Show Bible Commentary For A Bible Verse

Click here to show/hide instructions.

Selected Verse: Hebrews 4:8 - King James

Verse	Translation	Text
Heb 4:8	King James	For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

Summary Of Commentaries Associated With The Selected Verse

Open All | Close All Open All | Close All

A Commentary, Critical, Practical, and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments, by Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset and David Brown [1882]
Answer to the objection which might be made to his reasoning, namely, that those brought into Canaan by Joshua (so "Jesus" here means, as in Act 7:45) did enter the rest of God. If the rest of God meant Canaan, God would not after their entrance into that land, have spoken (or speak [ALFORD]) of another (future) day of entering the rest.

A Commentary, Critical, Practical, and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments, by Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset and David Brown [1882]

Answer to the objection which might be made to his reasoning, namely, that those brought into Canaan by Joshua (so "Jesus" here means, as in Act 7:45) did enter the rest of God. If the rest of God meant Canaan, God would not after their entrance into that land, have spoken (or speak [ALFORD]) of another (future) day of entering the rest.

Notes on the Bible, by Albert Barnes, [1834]
For if Jesus - Margin, "That is, Joshua." The Syriac renders it, "Joshua the son of Nun." "Jesus" is the Greek mode of writing "Joshua," and there can be no doubt that Joshua is here intended. 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. Then would he not - Then "God" would not have spoken of another time when that rest could be obtained. The "other day" here referred to is that which is mentioned before by the phrase "today," and refers to the time in which it is spoken of long after Joshua, to wit, in the time of David.

Notes on the Bible, by Albert Barnes, [1834]

For if Jesus - Margin, "That is, Joshua." The Syriac renders it, "Joshua the son of Nun." "Jesus" is the Greek mode of writing "Joshua," and there can be no doubt that Joshua is here intended. 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.

Then would he not - Then "God" would not have spoken of another time when that rest could be obtained. The "other day" here referred to is that which is mentioned before by the phrase "today," and refers to the time in which it is spoken of long after Joshua, to wit, in the time of David.

Vincent's Word Studies, by Marvin R. Vincent [1886]
But it might be said that under Joshua the people did enter into the promised rest. He therefore shows that Israel's rest in Canaan did not fulfill the divine ideal of the rest. Jesus (Ἰησοῦς) Rend. Joshua, and see on Mat 1:21. After this (μετὰ ταῦτα) After the entrance into Canaan under Joshua.

Vincent's Word Studies, by Marvin R. Vincent [1886]

But it might be said that under Joshua the people did enter into the promised rest. He therefore shows that Israel's rest in Canaan did not fulfill the divine ideal of the rest.

Jesus (Ἰησοῦς)

Rend. Joshua, and see on Mat 1:21.

After this (μετὰ ταῦτα)

After the entrance into Canaan under Joshua.

Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, by John Wesley [1754-65]
The rest - All the rest which God had promised.

Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, by John Wesley [1754-65]

The rest - All the rest which God had promised.

Adam Clarke Commentary on the Whole Bible - Published 1810-1826
For if Jesus had given them rest - It is truly surprising that our translators should have rendered the Ιησους of the text Jesus, and not Joshua, who is most clearly intended. They must have known that the יהושע Yehoshua of the Hebrew, which we write Joshua, is everywhere rendered Ιησους, Jesus, by the Septuagint; and it is their reading which the apostle follows. It is true the Septuagint generally write Ιησους Ναυη, or Υἱος Ναυη, Jesus Nave, or Jesus, son of Nave, for it is thus they translate יהושע בן נון Yehoshua ben Nun, Joshua the son of Nun; and this is sufficient to distinguish it from Jesus, son of David. But as Joshua, the captain general of Israel, is above intended, the word should have been written Joshua, and not Jesus. One MS., merely to prevent the wrong application of the name, has Ιησους ὁ του Ναυη, Jesus the son of Nave. Theodoret has the same in his comment, and one Syriac version has it in the text. It is Joshua in Coverdale's Testament, 1535; in Tindal's 1548; in that edited by Edmund Becke, 1549; in Richard Cardmarden's, Rouen, 1565; several modern translators, Wesley, Macknight, Wakefield, etc., read Joshua, as does our own in the margin. What a pity it had not been in the text, as all the smaller Bibles have no marginal readings, and many simple people are bewildered with the expression. 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,

Adam Clarke Commentary on the Whole Bible - Published 1810-1826

For if Jesus had given them rest - It is truly surprising that our translators should have rendered the Ιησους of the text Jesus, and not Joshua, who is most clearly intended. They must have known that the יהושע Yehoshua of the Hebrew, which we write Joshua, is everywhere rendered Ιησους, Jesus, by the Septuagint; and it is their reading which the apostle follows. It is true the Septuagint generally write Ιησους Ναυη, or Υἱος Ναυη, Jesus Nave, or Jesus, son of Nave, for it is thus they translate יהושע בן נון Yehoshua ben Nun, Joshua the son of Nun; and this is sufficient to distinguish it from Jesus, son of David. But as Joshua, the captain general of Israel, is above intended, the word should have been written Joshua, and not Jesus. One MS., merely to prevent the wrong application of the name, has Ιησους ὁ του Ναυη, Jesus the son of Nave. Theodoret has the same in his comment, and one Syriac version has it in the text. It is Joshua in Coverdale's Testament, 1535; in Tindal's 1548; in that edited by Edmund Becke, 1549; in Richard Cardmarden's, Rouen, 1565; several modern translators, Wesley, Macknight, Wakefield, etc., read Joshua, as does our own in the margin. What a pity it had not been in the text, as all the smaller Bibles have no marginal readings, and many simple people are bewildered with the expression.

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,

Top