p. 204 | THE "REST" OF HEB. IV by Ellet Joseph Waggoner

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 27, 1862

THE "REST" OF HEB. IV.

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

It has long been the opinion of some that the Sabbath of the Lord was a figure or type of the rest that remains for the people of God, and that the obligation to observe it ceased with the passing away of the Levitical ceremonies. We are obliged to dissent from both the premise and conclusion.

Were it proved or admitted that the Sabbath was used as a figure of our future rest, that fact would not render it conclusive that it was therefore no longer a duty to observe it. Things may be instituted as types, and depend on that relation for their existence, as the feasts, &c., of the Mosaic dispensation, or things may be used as figures where such use was not the object of their institution or creation, and their being used as figures does not destroy any other relation or supercede any other use for which they were created. All must admit that the woman is used as a figure of the church of Christ, especially in Eph. v, yet no one could be found who would assert that therefore other uses for which woman was created were superseded. Paul said of the woman precisely what Jesus said of the Sabbath—she was made for the man. But the woman is used as a figure of the church, and she is yet for man as much as she was or could be before being so used as a figure. The Sabbath also was made for the man, and if it were used as a figure of our future rest, would it not be quite as reasonable to conclude that it is yet for the man, as that the woman is after being so used as a figure.

We have always contended, and we think with good reason, that no types were instituted till after the fall of man. Reference has been made to Rom. v, 14, to disprove this position. But we think the text will not serve that purpose. It says of Adam: "who is the figure of him that was to come." But this is far from being proof that Adam was created a typical man. But more than this, to make it serve the purpose of the objector against the Sabbath, it must be assumed that Adam was created for the sole purpose of being a type of Christ, and when Christ came, man was superseded—done away—abolished! But this is beyond the objector's intention; of course he will have to fall back on our position, that he was only used as a figure of Christ because both were representatives; and that such a use of Adam did not destroy his manhood—his accountability, or change any moral relation. Is it not then assuming too much to say that a similar use of the Sabbath would destroy its sabbatic nature and neutralize all its relations? Thus we see that unnecessary conclusions are drawn from the assumption that the Sabbath was used as a type.

But we are not ready to admit that the Sabbath is used as a figure in Heb. iv; the Rest that remains having its own appropriate type in that connection. Whatever this rest was, it is evident that the Lord swears they should not enter into it, and they did not enter it by reason of unbelief. Neither of these declarations can be referred to the Sabbath; for, it would be strange indeed if the Lord, after commanding them to keep the Sabbath, under such fearful penalties, should afterward swear in his wrath they should not keep it, and still enforce its observance by the teachings of the prophets. Absurd as this idea is, it is the real position of those who teach that the Sabbath was the rest referred to in Ps. xcv, as quoted by the

Apostle in Heb. iii. Again, Paul says they did not obtain it by reason of unbelief; but they did keep the Sabbath; therefore the Sabbath was not the rest referred to. And we shall find on examination that this rest was given to them by Joshua, (Heb. iv, 8,) which was not true of the Sabbath.

We notice in the letter under consideration that Paul is arguing to the Hebrews on their own records, reasoning from premises which they all admitted. This course he pursues throughout the book. In chap. iii, he commences the examination of a series of types, beginning with the office of Moses. He says, "Moses verily was faithful in all his house, [house of Israel,] as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after,"—clearly showing the typical nature of his work. "But Christ as a son over his own house; [house or household of faith, true Israel, or Jews inwardly,] whose house are we," [the church] &c. Here we find the things which were to be spoken after. It is evident that the house of Moses bears the same relation to the house of Christ that Moses bears to Christ;—the first is a figure of the second. But in order to prove our right to this title, we must hold fast even to the end, else we shall come short of the rest, even as they who fell in the wilderness. Here commences Paul's comment on the rest, and in chap. iv, 8, another type is introduced; viz., Joshua. As Joshua occupies an important place in this argument, we wish to call particular attention to the work ascribed to him. Paul intimates that Joshua gave them rest, but not the rest contemplated in the promise. But do the Scriptures teach that Joshua gave them rest? They do. See Josh. xxi, 43, 44. "And the Lord gave unto Israel the land which he sware to give unto their fathers, and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. And the Lord gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers, and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them." This rest the Lord gave them by the hand of Joshua. This rest was the peaceable possession of the land of Canaan. Now as Moses was a figure of Christ, and the house of Israel a figure of the church of Christ, so was Joshua a figure of Christ, and the rest that Joshua gave the house of Israel in Canaan, is a figure of the rest that remains for the people of God, which Christ, the captain of our salvation, will give us when our pilgrimage here is ended. We think there can be no dispute as to four types being introduced here. Moses, Joshua, Israel and the Rest. To enter into this (typical) rest the children of Israel were called out of Egypt. But both Moses and Paul record the fact that they who came out of Egypt never saw that rest. And why? Because, by reason of their unbelief their "carcasses fell in the wilderness." This fact seems entirely to have escaped the notice of those who claim that the seventh-day Sabbath was that rest. The facts we have traced out are decisive on this point, thus:

They did not obtain this rest because of unbelief. But they did have the Sabbath and rested upon it. They could not enter into this rest because they fell in the wilderness. But they did observe the Sabbath during their whole sojourn in the wilderness. Those who received that rest, received it by the hand of Joshua. But the Sabbath was never given by or through Joshua.

Therefore it is again and again proved that the Sabbath was not the rest referred to in this scripture, and was not the figure of the rest that remains to the people of God.

But the oath of Jehovah referred to by David and Paul, may be considered the main proof of this position, and utterly subversive of the position of our opponents. This is recorded by Moses in Deut. i, 34, 35, in the following words:

"And the Lord heard the voice of your words, and was wroth, and sware, saying, Surely there shall not one of these men of this evil generation see that good land, which I sware to give unto your fathers, save Caleb," &c. Here is the generation with which he was grieved; here is the oath which he sware; and here is the rest which they did not see, or enter into. But Caleb, Joshua, and the children of the rebellious ones received it, according to the words of the Lord in Deut. i, as we have proved by quoting Josh. xxi. We think this point is settled beyond controversy.

The antitype of this rest is the promised land, the everlasting inheritance which Jesus will bestow on his people. It is the new earth which the meek shall inherit, the world to come, of which the seed of Abraham is the heir, and his people are joint-heirs with him. In considering this antitype we shall notice two points in the Apostle's argument. 1. This inheritance was prepared in the past. 2. Its possession is future.

1. That it was prepared in the past he affirms; and from the foundation of the world. This affirmation he proves by quoting Gen. ii, 2. And here we notice another error into which our opponents have fallen. They say the Apostle here gives a comment on the seventh day. He does not comment at all on the seventh day, but quotes Gen. ii, 2, as a proof text to sustain his affirmation. In this, Paul only connects the purpose of God in creating the world with his future purpose to restore it to its Eden state, and bestow it upon his people. Many separate these, and find no connection between the past creation and the future redemption. This error has doubtless grown out of another, viz., that the future inheritance of the saints is some far off place, some imaginary Paradise, to which souls fly away when released from this earth. But God made the earth "to be inhabited"—he made it for man; and though man toils and contends with thorns and thistles a little while, and then returns to the ground from whence he was taken, God's plan is not to be frustrated; the inheritance is only marred, not destroyed. His work was complete when the earth was made, for if God rested from all his work, it proves that all his work was finished from the foundation of the world—the time when he rested.

What is said of the inheritance is also said of the kingdom, and it may cast light on this subject to refer to that. We are said to be heirs of the kingdom; it is yet a subject of promise; it is to be set up in the future, and yet the Saviour says it was prepared from the foundation of the world. Matt. xxv. 34. True, the diadem has been removed, and the throne overturned. Eze. xxi, 26, 27; but the "first dominion" shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem. Compare Micah. iv, 8, and Gen. i, 26, 28. Hence, the kingdom was prepared from the foundation of the world; it was lost and subverted for a time, but the original purpose is kept in view, and will be accomplished when it is restored and "given to the people of the saints of the most high." Dan. vii, 27. And so of the inheritance, "that good land," the "land of rest" which God has promised to his faithful ones; it was made for man, made very good, and thus prepared from the foundation of the world. Now it is marred; defiled by its inhabitants, and groaning under the curse. But the original purpose is here also kept in view, and will be accomplished when the purchased possession shall be redeemed, or brought back to its original purity. Eph. i, 14.

2. Its possession is future. This the Apostle proves by quoting from David, wherein the people are warned against the sins of their fathers, by the commission of which they would lose the promised rest. The argument of the Apostle may be presented thus: Rest was given to Israel by Joshua, which was the peaceable possession of the land of Canaan; that was not the true rest promised to the people of God, but only a type. For, if that were the real rest of the promise, the children of Israel were enjoying it in the days of David; but if they were then enjoying it, why warn them of the example of their fathers? seeing there was no liability of coming short of that which they already possessed. But they were so warned, and a certain day in the future is "limited" or spoken of in David; but it is evident that Joshua did not give them in the past that for which they are led to look in the future. Therefore the rest of Joshua was typical, and the true rest remains to be inherited by the people of God.

This I think is the true sense of this scripture. It harmonizes the various passages referred to, and all the facts in the case, with the oath of the Lord, which must control all our views on this subject. Let it then be our care so to keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus, that we may at last "see that good land," and enjoy rest in that inheritance which is incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away.

J. H. WAGGONER.