Some time back I tried to contact the editor of a good little publication. But I never heard anything back. Some people don’t like feedback that challenges their writings in any way. So this blog might provide a way to address a few issues. Maybe the right people might eventually get to read this response to an issue that seems to keep surfacing.
I was a little surprised to read in what I’ll call Magazine No 182 the name Joshua inserted in the quoted verse of Hebrews 4:8: For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
Finding it in the Editorial is significant as it makes a statement about what is regarded as acceptable in the magazine. Apparently the writer has superior knowledge to the Scriptures which clearly has printed the word “Jesus” in Hebrews 4:8. I’m sorry, but the believers where I fellowship take exception to “Bible Correctors”. We all will stand before the Lord in a coming day and answer for how we handled the Word of God – that’s a frightening enough thought if you consider the basis for my comments below and parallel the reason for Moses and Aaron being kept out of the Promised Land; “ye believed me not, to sanctify me” (Numbers 20:12, 27:14). As one of the shepherds in a small flock of God’s people I know that our sheep will reject this magazine on the basis of human interference with the Scriptures. They would not be happy that I passed a magazine to them only to find they must take issue with it.
What or who does the verse refer to? Why can’t it just be “Jesus” – as it says? Consider these verses:
Exodus 23:23 For mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off.
The “Angel” (with capital A – consider that. This alone should be enough.) was going to bring them into Canaan. Who was this Angel? The preceding verses (20-21) give the answer:
Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.
The One referred to here had to be more than any ordinary angel. “My name is in him” tells us something. This Angel is to be obeyed, not provoked, and has the ability to “pardon” “transgressions”. The One referred to cannot be any other than the pre-existent Lord Jesus.
Joshua 5:13-15 And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant? And the captain of the LORD’S host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so.
Why would Joshua loose his shoe? He knew he was forbidden to do anything denoting worship to anyone other than the LORD. Again, this points to Jesus.
Joshua 24:2, 8 And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, . . . . . . . . And I brought you into the land of the Amorites, which dwelt on the other side Jordan; and they fought with you: and I gave them into your hand, that ye might possess their land; and I destroyed them from before you.
The LORD speaks to the people reminding them that He brought them in …just as the New Testament states – if you accept the word “Jesus” as written. And see the next verses below…
Judges 2:1-2 And an angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you. And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this?
The message is parallel with the previous passage in Joshua yet here “an angel of the LORD” is spoken of. It is the “angel of the LORD” that speaks to them. Is He identified in Scripture? The New Testament contains references that don’t try to conceal the fact that it was the pre-existent Lord Jesus:
Acts 7:45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;
The Jesus of Hebrews 4:8 is spoken of here too in Acts 7. If we need to try to make out that the text really means Joshua in Hebrews then we would need to do the same In Acts – but there’s no need to because it says ‘Jesus’ and means Jesus. Why would anyone want it to be otherwise? What, after all, is wrong with it being Jesus anyway?
. . for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. (1 Cor 10:4)
Paul under the inspiration of the Spirit of God declares that Christ was present with them.
He had no problem with the idea. Paul never sought to change what God’s Spirit wanted written. Why should we?
This fits perfectly with the thought in the Editorial that the “rest was not fully realised in Canaan in Joshua’s day” and was “still future, in the Psalms, indicat[ing] that the coming of Christ was required before His rest could be fully realised.” All of this statement is quite true when ‘Jesus’ is kept in the verses as shown above. Jesus was with them as they went into Canaan, even if the people never saw Him physically as a person, but we all know that it was “when the fulness of the time was come” that “God sent forth his Son, made of a woman”. And Hebrews chapters 3 and 4 make their point clearly enough regarding the place of the Lord Jesus with regard to the “rest”.
It is our belief that the Scriptures have it all perfectly in order. Why change it? Or will He in a coming day have to say, “ye believed me not, to sanctify me”?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another point of interest in this article is the statement that “The assembly is the final and highest authority.”
May I suggest, with all due respect, that the writer may have overlooked something in making the above statement: Where does the assembly get its authority from?
Remember the words of the centurion in Luke 7:8: For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. Where did he get his authority from so that he could give orders and have them carried out? He had authority only because he was under authority.
If the assembly has any authority, where and who does it get it from? It can only have authority if it is under authority. In line with the “If…then” logic theme, the assembly cannot be the final authority as it has to be under authority. The “final and highest authority” on earth has to be the written Word of God. The incarnate Word of God is the Head of the church, certainly – but He is in heaven presently. So the issue at stake here is the authority of the written word of God.
This reader cannot help but notice how all three points made in this part of the article (and earlier too) are somehow meant to draw their basis from verses quoted from the Old Testament. While there is always Old Testament background and foundation for New Testament truth, surely the reader could expect principles that were being applied to New Testament assemblies to be built on verses found in the New Testament. Why would there be any difficulty in finding a New Testament basis for anything regarding New Testament churches; ‘assemblies’ as we know them? Do we sacrifice superior Scriptural foundations in order to support a man-made pattern of words fashioned to be the backbone of an article’s design?
Also the verses in question are used to ‘back up’ the point being made, as opposed to presenting a point that clearly comes from the teaching of a passage of verses. Isn’t there some quote about “a text taken out of context is a pretext”? And whatever happened to “rightly dividing the word of truth”?
Alas, the issue is really, once again, and as stated earlier, a case of what authority and place the written word of God is acknowledged by the writer of the article. Apparently there is no problem with asserting that the translators have got it wrong and inserting a convenient “humanized” alternative name to suit a sub-supernatural interpretation of the passage. No problem if you also promote the idea that a group of people can have more authority than the Scriptures. Obviously the two are connected. But doesn’t this echo viewpoints not too different from those who come knocking at our doors in pairs? That’s an alarming perception.
Those I write on behalf of would be totally disappointed with the position described in the paragraph above. A person’s handling of the written Word of God reflects their heart concerning the Incarnate Word. If the Editorial of Magazine No 182 thus denigrates the authority and accuracy of the written Word of God, then won’t there indeed be plenty of foundation for the statement to be made in a coming day: “ye believed me not, to sanctify me”?