And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

And, so to say, through Abraham even Levi, who receiveth tithes, hath paid tithes;

And (as it may be said) even Levi who received tithes, paid tithes in Abraham:

and, so to speak, through Abraham, Levi also, who received tithes, has been made to pay tithes.

and so to speak, through Abraham even Levi who is receiving tithes, hath paid tithes,

And as I may so say, Levi also, who receives tithes, paid tithes in Abraham.

And Levi too - if I may so speak - pays tithes through Abraham:

And we may say that in Abraham, even Levi, who has a right to take the tenth part, gave it;

And so it may be said that even Levi, who received tithes, was himself a tithe through Abraham.

Moreover, in a sense, even Levi, who is the receiver of the tithes, has, through Abraham, paid tithes;

Et ut ita loquar, in Abraham decimatus est ipse Levi qui decimas solet accipere;

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. [1] 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?" (Matthew 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." (Genesis 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.

Footnotes

1 - Our version is "For he was yet," etc., epi, here is not yet, but even, as in Luke 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

And as I may so say - So to speak - ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν hōs 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 Genesis 34:25, and which Jacob characterized as "cruelty" Genesis 49:5-6, Jacob said that they should be "scattered in Israel." Genesis 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; Numbers 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.

And as I may so say - Και ὡς επος ειπειν· 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 δια through, Abraham, their progenitor and representative.

(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.

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.

as I may so say--to preclude what he is about to say being taken in the mere literal sense; I may say that, virtually, Levi, in the person of his father Abraham, acknowledged Melchisedec's superiority, and paid tithes to him.
who receiveth tithes--(Compare Hebrews 7:5).
in Abraham--Greek, "by means of (by the hand of) Abraham"; through Abraham. "Paid tithes," literally, "hath been tithed," that is, been taken tithes of.

And even Levi, who received tithes - Not in person, but in his successors, as it were, paid tithes - In the person of Abraham.