λογούμενος ἐξ αὐτῶν, δεδεκάτωκε τὸν 1 ᾿Αβραὰμ, καὶ τὸν ἔχοντα τὰς ἐπαγγελίας εὐλόγηκε' 7. χωρὶς δὲ πάσης ἀντιλογίας τὸ ἔλαττον
ὑπὸ τοῦ κρείττονος εὐλογεῖται.
8. καὶ ὧδε μὲν δεκάτας ἀποθνή-
σκοντες ἄνθρωποι λαμβάνουσιν - ἐκεῖ δὲ, μαρτυρούμενος ὅτι ζῇ.
e Gen. xiv. 18.
9. Kal, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, διὰ ᾿Αβραὰμ καὶ Λευὶ ὁ δεκάτας λαμβάνων δεδεκάτωται 10. “ἔτι γὰρ ἐν τῇ ὀσφύϊ τοῦ πατρὸς ἦν, ὅτε συνήν-
1 τον inserted in ADb, etc., E**KLP, Chr., Thdrt.; omitted in ΝΒΟΡ"Ε”, 17, 23, 57, 109. Bleek omits because ‘‘ gemass dem Sprachgebrauche des Verfassers ’’.
from the moment of speaking by an interval, it is impossible to render it into English adequately”. The point which the writer here brings out is that, although Abraham had the promises, and was therefore himself a fountain of bless- ing to mankind and the person on whom all succeeding generations depended for blessing, yet Melchizedek blessed him; and as the writer adds :—
Ver. 7. χωρὶς δὲ πάσης ἀντιλογίας - +. εὐλογεῖται. “And without any dispute the less is blessed of the greater.’’ Therefore, Abraham is the less, and Melchizedek the greater. The principle [expressed in its widest form by the neuter] applies where the blessing carries with it not only the verbal expres- sion of goodwill, but. goodwill achieving actual results. But man blesses God in the sense of praising Him, or desiring that all praise may be His. So God is ὁ εὐλογητός, Mk. xiv. 61. Cf. 2 Cor. ie ST εες,
Ver.8. Another note of the superiority of Melchizedek. καὶ ὧδε μὲν δεκάτας ... ‘And here men that die receive tithes, but there one of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.” ὧδε “here,” 2.€é.,in this Levitical system with which we who are Hebrews are familiar, ἐκεῖ, “there” in that system identified with that ancient priest. ἀποθνήσκοντες ἄνθρωποι, “dying men,” who there- fore as individuals passed away and gave place to successors, and were in this respect inferior to Melchizedek, who, so far as is recorded in Scripture, had no successor. Giving to the silence of Scripture the force of an assertion, the writer speaks of Melchizedek as μαρτυρούμενος ὅτι Cq, a person of whom it is witnessed; note absence of article. So Theoph., ὡς μὴ μνημο- νευοµένης τῆς τελευτῆς αὐτοῦ παρὰ τῇ γραφῇ. Westcott distinguishes between the plural of this verse, δεκάτας, appro- priate to the manifold tithings under the
Mosaic system and the singular, δεκάτην, of ver. 4, one special act.
Ver. 9. καὶ ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, “' And, I might almost say,” adding ἃ 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, Afol. Soc., 17a, is worth quoting “ ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν i. 4. 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 οὐδείς and πάντες, οὐδεὶς ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν ‘hardly anyone’; πάντες ὡς €.cim.=nearly everyone.” A signifi- cant use occurs in the Republic, p. 3418, where Socrates asks Thrasymachus whether in speaking of a ‘“ Ruler” he means τὸν ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν ἢ τὸν ἀκριβεῖ λόγῳ. The phrase is discussed at great length by Raphel. The further idea is, that “through Abraham even Levi, he who receives tithes, has paid tithes,’ the explanation being ἔτι yap ἐν τῇ ὀσφύϊ. .. “for he [Levi] was yet in the loins of his father [Abraham] when Melchizedek met him,” Isaac not yet having been begotten. There was a tendency in Jewish theology to view heredity in this realistic manner. Thus Schoettgen quotes Ramban on Gen. v. 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,