Sermon Tone Analysis

! Introduction

!

Appendix A

! “Is Barnabas A Chiliast?”

When analyzing the eschatology of the Epistle of Barnabas, there are two main passages which must be exegeted very carefully (15.1-9; 4.1-3).

At first glance, the first passage appears to unfold quite naturally, whereas the second one involves an obvious need for a detailed study of the possible historical settings.

The question which is asked of Barnabas 15 is, “Is Barnabas a Chiliast?”

This appendix will offer the strengths and weaknesses of the two main positions.

*I.

**The Chiliastic Interpretation*

     The chiliastic interpretation is based on the following five points:  1) The days of creation adumbrate world history (15.3-4), (list at bottom the acceptance of this view),  2) World history will last 6,000 years (15.4),

3)  Rest will occur at the Parousia when Jesus judges the wicked, destroys the Devil and causes changes in the heavens[1] (15.5),  4) The Sanctification of the seventh day will happen in the future when the believers are justified, receive the promise[2], the lawless one no longer exists, all things are made new, the believers are sanctified and God sets everything at rest (15.6-8).

This rest will last for 1,000 years and will be the seventh millennium[3], and  5) At this point the beginning of the eighth day[4] will be inaugurated which is the beginning of a new world and is understood to be the eternal realm (15.8).[5]

There have been a number of theologians throughout the history of the Church who made use of the idea that the duration of the world would be 6,000 years based on the creation week and Ps 90:4~/2 Peter 3:8.

The equation of one day for a thousand years has been used by several eminent theologians of the past to draw their conclusions about eschatology.

Justin Martyr stated that Adam did not live 1,000 years because he died in the “day” in which he sinned against the Lord.[6]

Irenaeus concludes that the duration of the world will be 6,000 years based on the six days of creation and Ps 90:4~/2 Peter 3:8,[7] and that the true Sabbath is the millennial kingdom which will follow this 6,000 years.[8]

Tertullian clearly speaks of a millennial kingdom[9] and seems to indicate that the millennium will the 7,000th year and the heaven will be the 8,000th  (Cf./

On the Soul /37).

Hippolytus, based on the LXX, in his commentary on Daniel 4:23-24 set the time of creation at 5500 B.C. and concluded that the return of the Lord would be about AD 500.

The seventh year he understood to be the Sabbath rest, i.e., the true rest in the millennial kingdom.

Lactantius concludes the duration of the world to be 7,000 years, where the last 1,000 would be the millennium.[10]

Methodius, follows the same calculation as Lactantius, but grounds it on the description of the Tabernacle in the Law.[11]

Commodian directly states that the earth will last 6,000 years.[12]

Victorinus taught that the seventh millennium is the true Sabbath which will be followed by the eighth age.[13]

Bardesanes states that the world will last for 6,000 years.[14]

Philo writes: "in six days the world was created, not that its Maker required length of time for His work, for we must think of God as doing all things simultaneously..... Six days are mentioned because for the things coming into existence there was need of order.

Order involves number"[15] God did not cease from all his work on the seventh day but began to create things more divine (qeiotera),[16] and the Sabbath was the birthday (geneqlioV) of the world /(De Spec.

Leg.

/2.59).

This concept is even seen in the Muslim Qur'an 22:47, and in the Jewish work in /The Book of Jubilees /4:29ff.

Even Augustine once held to this chronology,[17] but later moved away from this concept as he further developed his Amillennial position.

The common denominator which links these writers together is that they espouse a 1,000 year Sabbath (the millennium) which is followed by the eternal realm.[18]

The issue in Bamabas is whether or not the seventh day is identical with the eighth; "If they are not identical then Barnabas is premillennial."[19]

William Shea[20] responds to those, like Kromminga,[21] who view Barnabas as being amillennial in his theology by pointing out the following five points: 1) In order to make Barnabas amillennial, the seventh and eight day must be identical and of the same duration.

He admits that Barnabas did not clearly differentiate between the seventh and eighth day and has left room for confusion.

The passage does not directly state whether the eighth day starts at the beginning, during or at the end of the seventh day (15.8).[22]  2) The logical progression of the chapter indicate a distinction (16.1-4 first 6 days; 5-8a- the 7th day; 8b-9- the 8th day), and the "fact the author uses a different name or number at all implies a distinction."[23]

The introduction of the eighth day "complicates the picture, since logically it would suggest a further stage and a second set of final events (and re-creation).”[24]

3) The main argument is the fundamental purpose of the chapter:

"The fundamental purpose of the chapter: "If the future seventh and eighth days begin together (at the end of the sixth day) then so do the week days in the present age, and that leaves Christians keeping the seventh-day Sabbath which is exactly what the writer did not want, and against which hew as writing.

A distinction between the seventh and eighth days both present and future is vital to the author's anti-Sabbatarian case.”*[25]*

 

4) This chapter is not meant to be a detailed study of how and when the millennium comes about

but is a refutation of the Jewish Sabbath.

"The millennium and the ages scheme are present here

because they are useful in supporting the writer's basic purpose in the chapter."[26]

5) It is quite possible that the idea of the eighth day is a quote from 2 Enoch 33.1-2:

 

"And I appointed the eighth day also, that the eighth day should be the first created after my work, and that the first seven revolve in the form of the seventh thousand, and that at the beginning of the eighth thousand there should be a time of not-counting, endless, with neither years nor months nor weeks nor days nor hours.”*[27]*

The main reason Barnabas offers for making use of the eighth day is that it was symbolic of the future age (1 5.8).

He does not mention the resurrection until the end of verse 9, and only mentions it after he states that the eighth day is the day for rejoicing.

"The subordinate clause does not give the resurrection or a commemoration of it as the reason for keeping Sunday."[28]

Kleist follows this line of thinking as sees the first five days as having taken place already, the sixth is the present, the seventh is the Sabbath rest (millennium) and the eighth is eternity.

"His seventh era begins when the world ends, and will end with the dawn of 'another world,'- not another millennium, but the day of eternity, 'the eight day.’”[29]

This perspective possesses some convincing power but it destroys the continuity of the day to 1,000-year chronology of the first seven.

II.

*The Non-Chiliastic Interpretation*

     The non-chiliastic interpretation usually views each day as a thousand-year period, but what is expected immediately is the eternal realm.

The seventh day is the also beginning of the eighth day which is the eternal realm, or eternal Sabbath rest, and not the millenium.

Robert Kraft offers a slightly different perspective within this position and suggests that the answer to this dilemma is that Barnabas remains vague as to the events which will take place during the Sabbath rest.

He views this time period as being in ushered in after the judgment, during the seventh millennium and as an "interim between the old and new worlds.”[30]

Alan Boyd offers the following six solid objections to the chiliastic interpretation which are worthy of response:[31] 1) The fact the author believes the days of creation adumbrate world history into six millennia, does not demand one to posit a seventh millennium.

2) The 'rest from creation' takes place at the Second Advent (I 5.7) and at the beginning of the Eighth Day (1 5.8), i.e., there is no interval between the seventh and eighth day.

3) The chronological unity of 15.58 is affirmed by two parallel ideas: the removal of sin (15.5) and the new creation (15.8).

4) If there is a distinction between the seventh and eighth day, then God would have to intervene twice.

5) The lack of a millennium does not detract from the main point of the author's attack upon the Jewish Sabbath.

6) The eighth day is the beginning of the new world, which is best understood to be eternity.

Reidar Hvalvik, adds an insightful objections when he compares the events of the two days and concludes them to be synonymous:

*“According to v. 4 The Lord 'will bring all things to an end' in six days; that means that everything will be completed at the Sabbath.

According to *v. *8 the beginning of the eighth day will come when the Lord has 'brought everything to rest'.

According to v. *7 *the Sabbath implies that 'all things have been made new’, according to v. 8 it is the eighth day which marks 'the beginning of another world'.

The Sabbath and the eighth day thus have the same function within */Barnabas' /*chronological scheme.*”[32]

Albert Hermans takes another approach and argues that the verbs judged and reigned in verse 5 refer to God and not the Son, and then argues that God is the subject of 5b.

This in effect allows him to understand the eighth day to follow the sixth day without any intervening millennial reign of Christ.[33]

After analyzing the different positions, although at first I thought this easy passage was easy to understand as an obvious premillennial text, I have strong reservations as to adopting this interpretation.

It must be admitted that, at the very least, there are inherent ambiguities within this passage which makes the exegesis of this text rather difficult.

“It is not certain whether there are two distinct eschatological Sabbaths (the seventh and eight day, separately), or whether the kingdom that will be inaugurated is temporal or terrestrial or not.”[34]

The following four points are additional evidence which raise strong doubts as to this being a premillennial text: */Point #1-The Context:/*/ /The majority of the Epistle of Barnabas is a polemic against Judaism and offers a reinterpretation of the Old Testament in an allegorical or spiritual manner.

The setting of chapter 15 is in the heart of this issue where the author is offering a series of alternative interpretations as to the true meaning of the sacrifices (2, 5, 7,8, 12), the promised land (6), circumcision (9), the Levitical food laws (10), washings (12), the covenant (4,13-14) the Sabbath (15), and the Temple (16).

Since chapter 15 directly deals with the Sabbath, and not the topic of eschatology, it is reasonable to understand Barnabas' words in an allegorical sense as a message about the Sabbath.

I would suggest that modem-day scholars are reading their interests into this section about eschatology[35] , when it appears that the author's interest is to present a contrast between the true rest God offers as compared to the Sabbath rest of the Jews.

"The chiliastic language of 15.4 is here seems to be used not for a chronological purpose per se but to remove the Creation account as a basis for the literal observance of he seventh day."[36]

Even Shea, the strongest proponent of the premillennial position, acknowledges that the Sabbath was one of the main features of Judaism which the author was attempting to reinterpret and refers to it as one of the pillars of the Hebrew religion.[37]

*/Point #2- The Present Sabbath: /*In 15.5-7 he strengthens his argument by proving that no one is able to sanctify the Sabbath since they must keep it with pure hands and a pure heart.

"To Barnabas' thinking the continued observance of the Mosaic Sabbath therefore amounts to a denial of our present sinfulness."[38]

We must wait for the return of the Lord who will both sanctify us and that day enabling the believers to keep it.

His main point here is to prove that the Sabbath should not and cannot be kept properly during this time period, and not to offer a chronology of the time the Lord will return.

We will keep the Sabbath when the Lord "makes all things new" enabling us to truly keep the Sabbath as God intended.

The Sabbath as the age to come is Jewish in origin and better fits the nonchiliastic position.[39]

*/Point #3- The Use of the Eighth Day in Context.

/*In 15.8-9 Barnabas strengthens his main point by launching into a condemnation against the Jews by using the Old Testament (Is 1:13) to condemn their ritualistic and literalistic attempts to keep the Old Testament laws.

It is crucial to see that Barnabas uses the eighth day in 15.8, and not the seventh, as representing the beginning of the new world.

Added to this point is that 15.9 makes the connection that we now keep the eighth day unto the Lord.

In this section the seventh day appears to be skipped over and a special emphasis is placed upon the eighth day as a further rejection of the seventh day which the Jews were presently observing.

“The Christian Sunday does not fit the typology of the week culminating in the seventh day, so a different eschatological symbolism is introduced, that of the ogdoad.”[40]

If Barnabas is stating that the eighth day is the eighth millennium, it is “inconsistent with what he says in 15.5-7, where the Sabbatical millennium in which sin is overcome is the seventh.”[41]

Simply put, Barnabas links the rest which is mentioned to both the seventh and the eighth day.

“Barnabas is so anti-Jewish that it prefers the eighth-day terminology over the seventh day for the eschatological rest.”[42]

I would not go as far as some who have suggest that this chapter presents an amillennial scheme.[43]

*/Point 4- Additional Minor Considerations: /*Added to the points mentioned above one must also consider the following six points:

a) Barnabas may have been drawing on two separate eschatological traditions which indicates that he was willing to use just about any source to make his point.

He uses both the schematic of seven ages to make his point early in the chapter then relied upon the imagery of the number eight to prove his point later.

Why the two symbols?

"The two symbolisms serve different functions in the argument, so there was no need to harmonize them."[44]