Is it Jesus or is it Joshua

[Guest Guest]

Act 7:44 Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.
Act 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;

Did Jesus bring the tabernacle into the promised land?

Wasn't it Joshua?

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

Doesn't Jesus give rest? In fact... isn't He the only One that can give rest. Shouldn't this be Joshua and not Jesus?

Hebrews 4 talks about a rest for the people of God. A rest that could not be found in canaan. For if Joshua had given them rest in Canaan....there would have never been a need for a further talk of a future rest or "another day" as mentioned in Hebrews 4:8..

Is it Jesus or is it Joshua. If you say it is Jesus... then you have a Jesus that could not give rest to those entering into canaan mentioned in Hebrews 4:8. Certainly this not the Jesus you or I know. Jesus gives rest. Joshua can not.

Is it Jesus or is it Joshua?

[Guest Guest]

It is Jesus. This Jesus Christ who went before Israel:

"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."

As far as the rest of your question, I do not follow you. The Hebrews passage you quote is talking about rest in salvation as apposed to the lack of rest in unbelief... The passage makes sense, but it has nothing to do with what you are apparently trying to argue. :puzzled:

[Marcus2Israel]

Jesus and Joshua are the same name. They can be used interchangably. It was translated Jesus in the KJV to emphasize how Joshua is a type of Christ in the OT.

[Guest Guest]

Jesus and Joshua are the same name. They can be used interchangably. It was translated Jesus in the KJV to emphasize how Joshua is a type of Christ in the OT.

They can not be used interchangably...

So Jesus is Joshua and Joshua is Jesus?

In greek they are the same name but not in english. We make a proper distinction in English.

Again its about translation. An error in translation.

Question. Would you name your child Jesus??

I know alot of people that would name their child Joshua but not Jesus. Do you think they consider the names to be the same name?

[Guest Guest]

It is Jesus. This Jesus Christ who went before Israel:

"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."

As far as the rest of your question, I do not follow you. The Hebrews passage you quote is talking about rest in salvation as apposed to the lack of rest in unbelief... The passage makes sense, but it has nothing to do with what you are apparently trying to argue. :puzzled:

So how does Joshua 5:13-15 correspond with Acts 7:44-45?

Acts 7:44-45 corresponds to Joshua 1-4. Isn't Jericho in Canaan? They are already in Canaan in Joshua 5:13-15. Acts 7:44-45 talks about the specfic act of bringing in the tabernacle of witness. It was Joshua who did such. Not Jesus.

In fact Jesus hadn't even been born had He?

You mean to tell me that Hebews 4 is not comparing the rest that had existed from the foundation of the world. The rest of the seventh day.... the rest in canaan...the promised land...

Yet none gave true lasting rest. For they where never given to give rest. There was always talk of another day. A day when the incarnate Christ would bring true rest (Jesus). Joshua did not give rest in canaan. he couldn't give it in canaan. Now had Jesus been there..... certainly He would have give rest....wouldn't He?

I don't see now you can miss it.

Question....

In Joshua 15:13-15 is.......Jesus talking to Jesus? If they are the same name in english....wouldn't that be what you have happening. Seems you would have paradox.

[kevinmiller]

It sounds very much like Joshua in the Acts passage. However, that isn't a problem since Joshua is translated "Jesus" in the Greek.

[Guest Guest]

It sounds very much like Joshua in the Acts passage. However' date=' that isn't a problem since Joshua is translated "Jesus" in the Greek.[/quote']

No. In greek it is one word that can either be translated Jesus or Joshua in english. Both are proper translation but only one fits the need to express exactly who is mentioned in the verses.

In english its 2 words for 2 different people. There is proper distinction.

If I took your same ideal of Jesus and Joshua being the same name then..... why can't we call Joshua... Jesus?

Lets go back into the OT and make the change.

Do you have issue with that?

Jehoshua or yeh-ho-shoo'-ah equals Jesus every time? OR vise versa. Make it Joshua every time.

The syric version does just that. In Hebrews 4 is says "Joshua the Son of Nun"... here we have a proper distinct to tell exactly who is being talked about.

You do not have that in the KJV and the rendering makes the verses reflect upon the wrong person. Bad choice in words. Not perfection.

[Guest Guest]

I meant to say the syriac says "Jesus the Son of Nun"

See... I was confused. If the proper enlgish word is used the confusion disappears. :)

[Guest Guest]

So how does Joshua 5:13-15 correspond with Acts 7:44-45?

Acts 7:44-45 corresponds to Joshua 1-4. Isn't Jericho in Canaan? They are already in Canaan in Joshua 5:13-15. Acts 7:44-45 talks about the specfic act of bringing in the tabernacle of witness. It was Joshua who did such. Not Jesus.

In fact Jesus hadn't even been born had He?

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Jesus Christ went before Israel into Canaan. Scripture is clear on that. There are many passages from which we can gather that Christ himself was with the Children of Israel. That is why in Acts 7 it says Jesus, not Joshua. It is speaking of Jesus Christ.

In Joshua 15:13-15 is.......Jesus talking to Jesus? If they are the same name in english....wouldn't that be what you have happening. Seems you would have paradox.

The passage is clear that it is Joshua the son of Nun speaking to Jesus Christ. You can see that from the fact that Joshua worshiped him, and a mere angel would not have allowed that.

Yet none gave true lasting rest. For they where never given to give rest. There was always talk of another day. A day when the incarnate Christ would bring true rest (Jesus). Joshua did not give rest in canaan. he couldn't give it in canaan. Now had Jesus been there..... certainly He would have give rest....wouldn't He?

Again, it is speaking of Jesus Christ not Joshua the son of Nun. If you read the Hebrews passage you will see that Christ didn't give them "rest"(ie. salvation) due to their unbelief.

"Hebrews 4:1-11 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. 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 his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief."

Notice that just before he says "For if Jesus had given them rest" he quotes "David".

That is found here:

"Psalm 95: 7-11 For he is our God; and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work. Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways: Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest."

Due to the sentence structure this verse can not possibly be speaking of Joshua the son of Nun, so the translators put "Jesus", for in truth, that is who the author of Hebrews was speaking of.

[Guest Guest]

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Jesus Christ went before Israel into Canaan. Scripture is clear on that. There are many passages from which we can gather that Christ himself was with the Children of Israel. That is why in Acts 7 it says Jesus, not Joshua. It is speaking of Jesus Christ.



The passage is clear that it is Joshua the son of Nun speaking to Jesus Christ. You can see that from the fact that Joshua worshiped him, and a mere angel would not have allowed that.

Again... is Joshua and Jesus the same name or same translation?




Again, it is speaking of Jesus Christ not Joshua the son of Nun. If you read the Hebrews passage you will see that Christ didn't give them "rest"(ie. salvation) due to their unbelief.

"Hebrews 4:1-11 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. 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 his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief."

Notice that just before he says "For if Jesus had given them rest" he quotes "David".

That is found here:

"Psalm 95: 7-11 For he is our God; and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work. Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways: Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest."

If Jesus had lead them they would have found rest. Joshua could not lead them to rest. Don't you think Jesus is greater than Joshua? If Jesus had been the one giving rest... they would have found it. The issue is Joshua could not give rest and that rest was not to be found in canaan. The very nature what follows these verse requires we say it is Joshua and not Jesus

Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

A rest now brought about by Jesus and rest not available through Joshua. I don't see any other choice than Joshua. A clear choice


Due to the sentence structure this verse can not possibly be speaking of Joshua the son of Nun, so the translators put "Jesus", for in truth, that is who the author of Hebrews was speaking of.

Could you provide the KJV translator notes on this translation.... I don't think such is the case.

It is due to the fact they strictly translated the greek word I?sous to be Jesus without any thought to meaning or context and that there are 2 English words to choose from. 2 words that in English mean two different people.

A simple mistake but a mistake none the less. A mistake that is corrected in several MV's.

[Guest Guest]

Where do you see the word Jesus in the OT? Its Joshua. Isn't Joshua and Jesus the same name? Someone said that. But your treating them as if they are not. Am I correct?

Again... is Joshua and Jesus the same name or same translation?

Jesus is not the same name in English. In no place within the KJV, OT or NT, is the English name "Joshua" applied to Christ.

If Jesus had lead them they would have found rest. Joshua could not lead them to rest. Don't you think Jesus is greater than Joshua? If Jesus had been the one giving rest... they would have found it.

Flawed logic. Jesus Christ died for the sins of the whole world, does that mean all men are saved or will be saved? Jesus can give anyone who will believe rest, but not everyone will do that. That was the point of the Hebrews passage.

[Guest Guest]

Jesus is not the same name in English. In no place within the KJV, OT or NT, is the English name "Joshua" applied to Christ.

I think we agree




Flawed logic. Jesus Christ died for the sins of the whole world, does that mean all men are saved or will be saved? Jesus can give anyone who will believe rest, but not everyone will do that. That was the point of the Hebrews passage.

I don't see it as flawed logic. Jesus is greater than Joshua. That is the entire subject of the book of hebrews. How Jesus is better. Better than anyone or anything. Jesus would have given them rest. A rest Joshua could not give.

The vast majority of scholars agree that this is Joshua in Hebrews chapter 4. Not Jesus. Some very well well known baptist and non baptist agree.

Here is part of what John Gill said concerning this verse

Heb 4:8 For if Jesus had given them rest,.... That is, Joshua; for Hosheah, Joshua, and Jesus, are one and the same name; or Jesus himself, as two of Stephens's copies read; and so Joshua is called Jesus by the Septuagint interpreters on Exo_17:10 and other places where he is mentioned; and also, by Josephus (h), and Philo (i) the Jew. The Syriac version, lest any should mistake this for Jesus Christ, adds, "the son of Nun": who is certainly the person designed, as the apostle's reasoning shows

I don't agree with Gill about them being the same name, but I think I must agree that it is Joshua or Jesus the son of Nun. The reasoning for Joshua is practically overwhelming.

There needs to be a distinction made here between the 2 persons... Joshua and Jesus in Hebrews 4.

[Guest Guest]

The reasoning for Joshua is practically overwhelming.

:uuhm: Actually, reading the passage, it is overwhelming the other way.

"Hebrews 4:7-8 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day."

How could the author of Hebrews possibly quote David from psalm 95, and then, speaking of that verse, attribute it to Jesus IF the "Jesus" here is really Joshua? Joshua never said that, but Jesus, through David, did. Indeed, read Hebrews 3: 7-11. You will see that same passage is attributed to the Holy Ghost as well. Verse 11 of Hebrews chapter three says:

"So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)"

By your reading of Hebrews four this would make no sense, because it in your view Heb4:8 is speaking of Joshua not being able to give them rest canaan, yet in Hebrews chapter three verse eleven, the Holy Ghost is quoted as saying that they will not enter into his rest. That wouldn't make the least bit of sense if Heb4:8 was speaking of Joshua the son of Nun, but it would make perfect sense if it was speaking of Jesus Christ.

[Guest Guest]

:uuhm: Actually, reading the passage, it is overwhelming the other way.

"Hebrews 4:7-8 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day."

The he is in reference to the he in the first part of the verse. It is not a reference to the name Jesus in the verse. Replace the name Jesus with Joshua and tell me that makes no sense?

Here you have the verse saying he.... then naming the he....Jesus.... instead of Joshua..... and then saying he again... and all these being the same person. Now that makes no sense.


How could the author of Hebrews possibly quote David from psalm 95, and then, speaking of that verse, attribute it to Jesus IF the "Jesus" here is really Joshua? Joshua never said that, but Jesus, through David, did. Indeed, read Hebrews 3: 7-11. You will see that same passage is attributed to the Holy Ghost as well. Verse 11 of Hebrews chapter three says:

"So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)"

He didn't attribute it to Jesus no more than verse 4 is attributed to Jesus by name...

Heb 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

Have you read Psalm 95 to which verse 7 is the reference? It talks about the time of temptation in the wilderness and how God swore that everyone in that generation would die. Only the new generations of Israel entired into the promise land. A journey lead by Joshua. Joshua fits perfectly in the verse. Jesus does not. Jesus is part the rest that came after all these events. The rest that later spoken of....a rest that came about through the sacrifice that now been offered on Calvary. The entire book of Hebrews is about what now has taken place (the offering of Jesus) that makes everything different and better. Remember Hebrews 1?



God had not yet spoke unto this world by his Son in Psalm 95 nor in Deut....in the wilderness... Nor in Joshua when they entired into the promise land... canaan

It makes perfect sense.

The he is David your talking about

Here is Gill's comments about what causing you problems.



By your reading of Hebrews four this would make no sense, because it in your view Heb4:8 is speaking of Joshua not being able to give them rest canaan, yet in Hebrews chapter three verse eleven, the Holy Ghost is quoted as saying that they will not enter into his rest. That wouldn't make the least bit of sense if Heb4:8 was speaking of Joshua the son of Nun, but it would make perfect sense if it was speaking of Jesus Christ.

I don't understand why you think by saying its Joshua...it causes the verse to make no sense. I honestly believe your trying to defend the translation at all cost and reject the obvious. I gave up doing that many many years ago.

[Guest Guest]

I don't understand why you think by saying its Joshua...it causes the verse to make no sense. I honestly believe your trying to defend the translation at all cost and reject the obvious. I gave up doing that many many years ago.

Then it would make no sense for me to try to explain further. We could go on and on for pages and nothing would be solved. I think the tone of your posts on a multitude of issues have made it clear that you are simply here to push an agenda. There is nothing wrong with honest questions, but I have not seen any of your posts that come across as honest questions in search of honest answers...