Hebrew 7:14 The Law of Silence

[cacian]

Anyone understands this?

This is something I found as I was researching the Law of Silence or Silence is prohibitive.


Is the silence of the Scriptures prohibitive? By that we mean, may one improvise in acts of religious devotion in the absence of a specific “you must not …”?
If the New Testament is silent about a specific matter (e.g., the baptizing of infants, the burning of incense, the use of mechanical instruments in worship), may a person pursue that practice?
Some allege that this is the case. They contend that asking folks to respect the silence of the Scriptures is a human regulation that has no support in the Bible.
They are wrong. Hebrew 7:14 contains the very principle that is the focus of this discussion.
In this context, the sacred writer has noted that there has been a change in the priesthood. The Aaronic priesthood of the Old Testament regime has given way to the better priestly system of the New Testament economy.
It is then suggested that Christ could not serve as a priest “after the order of Aaron” (cf. 8:4). Why not? Because Jesus was descended from the tribe of Judah, and, as to that tribe, Moses spake nothing (i.e., the law was silent; there was no authority) concerning the priesthood. The silence of the law was prohibitive!
If God does not authorize a religious practice, it is forbidden. This principle absolutely must be respected. Underline, therefore, the terms “spake nothing” in Hebrews 7:14, and marginally observe: Silence is prohibitive.

I read and reread this and I still do not understand it. Any more ideas would be great!

[YesNo]

I don't understand it either. Here is a link to Hebrews 7: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+7&version=NIV

[Charles Darnay]

It's a case of Bible cherry picking. The author took a line:

"For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood" (Hebrews 7:14)

and decided to wedge it into his broader point. The author is trying to say that there are rules that Christians abide by that are not in the Bible (they were established at ecumenical councils following the writing of the New Testament) - and so if these are laws written by men, should they be followed to the same extent as laws written by God? This author takes the above line out of context to prove that, yes, they should.

I am not a biblical scholar, I do not know exactly what the above line means. What I think it is, is an attempt to codify the difference between Jews and Christians (or in other words to say, "there are a few laws in the OT, but you don't have to follow those because Jesus was from a tribe not mentioned in the OT).

For your purposes, I would disregard this article: it has nothing to do with silence.

[cacian]

I don't understand it either. Here is a link to Hebrews 7: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+7&version=NIV

Thank you YesNo. This is very helpful. This is the first time I have come across the name Melchizedek.

[cacian]

It's a case of Bible cherry picking. The author took a line:

"For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood" (Hebrews 7:14)

I think ''spake nothing'' here might mean that because Moses said nothing about Juda does not exclude it from Moses's laws. It is interesting Juda is being refered to as a tribe.


and decided to wedge it into his broader point. The author is trying to say that there are rules that Christians abide by that are not in the Bible (they were established at ecumenical councils following the writing of the New Testament) - and so if these are laws written by men, should they be followed to the same extent as laws written by God? This author takes the above line out of context to prove that, yes, they should.

OK

I am not a biblical scholar, I do not know exactly what the above line means. What I think it is, is an attempt to codify the difference between Jews and Christians (or in other words to say, "there are a few laws in the OT, but you don't have to follow those because Jesus was from a tribe not mentioned in the OT).


Here Jesus being from a tribe Judah, not mentioned in the old testament, means that he could not ascend to priesthood.
In other words what was not spoken by Moses is still a law by default albeit a silent one.
If a tribe is not mentioned then on is not to enter priesthood unless one's point of origin is mentioned in the testament.

For your purposes, I would disregard this article: it has nothing to do with silence.
Sure.

[Charles Darnay]

What is now called Israel used to be divided amongst twelve tribes. One of the tribes was the tribe of Judah. Jesus was a descendent of this tribe.

Judah is mentioned plenty of times in the OT, particularly in Deuteronomy, which is the book in concern regarding Hebrews 7:14.

Deuteronomy makes reference to the priesthood of the tribe of Levi - for the tribe of Levi were the priests (forbidden to inherit Israel as mentioned in Deuteronomy 18). Deuteronomy does not mention any other tribe concerning the priesthood - this is where the "silence" comes from.

I encourage you to read Hebrews 7:14-20 - you will see that the absence of mention does not have to with any silence, but a critique of the law of Deuteronomy, which Hebrews 7:18 calls '"weak" and "useless".

[cafolini]

The word "Jew" is derived from "Judah". Charles is correct about the passage having nothing to do with silence. Then, there is Esdras involved in this and a lot of literature generated out of it and to be included in the book.