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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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 indeed therefore perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people had received the law), what further need is there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?

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?

If, then, there had been a perfect expiation by means of the Levitical priesthood, (for with reference to it, the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should be raised up after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

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?

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?

If therefore there was perfection by the Levitical priesthood (for under that the people had the law given to them), what farther need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

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?

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?

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?

Truly, then, if perfection was through the Levitical priestly office (for the people had been given Law under it), why yet need for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek and not to be called according to the order of Aaron?

Therefore if 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 Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Now if there was perfection 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?

Now if there was perfection 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?

Now if there was perfection 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?

If indeed perfection had been by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people hath received the Law,) what further need was there that a different priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called alter the order of Aaron?

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?

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?

¶ 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?

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?

If indeed, therefore, there had been, a perfecting through means of the Levitical priesthood,—for, the people, thereon, have had based a code of laws, what further need, according to the rank of Melchizedek, for a different priest to be raised up, and, not according to the rank of Aaron, to be designated?

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 Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

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?

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?

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?