Verse List for HEB 7:11

Note: This view shows ‘verses’ which are not necessarily natural language units and hence sometimes only part of a sentence will be visible—click on any Bible version abbreviation down the left-hand side to see the verse in more of its context. Normally the OET discourages the reading of individual ‘verses’, but this view is only designed as a tool for doing comparisons of different translations—the older translations are further down the page (so you can read up from the bottom to trace the English translation history). The OET segments on this page are still early looks into the drafted texts of the Open English Translation of the Bible—please double-check these texts in advance before using in public.

B I ◄ ← Heb 7:11 ↓ → ► ═ ©

Text critical issues=small word differences Clarity of original=clear Importance to us=normal Speaker(s)=Narrator (All still tentative.)

OET (OET-RV) Indeed if perfection came from the priesthood from Levi’s tribe which was legislated to help the people, why would there have still been a need for another to rise up as a priest in the order of Malki-Tsedek (Melchizedek) and not just from the order of Aaron?

OET-LV If therefore indeed perfection by the Leuitaʸs /(from _tribe _of _Lēvī) priesthood was, the for people on it has _been _legislated, what still need was _there according _to the order of _Melⱪisedek, for _another to _be _rising _up priest, and not according _to the order of_Aʼarōn/(ʼAhₐron) to _be _being _called?

ULT If indeed then, perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people had been given, the law), what further need, was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek and to not be said, to be according to the order of Aaron?

UST Now God made the law that he gave to the Israelites depend on having the descendants of Levi serve as priests. So, suppose that people could become what God wanted them to be through what these priests did to serve God. In that case, God would never have appointed another priest to serve in the way that Melchizedek was a priest instead of in the way that Aaron was a priest. However, God did appoint this kind of priest.

BSB Now if perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood ( for on this basis the people received [the] law), why [was there] still need [for] another priest to appear—[one] in the order of Melchizedek and not in the order of Aaron?

MSB Now if perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood ( for on this basis the people received [the] law), why [was there] still need [for] another priest to appear—[one] in the order of Melchizedek and not in the order of Aaron?

BLB Then indeed, if perfection were by the Levitical priesthood (for upon it the people had received the Law) what need was there still for another priest to arise, according to the order of Melchizedek, and not to be named according to the order of Aaron?

AICNT Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood ([for][fn] the people have received the Law based upon it), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?

OEB If, then, perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood – and it was under this priesthood that the people received the Law – why was it still necessary that a priest of a different order should appear, a priest of the order of Melchizedek and not of the order of Aaron?

WEBBE & WMBB Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

NET So if perfection had in fact been possible through the Levitical priesthood – for on that basis the people received the law – what further need would there have been for another priest to arise, said to be in the order of Melchizedek and not in Aaron’s order?

LSV If indeed, then, perfection were through the Levitical priesthood—for the people under it had received law—what further need, according to the order of Melchizedek, for another priest to arise, and not to be called according to the order of Aaron?

FBV Now if perfection could have been achieved through the priesthood of Levi (for that's how the law was received), what was the need for another priest to come following the order of Melchizedek, and not following the order of Aaron?

TCNT Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under this priesthood the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek rather than the order of Aaron?

T4T God gave his laws to his people at the same time he gave regulations about the priests. So, if what the priests who were descended from Levi did could have provided a way for God to completely forgive people for disobeying those laws, certainly no other priest like Melchizedek would have been necessary. [RHQ] Instead, priests who were descended from Aaron, Levi’s descendant, would have been adequate.

LEB ¶  Thus if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood, for on the basis of it the people received the law, what further need is there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek and not said to be according to the order of Aaron?

BBE Now if it was possible for things to be made complete through the priests of the house of Levi (for the law was given to the people in connection with them), what need was there for another priest who was of the order of Melchizedek and not of the order of Aaron?

Moff Further, if the Levitical priesthood had been the means of reaching perfection (for it was on the basis of that priesthood that the Law was enacted for the People), why was it still necessary for another sort of priest to emerge with the rank of Melchizedek, instead of simply with the rank of Aaron

Wymth Now if the crowning blessing was attainable by means of the Levitical priesthood—for as resting on this foundation the people received the Law, to which they are still subject— what further need was there for a Priest of a different kind to be raised up belonging to the order of Melchizedek instead of being said to belong to the order of Aaron?

ASV Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it hath the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron?

DRA If then perfection was by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchisedech, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?

YLT If indeed, then, perfection were through the Levitical priesthood — for the people under it had received law — what further need, according to the order of Melchisedek, for another priest to arise, and not to be called according to the order of Aaron?

Drby If indeed then perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, for the people had their law given to them in connexion with it, what need [was there] still that a different priest should arise according to the order of Melchisedec, and not be named after the order of Aaron?

RV Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it hath the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron?
(Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it hath/has the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckon/counted/counted after the order of Aaron?)

SLT If truly therefore completion were by the Levitical priesthood, (for the people received legislation by it,) what further need according to the order of Melchisedec for another priest to be raised, and not according to the order of Aaron?

Wbstr If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

KJB-1769 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

KJB-1611 If therefore perfection were by the Leuiticall Priesthood (for vnder it the people receiued the Law) what further neede was there, that another Priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not bee called after the order of Aaron?
(If therefore perfection were by the Leviticall Priesthood (for under it the people received the Law) what further need was there, that another Priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?)

Bshps If therefore perfection was by the priesthood of ye Leuites (For vnder that priesthood the people receaued the law) what neded it furthermore that another priest shoulde rise after the order of Melchisedech, and not to be called after the order of Aaron?
(If therefore perfection was by the priesthood of ye/you_all Levites (For under that priesthood the people received the law) what needed it furthermore that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedech, and not to be called after the order of Aaron?)

Gnva If therefore perfection had bene by the Priesthoode of the Leuites (for vnder it the Lawe was established to the people) what needed it furthermore, that another Priest should rise after the order of Melchi-sedec, and not to be called after the order of Aaron?
(If therefore perfection had been by the Priesthoode of the Levites (for under it the Law was established to the people) what needed it furthermore, that another Priest should rise after the order of Melchi-sedec, and not to be called after the order of Aaron?)

Cvdl Yf now therfore perfeccion came by the presthode of the Leuites (for vnder the same (presthode) the people receaued the lawe) what neded it then furthurmore, that another prest shulde ryse after the order of Melchisedech, and not after the order of Aaron?
(If now therefore perfeccion came by the priesthood of the Levites (for under the same (priesthood) the people received the law) what needed it then furthurmore, that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedech, and not after the order of Aaron?)

TNT Yf now therfore perfeccion came by the presthod of the levites (for vnder that presthod the people recaved the lawe) what neded it furthermore that an other prest shuld ryse after the order of Melchisedech and not after the order of Aaron?
(If now therefore perfeccion came by the priesthood of the levites (for under that priesthood the people recaved the law) what needed it furthermore that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedech and not after the order of Aaron?)

Wycl Therfor if perfeccioun was bi the preesthood of Leuy, for vndur hym the puple took the lawe, what yit was it nedeful, another preest to rise, bi the ordre of Melchisedech, and not to be seid bi the ordre of Aaron?
(Therefore if perfeccioun was by the priesthood of Levi, for under him the people took the law, what yet was it nedeful, another priest to rise, by the order of Melchisedech, and not to be said by the order of Aaron?)

Luth Ist nun die Vollkommenheit durch das levitische Priestertum geschehen (denn unter demselbigen hat das Volk das Gesetz empfangen), was ist denn weiter not zu sagen, daß ein anderer Priester aufkommen solle nach der Ordnung Melchisedeks und nicht nach der Ordnung Aarons?
(Is now the Vollkommenheit through the levitische priesthood happen (because/than under the_same has the people the law received), what/which is because/than further not to/for say, that a others priest(s) arise/come_up should after the/of_the order(n) Melchisedeks and not after the/of_the order(n) Aarons?)

ClVg Si ergo consummatio per sacerdotium Leviticum erat (populus enim sub ipso legem accepit) quid adhuc necessarium fuit secundum ordinem Melchisedech, alium surgere sacerdotem, et non secundum ordinem Aaron dici?[fn]
(When/But_if therefore completion through priesthood Leviticum was (the_people because under himself the_law he_received) what still necessary it_was after/second order Melchisedech, another to_get_up a_priest, and not/no after/second order Aaron to_be_said?)

SR-GNT Εἰ μὲν οὖν τελείωσις διὰ τῆς Λευιτικῆς ἱερωσύνης ἦν, ὁ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπʼ αὐτῆς νενομοθέτηται, τίς ἔτι χρεία κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισέδεκ, ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα, καὶ οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρὼν λέγεσθαι; ‡

UGNT εἰ μὲν οὖν τελείωσις διὰ τῆς Λευειτικῆς ἱερωσύνης ἦν, ὁ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπ’ αὐτῆς νενομοθέτηται, τίς ἔτι χρεία κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισέδεκ, ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα, καὶ οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρὼν λέγεσθαι?

SBL-GNT Εἰ μὲν οὖν τελείωσις διὰ τῆς Λευιτικῆς ἱερωσύνης ἦν, ὁ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπʼ ⸀αὐτῆς ⸀νενομοθέτηται, τίς ἔτι χρεία κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισέδεκ ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα καὶ οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρὼν λέγεσθαι;

RP-GNT Εἰ μὲν οὖν τελείωσις διὰ τῆς Λευϊτικῆς ἱερωσύνης ἦν - ὁ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπ' αὐτῇ νενομοθέτητο - τίς ἔτι χρεία, κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδὲκ ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα, καὶ οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρὼν λέγεσθαι;

TC-GNT Εἰ μὲν οὖν τελείωσις διὰ τῆς [fn]Λευϊτικῆς ἱερωσύνης ἦν (ὁ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπ᾽ [fn]αὐτῇ νενομοθέτητο), τίς ἔτι χρεία κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδὲκ ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα καὶ οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρὼν λέγεσθαι;