Hebrews 3:7–4:11 cannot be interpreted apart from an understanding of Psalm 95:7–11, but is it viable to interpret Psalm 95:7–11 through the lens of Hebrews 3–4? Some insist that the author of Hebrews is “guilty of forced exegesis” or “fanciful misapplication of Old Testament texts for Christian ears and eyes.”[1] Did the writer of Hebrews issue a “redefinition of God’s rest” from what was written in Psalm 95?[2] I argue that Hebrews 3–4 functions as a midrash of Psalm 95 and that it is built on sound exegesis and logical deductions.[3] Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the author of Hebrews is not imposing unwarranted interpretations on Psalm 95.
The author of Hebrews’ contextual and interpretive analysis contributes to a better understanding of the psalm.[4] Furthermore, the way the writer handled other Old Testament texts, such as Numbers 14, instills confidence in readers that “he did not find hidden meanings in Scripture or wrest a text from its context.”[5] It is true that the writer employed various rhetorical techniques in his use of Psalm 95 that were “common rabbinical practices” yet he did do so “without violating or altering their actual sense to their original audience.”[6]
Finally, although the original context of Old Testament citations should not be bypassed and illegitimate interpretations should not be imposed from later revelation, these points do not preclude New Testament texts from providing insights into interpreting the Old Testament. The interpretations of Old Testament passages by inspired authors in the New Testament are worthy of careful consideration. In relation to the interpretation the author of Hebrew makes of Psalm 95 in Hebrews 3–4, solid exegesis of these texts will demonstrate the validity of this approach.
Exegesis of Psalm 95
Psalm 95 has been described as a pivotal psalm, especially regarding its connecting role in the composition of Psalms 90–100.[7] It is one of only a few psalms that combines a call to worship with a word of warning.[8] Structurally, the sudden shift that takes place at the end of Psalm 95:7, transitioning the psalm from praise to warning, appears to be a deliberate rhetorical device. This abrupt shift is not only intriguing but also contributes substantially to the author’s agenda.
The contrast between these two halves is emblematic of Israel’s experience and how the nation “vacillates between faith and disbelief.”[9] Additionally, the two parts of Psalm 95 appear to emphasize the important balance between “external worship” (Psalm 95:1–7b) and “internal worship” (Psalm 95:7c–11). That is, true worship involves “exulting joy” but also “great fear,”[10] both “rejoicing and trembling.”[11]
Although some scholars contend that these two psalms were originally separate (95:1–7b, 7c–11), others have demonstrated that we have good reason to believe this psalm is a unity. For example, numerous rhetorical links bind the entire psalm together. In the immediate verse (95:7), the call for God’s people to listen flows well with the imagery that they are the sheep under the Lord their shepherd.[12] The major shift in the psalm begins with the word “today” (95:7), signaling a move to exhortation. The utilization of this term recalls Moses’ admonition to the generation of Israelites preparing to enter the promised land in the book of Deuteronomy (Deut. 4:40; 5:3; 6:6; 7:11; 9:3; 11:2).[13]
The Meaning of “My Rest” in Psalm 95:11
Scholars generally accept that the meaning of “rest” to the Exodus generation is largely, though perhaps not exclusively, a reference to entering the land of Canaan based on passages such as Deuteronomy 12:9.[14] However, they disagree considerably about the meaning of “my rest” to the psalmist’s generation in Psalm 95:11. Proposals that have been suggested include interpreting it as an allusion to the land of Israel, the temple, the presence of Yahweh, and eschatological rest.
Some interpreters believe that Psalm 95 was written during the exile period and argue that the reference to “my rest” is a return to the land.[15] This position has the advantage of interpreting “rest” consistently with the Exodus generation; however, a weakness in this approach is that there is no direct evidence that the audience of Psalm 95 is in exile.
Others argue that the historical context of Psalm 95 appears to be “pre-exilic” and better understood as preparatory for entry into the temple.[16] In Psalm 132:8, 13–14, the temple in Jerusalem is referred to as the resting place of Yahweh, and Solomon’s dedicatory prayer over the temple emphasized the rest that God had provided for his people (1 Kings 8:56).[17] A strength of this view is that it closely ties the call to worship (Ps. 95:1–7) with entrance into the temple.[18] However, this perspective suffers from some of the same weaknesses as the previous viewpoint, namely, an overreliance on an uncertain historical context.
Another proposal for the meaning of “rest” in Psalm 95 is to understand it “in terms of the presence of God.” This viewpoint is influenced by passages such as Exodus 33:14 and features such as the temple serving as symbols of Yahweh’s presence.[19] This perspective has the value of a God-centered approach, directly relating the rest to Yahweh’s presence; however, it seems to bypass the meaning of “rest” in Deuteronomy and the Psalter and could be open to accusations of spiritualizing the text.
Many scholars commonly interpret “my rest” in Psalm 95:11 eschatologically. Walter C. Kaiser Jr., argues that the context of the royal psalms (Psalm 93–100) points to an eschatological rest that coincides with the future-oriented and climatic nature of these psalms.[20] Some posit that the ambiguous nature of the reference to “rest” alludes to something greater than the land or the temple.[21]
Among the scholars who interpret “rest” eschatologically, they offer considerable diversity and disagreement. For example, in light of the author of Hebrews’ interpretation of Psalm 95, David A. Desilva interprets “rest” as a future experience that refers to the heavenly home of believers.[22] Scott D. Mackie understands “rest” as both a present experience as well as “awaiting ultimate fulfillment,” corresponding to the already and not yet “eschatological tension” that is common throughout Scripture.[23] Interpreting “rest” eschatologically has many advantages, but it is also susceptible to charges of spiritualization and anachronistic interpretation.
An Eschatological Understanding “Rest” in Psalm 95:11 from Hebrews 3–4
The author of Hebrews provides an extended exposition and commentary of Psalm 95:7–11 throughout Hebrews 3–4.[24] These two chapters in Hebrews have significantly impacted the way many scholars interpret Psalm 95:11. Three arguments employed by the author of Hebrews for interpreting “rest” eschatologically will be examined, namely, the ambiguous use of “today,” the role of Genesis 2:1–3, and the absence of perfect rest in the days of Joshua.
The repeated and ambiguous usage of the word “today” by Moses, the psalmist, and the author of Hebrews functions as evidence that it is not a reference to a specific twenty-four period but rather to an available opportunity.[25] The fact that Deuteronomy, the Psalms, and Hebrews cite the word “today” when urging their hearers to enter Yahweh’s rest supplies evidence that this rest is primarily eschatological. We have good reason to view the presence of the word “today” in Psalm 95 as alluding to a promise of rest that far exceeds the land of Canaan or the temple in Jerusalem.[26]
The author of Hebrews grounds his exposition of Psalm 95 in the rest of Yahweh referred to in Genesis 2:2.[27] For the writer of Hebrews, “the ‘rest’ in the land of Canaan . . . points ultimately and typologically to the ‘rest’ into which God himself entered on the seventh day of creation.”[28] Harold W. Attridge refers to this type and antitype as a “redefinition of God’s rest.”[29] However, the author of Hebrews is better interpreted not as redefining rest from Psalm 95 but rather as explaining the ultimate referent of this “rest,” namely, “the consummate rest.”[30] Thus, the land of Canaan “signified” what is “the ultimate intended rest . . . God’s own repose.”[31]
Another argument to be considered is the author of Hebrews’ statement that “if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on” (Hebrews 4:8). Joshua did provide a measure of rest to those who entered the land of Canaan. Additionally, numerous biblical references explain the Lord gave rest to the people through the leadership of Joshua (Joshua 1:13, 15 21:44; 23:1) as he promised in the days of Moses (Exodus 33:14; Deuteronomy 5:33; 12:10; 25:19).[32]
Nevertheless, that rest was incomplete and not the ultimate rest God intended for His people.[33] For the writer of Hebrews, the argument is simple, if David continued to compel the people to enter into God’s rest, then the proposition “Joshua did not provide it” necessarily follows.[34] This point shows that “God’s promise did not and does not have a merely earthly fulfillment, but is rather eschatological in purport, and therefore still awaits the people of God in all its fullness.”[35]
Conclusion: The New Testament Helps Believers Interpret the Old Testament
In this piece, I have aimed to use the relationship between Psalm 95 and Hebrews 3–4 as a test case to show how the New Testament can help readers interpret Old Testament passages. The New Testament writers employed sound hermeneutical principles when interpreting Old Testament texts, and their interpretations provide invaluable insights for contemporary exegesis. Daniel Stevens sums up this principle well by stating that [the author of Hebrews] “is interpreting and showing us how to interpret. That is, he reveals to us both how to read the Old Testament and what the Old Testament really is: God’s word, written for us.”[36]
[1] Walter C. Kaiser, Jr, “The Promise Theme and the Theology of Rest,” Bibliotheca Sacra 130:578 (1973): 146.
[2] Harold W. Attridge, “Let Us Strive To Enter That Rest: The Logic of Hebrews 4:1–11,” Harvard Theological Review 73:1–2 (1980): 284–85.
[3] William Lane, Hebrews 1-8, Word Biblical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 83–86.
[4] Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 96–101.
[5] David L. Allen, Hebrews, New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2010), 297.
[6] Randall C. Gleason, “The Old Testament Background of Rest in Hebrews 3:7–4:11,” Bibliotheca Sacra 157 (2000): 283.
[7] Pieter van der Lugt, “His Faithfulness is from Generation to Generation (Ps. 100:5c): The Coherence of the Eleven Compositions Psalm 90–100,” Old Testament Essays 32, no. 2 (2019): 622–23.
[8] James L. Mays, Psalms, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2011), 238–39.
[9] George W. Savran, “The Contrasting Voices of Psalm 95,” Revue Biblique 110, no. 1 (2003): 32.
[10] John Goldingay, Psalm 90–150, Baker Commentary on the Old Testament: Wisdom and Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 98.
[11] James Hely Hutchinson, “The Psalms and Praise,” in Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches, ed. Philip S. Johnston and David G. Firth (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2005), 99.
[12] Hutchinson, “The Psalms and Praise,” 213.
[13] Willem A. VanGemeren, Psalms, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991), 619; W. Dennis Tucker, Jr., “Psalm 95: Text, Context, and Intertext,” Biblica 81, no. 4 (2000): 538.
[14] Gleason, “Old Testament Background of Rest in Hebrews 3:7–4:11,” 295–96.
[15] William A. Schniedewind, “Are We His People or Not? Biblical Interpretation During A Crisis” Biblica 76, no. 4 (1995): 547. See also C. Hassell Bullock, Psalms 73–150, Teach the Text Commentary Series (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017), 181.
[16] G. Henton Davies, “Psalm 95,” Zeitschrift fur de Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 85, no. 2 (1973):195. See also Goldingay, Psalms 90–150, 97.
[17] Alexander Vella, “To Enter and Not To Enter: A Literary and Theological Study of Psalm 95,” Melita Theologica 42, no. 2 (1991): 93.
[18] Christopher J. Renz, “Come, Let Us Listen to the Voice of the Lord,” Worship 70, no. 2 (1996): 146.
[19] Marie E. Isaacs, Sacred Spaces: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Library of New Testament Studies (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 83.
[20] Kaiser, Jr., “Promise,” 143–46.
[21] Susan E. Docherty, The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews: A Case Study in Early Jewish Bible Interpretation (Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 188–89.
[22] David A. Desilva, “Entering God’s Rest: Eschatological and the Socio-Rhetorical Strategy of Hebrews” Trinity Journal 21 (2000): 33, 39.
[23] Scott D. Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 51, 54.
[24] George Guthrie, Hebrews, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 125.
[25] Davies, “Psalm 95,” 193.
[26] Guthrie, Hebrews, 149, 160.
[27] Cynthia Long Westfall, A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The Relationship between Form and Meaning, Library of New Testament Studies 297 (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 128.
[28] Jonathan I. Griffiths, Hebrews and Divine Speech, Library of New Testament Studies 507 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014), 76.
[29] Attridge, “Let Us Strive,” 284.
[30] Peter E. Enns, “Creation and Re-Creation: Psalm 95 and its Interpretation in Hebrews 3:1–4:13,” Westminster Theological Journal 55 (1993): 279. See also F.F. Bruce, The Epistle To The Hebrews, The New International Commentary On The New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 106.
[31] V. Jeevan Prakash Kumar, “The Story of Greater Exodus in Hebrews: A Narrative Reading of Hebrews 3–4,” Acts Theological Journal 49 (2021): 45; Bryan J. Whitfield, Joshua Traditions and the Argument of Hebrews 3 and 4 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2013), 240.
[32] Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 253.
[33] Thomas R. Schreiner, Commentary on Hebrews, Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2015), 142; Kevin B. McCruden, A Body You Have Prepared For Me: The Spirituality of the Letter to the Hebrews (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2013), 79.
[34] Whitfield, Joshua Traditions, 243. See also David M. Allen, Deuteronomy and Exhortation in Hebrews: A Study in Narrative Re-presentation (Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 146.
[35] Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 160.
[36] Daniel Stevens, “The Breakthrough That Helped Me Understand the Old Testament,” Crossway, March 1, 2025, https://www.crossway.org/articles/the-breakthrough-that-helped-me-understand-the-old-testament/?srsltid=AfmBOoqk_1kdZ8iKlgXRDFl-vG5Y1X_pu8idn5a4SY8CxUHtm0ZVNJ0-.
Recent Comments