Hebrews 7:14

The apostle confirms his assertion by a particular application of it unto the person of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 7:14 . Πρόδηλον γὰρ ὅτι ἐξ ᾿Ιούδα ἀνατέταλκεν ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν, εἰς ἥν φυλὴν οὐδὲν περὶ ἱερωσύνης Μωϋσῆς ἐλάλησε.

Περὶ ἱερωσύνης. Vulg. Lat., “de sacerdotibus;” without countenance from any copies of the original or ancient translation. [5]

[5] VARIOUS READINGS. So far is this statement from being correct, that ἱερέων is adopted as the text by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Theile, while Griesbach marks it as a reading of great value, on the authority of Mss. A B C* D* E., and eight versions. EXPOSITION. “The application of ἱερέων, is not certain. It may be connected with the point already stated, the change, namely, of the priesthood, and then πρόδηλον will mean for, and the idea be this: ‘Such a change was no doubt intended, for it is shown clearly by the fact that “our Lord sprang from Judah. Then the next verse will continue the proof: ‘And that this change was intended is yet more abundantly evident, if (or since, εἰ) another priest like Melchisedec rises up.'But the connection may be with the statement immediately preceding, and then ὅτι must be rendered that, and the meaning will be as in our English translation. This view is most generally followed by interpreters....The use of πρόδηλον immediately followed by περισσότερον ἔτι κατάδηλον seems to favor the other view.” Turner. While OEcumenius, Limborch, Tholuck, Bleek, and others, connect κατάδηλον with the change of the priesthood, (“That, with the priesthood, the law also is changed, is so much the more manifest,”) Ebrard, De Wette, and Boothroyd, connect it with the descent of Christ: “That Jesus sprang from Judah is already in itself an acknowledged fact (verse 14); but this is all the more manifest, as (verse 15) it follows from Christ's priesthood being after the order of Melchisedec that he could not be born κατὰ νόμον.” ED.

Hebrews 7:14. For it is evident [or manifest] that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the priesthood.

The words contain a double assertion:

1. That “our Lord sprang of the tribe of Judah.”

2. That “of that tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the priesthood.” There wants nothing to complete the proof of his argument but that our Lord was a priest; which he therefore proves in the ensuing verses.

In the First part of the words there are two things considerable:

1. The manner of the proposition, or the modification of the assertion, Πρόδηλόν [ἐστι.] The conjunction γὰρ, “for,” doth only show that a reason or proof of what was before laid down is here introduced. And of this he saith, “palam est,” “manifestum,” it is “manifest,” “open,” a thing confessed; “evident,” as we say, in itself; a thing easy to be proved, but that it is by no man denied. Only, whereas δῆλον is “manifest” or “evident,” πρόδηλον seems to intimate what was “manifest beforehand;” as προδηλόω is to “evidence a matter beforehand.” And this may not only respect, but be confined unto the preceding promise and declaration that the Messiah should be of the tribe of Judah. But we may consider in general how this is said to be a thing “evident” or “manifest” in its application unto our Lord Jesus Christ. And,

(1.) This was included in the faith of believers, who granted him to be the Messiah; for nothing was more plainly promised under the old testament, nor more firmly believed by the church, than that the Messiah was to be of the tribe of Judah, and of the family of David. And thus it was πρόδηλον, “manifest to them beforehand.” For unto Judah the promise was solemnly confined, Genesis 49:8-10, and frequently reiterated unto David, as I have showed elsewhere. Whoever, therefore, acknowledged our Lord Jesus Christ to be the true Messiah, as all the Hebrews did unto whom our apostle wrote, though the most of them adhered unto the law and ceremonies of it, they must and did grant that he sprang of the tribe of Judah. And none of the unbelieving Jews made use of this objection, that he was not of the tribe of Judah; which if they could have managed, had absolutely justified them in their unbelief. This was sufficient unto the purpose of the apostle, seeing he proceeded not only on what was granted among them, but firmly believed by them, and not denied by their adversaries.

(2.) It was in those days manifest by his known genealogy; for, by the providence of God, his parents were publicly enrolled of that tribe, and of the family of David, in the tax and recognition of the people appointed by Augustus Caesar, Luke 2:4-5. And this was made yet more famous bythe cruelty of Herod, seeking his destruction among the children of Bethlehem, Matthew 2. And the genealogies of all families, whilst the Jewish commonwealth continued in any condition, were carefully preserved, because many legal rights and constitutions did depend thereon.

And this preservation of genealogies was both appointed of God and fenced with legal rights, for this very end, to evidence the accomplishment of his promise in the Messiah. And unto this end was his genealogy written and recorded by two of the evangelists, as that whereon the truth of his being the Messiah did much depend.

Sundry of the ancients had an apprehension that the Lord Christ derived his genealogy from both the tribes of Judah and Levi, in the regal and sacerdotal offices, as he who was to be both king and priest. And there is a story inserted in Suidas, how, in the days of Justinian the emperor, one Theodosius, a principal patriarch of the Jews, acquainted his friend, one Philip, a Christian, how he was enrolled by the priests in their order, as of the lineage of the priests, by the name of “Jesus the son of Mary and of God;” and that the records thereof were kept by the Jews at Tiberias to that very time. But the whole story is filled with gross effects of ignorance and incredible fables, being only a dream of some superstitious monastic. But the ancients grounded their imagination on the kindred that was between his mother and Elisabeth, the wife of Zacharias the priest, who was “of the daughters of Aaron,” Luke 1:5. But this whole conceit is not only false, but directly contradictory to the scope and argument of the apostle in this place. For the authors of it would have the Lord Christ so to derive his genealogy from the tribe of Levi, as thence to be entitled unto the priesthood; which yet it could not be, unless he were also proved to be of the family of Aaron: and to assign a priesthood unto him as derived from Aaron, is openly contradictory unto the apostle in this place, and destructive of his whole design, as also of the true, real priesthood of Christ himself; as is evident unto any one who reads this chapter. The alliance and kindred that was between the blessed Virgin and Elisabeth was doubtless by an antecedent intermarriage of those tribes, as Elisabeth's mother might be sister unto the father or grandfather of the holy Virgin. And this was not only lawful between the tribes of Judah and Levi, or the regal and sacerdotal families, whence Jehoshabeath the wife of Jehoiada, was the daughter of Jehoram the king, 2 Chronicles 22:11, as some have imagined, but such marriages were usual unto and lawful among all the other tribes, where women had no inheritances of land; which was expressly provided against by a particular law. And this very law of exception doth sufficiently prove the liberty of all others; for the words of it are, “Every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance of his fathers,” Numbers 36:8. Both the express limitation of the law unto those who possessed inheritances, and the reason of it, for the preservation of the lots of each tribe entire, as verses 3, 4, manifest that all others were at liberty to marry any Israelite, be he of what tribe soever. And thus both the genealogies of Matthew and Luke, one by a legal, the other by a natural line, were both of them from the tribe of Judah, and family of David. So,

Obs. 1. It pleaseth God to give sufficient evidence unto the accomplishment of his promises.

2. For the manner of the proceeding of the Lord Christ from that tribe, the apostle expresseth it by ἀνατέταλκε, “he sprang.” ᾿Ανατέλλω is usually taken in an active sense, “to cause to rise:” Matthew 5:45, Τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἀνατέλλει, “He causeth his sun to rise.” And sometimes it is used neutrally, for “to rise;” and so, as some think, it peculiarly denotes the rising of the sun, in distinction from the other planets. Hence is ἀνατολή, “the east,” from the rising of the sun. So the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ is called the “rising of the Sun of Righteousness with healing in his wings,” Malachi 4:2. ᾿Ανατολὴ ἐξ ὕψους, Luke 1:78, “Theday-spring from on high.” Thus did the Lord Christ arise in the light and glory of the sun, “a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of his people Israel.” But the word is used also to express other springings, as of water from a fountain, or a branch from the stock. And so it is said of our Lord Jesus, that he should “grow up as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground,” Isaiah 53:2; a “rod out of the stem, and a branch out of the roots of Jesse,” Isaiah 11:1. Hence he is frequently called “The Branch,” and “The Branch of the LORD,”

Isaiah 4:2; Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; Zechariah 6:12. But the first, which is the most proper sense of the word, is to be regarded; he arose eminently and illustriously from the tribe of Judah.

Secondly, Having laid down this matter of fact, as that which was evident, and on all hands confessed, he observes upon it, that “of that tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the priesthood.”

Εἰς ἥν φυλήν, “with reference unto which tribe;” περὶ ἧς, “de qua tribu.” Being to prove that the priesthood did no way belong to the tribe of Judah, so that the introduction of a priest of that tribe must necessarily exclude those of the house of Aaron from that office, he appeals unto the lawgiver, or rather, the law itself. For by “Moses,” not the person of Moses absolutely is intended, as though these things depended on his authority; but it is his ministry in giving of the law, or his person only as ministerially employed in the declaration of it, that our apostle respects. And it is the law of worship that is under consideration. Moses did record the blessing of Judah, as given him by Jacob, wherein the promise was made unto him that the Shiloh should come from him, Genesis 49:10; and this same Shiloh was also to be a priest: but this was a promise before the law, and not to be accomplished until the expiration of the law, and belonged not unto any institution of the law given by Moses. Wherefore Moses, as the lawgiver, when the office of the priesthood was instituted in the church, and confirmed by especial law or ordinance, spake nothing of it with respect unto the tribe of Judah. For as in the law, the first institution of it was directly confined unto the tribe of Levi and house of Aaron, so there is not in all the law of Moses the least intimation that on any occasion, in any future generation, it should be translated unto that tribe. Nor was it possible, without the alteration and abolition of the whole law, that any one of that tribe should once be put into the office of the priesthood: the whole worship of God was to cease, rather than that any one of the tribe of Judah should officiate in the office of the priesthood. And this silence of Moses in this matter the apostle takes to be a sufficient argument to prove that the legal priesthood did not belong, nor could be transferred, unto the tribe of Judah. And the grounds hereof are resolved into this general maxim, that whatever is not revealed and appointed in the worship of God by God himself, is to be considered as nothing, yea, as that which is to be rejected. And such he conceived to be the evidence of this maxim, that he chose rather to argue from the silence of Moses in general than from the particular prohibition, that none who was not of the posterity of Aaron should approach unto the priestly office. So God himself condemneth some instances of false worship on this ground, that “he never appointed them,” that “they never came into his heart,” and hence aggravates the sin of the people, rather than from the particular prohibition of them, Jeremiah 7:31. Wherefore,

Obs. 2. Divine revelation gives bounds, positively and negatively, unto the worship of God.