Redemption of the Earth.
By Editor
THE only apparent difficulty presented in Paul's argument on "the rest" in Heb. 4, is the change from the use of the Greek word katepausen, rest, to that of sabbatismos, literally "the keeping of a Sabbath," or a sabbath rest, in verse 9. But there is no real difficulty when we consider that Sha-vath and noo-ah are interchanged as verbs. Katepausen properly represents the latter, yet in verse 4, Paul follows the Septuagint and uses katepausen in a quotation from Gen 2:3, where sha-vath is used in the Hebrew. Sabbatismos has a signification, according to the lexicons and the most judicious commentators, beyond literal Sabbath-keeping. Thus Greenfield says: "spoken of an eternal rest with God. Heb. 4:9." Robinson the same: "in N. T. only of an eternal rest with God. Heb 4:9." Dr. Smith, in Bible Dictionary, notices the opinions which have been offered that it refers to the Sabbath, and says: "The objections, however, to this exposition are many and great, and most commentators regard the passage as having no reference to the weekly Sabbath." The Cyclopædia of M'Clintock and Strong has the following: "Sabbatism (sabbatismos, Heb. 4:9, A. V. rest), a repose from labor like that enjoyed by God at creation; a type of the eternal Sabbath of Heaven. See Rest." And of "rest," it says: "Rest also signifies a fixed and secure habitation," and refers to the texts quoted on that subject. The great difficulty in referring Heb. 4:9 to a weekly Sabbath lies in this: it leaves the apostle's argument without any logical conclusion. Although the verse begins with the word "therefore" (in the Greek), if it refers to the weekly Sabbath, it has no logical connection with the argument preceding; certainly no relation to the declaration in verse 8, that if Joshua had given them rest—implying the rest of the promise—he would not afterward have spoken of another day—for receiving it. And this is the view taken by most authorities. Dr. Clarke says:— "The apostle shows that, although Joshua did bring the children of Israel into the promised land, yet this could not be the intended rest; because, long after this time, the Holy Spirit, by David, speaks of this rest; the apostle therefore concludes—verse 9, 'There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.' It was not, 1. The rest of the Sabbath; it was not, 2. The rest in the promised land, for the psalmist wrote long after the days of Joshua; therefore there is another rest, a state of blessedness, for the people of God." Dr. Barnes speaks at length on this subject, and marks clearly the relation of argument and conclusion. We quote briefly. On Heb. 3:11, he says:— "The particular rest referred to here was that of the land of Canaan, but which was undoubtedly regarded as emblematic of the rest in Heaven. Into that rest God solemnly said they should never enter." And on chap. 4:8, 9, he says:— "The object is to prove that Joshua did not give the people of God such a rest as to make it improper to speak of a rest after that time. If Joshua had given them a complete and final rest; if by his conducting them to the promised land all had been done which had been contemplated by the promise, then it would not have been alluded to again, as it was in the time of David. Joshua did give them a rest in the promised land; but it was not all which was intended, and it did not exclude the promise of another and more important rest." "There remaineth, therefore, a rest." This is the conclusion to which the apostle comes. The reasoning is this, that according to the Scriptures there is now a promise of rest made to the people of God. It did not pertain merely to those who were called to go to the promised land, nor to those who lived in the time of David, but it is still true that the promise of rest pertains to all the people of God of every generation. The reasoning by which the apostle comes to this conclusion is briefly this: 1. That there was a rest called "the rest of God"—spoken of in the earliest period of the world,—implying that God meant that it should be enjoyed. 2. That the Israelites, to whom the promise was made, failed of obtaining that which was promised, by their unbelief. 3. That God intended that some should enter into his rest—since it would not be provided in vain. 4. That long after the Israelites had fallen in the wilderness, we find the same reference to a rest which David in his time exhorts those whom he addressed to endeavor to obtain. 5. That if all that had been meant by the word rest, and by the promise, had been accomplished when Joshua conducted the Israelites to the land of Canaan, we should not have heard another day spoken of when it was possible to forfeit that rest by unbelief. It followed, therefore, that there was something besides that; something that pertained to all the people of God to which the name rest might still be given, and which they were exhorted still to obtain. The word rest in this verse, sabbatismos, sabbatism in the margin is rendered "keeping of a Sabbath." It is a different word from sabbaton—the Sabbath; and it occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and is not found in the Septuagint. . . . It means here a resting, or an observance of sacred repose, and refers undoubtedly to Heaven, as a place of eternal rest with God. It cannot mean the rest in the land of Canaan, for the drift of the writer is to prove that that is not intended. It cannot mean the Sabbath, properly so called, for then the writer would have employed the usual word sabbaton, Sabbath. It cannot mean the Christian Sabbath, for the object is not to prove that there is such a day to be observed; and his reasoning about being excluded from it by unbelief and by hardening the heart would be irrelevant." This is a very fair statement of the case, though the writer appears almost to lose sight of the object of the promise in referring it to Heaven. He is certainly correct when he says: "If Joshua had given them a complete and final rest; if by his conducting them to the promised land, all had been done which had been contemplated by the promise, then it would not have been alluded to again." It must be kept in mind that the promise which was not exhausted in their possession of Canaan, was "the promise made of God unto the fathers," especially unto Abraham and to his seed, and embraced "the land of promise," which, according to the New Testament, was "the world," or "the earth,"—the whole earth, or as the angel said to Daniel, "under the whole heaven." To the above we will only add this short remark in the Bible Commentary: "There still remaineth,—is, still to be looked for hereafter, over and above that rest in the land of Canaan." And here we rest the argument, believing that it is abundantly proved that the children of Israel were not all "the seed of Abraham;" that their circumcision in the flesh was not all that was intended in that ordinance; and that a temporary possession by Abraham's natural descendants of the land of Palestine, was not all that was meant in the promise that he and his seed should inherit it for an everlasting possession. The promises to Abraham will be fulfilled only when "the meek shall inherit the earth, and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace."