That is, Christians, who are now God’s chosen people as truly as the literal Israelites of old were in their day (Ex. 19:5, 6; 1 Peter 2:9, 10; see Vol. IV, pp. 35, 36).

Gr. sabbatismos, “a resting [from previous activity],” “a cessation [from previous activity],” later “a Sabbathkeeping,” from the verb sabbatizos, ̄ “to rest,” “to cease,” “to keep Sabbath.” Sabbatismos appears elsewhere neither in the Bible nor in ancient literature until the 2d and 3d centuries, with the possible exception of a single occurrence in Plutarch Moralia 166A. Consequently, some have concluded that the writer of Hebrews coined the word as he wrote this passage (see Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament).

 Sabbatismos and sabbatizō are Greek renderings of the Hebrew noun shabbath and its related verb shabath, respectively, and the meaning of the latter may be expected to cast light on the meaning of the former. Shabbath occurs 101 times in the OT, where it generally means “Sabbath,”—the seventh day of the week—or “week,” a period of seven days marked off by successive Sabbaths. It is also used of the sabbatical year (Lev. 25:6; 26:34, 43; 2 Chron. 36:21). The verb shabath occurs 70 times, 7 times with reference to the Sabbath rest and 63 times with reference to other kinds of rest. For instances of the latter usage see Gen. 8:22; Joshua 5:12; Neh. 6:3; Lam. 5:14; Isa. 14:4; 24:8; 33:8. The root meaning of the verb shabath is “to cease,” “to rest.” The word sometimes denotes the weekly Sabbath rest. But the noun shabbath, derived from shabath, commonly denotes the weekly Sabbath rest, and also the space of time marked off by successive Sabbaths, the week (Lev. 23:15), and the sabbatical years (ch. 26:35; etc.). It may be noted also that shabbathon, which is simply shabbath with the ending -on, is used of the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:31; 23:32), of the sabbatical year (Lev. 25:4, 5), of the Feast of Trumpets (Lev. 23:24), and of the first and last days of the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. 23:39)—as well as of the seventh-day Sabbath.

 Sabbatizō is used seven times in the LXX, once of the literal seventh-day Sabbath (Ex. 16:30), once of other sabbaths (Lev. 23:32), and five times of the land’s resting in the sabbatical year (Lev. 26:34, 35; 2 Chron. 36:21). In the LXX of Ex. 16:30; Lev. 23:32; 26:34, 35 sabbatizō is from the Hebrew shabath. Accordingly, the fundamental idea expressed by sabbatizo in the LXX is that of resting or ceasing from labor or other activity. Hence usage of the related Greek and Hebrew words implies that the noun sabbatismos may denote either the literal Sabbath “rest” or simply “rest” or “cessation” in a more general sense. Thus, a linguistic study of the word sabbatismos in Heb. 4:9 leaves it uncertain whether the weekly Sabbath “rest” is here referred to, or simply “rest” or “cessation” in a general sense. Context alone can decide the matter.

The writer of Hebrews appears to use katapusis and sabbatismos more or less synonymously:

 1. Because Joshua could not lead Israel into spiritual “rest” (katapausis, v. 8), a sabbatismos (v. 9) remains for Christians. Consistency seems to require that what remains be the same as what was there to begin with. Because Joshua did not lead literal Israel into spiritual “rest” would be no reason for the Christian to observe the Sabbath.

 2. From vs. 1, 6 it is clear that what remains for the people of God in NT times is a katapausis; in v. 9 it is said that a sabbatismos remains. To declare that what remains for “the people of God” is the weekly Sabbath, is to declare that what Joshua failed to lead Israel into was the weekly Sabbath.

 3. The fact that in the LXX, the Bible of the NT church, katapauō (Gen. 2:2, 3); Ex. 20:11) and sabbatizō (Ex. 16:30; Lev. 23:32) are used interchangeably to denote the seventh-day Sabbath, would tend to preclude the suggestion that the writer of Hebrews intended to make a distinction between the noun forms of these words in Heb. 3; 4.

 It may be noted, further, that the Jews of Paul’s time, whether Christian or non-Christian, were punctilious in their observance of the fourth commandment. Certainly, in writing to Jews, the author of Hebrews would not consider it necessary to prove to them that Sabbathkeeping “remaineth.” If the conclusion of the extended argument beginning with ch. 3:7 is that Sabbathkeeping remains for the people of God, it would seem that the writer of Hebrews is guilty of a non sequitur, for the conclusion does not follow logically from the argument. There would have been no point in so labored an effort to persuade the Jews to do what they were already doing—observing the seventh-day Sabbath. Furthermore, in apostolic times the seventh-day Sabbath was observed by all Christians, Jew and Gentile alike, and any argument to prove the validity of the Sabbath in those early Christian times would have been pointless. Furthermore, it may be observed that the section of the book of Hebrews consisting of chs. 3 and 4 opens with an invitation to “consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus” (ch. 3:1), and closes with an earnest plea to “come boldly” before Him in order to “obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need” (ch. 4:16). What relationship a protracted argument designed to prove that Sabbath observance remains as an obligation to the Christian church might have to the declared theme of chs. 3 and 4—the ministry of Christ as our great High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary—is obscure indeed.

 “The rest here spoken of is the rest of grace” (EGW Supplementary Material on Heb. 4:9; cf. GC 253). It is “the true rest of faith” (MB 1).

 We enter into God’s “rest” when we “consider” Jesus (ch. 3:1) and listen to His voice (chs. 3:7, 15; 4:7), when we exercise faith in Him (ch. 4:2, 3), when we cease from our own efforts to earn salvation (v. 10), when we “hold fast our profession” (v. 14), and when we draw near to the throne of grace (v. 16). Those who would enter into this experience must beware of “an evil heart of unbelief” (ch. 3:12), of hardening their hearts (chs. 3:8, 15; 4:7). They must strive to enter into God’s “rest” (ch. 4:11).

 Those who enter into God’s “rest” will “hold fast” their “profession” (v. 14). They will “come boldly unto the throne of grace” to “obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need” (v. 16).

 See on v. 6. Verse 9 states the conclusion, already alluded to in v. 6. drawn from the line of argument begun in v. 3 to prove the assertions of vs. 1, 3. This line of argument may be set forth briefly as follows:

 1. As originally made to ancient Israel God’s promised “rest” included:

  (a) permanent settlement in the land of Canaan,

  (b) a transformation of character that would make the nation a fit representative of the principles of God’s kingdom, and

  (c) the role of being God’s chosen instrument for the salvation of the world (see Vol. IV, pp. 26-30; see on ch. 3:11).

 2. The generation to whom the promise of “rest” was originally made failed to enter the land of Canaan because of unbelief (see on ch. 3:19).

 3. Joshua did led the next generation into the land that had been promised (see on ch. 3:11), but because they were spiritually stiff-necked he could not lead them into the spiritual “rest” God intended them to find there (see on ch. 4:7, 8).

 4. The same promise had been repeated in the days of David (v. 7). This was evidence that Israel had not, at that time, entered into the spiritual “rest,” and also that their failure to do so in the days of Moses and Joshua had not invalidated the original promise.

 5. The ultimate accomplishment of God’s purposes is certain, despite the failure of successive generations (see on vs. 3, 4).

 6. The writer’s earnest plea to God’s people of apostolic times to “enter into that rest” (vs. 11, 16) is further evidence that the invitation remained valid and that God’s people, as a group, had not truly entered into that “rest” even in apostolic times.

 7. Accordingly, the promise of, and invitation to enter into, God’s spiritual “rest” remains valid (vs. 6, 9), and Christians should “labour therefore to enter into that rest” (v. 11).

 It should be noted that the “rest” that remained in Christian times was the spiritual “rest” originally promised to literal Israel (see on v. 3). Obviously, what remains must have been there to begin with.