Hebrews 7 — Verse 14

For it is evident (or manifest) that our Lord sprang out of Judah, of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the priesthood.

In the first part of the words there are two things considerable. The manner of the proposition, or the modification of the assertion, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. The conjunction [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], for, does only show that a reason or proof of what was before laid down, is here introduced. And of this he says, 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 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is manifest or evident, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] seems to intimate what was manifest before-hand; as [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is to evidence a matter before-hand. And this may not only respect, but be confined to the preceding promises 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 to our Lord Jesus Christ.

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 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] manifest to them before-hand. For to Judah the promise was solemnly confined (Genesis 49:8, 9, 10), and frequently reiterated to David, as I have showed elsewhere. Whoever therefore acknowledged our Lord Jesus Christ to be the true Messiah, as all the Hebrews did to whom our Apostle wrote, though the most of them adhered to 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 to 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). And this was made yet more famous by the cruelty of Herod, seeking his destruction among the children of Bethlehem (Matthew 2). And the genealogies of all families, while 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 to 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 Elizabeth the wife of Zechariah the priest, who was the daughter 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 from there to be entitled to the priesthood, which yet it could not be, unless he was also proved to be of the family of Aaron. And to assign a priesthood to him as derived from Aaron, is openly contradictory to the Apostle in this place, and destructive of his whole design, as also of the true real priesthood of Christ himself; as is evident to any one, who reads this chapter. The alliance and kindred that was between the Blessed Virgin and Elizabeth was doubtless by an antecedent intermarriage of those tribes, as Elizabeth's mother might be sister to the father or grand-father of the Holy Virgin. And this was not only lawful between the tribes of Judah and Levi or the regal and sacerdotal families, from where Jehoshabeath the wife of Jehoiadah, was the daughter of Jehoram the King (2 Chronicles 22:11), as some have imagined; but such marriages were usual to, 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 does sufficiently prove the liberty of all others. For the words of it are, Every daughter, that possesses an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy every one the inheritance of their father (Numbers 36:8). Both the express limitation of the law to those who possessed inheritances, and the reason of it for the preservation of the lots of each tribe entire, as ver. 3, 4, manifest that all other 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.

It pleases God to give sufficient evidence to the accomplishment of his promise.

For the manner of the proceeding of the Lord Christ from that Tribe, the Apostle expresseth it by [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], He sprang; [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] is usually taken in an active sense, to cause to rise (Matthew 5:45). [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], 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 [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], 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). [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] (Luke 1:78), the day-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 (chapter 11:1). Hence he is frequently called the Branch, and the Branch of the Lord (Isaiah 4:2; Jeremiah 23:5; chapter 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; chapter 6:12). But the first, which is the most proper sense of the words, is to be regarded; he arose eminently and illustriously from the Tribe of Judah.

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.

[⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], with reference to which Tribe, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], 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 to the law-giver, 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 to him, that the Shilo should come from him (Genesis 49:10). And this same Shilo 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 to any institution of the law given by Moses. Therefore Moses as the law-giver, when the office of the priesthood was instituted in the church, and confirmed by especial law or ordinance, spake nothing of it with respect to the Tribe of Judah. For as in the law, the first institution of it was directly confined to 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 generations, it should be translated to 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 to 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, yes, 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 to the priestly office. So God himself condemns some instances of false worship, on this ground, that he never appointed them, that they never came into his heart, and from there aggravates the sin of the people, rather than from the particular prohibition of them (Jeremiah 7:31).

Divine revelation gives bounds positively and negatively to the worship of God.