the Week of Proper 22 / Ordinary 27
Click here to join the effort!
Read the Bible
King James Version
Hebrews 7:10
Bible Study Resources
Concordances:
- Nave'sDictionaries:
- AmericanEncyclopedias:
- InternationalParallel Translations
for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.
for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.
Even though Levi hadn't been born yet, he was inside Abraham when he paid the tithe to Mel.
Because he was still in his father's body when Melchizedek came to him.
For he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchisedec met him.
for he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.
For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedek met him.
for Levi was yet in the loins of his forefather when Melchizedek met Abraham.
For hee was yet in the loynes of his Father when Melchisedec met him.
For he was yet in his father's loins when Melchizedek met him.
for he was yet in the loynes of his father Abraham, whan Melchisedech met him.
for he was even then in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
for Levi was still in the loins (unborn) of his forefather [Abraham] when Melchizedek met him (Abraham).
for he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchizedek met him.
for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchiz'edek met him.
For he was yet in the loynes of his father Abraham when Melchisech met him.
for he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchizedek met him.
For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
for he was yet in the loins of the father when Melchisedek met him.
Levi was not yet born, but he was in the body of his ancestor when Melchizedek met Abraham.
For he was still in his ancestor Abraham's loins when Melchizedek met him.
For when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the loin of his ancestor.
This is because Levi was born later into the family of Abraham, who gave a tenth to Melchizedek.
inasmuch as he was still in his ancestor Avraham's body when Malki-Tzedek met him.
for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.
For hee was yet in the loynes of his father Abraham, when Melchi-sedec met him.
For he was yet in the loins of his forefather Abraham, when Mel-chis''e-dec met him.
for he was still within his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.
for he was yet in the loins of his father when Malki-Tzedek met him.
for he was still in the body of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.
For he was yet in the loins of his father when he met Malki-Zedek.
For he was yet in the loins of his father, when he met Melchisedec.
for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.
For although Levi wasn't born yet, the seed from which he came was in Abraham's body when Melchizedek collected the tithe from him.
Levi was not yet born. He was still inside Abraham's body when Abraham paid Melchizedek.
for he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchizedek met him.
for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.
For, even then, was he, in the loins of his father, when, Melchizedek, met him.
For he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchisedech met him.
For he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.
For he was yet in the loynes of his father, when Melchisedech met Abraham.
Levi was not yet born, but he already existed in his ancestor Abraham when Melchizedek met him.
for he was still in the loins of his forefather when Melchizedek met him.
For Levi had not yet been born, but was, so to speak, in the body of his ancestor Abraham when Melchizedek met him.
whanne Melchisedech mette with hym.
Contextual Overview
Bible Verse Review
from Treasury of Scripure Knowledge
Hebrews 7:5, Genesis 35:11, Genesis 46:26, 1 Kings 8:19
Reciprocal: Genesis 14:18 - the priest
Cross-References
And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
Which were cut down out of time, whose foundation was overflown with a flood:
They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
Gill's Notes on the Bible
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.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
For he was yet in the loins of his father - Abraham is here called the father of Levi, by a common use of the word, referring to a more remote ancestor than the literal father. The meaning of the apostle is, that he was even then, in a certain sense, in the loins of Abraham, when Melchizedek met him; or it was all the same as if he were there, and had then an existence. The relation which subsisted between him and Abraham, in the circumstances of the case, implied the same thing as if he had then been born, and had acted for himself by paying tithes. Instances of this occur constantly. A father sells a farm, to which his son would he heir, and it is the same as if the son had sold it. He has no more control over it than if he had been present and disposed of it himself. A father acknowledges fealty to a government for a certain title or property which is to descend to his heirs, and it is all one as if the heir had himself done it; and it is not improper to say that it is the same as if he had been there and acted for himself.
For some valuable remarks on the nature of the reasoning here employed, see Stuart on the Hebrews; Excursus xiv. The reasoning here is, indeed, especially such as would be suited to impress a Jewish mind, and perhaps more forcibly than it does ours. The Jews valued themselves on the dignity and honor of the Levitical priesthood, and it was important to show them on their own principles, and according to their own sacred writings, that the great ancestor of all the Levitical community had himself acknowledged his inferiority to one who was declared also in their own writings Psalms 110:1-7 to be like the Messiah, or who was of the same “order.” At the same time, the reasoning concedes nothing false; and conveys no wrong impression. It is not mere fancy or accommodation, nor is it framed on allegory or cabalistic principles. It is founded in truth, and such as might be used anywhere, where regard was shown to pedigree, or respect was claimed on account of the illustrious deeds of an ancestor. It would be regarded as sound reasoning in a country like England, where titles and ranks are recognized, and where various orders of nobility exist. The fact that a remote ancestor had done homage or fealty to the ancestor of another class of titled birth, would be regarded as proof of acknowledged inferiority in the family, and might be used with force and propriety in an argument. Paul has done no more than this.
(Several excellent and evangelical commentators explain the passage on the principle of representations, the admission of which relieves it from many difficulties. If we allow that Abraham was the representative of his seed, and of the sons of Levi among the number, then they unquestionably may be said to have paid tithes in him, in a most obvious and intelligible sense. That Abraham is to be here regarded, as not only the natural but covenant head of Israel, is argued from what is said in Psalms 110:6, of his having “had the promises,” which promises manifestly did not belong to him alone, but to him and to his seed, Genesis 17:4-9. The land of Canaan never was actually given to Abraham. He obtained the promise or grant of it, as the representative of his posterity, who came to its enjoyment when four hundred years had expired. By those who adopt this view, the passage is supposed to contain an illustration of the manner in which Adam and Christ represent those who respectively belong to them.
And here let it be noticed, that the objection against Abraham’s representative character, grounded by our author on the fact, “that there had been no appointment of Abraham to act in that capacity by Levi,” might with equal force be urged against the representation of Adam and Christ, which the reader will find established in the supplementary notes on Romans 5:0. As to the force of the argument, on this principle, there can be no doubt. If the representative, the covenant, as well as the natural head, of the sons of Levi, paid tithes and acknowledged inferiority to Melchizedek, their inferiority follows as a matter of course. They are supposed to be comprehended in their head. “This,” says Mr. Scott, “incontestibly proved the inferiority of the Levitical priesthood to that of the Messiah, nay, its absolute dependence on him, and subserviency to him;” and, we may add, is sound reasoning alike in every country, in Palestine and in ours, in England or America. On the whole we cannot but think that whatever difficulties some may have in admitting the principle of representation here, far greater difficulties lie on the other side.
Even Prof. Stuart, in his celebrated 14th Excursus, (which for ingenuity deserves, perhaps, all the praise awarded by Bloomfield, Barnes, and others,) resolves the apostle’s reasoning into a mere “argumentum a.d. hominem,” although, in the passage, there is no evidence of any such thing. He has indeed instanced two cases of “argumentum a.d. hominem,” or rather two passages, in both of which the same example occurs Matthew 12:27; Luke 11:19. But if the reader consult these passages, he will find that mistake is impossible. The plainest indication is given, that the argument proceeds on the principle of all adversary. It would require no small ingenuity, however, to press this passage into the same rank with those now quoted. It clearly belongs to a different class, and the apostle proceeds with his argument, without the slightest indication that it was grounded rather on what was admitted, than on what was strictly true.)
Clarke's Notes on the Bible
Verse Hebrews 7:10. For he was yet in the loins of his father — That is, Levi was seminally included in Abraham, his forefather.
