Resurrection in Barnabas
(avg. read time: 8–15 mins.)
The Letter/Epistle of Barnabas, like the other works of the Apostolic Fathers we have examined thus far, does not name its author. While some ancient references attributed it to Barnabas, it appears to have been written after his time, usually thought to be between the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE (since it refers to the destruction of the temple in 16:3–4) and the Bar Kokhba Revolt in 132 CE. This still places it in the era of the Apostolic Fathers (and, by most accounts, overlapping with some of the era of the NT). The work provides its audience with an allegorical and typological Christocentric reading of the Scriptures to answer questions concerning the nature of the present time, the relationship between Judaism tied to the old covenant and the Christian way of the new covenant, Christology, and thus what it means to identify oneself as a Christian (leading into the teaching on the “two ways” that is distinct from the use of the same motif in Did. 1–6).
Explicit References
As with the other works of the Apostolic Fathers, we will consider how resurrection functions in relation to these tasks of the work, first by focusing on the explicit references to resurrection, and then by turning our attention to the implicit references. The first explicit reference comes in the context of a larger reference to the gospel narrative in 5:5–7. He notes how the Lord of the whole world endured to suffer by the hands of men (5:5). He also notes how the prophets prophesied this concerning him, such as in a text he referenced earlier from Isa 53:5, 7 (5:2; cf. Acts 8:32–33; 1 Pet 2:22–25). In line with this, “in order that he should render powerless/annihilate death and show/demonstrate the resurrection [ἀνάστασις] out of the dead, because in flesh it was necessary for him to be manifested, he endured” (5:6). Moreover, he is said to endure so that he should fulfill the promise to the ancestors in texts like Isaiah, thereby linking the gospel events to the fulfillment of Scripture. Finally, he is said to have endured, while he was preparing the new people for himself, so that, “he demonstrated, while still being on the earth, that after bringing about the resurrection [ἀνάστασις], he himself will judge” (5:7).
The author thus identifies a fourfold purpose in this context of Jesus’s endurance of the cross, which in each point is linked with his resurrection. First, his crucifixion itself would lead to his resurrection, which he aimed to demonstrate, particularly the resurrection “out of the dead.” As we have noted elsewhere, this terminology signifies separation from the rest of the dead, and it was usually used for Jesus’s resurrection specifically, but it could also apply to the resurrection of the righteous whereby, since they were raised to everlasting life, they were distinguished from the rest of the dead. This is the resurrection he demonstrated as the first revelation thereof. By his resurrection, he is also said to render powerless or annihilate death. On this point, the author is reminiscent of both Paul in 1 Cor 15 and the author of Hebrews in Heb 2:10–17, even using the same key verb (καταργέω).
Second, he endured to fulfill the mission for which it was necessary for him to manifest in flesh. That is, his endurance of the cross was the purpose for which he was incarnate. The resurrection is tied with this as well, for he needed to be manifest in flesh to demonstrate the resurrection and break the power of death. In this way, he is again similar to Paul and the author of Hebrews. The text from Hebrews is particularly apt as a comparison here for how it speaks of Jesus’s incarnate life. It is also comparable to what we see in relation to the cross and resurrection in Col 1:15–22 and 2:9–15.
Third, these things were necessary in order to fulfill Scripture. We have already noted the links with Isa 53 that the author makes earlier in the chapter. In this respect, he is like the authors of the NT, who also pointed to this text as a crucial framework for understanding Jesus and what he accomplished in the fulfillment of Scripture. Both his crucifixion and resurrection were necessary for fulfilling Scripture, the necessity being determined by the will of God.
Fourth, he endured to prove while he was still on earth that he will judge after he has brought about the general resurrection. His own resurrection is tied to his judgment of others at the general resurrection, which is something we have seen multiple times in the NT (such as Acts 17:31), which also fits with the broader linkage of resurrection with final judgment. Particularly notable in this regard for its linkage of Jesus’s bringing about the general resurrection of the dead and his judgment of those resurrected is John 5:24–30. In none of these cases am I suggesting that the author is directly influenced by the NT texts in question. That is possible, but it could simply be that he exemplifies the kind of discourse surrounding resurrection in this era of the Church.
Although it is less directly connected to the purpose by grammar, what is also incorporated here is that he was preparing a new people for himself. The latter point fits with Barnabas’s argument in ch. 4 that the people of Israel lost their status as the covenant people all the way back when Moses broke the tablets after their worship of the golden calf. As we saw with Melito (and in contrast with those like the author of Hebrews), the author has gone as far as to claim that the new covenant involves a new people of God distinct from the Jews. By implication in this passage, it is this new people who will receive the resurrection that Jesus demonstrated, the one that is “out of the dead,” for which they are marked by being his new people in the present time.
The second explicit reference appears in 15:8b–9. This comes as part of a teaching on the Sabbath, where he had also presented a schema in which the six days signify six thousand years in which the Lord will finish everything, so that when the Son comes at the end of those years he will put an end to the time of the lawless one, judge the impious, and change the sun, moon, and stars (15:4–5). Then after quoting Isa 1:13, he argues that it is not the “present Sabbaths” that are acceptable to the Lord, but the one which he has made, “in which, after I have rested all things, I will make a beginning of the eighth day, which is a beginning of another world. Therefore also we observe the eighth day in rejoicing, in which also Jesus rose [ἀνίστημι] from/out of the dead and, after appearing, ascended into the heavens” (15:8b–9).
The reference to the Sabbath and the days of creation ultimately served to illustrate the eschatological significance of the “eighth day” (cf. Justin, Dial. 41), even if it means the author breaks the consistency of his day=1,000 years schema. The author fits with other texts that reference the day of worship as the Lord’s day or the first day of the week as distinct from the Sabbath because this was the day on which the Lord arose (Did. 14; Gos. Pet. 35 [par. 9]; 50 [par. 12]; Ign. Magn. 9:1; Justin, 1 Apol. 67). However, not all authors necessarily follow this argument about it replacing the Sabbath as such. While this notion was one strand of thought that persisted in early Christian tradition, it existed alongside one in which both the Sabbath and the Lord’s day on Sunday were observed (Mart. Pol. 8:1; 21:1; Didascalia Apostolorum 11; 21; Apostolic Constitutions 2.36; 47; 59; 5.15; 18; 7.23; 36; 8.33).
Four other points are noteworthy here. One, once again, we see the phrase I have noted previously of Jesus being resurrected “from/out of the dead.” The phrase accentuates his distinction from the rest of the dead. As the author had said earlier, by this event of distinction, he was the demonstration of the resurrection out of the dead. This is particularly befitting for one who revealed himself to be Lord of all, as with his ascension in the context of his ministry.
Two, the author appears to telescope the resurrection and the ascension here. He mentions Jesus appearing (to his disciples) in between, but it is possible (though less likely) for his grammar to suggest that he links the ascension to Sunday as well (so that it could be translated as “Jesus both rose from the dead and … ascended”). There is no biblical indication that the ascension took place on a Sunday (although it has traditionally been celebrated on a Sunday). Given the ambiguity of the grammar and the prevalence of linking the Lord’s day to the resurrection and not the ascension per se, I think it is rather the case that the author is rounding out the three-stage narrative of major gospel events noted throughout the NT with reference to the event that demonstrates his going to take his place on the throne in the heavens. That is why it is referenced here, rather than it being specifically tied to a claim that it also happened on a Sunday. He also wanted to make sure to reference the appearances, however briefly, given their importance to apostolic testimony.
Three, it is said to be proper for Jesus’s resurrection to have been on a Sunday because of its significance as the eighth day to mark the beginning of a new creation (or “another world”) after the seventh day. This fits what we have seen many times over in our series on the NT (and otherwise) on how the resurrection is linked with the new creation. After all, the NT often declares that Jesus’s resurrection was the first piece of the eschatological reality, that the new creation and the new human family—consisting of both Jews and gentiles—began with Jesus (Acts 3:15–21; 26:23; Rom 8:11, 23, 28–29; 2 Cor 1:22; 4:13–5:5; Eph 1:14, 19–20; Phil 3:19–21; Col 1:18; 1 Thess 4:14–15; 5:9–10; Heb 2:14–15; Rev 1:5).1 Of course, given the rest of Barnabas, one should not mistake his eschatology as being a realized one. He sees the resurrection as the foundation of the new creation in the midst of the present age with other decisive eschatological events to come, as the rest of his text makes clear.
Four, as already observed, Sunday is said to be the proper day of worship precisely because it was on this day that Jesus rose “from the dead”. This fits the eschatological significance of that event. It is also fitting as a marker of a new creation because of how it marks out the “new people” of God (per the aforementioned comments from ch. 5). In his argument, the new creation, new people, and new covenant need a new day of observance.
The final explicit reference comes as part of an exposition on the “two ways.” The author says that it is fitting that when one has learned the righteous deeds or right ways of the Lord that one walks in them. The one who chooses this way will be glorified in God’s kingdom, but the one who chooses “that” way will be destroyed with his works. To put a fine point on the exposition, he says, “For this reason [there is] resurrection [ἀνάστασις], for this reason [there is] recompense” (21:1).
This exemplifies what we have seen many times over of the theological-ethical function of resurrection belief. It upholds ethical imperatives through reminding the audience of what is to come. This is particularly so because of the frequent linking of resurrection with the final judgment, as is made clear here. Whatever is done in the body will be recompensed in the body, for which reason the body will be resurrected.
Implicit References
These explicit references give us anchor points with which to identify and link other implicit references to the resurrection at several points in this text. The first of these appears near the beginning of the book. The author outlines the three “dogmas” of the Lord: “hope of life, the beginning and end/goal of our faith; [and] righteousness, of judgment the beginning and the end/goal; joyful and exulting love, of works of righteousness a testimony” (1:6). This is something close to the triad of faith, hope, and love, but with some obvious variation. The hope of life is implicitly linked with the life of Jesus’s resurrection, the everlasting life that utterly conquers death, which will require resurrection for the dead to receive, but which is made available to both the living and the dead by the resurrected Jesus. This hope of life is said to be the beginning and the end-goal of our faith. It is the beginning in that the resurrection of Jesus—by which everlasting life is communicated—is the foundation of Christian faith. It is the end-goal in that Jesus’s resurrection is the basis of the future hope, which includes receiving of everlasting life, including by the resurrection to everlasting life. That is what will later be referred to as the resurrection “out of the dead” that Jesus demonstrated. Moreover, it is linked with righteousness and judgment for reasons we have already noted, though that is left implicit here. And since righteousness is linked with joyful and exulting love, that too is thus linked with the hope of life as what marks one who has such hope. Likewise, 8:5–6 links hope on Christ with living forever, the everlasting life that the righteous receive by resurrection for the dead and transformation to be conformed to the resurrected Christ for the living and the dead.
Similarly, 6:9 speaks of hoping on Jesus, who is about to appear in the flesh. The presupposition of such an event is that he was resurrected after his crucifixion. Moreover, he must have been resurrected “in flesh.” The specific terminology in reference to resurrection does not appear here like we will see in Ignatius, but it is a rather intuitive implication if he is to come in the flesh.
Another implicit reference comes from the author’s interpretation of Gen 1:26, 28 when he argues that humans do not yet have the dominion referenced in that text. But the rule in question will come after the faithful have been made complete as heirs of the Lord’s covenant (6:18b–19). This is similar to texts like Rom 8, the aforementioned Heb 2 (on which, see here as well), and various parts of Colossians and Revelation, among others that link resurrection and the kingdom. The notion and specific terminology of being made complete is also reminiscent of Hebrews and the use of the terminology therein to link to resurrection, as I have noted previously in the aforementioned links and in my mini-commentary on Hebrews. The completion of the faithful is full conformity to Christ Jesus, including conformation to his resurrection and everlasting life (by resurrection for the dead and by transformation for all, as shown in 1 Cor 15). Such an implication makes sense in light of how the author has elsewhere linked resurrection and new creation.
In connection particularly to the first and last explicit references, it is significant that the author refers to the Son of God as the Lord who is to “judge the living and the dead” (7:2; cf. 15:5). To judge the dead requires resurrection, per the author’s own statements and frequent links we have seen elsewhere between resurrection and final judgment. The reference to him judging the living and the dead is reminiscent of texts in Acts 10:42; Rom 14:9; 2 Tim 4:1; and 1 Pet 4:5. Furthermore, the author himself has linked Jesus’s resurrection with his resurrection of others and with his act of judgment in 5:5–7.
When the author expounds on the way of light and the knowledge/gnosis granted to walk in it, he first characterizes it by the directive to “love the one who made you, fear the one who formed you, glorify the one who redeemed/freed/ransomed you out of death” (19:2). The reference is one that generally applies to salvation, but the imagery is derived from resurrection (indeed, the aorist participle could signify either an event already accomplished or the confident anticipation of what is still a future action, so that this could be a proleptic reference in part or in whole to the coming resurrection). The language of ἐκ θανάτου (“out of death”) has the significance of removal out of death from which one was previously ensnared, as in Heb 5:7 (see the last link on Hebrews), as well as John 5:24 and 1 John 3:14 (where it functions similarly to its use in Barnabas).
Finally, subsequent to the last explicit reference are two other implicit references that are informed by it. One is the author’s notification that the day is near in which all things will be destroyed together with the evil one, and this is because the Lord is near with his reward/wages (21:3). After all, final judgment will necessarily involve resurrection, and so the resurrection also appears implicitly when he calls upon the audience to act so that they “will be found [in the right]” in the day of judgment (21:6).
On Rom 8:23 specifically, Joel White argues that the phrase τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ πνεύματος is an allusion to Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor 15:20. Joel R. White, “Christ’s Resurrection Is the Spirit’s Firstfruits (Romans 8,23),” Resurrection of the Dead: Biblical Traditions in Dialogue, ed. Geert Van Oyen and Tom Shepherd, BETL 249 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 300–302.