Tribe of Apostle John in Biblical Genealogy
The tribe associated with the Apostle John is not directly stated in the biblical genealogy. However, understanding the biblical context and the tradition surrounding John is essential. The Book of Revelation lists the twelve tribes of Israel, with 12,000 sealed from each tribe, but Dan is notably absent [1, 2].
Revelation 7:5-8 lists the tribes as Judah, Reuben, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Manasseh (under Joseph), Simeon, Levi, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, and Benjamin. The absence of Dan has been interpreted in various ways by commentators. Jamieson, Fausset & Brown suggest that Dan's omission might be due to its being the first to lapse into idolatry [4].
The Apostle John's genealogy is not directly linked to any of these tribes in the New Testament. However, early Christian tradition and patristic sources provide some insights. The patristic writer Julius Africanus discusses the genealogies in the Gospels, highlighting the complexities and potential discrepancies in the biblical accounts [7].
John Gill, a Baptist/Reformed commentator, provides insights into the tribes listed in Revelation 7. one tradition notes that Zebulun, Joseph, and Benjamin were among the tribes sealed, with Zebulun signifying "dwelling", possibly referencing Christ's dwelling among people [5].
The tribe of Benjamin is notable for its association with King Saul, Israel's first king. John Gill comments on 1 Chronicles 8, highlighting Benjamin's genealogy due to its connection with Judah in worship and its return from captivity [6].
The biblical genealogies in Matthew and Luke establish Jesus' descent from Judah, a point considered incontrovertible by Adam Clarke, a Methodist/Wesleyan commentator, on Hebrews 7:14 [3]. This underscores the significance of Judah as Jesus' tribe.
While the specific tribe of the Apostle John is not directly addressed in these sources, the discussions around the tribes in Revelation and the genealogies in the Gospels provide context. The early Christian tradition and the patristic writers' discussions on genealogy and the tribes offer a nuanced understanding of the biblical context.
The listing of tribes in Revelation 7 and the discussions around their significance highlight the symbolic and theological importance of these tribes. The absence of Dan and the inclusion of Joseph (representing Manasseh and Ephraim) indicate a theological rather than a purely historical or genealogical listing.
The biblical and patristic discussions on the tribes and genealogies demonstrate the complexity and richness of the biblical narrative. Understanding the Apostle John's context within this narrative requires considering the broader biblical and historical context.
The significance of the tribes and their listing in Revelation continues to be a subject of interpretation among various Christian traditions, reflecting the ongoing relevance and depth of biblical genealogy and theology. The tribes listed, including Zebulun, Joseph, and Benjamin, hold theological significance that has been explored by commentators across different traditions [1, 5].
Sources
- Revelation of John “Revelation of John 7:8 (BSB) — from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000, from the tribe of Joseph 12,000, and from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000.”
- Revelation of John “Revelation of John 7:7 (BBE) — Of the tribe of Simeon twelve thousand: of the tribe of Levi twelve thousand: of the tribe of Issachar twelve thousand:”
- Hebrews (Methodist/Wesleyan) “Adam Clarke on Hebrews 7:14: For it is evident - As the apostle speaks here with so much confidence, it follows that our Lord's descent from the tribe of Judah was incontrovertible. The genealogical tables, both in Matthew and Luke, establish this point; and whatever difficulties we may find in them now, there were none apprehended in those days, else the enemies of the Gospel would have urged these as a chief and unanswerable argument against Christ and his Gospel.”
- Revelation (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Revelation 7:5: Judah (meaning praise) stands first, as Jesus' tribe. Benjamin, the youngest, is last; and with him is associated second last, Joseph. Reuben, as originally first-born, comes next after Judah, to whom it gave place, having by sin lost its primogeniture right. Besides the reason given above (see on Rev 7:2), another akin for the omission of Dan, is, its having been the first to lapse into idolatry (Jdg. 18:1-31); for which same reason the name Ephraim, also (compare Jdg 17:1-3; Hos 4:17), is omitted, and Joseph substituted. Also, it had been now for ”
- Revelation (Baptist/Reformed) “John Gill on Revelation 7:8: Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand,.... Which signifies "dwelling", Gen 30:20; and was the tribe in which Christ had his dwelling, and where he much conversed; and may denote his gracious inhabitation, as well as that of God the Father, md of the Spirit, among the saints and sealed ones. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand; whose name signifies "adding", Gen 30:24; and may intend the additions both of numbers, and of gifts and graces to the churches of those times. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand; this word s”
- 1 Chronicles (Baptist/Reformed) “John Gill on 1 Chronicles 8:1: Now Benjamin begat Bela his firstborn,.... See Ch1 7:6. The genealogy of the tribe of Benjamin is reviewed, because it joined and kept close with Judah in the worship of God, went into captivity, and returned out of it with it; and this review is made chiefly for the sake of Saul, and his posterity, the first king of Israel, who was of it, and in whose posterity this genealogy ends: Ashbel the second; supposed to be the same with Jediael, Ch1 7:6, see Gen 46:21. and Aharah the third; the same with Aher, Ch1 7:13, and with Ahiram, Num 26:38.”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 6: Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius, Julius Africanus, Methodius, Arnobius — I.--THE EPISTLE TO ARISTIDES. (part 1): I. [AFRICANUS ON THE GENEALOGY IN THE HOLY GOSPELS.(1)--Some indeed incorrectly allege that this discrepant enumeration and mixing of the names both of priestly men, as they think, and royal, was made properly,(2) in order that Christ might be shown rightfully to be both Priest and King; as if any one disbelieved this, or had any other hope than this, that Christ is the High Priest of His Father, who presents our prayers to Him, and a supramundane King, who rules by the S”