Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 7:9
And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham.
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.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And as I may so say – So to speak – hos 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.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 9. And as I may so say] . 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 through, Abraham, their progenitor and representative.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
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 , 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 Aarons 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 Gods 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.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
9. as I may so sayto precludewhat he is about to say being taken in the mere literal sense; Imay say that, virtually, Levi, in the person of his fatherAbraham, acknowledged Melchisedec’s superiority, and paid tithes tohim.
who receiveth tithes(CompareHeb 7:5).
in AbrahamGreek,“by means of (by the hand of) Abraham”; through Abraham.”Paid tithes,” literally, “hath been tithed,”that is, been taken tithes of.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And as l may so say,…. With truth, and with great propriety and pertinence:
Levi also who receiveth tithes; or the Levites, who receive tithes according to the law of Moses from the people of Israel:
paid tithes in Abraham; that is, to Melchizedek; and therefore Melchizedek must be greater than they, and his priesthood a more excellent one than theirs; since they who receive tithes from others gave tithes to him.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
So to say ( ). An old idiom, here only in the N.T., common in Philo, used to limit a startling statement, an infinitive for conceived result with .
Hath paid tithes (). Perfect passive indicative of , “has been tithed.” This could only be true of Levi “so to speak.”
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Levi himself, in the person of Abraham, was tithed by Melchisedec. As I may say [ ] . = 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 [ ] . Lit. through Abraham.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And as I may so say,” (kai hos epos eipein) “and as (so to speak), a word to say,” if I may, or permit me to say a word – a word of explanation to clarify.
2) “Levi also,” (kai Levis) “Even (indeed) Levi,” the tribe of Levi, and every member of every family, not just the priests and singers.
3) “Who receiveth tithes,” (ho dekatos lambanon) “The one (Levi) receiving tithes,” under the Jewish economy of religio-Law practice, as prescribed in the Law, Num 18:21-26.
4) “Payed tithes in Abraham,” (di Abraam dedekatotai) “Has been tithed through Abraham,” or paid tithes in Abraham, in their family covenant line, before the tribes were ever organized or the tithe Law of Moses was ever given, Gen 14:14-20. In this Abraham represented God’s man of Faith, father of all those are saved and committed to follow wherever he leads them, in worship and obedient service, Rom 4:16.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
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. (117) 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?” (Mat 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.” (Gen 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.
(117) Our version is “For he was yet,” etc., ἔπι, here is not yet, but even, as in Luk 1:15, or then, as rendered by Stuart; “For he was even (or then) in the loins of his father when Melchisedec met him.” — Ed
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(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 Abrahams superior.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
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.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
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.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And, so to say, through Abraham even Levi, who receives tithes, has paid tithes, for he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchizedek met him.’
And to add to all this we must recognise that even Levi, himself the father of the Levites and of the levitical priesthood, paid tithes to Melchizedek. And this was because he was in the loins of Abraham when Abraham did so, as were his descendants. That means that not only did Abraham pay tithes to Melchizedek, but also, in him, so did Levi and Aaron and so did all the high priests and the levitical priesthood. They were always all inferior to the priesthood of Melchizedek.
Therefore speaking in Jewish terms a mass of evidence has demonstrated the superiority of Melchizedek’s priesthood to that of Aaron.
1) He pre-dated the levitical priesthood and is not depicted as having a beginning or ending.
2) He appears to have an unlimited, permanent, unceasing priesthood untainted by death. As priest he was not seen as caught up in a life-death scenario, or witnessed to as a stop-go priest; he was there without restriction at the time when ‘the promises’ were first given, long before the Law which resulted from them.
3) He received tithes from Abraham, and through him he therefore received tithes from the Levites and priests, and from Levi himself.
4) He gave an official blessing to Abraham.
5) He was the king of righteousness and the king of peace.
6) His priesthood was still around at the time of the writing of Psalms 110 as going forward into the future.
He was thus a true pattern of the Messiah (although not being the Messiah). Until the revealing of Christ’s unlimited priesthood, no priesthood was greater or more permanent than the priesthood of Melchizedek. It was superior in every way.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Heb 7:9. And as I may so say, Elsner is of opinion, that this should be translated, to say the truth; and he produces some passages out of the classics to vindicate this version.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
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 , 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: , . 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, Bhme, 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 , whereby he indicates that the ensuing statement is, notwithstanding its inner truth, not to be understood literally.
] by Abraham, i.e. by the fact that Abraham gave the tenth. is a genitive. Mistaken; Augustine ( de Genes. ad lit . x. 19): propter Abraham ; Photius (in Oecumenius): .
] As is shown by the participle present in the addition , 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.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
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 ( , , , , , . 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, . , . So that it may be here regarded as introducing and softening a strong saying: as Thl. above) by means of Abraham ( . is genitive, not accusative, as Aug [36] de Genesi ad lit. x. 19 (34), vol. iii. pt. ii., “ propter Abraham ,” and Phot. ( )) 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, Heb 7:6 ):
[36] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo , 395 430
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Heb 7:9 . , “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 “ 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 f1 and , ‘hardly anyone’; . . = nearly everyone.” A significant use occurs in the Republic , p. 34IB, where Socrates asks Thrasymachus whether in speaking of a “Ruler” he means . 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 “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.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
payed tithes. Greek. Pass, of dekatoo, as Heb 7:6.
in = through. Greek. dia. App-104. Heb 7:1.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
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 ( , , , , , . 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, . , . So that it may be here regarded as introducing and softening a strong saying: as Thl. above) by means of Abraham (. is genitive, not accusative, as Aug[36] de Genesi ad lit. x. 19 (34), vol. iii. pt. ii., propter Abraham, and Phot. ( )) 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, Heb 7:6):
[36] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395-430
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Heb 7:9. ) 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, , or , 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.-, Levi) the progenitor of the priests.-, who receiveth) Heb 7:5.
[42] . Append.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
It may be objected unto the whole precedent argument of the apostle,
That although Abraham himself paid tithes unto Melchisedec, yet it followeth not that Melchisedec was superior unto the Levitical priests, concerning whom alone the question was between him and the Jews. For although Abraham might be a priest in some sense also, by virtue of common right, as were all the patriarchs, yet was he not so by virtue of any especial office, instituted of God to abide in the church. But when God afterwards, by peculiar law and ordinance, erected an order and office of priesthood in the family of Levi, it might be superior unto, or exalted above that of Melchisedec, although Abraham paid tithes unto him.This objection, therefore, the apostle obviates in these verses; and therewithal, giving his former argument a further improvement, he makes a transition, according unto his usual custom (as it hath been often observed that it is his method to do), unto his especial design, in proving the excellency of the priesthood of Christ above that of the law, which is the main scope of this whole discourse.
Heb 7:9-10. , , V , .
, ut verbum dicere, as to speak a word. Vulg. Lat., ut ita dictum sit, be it so said. Syr., as any one may say. Arab., and it is said that this discourse (or reason) may be some way ended. Ut ita loquar, as I may so speak. In the rest of the words there is neither difficulty nor difference among translators.
Heb 7:9-10. And, as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchisedec met him.
There are three things observable in these words:
1. The manner of the introduction of the apostles new assertion.
2. The assertion itself, which hath the force of a new argument unto his purpose, Heb 7:9. And,
3. The proof of his assertion, in Heb 7:10.
1. The manner of the introduction of his assertion is in these words, As I may so say. This qualification of the assertion makes an abatement of it, one way or other. Now this is not as to the truth of the proposition, but as to the propriety of the expression. The words are as if that which is expressed were actually so, namely, that Levi himself paid tithes, whereas it was so only virtually. The thing itself intended was, with respect unto the apostles purpose, as if it had been so indeed; though, Levi not being then actually existent, he could not be tithed in his own person. Nor is the apostle dubious of the truth of the consequent which he urgeth from this observation, as if he had said prope dixerim; which is supposed as one signification of this phrase. Only, the instance being new, and he arguing from what was virtual only as if it had been actual, he gave his assertion this qualification. This is spoken upon an allowance of the common acceptation of the sense of these words among interpreters. For my part, I rather incline to judge that he useth this phrase for as much as ut verbo cicam, To sum up the whole in a word, to put an issue unto this dispute between the Levitical priesthood and that of Melchisedec, I say, that not only Abraham, but even Levi himself was tithed by him.
2. His assertion is, that Levi, who received tithes, was tithed in Abraham, namely, when Abraham gave the tithes of all to Melchisedec. By Levi he intendeth not the person of Levi absolutely, the third son of Jacob, but his posterity, or the whole tribe proceeding from him, so far as they were interested in the priesthood; for Levi himself never received tithes of any, the priesthood being erected in his family long after his death, in the person of his great-grandchild, Aaron. So, then, Levi who received tithes is the same with the sons of Levi who received the priesthood, Heb 7:5, namely, in their several generations unto that day.
Of this Levi it is affirmed that , he was tithed or paid tithes in Abraham, or through him and by him, as the word is. When Abraham himself gave tithes to Melchisedec, he did it not in his own name only, but in the name of himself and his whole posterity. And this, upon the principles before laid down and vindicated, proves the preeminence of the priesthood of Melchisedec above that of the house and family of Levi. All the difficulty of the argument lies in the proof of the assertion, namely, that Levi did indeed so pay tithes in Abraham. This the apostle therefore proves by the observation which he lays down, verse 10, For he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchisedec met him.
3. The force of this proof seems to depend on a double principle:
(1.) That children, the whole posterity of any one, are in his loins before they are born. And this principle is sure in the light of nature and common reason; they are in them as the effect in its cause, nor have they any future existence but with relation unto their progenitors, even the remotest of them.
(2.) That what any one doth, that all his posterity are esteemed to do in and by him. But it is certain that this rule will not generally hold, nor indeed will it ever do so absolutely, without some other cogent circumstances. By human laws, the crimes of men reflect dishonor in some cases on their families; and on the other side, they entail the honor which by their worth they have acquired on their posterities. What a man also gives away of his estate unto public uses, as in the foundation of schools or hospitals, his children may be said to do it in him, because so much is decreased from their inheritance; as here, what Abraham gave to, Melchisedec, it was alienated from his posterity, Levi among the rest. But none of these things reach the case in hand, or are sufficient to give force or evidence unto the reasoning of the apostle.
Wherefore, to find them out, sundry things must be observed which are manifest truths in themselves, and on the supposition whereof the apostles argument stands firm:
(1.) That Abraham was now called of God, and separated unto his service, so as to be the foundation of a new church in the world. And there is a relation unto such an original stock in all the branches, beyond what they have unto any other intermediate progenitors. Hence all the idolatrous nations in the world constantly made the first persons from whom they derived their original, or whose offspring they would be accounted, their gods whom they worshipped. These were their Joves indigites, their home-born deities, whom they honored, and whose honors they thought descended unto them by inheritance.
(2.) He had now received the promise that God would be a God unto him and his seed after him, whereby all his posterity were taken into covenant with him; and hereon Abraham covenanted with God in the name of, and as the great representative of all his seed. And such covenants are the foundation of all order and rule in this world. For after persons, or a people, have covenanted into such agreements in government, and as to the administration of common right among themselves, provided the terms whereon they have agreed be good and suitable unto the light of nature,- their posterity are not at liberty to alter and change them at their pleasure; for whereas they derive all their rights and inheritances from their progenitors, they are supposed in them to have consented unto all that was done by them.
(3.) Hereon what God said and did unto Abraham, he said it and did it unto all his seed in him. The promises were theirs, and the inheritance was theirs; yea, what God is said to give unto Abraham so often, namely, the whole land of Canaan, was never actually made good unto him in his own person, no, not a fonts breadth: but he received the grant of it as the representative of his posterity, who, four hundred years after, had the actual possession of it.
(4.) What Abraham did solemnly in obedience unto God, by virtue of the covenant, as a public condition thereof, he did undertake in it for his posterity, and performed it in their name, and therefore God enjoined him to bring all his posterity under the token of that engagement, in circumcision, so soon as they were capable thereof. And on the other hand, God continually affirms that he would do them good, because of his oath and engagement unto Abraham, seeing they were intended therein. Wherefore,
(5.) Abraham, in this solemn address unto God by Melchisedec, the type of Christ, wherein he expressed his constant-obedience unto him, was the representative of all his poster and in particular of Levi and all the priests that descended from him. And having now received the whole land, by virtue of a covenant, in the behalf of his posterity, that it should be theirs, though he himself had never possession of it, nor in it, he doth in the name of his posterity, and as their representative, give the tenths unto God by Melchisedec, as that chief rent which God for ever reserved unto himself, upon his grant. When the people came actually to possess the land, they held it always on this condition, that the tenths of all should be given unto God. And this Abraham, in his taking seisin of it for them, paid in their name. So truly and virtually was Levi himself tithed in the loins of Abraham, when Melchisedec met him. Wherefore it was not merely Levi being in the loins of Abraham with respect unto natural generation, whence he is said to be tithed in him, but his being in him with respect unto the covenant which Abraham entered into with God in the name of his whole posterity.
This reasoning of the apostles, I confess, at first view seemeth intricate, and more remote from cogency than any elsewhere used by him. And therefore by some profane persons hath it been cavilled at. But all things of that nature arise merely from want of a due reverence unto the word of God. When we come unto it with those satisfactions in our minds, that there is truth and divine wisdom in every expression of it, that all its reasonings are cogent and effectual, though we understand them not, we shall not fail, upon a humble inquiry, to attain what we may safely embrace, or see what we ought to admire. And so this place, which at first sight seems to present us with a reasoning on a very uncertain foundation, being duly inquired into, we find it resolved into the firm principles of reason and religion.
And the foregoing observation will expedite two difficult questions which expositors raise unto themselves on this verse. The first whereof is, Whether Christ himself may not, as well as Levi, be said to pay tithes in Abraham, as being in his loins? which would utterly frustrate the design of the apostle. The second is, How or in what sense one may be said to do any thing in another, which may be reckoned or imputed unto him?
For the first of these, Austin and others have well labored in the solution of it. The sum of what they say is, that the Lord Christ was not in Abraham as Levi was, not in his nature as it was corrupted; nor did he educe or derive his nature from him by carnal generation or the common way of the propagation of mankind. And these things do constitute a sufficient difference and distance between them in this matter. But yet with these considerations, and on the supposition of them, there is another which contains the true and proper reason of this difference. And that is, that the Lord Christ was never in Abraham as a federate, as one taken into covenant with him, and so represented by him, as Levi was. Abraham was taken into covenant with Christ, as the head, sponsor, surety, and mediator of the new covenant; with respect whereunto he says of himself and the elect, Behold I and the children which the LORD hath given me. Hereon he was the representative of Abraham and all that believe, and what he did is imputed unto them. But he was never taken into covenant with Abraham, nor was capable of so being, seeing unto him it was a covenant of pardon and justification by faith, which He was no way concerned in but as the procurer of them for others. Wherefore what Abraham did cannot be imputed unto him, so as he should be esteemed to have done them in him.
And this makes way for the solution of the general question, How one may be said to do any thing in another which shall be reckoned unto him as his own act? And this may be by virtue of a covenant, and no otherwise. Hence divines do usually illustrate the imputation of the sin of Adam unto his posterity by this example of Levi; though I have not met with any who truly understand the ground of the comparison, which is Abraham acting as a covenanter in the name of his posterity. But whereas this is opposed with some vehemency by Schlichtingius in his comment on this place, I shall transcribe his words, and consider his discourse:
Haec sententia non ad omnes actiones transferenda est; sed ad eas tantum, quae proprie versantur vel in auctione vel in diminutione rerum quae a parentibus in liberos devolvi et haereditario jure trans- ferri solent, qualis actio est decimarum solutio. Persolvuntur enim de bonis et facultatibus, quae hactenus cum sunt liberorum, quatenus jus haereditatis ad eos spectat, praesertim si certum sit, fore liberos, qui in bona succedant, quemadmodum Abrahamo contigit, cui certa fuit a Deo promissa posteritas. Quemadmodum enim haeredes per-sonam patris post mortem ratione possessionis bonorum veluti re-praesentant, ita antequam haeredes a patre separentur et de bonis paternis statuendi arbitrium habeant, pater omnium liberorum suorum personam quadam ratione refert, et quicquid de illis statu-erit aut fecerit id haeredes quodammodo fecisse censentur. Dico, quodammodo, quia proprie id dici non potest; nec auctor hic D. id proprie factum esse asserit, sed improprietatem verbis suis subesse ipsemet profitetur, ut antea vidimua Ex dictis autem facile intelligitur, id quod nos una cum auctore D. statuimus, ad eos tantum successores seu posteros esse extendendum ad quos vel certo, ut Abrahami posteris contigit, vel saltem verisimiliter perventura sit haereditas parentis, et notabilis aliqua bonorum ab eo profectorum portio. Alioquin vis illa haereditatis de qua diximus, expirabit, nec posteris tribui poterit id quod majorum aliquis circa bona sua fecerit, Quibus ira explicatis, facile jam apparet falli eos qui ex hoc loco colligunt omnem Adami posteritatem in ipso Adamo parente suo peccasse, et mortis supplicium vere fuisse commeritum. Nam vel de eo nunc quidquam dicam ipsum auctorem improprietatem in hac loquendi forma agnoscere, nequaquam id extendendum est ad parentum majorumve peccata ac merita. Etenim peccata ac merita qua talia mere sunt personalia, seu personam ejus qui peccat non egrediuntur, nec eatenus parentes posteritatem suam re-praesentant; licet fieri queat ut ex eorum delicto damnum aliquod nec exiguum ad liberos redundet, quemadmodum quidem in Adami delicto contigit; ipsum tamen peccatum ac meritum Adami revera non communicatur cure ejus posteritate, ac proinde posteri Adami ob parentis sui noxam revera non puniuntur, nisi et ipsi parentem fuerint imitati.
I have transcribed these words at large, because their design is to defeat that article of our faith concerning the imputation of the sin of Adam unto all his posterity; which there is no doubt but they will make use of who are gone over among ourselves unto the negative of it: and that it might appear whose heifer they plough withal who deny the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto justification, because those things that are personal and inherent in one cannot be communicated unto another. I say, therefore,
1. That this assertion, One being accounted unto another in what he doth, holds only in those things which belong unto the increase or diminution of an inheritance which descends from parents unto children, and not otherwise, is gratis dictum, without pretense or confirmation. Even in things moral, God threatens to visit the iniquities of the fathers on the children. So the Israelites wandered penally in the wilderness forty years, and bare the iniquity of their parents. The infants that perished in the flood, and at the conflagration of Sodom, died penally under the judgment that came for the sin of their parents. Wherefore the general foundation of his whole discourse is unproved and false, and the application of it unto the present case, as we shall see, weak and impertinent. For,
2. This renders the argument of the apostle as weak and impertinent as any thing can be imagined. For it allows Levi to be no otherwise tithed in Abraham, but as part of the goods which Abraham gave in tithe to Melchisedec would have descended unto him; for he was but one of the twelve sons of Jacob, the grandchild of Abraham, whose share in those tithes cannot be computed to be worth mentioning, much less to bear the weight of an argument in so great a cause. Besides, it is not the person of Levi, but his posterity in the family of Aaron, that is intended; and such movables as were tithed by Abraham do seldom descend through so many generations. It is therefore ridiculous to impose such a kind of argumentation on the holy apostle.
3. Yea, this interpretation is directly contrary unto what the apostle designed to confirm by the instance he gives. For that which he aimed at, was to prove Levi inferior to Melchisedec, by his paying of tithes in the loins of Abraham: but if he did this no otherwise but that some goods that should have descended unto him were given unto Melchisedec, it argues him rather superior unto him; for absolutely he that gives is superior to him that receives, as it is in general a more blessed thing to give than to receive.
4. That which he proceeds upon is a general rule of his own framing, which is no way applicable unto this particular case, as it is a particular case. It is this, That, as children succeed into the room of their parents as to their goods, and after a sort represent them; so parents, before their children come to inherit, do represent their children, so as that they may be said in some sense to do what is done by their parents. But this is a rule made without any color of reason. For,
(1.) I would know when this representation and concernment should expire, or whether it holds unto all generations. If it hold for ever, then may we all be said in some sort to do what Adam did with his goods and lands before he died, and so of all our intervenient progenitors. If it do expire, and this relation abideth only for a season, I desire to know the bounds of that season. Aaron was the first of the house of Levi who is intended in these words, and he was the seventh generation from Abraham; in which time it is probable, if ever, this right of inheritance would expire.
(2.) It is not true in any sense, in the very next parents in most cases. For suppose a parent be wicked and flagitious, and shall waste his substance and goods in riotous living, in what sense shall his son, suppose him a person fearing God, be said so to have disposed of his goods in him?
(3.) The truth is, unless it be by a subsequent approbation of what our progenitors have done, or by virtue of a covenant whereby they and their posterity were obliged (which is the case in hand), children can in no sense be said to do what their progenitors have done in the disposal of their goods and inheritances. Neither, indeed, will a subsequent approbation give any tolerable sense unto this assertion, unless there be a power of an effectual dissent in the children also. If a man give a part of his estate to found an hospital, and leave the care of it unto his posterity, with this proviso, that if any of them saw just cause for it, they should resume the estate into their own possession; in case they do not so, they may in some sense be said to do what indeed their father did. But if this be not in their power, though they approve of what he did, they cannot be said to have done it. But in covenants the case is plain. Men may enter into a mutual covenant for the erection of a government among them, which proving a foundation of all their civil rights for the future, their posterity may be said to have made that covenant, and to be obliged thereby, as it was in this case.
5. Neither will it advantage his pretense, with a seeming acknowledgment of some impropriety in the assertion, in these words, , as I may so say. For although it should be granted that he intends some impropriety in the expression, yet there must be truth in his assertion, which this interpretation will not allow; for if it be true only in the sense he contends for, it is true in none at all, for that is not any. But the meaning of these words is, ut verbo dicam, That I may give you a summary of the whole, that which my argument riseth up unto.
6. Having given us this crooked rule, he adds a limitation unto it, whereby he hopes to reduce the whole to his purpose. For saith he, This rule is not to be extended unto the merits or sins of parents and ancestors, though some loss may accrue unto the children thereby; for thence he infers, that though we may suffer some loss by the sin of Adam, yet his sin is not imputed unto us. But,
(1.) How far the children of flagitious parents may not only suffer loss, but undergo temporal punishment also, for the sins of their parents, was showed before in the instances of those who perished in their infancy, both by the flood and in the conflagration of Sodom.
(2.) The case between any other parent and his posterity is not the same as it was between Adam and us all; so that these things are sophistically jumbled together. There is, indeed, an analogy between Adam and his posterity on the one hand, and Christ with believers on the other; and never was there, nor shall there ever be, the like relation between any else: for these two individual persons were appointed of God to be the heads of the two covenants, and representatives of the federates, as unto the ends of the covenants. Hence the whole evil of the one and the good of the other, as they were, and as far as they were, heads of the covenants, are imputed unto them who derive from them in their respective covenants. But after the first sin Adam ceased to be a head unto his posterity, as to the good or evil of that covenant, which was now broken and disannulled. Neither was he nor any of his posterity ever after restored or assumed into the same state and condition. It is therefore highly vain to confound the consideration of our concernment in what Adam did as he was the head of the covenant, with what he afterwards did, and other intervenient progenitors might do. All this our apostle confirms at large, Romans 5.
7. Abraham was taken into a new administration of the covenant, with new promises and seals; but he neither was nor could be made the head and representative of that covenant whereinto he was taken, otherwise than typically. Hence his moral good or evil could not be reckoned unto his posterity in covenant. But yet he was made the head and spring of the administration of its outward privileges; and this, so far as his trust extended, was imputed unto his posterity, as in the case of circumcision. Wherefore, seeing what he did unto Melchisedec belonged unto the administration of the covenant committed unto him, Levi is rightly said to have done it in him also. And so these things do mutually illustrate one another. But to deny that we were all in Adam, as the head of the first covenant, that we sinned in him, that the sin which we in any sense have sinned in him is imputed unto us, is not to dispute with us, but expressly to contradict the Holy Ghost.
But we may take some observations from these words; as,
Obs. 1. They who receive tithes of others, for their work in holy administrations, are thereby proved to be superior unto them of whom they do receive them. They are given unto them, among other ends, as an acknowledgment of their dignity. So it was when they were paid of old by Gods institution; and so it would be still, if they might be paid or received in a due manner, with respect unto the labor of any in gospel administrations. But whereas not one among thousands doth give or pay them on any other ground but because they must do so whether they will or no; nor would do so any more, were it not for the coercive, enforcing power of human laws; if they on the other side that do receive them, do look on them, not as a free pledge of the peoples respect and the honor that they bear unto them, but as their own right and due by law, they are a testimony neither of the peoples obedience nor of the ministersdignity, but only of the extreme disorder of all things in religion
Obs. 2. It is of great concernment unto us what covenant we do belong unto, as being esteemed to do therein what is done by our representative in our name. There were never absolutely any more than two covenants; wherein all persons indefinitely are concerned. The first was the covenant of works, made with Adam, and with all in him. And what he did as the head of that covenant, as our representative therein, is imputed unto us, as if we had done it, Rom 5:12. The other is that of grace, made originally with Christ, and through him with all the elect. And here lie the life and hope of our souls, that what Christ did as the head of that covenant, as our representative, is all imputed unto us for righteousness and salvation. And certainly there is nothing of more importance unto us, than to know whether of these covenants we belong unto. We are also some way concerned in them by whom the one or the other of these covenant-states is conveyed unto us; for before we make our own personal, voluntary choice, we are by the law of our nature, and of the covenant itself, enclosed in the same condition with our progenitors as to their covenant-state. And thence it is, that in the severest temporal judgments, children not guilty of the actual transgression of their parents, not having sinned after the similitude of them, by imitation, do yet ofttimes partake of the punishment they have deserved; being esteemed in some manner to have done what they did, so far as they were included in the same covenant with them. And many blessings, on the other hand, are they partakers of who are included in the covenant of those parents who are interested in the covenant of grace; for such parents succeed in the room of Abraham, every one of them. And what Abraham did, as to the administration of the covenant intrusted with him, his posterity, whose representative he was therein, are said to have done in him, as Levi is in this place; and therefore they had the seal of the covenant given unto them in their infancy. And an alteration in this dispensation of grace hath not yet been proved by any, or scarce attempted so to be.
Fuente: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews
payed: Heb 7:4, Gen 14:20, Rom 5:12, *marg.
Reciprocal: Num 31:41 – Eleazar
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Heb 7:9. Another contrast between Melchisedec over Levi is that the latter (though being given tithes), himself paid tithes to Melchisedec while in Abraham’s body.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Heb 7:9. And so to say (a phrase which, like as it were, is used to moderate a strong expression or to qualify a statement that is not literally true; the other sense of the original, in a word, to speak briefly, is not appropriate here).
An obvious objection to the previous reasoning is that Abraham was not a priest. It was therefore not unnatural that he should pay tithes and receive the blessing. But the objection is answered by the fact that as Abraham had obtained the promise, he was the representative of all his descendants. Levi was in him, not physically and seminally merely, but representatively; and so Abraham on his own behalf and on theirs recognised a priesthood beyond the limits of the dispensation which belonged to his own line.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
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.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Verse 9
Levi; the tribe of Levi.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
7:9 {4} And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
(4) A twofold amplification: The first, that Melchizedek took the tithes as one immortal (that is, in respect that he is the figure of Christ, for his death is not mentioned, and David sets him forth as an everlasting Priest) but the Levitical priests, took tithes as mortal men, for they succeed one another: the second, that Levi himself, though yet in Abraham, was tithed by Melchizedek. Therefore the priesthood of Melchizedek (that is, Christ’s, who is pronounced to be an everlasting Priest according to this order) is more excellent than the Levitical priesthood.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
In a sense even Levi himself paid tithes to Melchizedek since he was still in the loins of Abraham when Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek. In the ancient Near Eastern view of things, people regarded a descendant as in one sense participating in the actions of his ancestors (Gen 25:23; Mal 1:2-3; Rom 9:11-13). This is true to reality in certain respects (cf. Rom 5:12-21; 1Co 15:22), though we are responsible for our own actions too (Eze 18:20). Levi, the head of the priestly tribe in Israel, had not yet begun his independent existence, but he was involved, in this sense, in everything that Abraham did. [Note: See Ellingworth, p. 369. Cf. Romans 5:12-21.]