Albert Barnes Commentary Hebrews 7:10

"for he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchizedek met him." — Hebrews 7:10 (ASV)

For he was yet in the loins of his father. Abraham is here called the father of Levi, by a common use of the word, referring to a more remote ancestor than the literal father. The meaning of the apostle is that he was even then, in a certain sense, in the loins of Abraham when Melchizedek met him; or it was the same as if he were there and then existed.

The relation that existed between him and Abraham, in the circumstances of the case, implied the same thing as if he had then been born and had acted for himself by paying tithes. Instances of this occur constantly. A father sells a farm, to which his son would be heir, and it is the same as if the son had sold it.

He has no more control over it than if he had been present and disposed of it himself. A father acknowledges allegiance to a government for a certain title or property that is to descend to his heirs, and it is the same as if the heir had himself done it; and it is not improper to say that it is the same as if he had been there and acted for himself.

For some valuable remarks on the nature of the reasoning here employed, see Stuart on the Hebrews, Excursus XIV.

The reasoning here is, indeed, especially such as would be suited to impress a Jewish mind, and perhaps more forcibly than it does ours. The Jews prided themselves on the dignity and honor of the Levitical priesthood. It was important to show them on their own principles, and according to their own sacred writings, that the great ancestor of all the Levitical community had himself acknowledged his inferiority to one who was declared also in their own writings (Psalms 110) to be like the Messiah, or who was of the same order.

At the same time, the reasoning concedes nothing false and conveys no wrong impression. It is not mere fancy or accommodation, nor is it framed on allegory or kabbalistic principles.

It is founded in truth and is such as might be used anywhere where regard was shown to pedigree, or respect was claimed on account of the illustrious deeds of an ancestor.

It would be regarded as sound reasoning in a country like England, where titles and ranks are recognized, and where various orders of nobility exist. The fact that a remote ancestor had done homage or paid allegiance to the ancestor of another class of titled birth would be regarded as proof of acknowledged inferiority in the family, and might be used with force and propriety in an argument.

Paul has done no more than this.