HEB 7:11 Parallel Verse View

Note: This view shows ‘verses’ which are not natural language units and hence sometimes only part of a sentence will be visible. Normally the OET discourages the reading of individual ‘verses’, but this view is only designed for doing comparisons of different translations. Click on any Bible version abbreviation down the left-hand side to see the verse in more of its context. The OET segments on this page are still very early looks into the unfinished texts of the Open English Translation of the Bible. Please double-check these texts in advance before using in public.

Text critical issues=small word differences Clarity of original=clear Importance=normal (All still tentative.)

Key: khaki:verbs, light-green:nominative/subject, orange:accusative/object, pink:genitive/possessor, red:negative.
Note: Automatic aligning of the OET-RV to the LV is done by some temporary software, hence the OET-RV alignments are incomplete (and may occasionally be wrong).

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?

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 on the basis of it the people received the Law), 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 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?

WMBB (Same as above)

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 No Moff HEB book available

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?

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 Leuiticall 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 neded 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 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? )

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 priesthode of the Levites (for under the same (priesthode) the people received the lawe) what neded 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 priesthod of the levites (for under that priesthod the people recaved the lawe) what neded it furthermore that an other 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 Leuy, for under him the people took the law, what yet was it needful, another priest to rise, by the ordre of Melchisedech, and not to be said by the ordre 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 priest(s)tum geschehen (denn under demselbigen has the people the law empfangen), what/which is because further not to say, that a anderer priest(s) aufkommen solle after the/of_the Ordnung Melchisedeks and not after the/of_the Ordnung 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 consummatio through sacerdotium Leviticum was (populus because under ipso legem accepit) quid adhuc necessarium fuit after/second ordinem Melchisedech, alium surgere sacerdotem, and not/no after/second ordinem Aaron dici? )

7.11 Sub ipso. Quia in manu sacerdotis lex, et per eum impletur lex quæ dicitur consummare. Hæc translatio præfigurata fuit in Samuele, qui de tribu Ephraim electus est sacerdos a Domino, reprobatis filiis Eli, Domino dicente: Qui honoraverit me, honorabo eum; et qui inhonoraverit, etc.

7.11 Under ipso. Because in by_hand of_the_priest lex, and through him impletur lex which it_is_said consummare. This translatio præfigurata fuit in Samuele, who about tribu Ephraim electus it_is sacerdos from Master, reprobatis childrens Eli, Master dicente: Who honoraverit me, honorabo eum; and who inhonoraverit, etc.

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?
(ei men oun teleiōsis dia taʸs Leueitikaʸs hierōsunaʸs aʸn, ho laos gar ep’ autaʸs nenomothetaʸtai, tis eti ⱪreia kata taʸn taxin Melⱪisedek, heteron anistasthai hierea, kai ou kata taʸn taxin Aʼarōn legesthai?)

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;
(Ei men oun teleiōsis dia taʸs Leuitikaʸs hierōsunaʸs aʸn, ho laos gar epʼ ⸀autaʸs ⸀nenomothetaʸtai, tis eti ⱪreia kata taʸn taxin Melⱪisedek heteron anistasthai hierea kai ou kata taʸn taxin Aʼarōn legesthai;)

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;
(Ei men oun teleiōsis dia taʸs Leuitikaʸs hierōsunaʸs aʸn—ho laos gar ep autaʸ nenomothetaʸto—tis eti ⱪreia, kata taʸn taxin Melⱪisedek heteron anistasthai hierea, kai ou kata taʸn taxin Aʼarōn legesthai; )

7:11 λευιτικης ¦ λευειτικης TH WH

7:11 αυτη νενομοθετητο ¦ αυτης νενομοθετηται CT

Key for above GNTs: yellow:punctuation differs, red:words differ (from our SR-GNT base).

UTN uW Translation Notes:

Note 1 topic: grammar-connect-words-phrases

μὲν οὖν

indeed therefore

Here, the word then shows the audience that the author is continuing the argument about Melchizedek and the priests descended from Levi. The word indeed signals the first part of a contrast. The second part is the question in the second half of this verse. If it would be helpful in your language, you could use words or phrases that introduce a development in the argument that takes the form of a contrast. Alternate translation: “therefore” or “then on the one hand”

Note 2 topic: grammar-connect-condition-contrary

εἰ μὲν οὖν τελείωσις διὰ τῆς Λευειτικῆς ἱερωσύνης ἦν

if indeed therefore perfection by the (Some words not found in 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)

Here the author is making a conditional statement that sounds hypothetical, but he is already convinced that the condition is not true. He knows that perfection did not happen through the Levitical priesthood. He proves that the conditional statement is not true by reminding the audience that God did indeed appoint another priest who is according to the order of Melchizedek. Use a natural form in your language for introducing a condition that the speaker believes is not true. Alternate translation: “If indeed then, perfection had actually been through the Levitical priesthood”

Note 3 topic: figures-of-speech / abstractnouns

τελείωσις & ἦν

perfection & was

If your language does not use an abstract noun for the idea of perfection, you could express the idea by using an adjective such as “perfect.” Alternate translation: “people could become perfect” or “what is perfect was”

Note 4 topic: figures-of-speech / explicit

τῆς Λευειτικῆς ἱερωσύνης

the (Some words not found in 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)

Here, the phrase the Levitical priesthood refers to the people, the system, and the practices that were connected with how the descendants of Levi served as priests to God for the rest of the Israelites. If it would be helpful in your language, you could use a word or phrase that refers to all these components. Alternate translation: “the way that the descendants of Levi served as priests” or “the priesthood that the descendants of Levi practiced”

Note 5 topic: figures-of-speech / abstractnouns

τῆς Λευειτικῆς ἱερωσύνης

If your language does not use an abstract noun for the idea of priesthood, you could express the idea in another way. Alternate translation: “how the Levites served as priests”

Note 6 topic: grammar-connect-words-phrases

γὰρ

for

Here, the word for introduces a clarification or explanation of what the author just said. In other words, he speaks about perfection and the Levitical priesthood because this priesthood was the basis for the whole law. He wishes his audience to know that what he says about perfection and priesthood applies to the whole law. If it would be helpful in your language, you could use a word or phrase that introduces a clarification or explanation. Alternate translation: “now” or “in fact,”

Note 7 topic: figures-of-speech / infostructure

εἰ μὲν οὖν τελείωσις διὰ τῆς Λευειτικῆς ἱερωσύνης ἦν, ὁ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπ’ αὐτῆς νενομοθέτηται,

Here the author provides a clarification after he makes his claim. If it would be helpful in your language, you could put the clarification before the claim. Alternate translation: “Now on the basis of the Levitical priesthood, the people had been given the law. If indeed then, perfection was through the Levitical priesthood,”

Note 8 topic: figures-of-speech / activepassive

ὁ λαὸς & νενομοθέτηται

the people & /has_been/_legislated

If your language does not use the passive form in this way, you could express the idea in active form or in another way that is natural in your language. The author uses the passive form here to focus on the people who were given the law rather than on the person doing the giving. If you must state who did the action, the author implies that God did it. Alternate translation: “God had given the law to the people”

Note 9 topic: figures-of-speech / rquestion

τίς ἔτι χρεία κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισέδεκ, ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα, καὶ οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρὼν λέγεσθαι?

what still need_‹was_there› according_to the order ˱of˲_Melchisedek ˱for˲_another /to_be/_rising_up priest and not according_to the order ˱of˲_Aaron /to_be_being/_called

The author does not ask this question because he is looking for information. Rather, he asks it to involve the audience in what he is arguing. The question implies that the answer is “there was no further need.” If it would be helpful in your language, you could express the idea by using a strong negation. Alternate translation: “there was no further at all for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek and not be said to be according to the order of Aaron.”

Note 10 topic: figures-of-speech / explicit

κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισέδεκ, ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα, καὶ οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρὼν λέγεσθαι?

according_to the order ˱of˲_Melchisedek ˱for˲_another /to_be/_rising_up priest and not according_to the order ˱of˲_Aaron /to_be_being/_called

Here the author is referring back to the words that he quoted in 5:6 from Psalm 110:4: “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.” It is these words that “say” that Jesus is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek* and not according to the order of Aaron. If it would be helpful in your language, you could make it more explicit that the author is referring to the quotation. Alternate translation: “for another to arise who, according to the psalm, serves according to the order of Melchizedek and is not said to serve according to the order of Aaron”

Note 11 topic: figures-of-speech / metaphor
ἀνίστασθαι

/to_be/_rising_up

Here, the word arise refers to someone taking a position as if they were standing up to do something. The author speaks in this way to show that another priest has “stood up” to do his task as priest. If it would be helpful in your language, you could state the meaning plainly. Alternate translation: “to appear” or “to begin serving”

Note 12 topic: figures-of-speech / explicit
κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισέδεκ & κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρὼν

according_to the order ˱of˲_Melchisedek & according_to the order ˱of˲_Aaron

Here, the word order refers to requirements and duties that go along with a specific office or position. If someone serves according to the order of someone else, that means that he or she meets the same requirements and performs the same duties which that person did. If it would be helpful in your language, you could use a comparable phrase. Alternate translation: “in the same way that Melchizedek was a priest … in the same way that Aaron was a priest” or “with a priesthood just like Melchizedek’s priesthood … having a priesthood just like Aaron’s priesthood”

Note 13 topic: figures-of-speech / activepassive
οὐ & λέγεσθαι

not & /to_be_being/_called

If your language does not use the passive form in this way, you could express the idea in active form or in another way that is natural in your language. The author uses the passive form here to focus on the one who is not said rather than on what does not do the saying. If you must state who does not speak, the author implies that God did not say this when he spoke in Psalm 110:4. Alternate translation: “for the psalm not to identify him to be” or “for God not to say that he is”

Parallel HEB 7:11