s Gospel of John commentary is not included (its OCR lost the chapter running-heads required for reliable verse-keying). Some Greek quoted in the Hebrews volume is imperfectly rendered by the OCR.