On the basis of: the translator’s task here, as in verse 5, is to translate what the writer of Hebrews believed to have happened, not to decide what actually did happen in Old Testament times. The text may simply mean that the Law was given “in connection with” the levitical priesthood. In fact, the Law and the priesthood were, as Translator’s New Testament puts it, “closely linked” (so Bijbel in Gewone Taal), and verse 12 shows that this was also the writer’s view. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch translates “On the priesthood of Levi’s descendants, the Israelite people were given clear instructions in the Law.” However, most translators and commentators agree with Good News Translation in the stronger statement that the priesthood was the basis of the Law.

Of Israel is implicit.

The adjectival form levitical is as unusual a word in Greek as in English; Biblia Dios Habla Hoy has “the levite priest,” which can be understood in the light of verse 5a.

The word for priesthood is related to the word used in verse 5. The two terms are not sharply distinguished, but the word used in verse 5 usually means the priest’s ministry or function, while the word used in verses 11-12 means the priestly order as an institution.

It may be difficult to use the abstract or generic vocabulary of the first part of verse 11. The first sentence may be rendered as “The priests who descended from Levi were a necessary part of the Law that was given to the people of Israel,” “… the Law that God gave to the people of Israel,” or “… the laws which God commanded the people of Israel to follow (or, obey).” In a number of languages one cannot use a singular form, since the so-called Law of Moses consists of a large number of regulations and rules, and in other languages this frequently requires a plural form.

Now marks a change in the argument, or at least the introduction of a new idea. The Greek term is rather emphatic (Moffatt translates “Further”; New American Bible, Translator’s New Testament “then”). A comparison with Revised Standard Version shows that Good News Translation puts the first part of the Greek sentence second. The effect is to emphasize it. This is helpful for the modern reader, who needs to be given this information, not like the first readers, who merely needed to be reminded of it.

The Greek word for perfect is related to the word for “maturity” (Revised Standard Version) used in 6.1 (Good News Translation mature teaching). It will soon become clear that the writer is concerned, not only with more advanced teaching, but with growth into a new and fully Christian life. For the moment, however, the contrast is between fulfillment in Christ and nonfulfillment in the law and priesthood of the Old Testament. The contrast is not between elementary and fully Christian faith or life. The old does not only develop into the new; the new replaces the old. The Greek word which Revised Standard Version translates “perfection” suggests the fulfillment of a purpose. This is either the purpose for which the priesthood was set up, or more generally God’s purpose for mankind. Barclay translates “If that priesthood had been perfectly able to do what it was designed to do”; Translator’s New Testament has “If then the Levitical priesthood … had fulfilled its purpose.” The condition has not been fulfilled.

It may also be possible to translate if the work of the levitical priests had been perfect as “if the priests descended from Levi had done just what they should have done,” “… had served God as they really should have served him,” or “… had done their work in a completely right way.”

Good News Translation and most other common language translations change the rhetorical question “what further need would there have been…?” (Revised Standard Version) into a statement. See the comment on 1.5.

There would have been no need for may also be expressed as “it would not have been necessary to have had.” Sometimes the expression of necessity may be combined with the following phrase, a different kind of priest to appear; for example, “a different kind of priest would not have needed to appear” or “a different kind of priest would not have been necessary.”

Kind of is implied, but Revised Standard Version‘s “another priest” does not bring out the full meaning, since the word translated “another” implies “different.”

One who is in the priestly order of Melchizedek is the same in Greek as in 5.10; see the comments there. The most likely meaning is “just like Melchizedek.” For the translator there are two essential points in the comparison between Melchizedek and Jesus: (a) Each is unique; so words for order suggesting a group of people, like “Order of the Legion of Honor,” are to be avoided. (b) Neither Melchizedek nor Jesus is just an isolated individual. They are linked in setting up a whole new system of priesthood and sacrifice. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch has “of Melchizedek’s kind”; Moffatt uses “with the rank of Melchizedek.” In this context the phrase in the priestly order refers, as elsewhere, to “a kind of priest.” Therefore one who is in the priestly order of Melchizedek may be rendered as “one who is a priest like Melchizedek.”

Good News Translation omits Revised Standard Version‘s “named” which is simply a way of reminding the reader that the words in the priestly order of Melchizedek are a quotation. common language translations have a glossary note explaining who Aaron was and why he was significant.

The final phrase not of Aaron must be expanded in some instances as “he was not like a priest who descended from Aaron.”

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .