I am fully persuaded that the syntax of Hebrews 4:8-10 requires reading Ἰησοῦς of the Greek New Testament not only as the subject of the first verb, “he had given them rest” (κατέπαυσεν), but also the second verb, “he would not have spoken” (ἐλάλει) and as the antecedent subject of the participle “the one who entered” (ὁ εἰσελθὼν) and the verb “he entered” (κατέπαυσεν), and as the clear antecedent of both uses of the third-person personal pronoun “his” (αὐτοῦ). Thus, the syntax compels us to translate Ἰησοῦς as Jesus rather than Joshua, as modern English translations do.
- [(NA26] Εἰ γὰρ αὐτοὺς Ἰησοῦς κατέπαυσεν, οὐκ ἂν περὶ ἄλλης ἐλάλει μετὰ ταῦτα ἡμέρας· ἄρα ἀπολείπεται σαββατισμὸς τῷ λαῷ τοῦ θεοῦ. ὁ γὰρ εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς κατέπαυσεν ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ ὥσπερ ἀπὸ τῶν ἰδίων ὁ θεός.
- [KJV] For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into hisrest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
- [My translation] For if Jesus had given them rest, then he would not have spoken later of another day. Therefore, there remains a rest for God’s people. For the one who entered into his rest also rested from his own works, as God did from his.
- [ESV] For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.
The ESV, which is representative of other modern English translations, should be, on the face of it, judged unequivocally and embarrassingly wrong. By taking Ἰησοῦς as Joshua, the ESV rejected Ἰησοῦς (Jesus) as the subject of the next verb, would not have spoken, and, contrary to the syntax, forcibly injected God as the subject of that verb. Once the translators committed to translating Ἰησοῦς as Joshua, they were constrained by reason to impose God as the subject of would not have spoken because Joshua, unlike Jesus, was already dead long before David came on the scene and wrote Psalm 95. Thus, Joshua could not be the subject of the verb would not have spoken. Against the ESV, Ἰησοῦς, as Jesus, is the only viable and correct actor of the verb would not have spoken because he is eternal. He was contemporaneous not only with the rebellious Israelites at Kadesh Barnea, where they rebelled, but also with David when he wrote his psalms. Thus, the entirely natural actor for the verb would not have spoken (ἐλάλει) is Jesus, not God, as the ESV is constrained to say because of the choice already made concerning Ἰησοῦς. When the ESV translators get to verse 10, they make an astonishing and inexplicable move. They treat the aorist substantival participle, “the one who entered” (ὁ εἰσελθὼν), whose antecedent is clearly Ἰησοῦς (Jesus), as an indefinite and timeless participle, generically referring to people who believe in Christ Jesus. Then, in place of the unambiguous use of the third-person personal pronoun “his” (αὐτοῦ), which clearly has Ἰησοῦς as its antecedent, the ESV translators arbitrarily reach to the end of verse 10 to take God (ὁ θεός) and forcibly move it forward, interjecting God as the possessor of the rest in place of Ἰησοῦς who is the only proper antecedent of the one who has entered “his” (αὐτοῦ) rest. Then, again, the ESV translators force the indefinite, generically referred-to believer as the subject of the verb has also rested (κατέπαυσεν) and also as the antecedent of the next use of “his” (αὐτοῦ).
The ESV translation is untenable. It is profoundly misleading syntactically and exegetically disruptive to the flow of the argument begun in Hebrews 3 and spanning chapter 4. It begs for correction. The KJV got it right in 1611, but exegetes have gotten it wrong. Here is how Hebrews 4:8-10 should be translated today: “For if Jesus had given them rest, then he would not have spoken later of another day. Therefore, there remains a rest for God’s people. For the one who entered into his rest also rested from his own works, as God did from his.”
To read Ἰησοῦς as Joshua in Hebrews 4:8 breaks the comparison/contrast with which Hebrews 3 so emphatically begins by presenting Moses as a faithful servant in God’s house, contrasted with Jesus as the faithful Son over God’s house. The Preacher builds on his hearers’ knowledge that Moses led the Israelites, who left Egypt, to the land of rest, even sending spies into the land, but he could not lead the people into rest because of their rebellion at Kadesh Barnea. (For a different incident and reason, even Moses did not enter the land.) Certainly, the Preacher realizes that Joshua led the younger generation into the land, and surely he is aware that the Lord gave them rest in the land. But he never mentions that entry into the land and lets David’s words of Psalm 95–“Today if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts,” coupled with “As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter my rest,’”–clarify that the words of Joshua 21:43-44–“the Lord gave them rest on every side”–does not exhaust the promise of rest because, anyone who has properly engaged Israel’s story should know that the land with its rest was but an earthly shadow of the great heavenly reality of the rest the Greater Moses, the Son over God’s house, would bring about in the latter days.
I think that the Preacher knew precisely what he was doing by using the earthly name, Ἰησοῦς, instead of the title, Χριστός (Messiah), when he wrote 4:8. Indeed, as most commentators affirm, Joshua the son of Nun certainly is a type of Jesus, but the Preacher arrests his hearers attention, obliging them to hear in his mention of Ἰησοῦς not Joshua the son of Nun but Jesus/Joshua God’s Son who is greater than both Joshua and Moses. How is this Ἰησοῦς greater than both Joshua and Moses? He was present when that rebellious generation refused to enter the land at Kadesh Barnea and find rest. He was also present when David wrote his psalm. In fact, the words David wrote belong to this Ἰησοῦς as the Preacher affirms by attributing David’s words (“Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts”) to Ἰησοῦς.
I believe that acknowledging that Ἰησοῦς in 4:8 refers to Jesus Christ, God’s Son, rather than to Joshua the son of Nun, greatly assists us in showing the error of “prosopological exegesis.” Craig Carter, Matthew Bates, Madison Pierce, et al. are mistaken to speak of “prosopological exegesis.” The Preacher does not put the various psalmists’ words into the mouth of God or of Jesus. Rather, the Preacher’s argument, from the sermon’s proposition (Hebrews 4:1-4) forward, hangs on the weighty Christology he unfolds. Jesus was there at the Israelites’ rebellion. Jesus was the one of whom the psalms spoke. Jesus was there in David’s writing of his psalms. Jesus was speaking through David’s psalms. Jesus was there to receive all the accolades of the several psalms he cites in Hebrews 1, but the Preacher doesn’t tell us this. He holds readers at bay until 2:8-9 to break it to his readers about whom all those glorious accolades have been spoken. And when he does, he underscores the already-but-not-yet nature of the situation by accentuating the lowliness of the one now highly esteemed, but not yet is everything in subjection to him. The Preacher doesn’t give us his prophesied title, Messiah (Christ). He gives us his lowly, earthly name, Jesus, but not immediately.
“Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone” (Hebrews 2:8-9).
Thus, the Preacher brings our minds back to this point when he states, “Therefore, holy brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession, who was faithful to him who appointed him, just as Moses also was faithful in all God’s house. For Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses—as much more glory as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself” (Hebrews 3:1-4). Likewise, the Preacher returns to these two earlier mentions of Jesus when he states, “For if Jesus had given them rest, then he would not have spoken later of another day” (Hebrews 4:9). Yes, his point in each of these passages is Christological, but expressed for readers as “Jesusology.” The Preacher insists that we think of Jesus as the one the Father addresses in the psalms cited in chapter 1, the one who took on flesh and blood for us, the one who is worthy of greater glory than Moses, and the one who spoke through David of another day of promised rest to be entered in these last days.