Hebrews 4:8: "Jesus", not "Joshua"
Jan 10, 2014 2:13:47 GMT
Post by Colossians on Jan 10, 2014 2:13:47 GMT
This material is for the teaching of the Body of Christ, however the author reserves copyright over it.
___________________________________
HEBREWS 4:8: “JESUS”, NOT “JOSHUA”
Background
“For if Jesus [Joshua?] had given them rest, then would H[h?]e not afterward have spoken of another day” Hebrews 4:8.
By virtue of the fact that the Hebrew for the English "Joshua", and the Greek for the English "Jesus", converge in the Greek into the latter (Greek) instance, bible translators are technically permitted to declare the referent of such Greek word at Hebrews 4:8 to be Joshua rather than Jesus.
They do this in particular because they reason that the writer is referring to the time in the wilderness under Moses and the subsequent entering in to Canaan under Joshua, as a type for our having moved from darkness into light under Christ.
Such story can no doubt be used as a type when the occasion demands, but the intent of the writer here at chapters 3 and 4 is not to relate that which essentially goes without saying, but rather to warn us not to shrink back from the faith.
He is therefore in fact not employing any symbolism at all, but simply using those faithless under Moses about whom God belatedly swore through David that they would not enter His spiritual rest, as an example for us not to follow. Our proof that the correct rendering of the word in focus is "Jesus", will be accordingly and rightfully predicated on this basis.
Because it is not possible to provide an authoritative rendering of the word under consideration without considering it in context, we start some way before at 3:7, and conclude some way after at 4:11.
Hebrews 3
In the first 6 verses of this chapter, the writer refers to the faithfulness of Christ toward us in order to invoke the reciprocal: faithfulness of us toward Christ.
He then proceeds to ‘drill down’ into the matter, using the story of those unfaithful under Moses, as examples of what we are not to be:
[7] “Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear His voice, [8] Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: [9] When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. [10] Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. [11] So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)”
And so the writer quotes David’s Psalm 95 here as proof that those who shrank back from going into the promised land when the opportunity was presented them, were one and the same people who did not enter into God’s rest.
Two vital things therefore need to be emphasised up front with regard to the intent of this exposition:
1. The rest referred to is not a carnal resting in the land of Canaan, but “my rest” . That is, God is speaking of the rest of faith, which is ultimately salvifically-oriented: it is a rest pertaining not to things temporal, but things eternal.
We therefore need to be on guard against mistaking this “enter” mentioned here at v11 as that which might refer to entry into the physical land of Canaan. Rather, the word “enter” is necessarily used because the believer’s rest emanates not from himself but another, even Christ, and thus cannot be thought of as his own natural ‘property’.
Accordingly, the revealing of the fact that God had uttered such oath, was reserved for the mouth of him who would be the foreshadow of Christ, David.
2. Commensurately, the implication in God’s displeasure toward those faithless is that such rest had been at least theoretically obtainable by them up until the point of their displeasing of Him, and conversely, that it had actually been obtained by those with whom He was not displeased.1
1 Although the spiritual rest partaken of by such as Moses and David was more a matter of state than knowledge and therefore not that which would have revealed to them the whys and wherefores of that rest as revealed in the New Testament scriptures, it was nonetheless one and the same rest as that into which we of the revealed-NT period have entered into. For the rest we have entered into consists firstly and foremostly of absence of enmity with God. (See also our comments at 3:12, 4:2, 4:3 part 2.)
[12] “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. [13] But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.”
The writer here comes right to his main intent: we are to stand fast in the faith.
And we note here his affirmation of what we have just pointed out in the footnote above: in his perpetualising of David’s “Today” (“while it is called Today”), he necessarily shows that the rest obtainable today and the rest obtainable in the days of Moses are one and the same rest. And so later in the same epistle we read:
“Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever”.
So the ostensible gap between the old and the new is bridged by way of David’s speaking on a prima facie basis to people who lived well before Christ, while at the same time speaking as one who was the very foreshadow of Christ.
[14] “For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; [15] While it is said, To day if ye will hear His voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.”
Here the writer confirms the Calvinistic principle that one’s membership in Christ is defined from a retrospective basis.
That is, ultimately one is only considered to have ever been in Christ once one has endured to the end in Christ.
That which therefore irresistibly follows is that they who have received within themselves the “earnest” (deposit) of the Spirit (see 2 Cor 5:5), have necessarily received advance notice that the work He has begun in them He will also finish in them. For the indwelling Spirit constitutes the pragmatic of the Word.
And thus we read:
“hope maketh not ashamed [(the hope God has implanted in us shall not mislead us to a disappointing end)]; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us” Rom 5:5.
[16] “For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. [17] But with whom was He grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? [18] And to whom sware He that they should not enter into His rest, but to them that believed not? [19] So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.”
The writer reiterates his lesson thus far, drawing once again on the example of those who failed to walk by faith. Thus his manner of teaching accords with what the apostle Paul says to the church at Corinth:
“Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted” 1 Cor 10:6.
And the writer adds force to his argument by way of contrast: it was “not all that came out of Egypt” who displeased God, but only they that believed not.
And we note importantly here at v17 that unbelief is no mere deficiency, but sin.2
Finally, we remind the reader that this “could not enter in” at v19 is not a reference to their not being able to enter into the physical land of Canaan, but to their being barred from entering in to the rest of faith – that which God has earlier referred to as “my rest”.
2 The sin of which he speaks here is not the common kind which manifests spontaneously as a lack of the fruits of the Spirit, but that which is in accord with the writer’s later words at 10:26: “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins”: it is the sin of apostasy. For the writer’s primary intent is that they stay in the body of faith that is Christianity.
Hebrews 4
[1] “Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into His rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.”
A more intimate adjuration this time, introduced via the writer’s inclusion of himself among the theoretically-vulnerable (“Let us … fear” ), and furthered via the more person-particular reference to “any of you”.
[2] “For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.”
Here the writer affirms once again that the rest which he adjures us to enter into, is one and the same as that which those of the OT were adjured to enter into.
For we are told here most definitively that the gospel preached to us was the same as that preached to them. (But see subnote (1) at 3:7-11.)
[3] “For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest:
Some have thought to take this as:
“we which have believed do in the afterlife enter into rest”,
but such is necessarily errant by virtue of the fact that it does not allay the contingency it creates: having believed to date is, on the surface of it, no proof that one will continue to believe in the future.
Given however that there is no contingency indicated, we will derive full import from the writer’s use of the grammatical present-perfect “have believed”, to wit, the believing he speaks of is considered perfect (complete) and therefore inherently predictive of its own perseverance.
And so in his then conjugating such perfect aspect with the present “do enter”, it is emphasised to us that our entering into rest is not future, but concomitant with our believing: it is now.
although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.”
The Living Bible puts this well:
“even though He has been ready and waiting ... since the world began”
That is, and what has now been said repeatedly, the rest of faith into which any enter, knows no boundary of epoch. Thus in this same epistle to the Hebrews we find concerning Moses:
“[he] esteem[ed] the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward” Heb 11:26.
(See subnote (1) under our commentary on 3:7-11.)
[4] “For He spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. [5] And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.”
The writer reinforces what he has just said above.
Specifically, in juxtaposing the notion of God’s having rested “the seventh day” with David’s “If they shall enter into my rest”, he is telling us here at v4,5 that the two apparently-different rests (the first apparently physically-delimited and the second apparently spiritually-delimited), are in fact one and the same rest: they are “my rest”. For He who created the physical, was a spirit, and in God, being a spirit, and being spiritually minded, come together as one.
And so we find further below at v10:
“For he that is entered into His rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from His.”
And thus we understand that God did not create the physical realm with permanency in mind, but simply to demonstrate to us the very vanity we are to shun in Christ, so that "in all things He [(Christ Jesus)] might have the preeminence” Col 1:18.
For is He not Himself our very "New Heavens and New Earth"?
[6] “Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: [7] Again, He limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear His voice, harden not your hearts.”
The writer here intensifies his focus on perseverance, only now the ultimate kind, the perseverance of God.
And so although he begins by referring to the elect and in particular that none of them shall perish (“some must enter therein”), he then moves more directly to the perseverance of God Himself: by way of this “Again” he reinforces to us the fact that it has not been once, but twice, that God has called.
Thus the selflessness of the Father is intimated to us: any otherwise-permanent offending of Him that we might have brought about by way of our not seeing His Son the first time around, was pushed out of the way: God was so pleased with His Son that He just couldn’t resist pointing Him out to us “Again”.
Accordingly the writer has pointed out to us earlier that God’s grace is so great that He is prepared to call every day “Today” (“while it is called To day”), and that therefore, in regard to His grace, and provided we are still physically alive, tomorrow never comes.
And so we are reminded elsewhere that “now is the day of salvation”, and thus we praise God for the nows, for it is the nows which provide for us God’s sea of forgetfulness, heralded most triumphantly in Paul:
“forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,[we] press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus” Phil 3:14.
[8]“For if Jesus [(Joshua?)] had given them rest, then would H[h?]e not afterward have spoken of another day.”
And so we now come to the focal point of the exposition: is the correct rendering of the third word here “Jesus”, or should it be “Joshua”?
Let us examine the underlying logic:
If the correct rendering were “Joshua”, then the writer would have been saying one of two things:
1. “For if the physical rest Joshua provided them qualified as rest in God’s eyes, then God would not have (much later) spoken of another day.”
Negation:
Neither the writer nor those to whom he wrote would have considered the physical rest Joshua provided as that which might have possibly sufficed for rest in God’s eyes, for two reasons:
a) The rest Joshua provided did not last: Israel was constantly in battle up until Solomon, and then after Solomon again: the current ‘Roman Holiday’ they were enjoying hardly qualified as rest.
b) Neither the writer nor those to whom he wrote would have considered physical rest equivalent to spiritual rest. Therefore the writer would not have proposed such an hypothetical.
2. “For if Joshua had actually been successful in providing them with a sustained, permanent, physical rest, then God would not have (much later) spoken of another day.”
Negation:
As per 1(b) above.
Furthermore, this interpretation is particularly problematic in that it has the writer introducing without notice a new stream of thought which would completely contradict his message thus far.
___
The correct rendering is therefore “Jesus”, and chiefly because this “them” to whom the writer here refers, is not a reference to those under Joshua's leadership, but those who shrank back under Moses: it is the same group of people he has been referring to all along.
That is, this 8th verse is reiterative in nature, reinforcing his argument of v6 and earlier. This is clearly seen if we omit the intervening reference to David’s words (v7), which can distract from the flow of meaning:
[6] “they to whom [the gospel] was first preached entered not in [(to God’s spiritual rest provided by that gospel)] because of unbelief: ……..[8] For [(as proof of this let us point out by way of logic that)] if Jesus had [(in fact)] given them rest, then would He not afterward have spoken of another day.”
It is a final (logical) proof which he adds to his preceding argument that God had indeed, without question, not allowed those who shrank back under Moses to enter into His eternal rest of faith.
And thus we also understand the basis from which the writer is arguing: they who have their righteousness in the law (they who promote their own works to God rather than live in the righteousness which is by faith, of whom the Jew is the primary representation), are in God’s eyes of the same ilk as they who shrank back under Moses.
For on a prima facie basis, the king through whom God belatedly revealed the oath He had made against them which fell in the wilderness, was speaking to the entire congregation of Israel under his rule, which congregation was identified by exactly the same law that was over them which fell in the wilderness.
Restating in alternate words
Because this verse constitutes the main focus of our exposition, it is worth stating what we have just pointed out, in alternate words.
If the rendering were “Joshua”, then the writer’s argument were manifestly disjoint:
Summary of text preceding 4:8:
“The people under Moses with whom God was angry did not enter God’s rest."
4:8:
"For if Joshua had given the people under himself God's rest, then God would not have spoken of another day."
The verse begins with “For”, putting us on notice that what is about to be said will cap off what is precursor to it. But we see that if the rendering is “Joshua” there is in fact no precursory argument, and therefore a disconnect between 4:8 and what precedes it.
By contrast, note the logical flow of meaning when the rendering is "Jesus":
Summary of text preceding 4:8:
“The people under Moses with whom God was angry did not enter God’s rest."
4:8:
"For if Jesus had given them (those same people) His rest, then He (Jesus) would not have spoken of another day.”
All the writer is doing is reinforcing his argument thus far: he is not all of a sudden wandering off to a disjoint type which might without notice focus our attention on those who eventually went in to Canaan, but continuing to anchor his argument to the example provided by those who fell in the wilderness, making sure that his readers in no uncertain terms understand that Jesus had in fact, without question, refused to give spiritual rest to the faithless. For his intent in these two chapters is to warn us not to shrink back from the faith.
And if that were not enough to prove our point, if the rendering were “Joshua” then the writer would be for some strange reason and without notice attempting to dispense with an idea which would not have been in the minds of his readers: none of them would have considered Joshua to be able to provide spiritual rest anyway!
So the reason the rendering cannot be “Joshua” is in fact multi-layered.
The issue consists solely in logic and discourse analysis. Any consideration of types will constitute an extra-textual imposition born of presumption rather than exegesis.
For the issue we must keep in mind, is not our understanding of complementary truths which might accompany the writer’s argument in a broad and general sense, but what the exact rendering of the word in focus is according to the writer's exact argument.
Argument consists in logic and the logical flow of premises that make it up. We have demonstrated by logical analysis that the rendering cannot possibly be “Joshua”.
[9] “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.”
Those who render v3 incorrectly (see our commentary under that verse), necessarily take this “remaineth” here at v9 to mean “remains to come”.
But in accord with our refutation of the same idea at v3, it is rather a reference to that which is left over after abstraction of opposing argument: “having dispensed with all the alternatives, this is the truth that is left over”.
That is, and once again, those in Christ are at rest.
[10] “For he that is entered into His rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from His.”
Again, we who are in Christ are permanently at rest, for we are joined to Him who has sat down at the right hand of the Father. (1 Cor 6:17, Heb 1:3, 10:12.)
(See also our commentary on v4 which incorporates this v10.)
[11] “Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.”
The wording in the principle clause here tends to mislead people, and in general those people who consider v3 and v9 to be speaking of a rest in the after life: they think this “Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest” indicates a call to effort here on earth to be rewarded with a rest from that effort in the afterlife.
But rather, they who so render the passage, are not properly in the rest that is the property of the Body of Christ.
For the rest we will have in heaven, will consist of knowing fully who we are in Christ, and so then fully realising our position beside Him as His Queen. It is not a rest from suffering, for the true believer considers that “the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us” (Rom 8:18), but rather a rest from the work of self effort which naturally occurs in the lives of those who are not personally assured of the righteousness which is by faith.
Our rest in heaven will therefore be an infinite measure of the same rest we have in part right now in Christ. (See 1 Cor 13:9,10.) That is, for the believer eternity has already begun.
And so we are told at Ephesians 2:6 that He has already (now) “made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus”, and remind ourselves that to be seated, is a position of rest.
But let us look further, only now at the grammar:
We have mentioned earlier that this word “enter” is necessary to indicate the fact that the rest we have received is not naturally our own property - not naturally of our own domain - but the domain of Another.
Committing this to memory then, we can delete “enter into that” in order to simplify the issue. So:
“Let us labour therefore to rest”
and then deleting the conjunction:
“Let us labour to rest”.
Note then that this simplified version does not tell us that we labour so that we will rest afterward, but rather, the verb “labour” is a catenative which takes the infinitive “to rest” not as consequent, but complement: it is saying “let us make effort to rest”.
That is, our rest is not that which might succeed any labour, but the very substance of such labour.
So we see that the writer here is employing an eloquent play on words for the purposes of amplifying the rest which we enter into: this “labour to rest” is similar in oxymoronic play to James’ “law of liberty”.
In short, the writer to the Hebrews is saying that the rest of which he speaks is a rest so absolute, that any work to get to it, is necessarily subsumed by it.
Amen.
___________________________________
HEBREWS 4:8: “JESUS”, NOT “JOSHUA”
Background
“For if Jesus [Joshua?] had given them rest, then would H[h?]e not afterward have spoken of another day” Hebrews 4:8.
By virtue of the fact that the Hebrew for the English "Joshua", and the Greek for the English "Jesus", converge in the Greek into the latter (Greek) instance, bible translators are technically permitted to declare the referent of such Greek word at Hebrews 4:8 to be Joshua rather than Jesus.
They do this in particular because they reason that the writer is referring to the time in the wilderness under Moses and the subsequent entering in to Canaan under Joshua, as a type for our having moved from darkness into light under Christ.
Such story can no doubt be used as a type when the occasion demands, but the intent of the writer here at chapters 3 and 4 is not to relate that which essentially goes without saying, but rather to warn us not to shrink back from the faith.
He is therefore in fact not employing any symbolism at all, but simply using those faithless under Moses about whom God belatedly swore through David that they would not enter His spiritual rest, as an example for us not to follow. Our proof that the correct rendering of the word in focus is "Jesus", will be accordingly and rightfully predicated on this basis.
Because it is not possible to provide an authoritative rendering of the word under consideration without considering it in context, we start some way before at 3:7, and conclude some way after at 4:11.
Hebrews 3
In the first 6 verses of this chapter, the writer refers to the faithfulness of Christ toward us in order to invoke the reciprocal: faithfulness of us toward Christ.
He then proceeds to ‘drill down’ into the matter, using the story of those unfaithful under Moses, as examples of what we are not to be:
[7] “Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear His voice, [8] Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: [9] When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. [10] Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. [11] So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)”
And so the writer quotes David’s Psalm 95 here as proof that those who shrank back from going into the promised land when the opportunity was presented them, were one and the same people who did not enter into God’s rest.
Two vital things therefore need to be emphasised up front with regard to the intent of this exposition:
1. The rest referred to is not a carnal resting in the land of Canaan, but “my rest” . That is, God is speaking of the rest of faith, which is ultimately salvifically-oriented: it is a rest pertaining not to things temporal, but things eternal.
We therefore need to be on guard against mistaking this “enter” mentioned here at v11 as that which might refer to entry into the physical land of Canaan. Rather, the word “enter” is necessarily used because the believer’s rest emanates not from himself but another, even Christ, and thus cannot be thought of as his own natural ‘property’.
Accordingly, the revealing of the fact that God had uttered such oath, was reserved for the mouth of him who would be the foreshadow of Christ, David.
2. Commensurately, the implication in God’s displeasure toward those faithless is that such rest had been at least theoretically obtainable by them up until the point of their displeasing of Him, and conversely, that it had actually been obtained by those with whom He was not displeased.1
1 Although the spiritual rest partaken of by such as Moses and David was more a matter of state than knowledge and therefore not that which would have revealed to them the whys and wherefores of that rest as revealed in the New Testament scriptures, it was nonetheless one and the same rest as that into which we of the revealed-NT period have entered into. For the rest we have entered into consists firstly and foremostly of absence of enmity with God. (See also our comments at 3:12, 4:2, 4:3 part 2.)
[12] “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. [13] But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.”
The writer here comes right to his main intent: we are to stand fast in the faith.
And we note here his affirmation of what we have just pointed out in the footnote above: in his perpetualising of David’s “Today” (“while it is called Today”), he necessarily shows that the rest obtainable today and the rest obtainable in the days of Moses are one and the same rest. And so later in the same epistle we read:
“Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever”.
So the ostensible gap between the old and the new is bridged by way of David’s speaking on a prima facie basis to people who lived well before Christ, while at the same time speaking as one who was the very foreshadow of Christ.
[14] “For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; [15] While it is said, To day if ye will hear His voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.”
Here the writer confirms the Calvinistic principle that one’s membership in Christ is defined from a retrospective basis.
That is, ultimately one is only considered to have ever been in Christ once one has endured to the end in Christ.
That which therefore irresistibly follows is that they who have received within themselves the “earnest” (deposit) of the Spirit (see 2 Cor 5:5), have necessarily received advance notice that the work He has begun in them He will also finish in them. For the indwelling Spirit constitutes the pragmatic of the Word.
And thus we read:
“hope maketh not ashamed [(the hope God has implanted in us shall not mislead us to a disappointing end)]; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us” Rom 5:5.
[16] “For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. [17] But with whom was He grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? [18] And to whom sware He that they should not enter into His rest, but to them that believed not? [19] So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.”
The writer reiterates his lesson thus far, drawing once again on the example of those who failed to walk by faith. Thus his manner of teaching accords with what the apostle Paul says to the church at Corinth:
“Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted” 1 Cor 10:6.
And the writer adds force to his argument by way of contrast: it was “not all that came out of Egypt” who displeased God, but only they that believed not.
And we note importantly here at v17 that unbelief is no mere deficiency, but sin.2
Finally, we remind the reader that this “could not enter in” at v19 is not a reference to their not being able to enter into the physical land of Canaan, but to their being barred from entering in to the rest of faith – that which God has earlier referred to as “my rest”.
2 The sin of which he speaks here is not the common kind which manifests spontaneously as a lack of the fruits of the Spirit, but that which is in accord with the writer’s later words at 10:26: “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins”: it is the sin of apostasy. For the writer’s primary intent is that they stay in the body of faith that is Christianity.
Hebrews 4
[1] “Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into His rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.”
A more intimate adjuration this time, introduced via the writer’s inclusion of himself among the theoretically-vulnerable (“Let us … fear” ), and furthered via the more person-particular reference to “any of you”.
[2] “For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.”
Here the writer affirms once again that the rest which he adjures us to enter into, is one and the same as that which those of the OT were adjured to enter into.
For we are told here most definitively that the gospel preached to us was the same as that preached to them. (But see subnote (1) at 3:7-11.)
[3] “For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest:
Some have thought to take this as:
“we which have believed do in the afterlife enter into rest”,
but such is necessarily errant by virtue of the fact that it does not allay the contingency it creates: having believed to date is, on the surface of it, no proof that one will continue to believe in the future.
Given however that there is no contingency indicated, we will derive full import from the writer’s use of the grammatical present-perfect “have believed”, to wit, the believing he speaks of is considered perfect (complete) and therefore inherently predictive of its own perseverance.
And so in his then conjugating such perfect aspect with the present “do enter”, it is emphasised to us that our entering into rest is not future, but concomitant with our believing: it is now.
although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.”
The Living Bible puts this well:
“even though He has been ready and waiting ... since the world began”
That is, and what has now been said repeatedly, the rest of faith into which any enter, knows no boundary of epoch. Thus in this same epistle to the Hebrews we find concerning Moses:
“[he] esteem[ed] the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward” Heb 11:26.
(See subnote (1) under our commentary on 3:7-11.)
[4] “For He spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. [5] And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.”
The writer reinforces what he has just said above.
Specifically, in juxtaposing the notion of God’s having rested “the seventh day” with David’s “If they shall enter into my rest”, he is telling us here at v4,5 that the two apparently-different rests (the first apparently physically-delimited and the second apparently spiritually-delimited), are in fact one and the same rest: they are “my rest”. For He who created the physical, was a spirit, and in God, being a spirit, and being spiritually minded, come together as one.
And so we find further below at v10:
“For he that is entered into His rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from His.”
And thus we understand that God did not create the physical realm with permanency in mind, but simply to demonstrate to us the very vanity we are to shun in Christ, so that "in all things He [(Christ Jesus)] might have the preeminence” Col 1:18.
For is He not Himself our very "New Heavens and New Earth"?
[6] “Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: [7] Again, He limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear His voice, harden not your hearts.”
The writer here intensifies his focus on perseverance, only now the ultimate kind, the perseverance of God.
And so although he begins by referring to the elect and in particular that none of them shall perish (“some must enter therein”), he then moves more directly to the perseverance of God Himself: by way of this “Again” he reinforces to us the fact that it has not been once, but twice, that God has called.
Thus the selflessness of the Father is intimated to us: any otherwise-permanent offending of Him that we might have brought about by way of our not seeing His Son the first time around, was pushed out of the way: God was so pleased with His Son that He just couldn’t resist pointing Him out to us “Again”.
Accordingly the writer has pointed out to us earlier that God’s grace is so great that He is prepared to call every day “Today” (“while it is called To day”), and that therefore, in regard to His grace, and provided we are still physically alive, tomorrow never comes.
And so we are reminded elsewhere that “now is the day of salvation”, and thus we praise God for the nows, for it is the nows which provide for us God’s sea of forgetfulness, heralded most triumphantly in Paul:
“forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,[we] press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus” Phil 3:14.
[8]“For if Jesus [(Joshua?)] had given them rest, then would H[h?]e not afterward have spoken of another day.”
And so we now come to the focal point of the exposition: is the correct rendering of the third word here “Jesus”, or should it be “Joshua”?
Let us examine the underlying logic:
If the correct rendering were “Joshua”, then the writer would have been saying one of two things:
1. “For if the physical rest Joshua provided them qualified as rest in God’s eyes, then God would not have (much later) spoken of another day.”
Negation:
Neither the writer nor those to whom he wrote would have considered the physical rest Joshua provided as that which might have possibly sufficed for rest in God’s eyes, for two reasons:
a) The rest Joshua provided did not last: Israel was constantly in battle up until Solomon, and then after Solomon again: the current ‘Roman Holiday’ they were enjoying hardly qualified as rest.
b) Neither the writer nor those to whom he wrote would have considered physical rest equivalent to spiritual rest. Therefore the writer would not have proposed such an hypothetical.
2. “For if Joshua had actually been successful in providing them with a sustained, permanent, physical rest, then God would not have (much later) spoken of another day.”
Negation:
As per 1(b) above.
Furthermore, this interpretation is particularly problematic in that it has the writer introducing without notice a new stream of thought which would completely contradict his message thus far.
___
The correct rendering is therefore “Jesus”, and chiefly because this “them” to whom the writer here refers, is not a reference to those under Joshua's leadership, but those who shrank back under Moses: it is the same group of people he has been referring to all along.
That is, this 8th verse is reiterative in nature, reinforcing his argument of v6 and earlier. This is clearly seen if we omit the intervening reference to David’s words (v7), which can distract from the flow of meaning:
[6] “they to whom [the gospel] was first preached entered not in [(to God’s spiritual rest provided by that gospel)] because of unbelief: ……..[8] For [(as proof of this let us point out by way of logic that)] if Jesus had [(in fact)] given them rest, then would He not afterward have spoken of another day.”
It is a final (logical) proof which he adds to his preceding argument that God had indeed, without question, not allowed those who shrank back under Moses to enter into His eternal rest of faith.
And thus we also understand the basis from which the writer is arguing: they who have their righteousness in the law (they who promote their own works to God rather than live in the righteousness which is by faith, of whom the Jew is the primary representation), are in God’s eyes of the same ilk as they who shrank back under Moses.
For on a prima facie basis, the king through whom God belatedly revealed the oath He had made against them which fell in the wilderness, was speaking to the entire congregation of Israel under his rule, which congregation was identified by exactly the same law that was over them which fell in the wilderness.
Restating in alternate words
Because this verse constitutes the main focus of our exposition, it is worth stating what we have just pointed out, in alternate words.
If the rendering were “Joshua”, then the writer’s argument were manifestly disjoint:
Summary of text preceding 4:8:
“The people under Moses with whom God was angry did not enter God’s rest."
4:8:
"For if Joshua had given the people under himself God's rest, then God would not have spoken of another day."
The verse begins with “For”, putting us on notice that what is about to be said will cap off what is precursor to it. But we see that if the rendering is “Joshua” there is in fact no precursory argument, and therefore a disconnect between 4:8 and what precedes it.
By contrast, note the logical flow of meaning when the rendering is "Jesus":
Summary of text preceding 4:8:
“The people under Moses with whom God was angry did not enter God’s rest."
4:8:
"For if Jesus had given them (those same people) His rest, then He (Jesus) would not have spoken of another day.”
All the writer is doing is reinforcing his argument thus far: he is not all of a sudden wandering off to a disjoint type which might without notice focus our attention on those who eventually went in to Canaan, but continuing to anchor his argument to the example provided by those who fell in the wilderness, making sure that his readers in no uncertain terms understand that Jesus had in fact, without question, refused to give spiritual rest to the faithless. For his intent in these two chapters is to warn us not to shrink back from the faith.
And if that were not enough to prove our point, if the rendering were “Joshua” then the writer would be for some strange reason and without notice attempting to dispense with an idea which would not have been in the minds of his readers: none of them would have considered Joshua to be able to provide spiritual rest anyway!
So the reason the rendering cannot be “Joshua” is in fact multi-layered.
The issue consists solely in logic and discourse analysis. Any consideration of types will constitute an extra-textual imposition born of presumption rather than exegesis.
For the issue we must keep in mind, is not our understanding of complementary truths which might accompany the writer’s argument in a broad and general sense, but what the exact rendering of the word in focus is according to the writer's exact argument.
Argument consists in logic and the logical flow of premises that make it up. We have demonstrated by logical analysis that the rendering cannot possibly be “Joshua”.
[9] “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.”
Those who render v3 incorrectly (see our commentary under that verse), necessarily take this “remaineth” here at v9 to mean “remains to come”.
But in accord with our refutation of the same idea at v3, it is rather a reference to that which is left over after abstraction of opposing argument: “having dispensed with all the alternatives, this is the truth that is left over”.
That is, and once again, those in Christ are at rest.
[10] “For he that is entered into His rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from His.”
Again, we who are in Christ are permanently at rest, for we are joined to Him who has sat down at the right hand of the Father. (1 Cor 6:17, Heb 1:3, 10:12.)
(See also our commentary on v4 which incorporates this v10.)
[11] “Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.”
The wording in the principle clause here tends to mislead people, and in general those people who consider v3 and v9 to be speaking of a rest in the after life: they think this “Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest” indicates a call to effort here on earth to be rewarded with a rest from that effort in the afterlife.
But rather, they who so render the passage, are not properly in the rest that is the property of the Body of Christ.
For the rest we will have in heaven, will consist of knowing fully who we are in Christ, and so then fully realising our position beside Him as His Queen. It is not a rest from suffering, for the true believer considers that “the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us” (Rom 8:18), but rather a rest from the work of self effort which naturally occurs in the lives of those who are not personally assured of the righteousness which is by faith.
Our rest in heaven will therefore be an infinite measure of the same rest we have in part right now in Christ. (See 1 Cor 13:9,10.) That is, for the believer eternity has already begun.
And so we are told at Ephesians 2:6 that He has already (now) “made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus”, and remind ourselves that to be seated, is a position of rest.
But let us look further, only now at the grammar:
We have mentioned earlier that this word “enter” is necessary to indicate the fact that the rest we have received is not naturally our own property - not naturally of our own domain - but the domain of Another.
Committing this to memory then, we can delete “enter into that” in order to simplify the issue. So:
“Let us labour therefore to rest”
and then deleting the conjunction:
“Let us labour to rest”.
Note then that this simplified version does not tell us that we labour so that we will rest afterward, but rather, the verb “labour” is a catenative which takes the infinitive “to rest” not as consequent, but complement: it is saying “let us make effort to rest”.
That is, our rest is not that which might succeed any labour, but the very substance of such labour.
So we see that the writer here is employing an eloquent play on words for the purposes of amplifying the rest which we enter into: this “labour to rest” is similar in oxymoronic play to James’ “law of liberty”.
In short, the writer to the Hebrews is saying that the rest of which he speaks is a rest so absolute, that any work to get to it, is necessarily subsumed by it.
Amen.