Barnabas
To: SDAnet
From: Gerhard Ebersoehn biblestudents@imaginet.co.za
Tony Zbaraschuk, 22 Sep
2005, 19:52:42–0700,
Re: Barnabas and eighth
day,
Wrote:
TZ:
The
Word of Gerhard Ebersoehn came to the Net, claiming:
From what word of Barnabas does one get the idea
he with 'eighth day', meant Sunday?
Or,
even more far-fetched, the 'Lord's Day'?
….
Barnabas associates the Seventh Day Sabbath
with 'the eighth day' - there is not the least
allusion to any other day (of the week) per se in
Baranbas. He identifies the 'eighth day'
with "the seventh period" - which
'period' he
(in his own way) derives
from the Seventh Day Sabbath Day!
TZ:
I really do not see where you are getting this from the text, which is very
specifically _contrasting_
the
two days rather than identifying them.
The eighth day, to Barnabas,
is
the day the Lord rose from the dead,
and
_not_ one of "the sabbaths that now are".
We
know from the Gospels that Jesus rose from the dead the day after the Sabbath,
and Barnabas is pretty obviously drawing a connection between the first day of
the week when God begun to create everything, and the first day of the new week when everything
was re-created.
Note that I don't accept Barnabas as canon, so I don't have to worry about this
being used as authority for us to keep the Sabbath at present. But I
think it _does_ tell us what at least some Christians were doing in the
generation or two after the apostles.
….
I think you are allowing your (very justifiable) desire to keep the Sabbath to
override the plain evidence that some second-century Christians were no longer
keeping Sabbath, maybe even some first-century ones. ….
Tony Zbaraschuk:
“… plain evidence that
some second-century
Christians were no longer keeping Sabbath, maybe even some first-century ones.”
GE:
It may surprise you, but I
maintain some second-century Christians were no longer keeping the Sabbath, but
Sunday. Justin Martyr supplies the first ‘plain evidence’ of it though – not
Barnabas.
And it may surprise you
even more, if I told you I believe Sunday-worship tried to make its inroads
into Christianity at a VERY early date (but failed), for Paul reprimands the
Galatian Congregations they were “superstitiously observing days” etc. so as
for them to have “made u-turn” to their “weak and beggarly (former) principles”
– to their “by nature not gods” – which they “desired / lusted” to “serve /
worship again”, just as when they “knew not God”, and were pagans still.
As to Barnabas:
I first wrote, “From what
word of Barnabas does one get the idea he with 'eighth day', meant Sunday? Or,
even more far-fetched, the 'Lord's Day'?”
I used the words “what
word” not without purpose! You supplied the word,
“The eighth day, to Barnabas, is the day the Lord
rose
from the dead,
and
_not_ one of "the sabbaths that now are".
We
know from the Gospels
that
Jesus rose from the dead
the
day after the Sabbath,
and
Barnabas is pretty obviously
drawing
a connection between the
first
day of the week
when
God begun to create everything,
and
the first day of the new week
when
everything was re-created.”
But then I said,
“associated”; you quote me as having said Barnabas “identified” “the two days”
– “the eighth day” and “the Seventh Day Sabbath Day” with one another! I did
not say that; I wrote: “He identifies the 'eighth day' with "the seventh
period" – which 'period' he (in his own way) derives from the Seventh Day
Sabbath Day!” Quite different things!
Now Barnabas is NOT “very
specifically _contrasting_ the two days”
– he concludes hither and
thither from any which one of
them. If he makes any sure impression it is of confusing his concepts of the
‘days’, “periods” and even “years”.
TZ:
The
eighth day, to Barnabas,
is
the day the Lord rose from the dead,
and
_not_ one of "the sabbaths that now are".
GE:
This is what Barnabas
actually wrote,
“The Lord says to them
(the Jews), I cannot stand your new moons and your Sabbaths! Do you not see
what he means? (He means the present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but
that which I have made, in which I will give rest to all things and make the
beginning of an eighth day that is the beginning of another world. Wherefore we
also celebrate with gladness the eighth day in which Jesus also rose from the
dead, and was made manifest, and ascended into heaven.”
Barnabas undeniably
associates “Sabbaths” with “the eighth day”, namely, “Sabbaths … that which I
have made, in which I will give rest to all things and make the beginning of an
eighth day that is the beginning of another world”.
He does NOT associate
anything with the First Day of the week!
Then Barnabas associates
these ‘Sabbaths’ – of whatever nature they may be – with some allegorical
period which he describes metaphorically with the phrase “the eighth day” –
“the eighth day IN WHICH, Jesus also rose from the dead, and was made manifest,
and ascended into heaven”.
Barnabas associates the
‘Sabbaths’ – the Old Covenant Sabbath by
reason of the Law – with some allegorical period which he describes
metaphorically with the phrase “the eighth day” – “the eighth day IN
WHICH, Jesus also rose from the dead, and was made manifest, and ascended into
heaven”.
Regardless
of what the Gospels say, it is what is stated in Barnabas! ‘Very specifically’
this is NO specific ‘day’ of the week! The ONLY thing ‘pretty obvious’, is that
Barnabas does NOT ‘identify’ the ‘eighth day’ with the First Day of the week,
but rather associates it with the ‘old’ Sabbaths, even in their ‘present unacceptability’.
Barnabas blames Christians
(“children”, 4) for keeping their “present Sabbaths” without
Christian meaning. (He does not vent ‘anti-Jewish sentiments’ at all, but
explains that Christians, no longer should keep the Sabbath because the Law
forces them to.) According to Barnabas, in believing in Christ these Christians
ought to have found the true Sabbath that God from the beginning had intended
for them – which according to Barnabas was no literal day whatsoever.
Barnabas does so through a
process of reasoning the literal Seventh Day Sabbath of creation (15:1-3) as “meaning”
a period of “thousand years” (4); as well as “meaning” some
metaphysical day of judgement (5). The
Sabbath (according to Barnabas) no longer can be a specific day, because it is
impossible to keep properly, but rather is ‘meant’ as a “promise”
of Christ – 6-7.
8: “Further He says to
them (at Sinai, 15:1, “my sons”, 2), I cannot stand your new moons and your Sabbaths!
See what He means,
Unacceptable are (your)
present Sabbaths to me, but that acceptable thing which I had made, in which
thing I shall rest everything, a beginning of an eighth day that is (the)
beginning of another world – wherefore also, we celebrate the eighth day with
joy, in which day Jesus rose from the dead, and having been made manifest,
indeed ascended into heavens.”
(Rendering CGE)
In this there is no
suggestion of the First Day of the week! Barnabas presents the new meaning, the
Sabbath had received in the event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the
dead. It was this,
“… Something I had made
/ perfected – ho pepoiehka”, and “in which everything rested”, which
now, was made “a beginning of another world” (8b). This is a direct
reference by Barnabas to 15:3, where “He (God) speaks of the Sabbath at the
beginning of the creation”, when “God on the Seventh Day in the day (of
it) made and end / perfected (sunetelesen), and in it rested, and sanctified it
(the Seventh Day)”.
According to Barnabas this
day, and “in it”, first of all, the ‘new’ world of the Christ-era
“became”, or “was made a beginning of”. And in the end, it meant,
that “When the Son comes, He will destroy the time of the wicked one, and
then He will truly rest on the Seventh Day”. (5)
“No one, at the present
time, has the power to keep holy the day which God had made holy” (6) –
which can ‘mean’ any or both of the Seventh Day or the experiencing of
the reality of the ‘day’ of the ‘new beginning’.
“But when all things
have been made new by the Lord; then we shall be able to keep it holy”. (7)
Barnabas here of course refers to the new earth after Christ’s return, and
again he is ambiguous as to the keeping holy of the Seventh Day or the ‘day’ of
the ‘new beginning’.
In any case, Barnabas
makes association between the Seventh Day Sabbath of the creation and the new
Sabbaths of after Christ had come and had made everything new through
resurrection from the dead.
The First Day never comes
into the picture.
And there is only one
perfection envisioned by Barnabas – the “ending made / perfected” which
is simultaneously the “beginning made / perfected” of, and in, and by,
the single and comprehensive moment of Jesus Christ being 1, raised, and
2, of Him appearing (before the throne of God), and 3, of Him being taken
up or exalted into heavens. (9)
This is what Barnabas
meant is the Sabbath-Seventh Day’s “meaning”: “He (God) means this!”,
4, “Notice children, what is the meaning of He made and end …”. It is “an
eighth day” that is BOTH and AT ONCE God’s “making and END”, and His
‘making a NEW BEGINNING”.
Common sense despite
Barnabas himself, can only ‘identify’ this “eighth day” with the Seventh
Day he has been speaking of all along – the Sabbath Day that “presently”
was kept in an “unacceptable”, Judaistic way for the Law’s sake, and not
because and for the sake of Jesus
Christ. With that, my conviction is in perfect sympathy.
If the First Day of the
week ever came into play or at all was relevant, Barnabas would have mentioned
it in so many words; he would have made the direct association between the Christ-event
and the First Day of the week which he is making between the Christ-event and
the Seventh Day Sabbath. Because Barnabas specifically and in detail makes
mention of the Divine acts of the Seventh Day, he would have pointed out the
actual deeds of God on and of the First Day, had he ‘meant’ the First
Day of the week. Barnabas would have done as Justin two or three decades later
would do – he would have made mention of the First Day, and he would have made
mention of God’s creation of light on the First Day. Not the least allusion to
anything of the kind can be traced though. Barnabas at no stage had the First
Day of the week in mind, I repeat. And I repeat, to force the First Day into
association with the ‘Eighth Day’ because of false ‘translation’ of Mt.28:1,
amounts to adulterating the Scriptures (the way Justin did).
If this is below the
standards of SDANet for publishing, I would call it cowardice for hearing the
truth. And kindly don’t repeat the objection it is “incoherent”, for better
coherency in this case of Barnabas’ allegorical reasoning, is just not
possible, and is used as an easy but poor excuse to present a better
explanation than ever before of the issue.
Wrote Tony Zbaraschuk
SDAnet moderator, to me,
“Gerhard,
After discussion with the other moderators, I am rejecting this post.
Your argument does not seem even coherent, much less a worthwhile contribution
to the SDAnet discussion environment.
Tony Zbaraschuk
SDAnet moderator”
This is what I had written
To: SDANet Re: Barnabas and First Day
...how Barnabas got to ‘the eighth day’ - from the Sabbath - "Seventh
DAY", to the "seventh PERIOD", to "the EIGHTH day";
and IT being IDENTIFIED with the Christ-EVENT in whole.
Now, Tony Zbaraschuk
(SDANET 23 Sept), wrote:
“We know from the Gospels
that Jesus rose from the dead the day after the Sabbath, and Barnabas is pretty
obviously drawing a connection between
the first day of the week when God begun to create everything, and the first
day of the new week when everything was re-created.”
Replied I, GE:
First: We know nothing from the
Gospels what Barnabas was doing.
Two: From Barnabas himself it is not
at all obvious he drew a connection between, quoting TZ:
"the first
day of the week when God begun to create everything, and the first day of the
new week when everything was re-created."
That is what TZ thinks - not what Barnabas wrote. (I have shown above what
Barnabas wrote - and thought.)
Three: SUPPOSE Barnabas had the
Gospels' ONLY account of the day and time of Jesus' resurrection in mind -
Mt.28:1.
Then keep in mind he wrote about a quarter of a century before Justin and could
therefore not have been misled by Justin's rendering of Mt.28:1.
So Barnabas - who wrote in Greek had Mt.28:1 the way we read it today in its
ORIGINAL text in mind - we suppose.
Then: he pretty obviously drew a
connection between the Seventh Day of the week
"Sabbath", when God FINISHED ALL HIS WORKS when everything was
re-created by "the exceeding greatness of His power to us-ward ... which
He wrought in Christ when He raised Him from the dead" ... "IN THE
SABBATH'S FULLNESS" - opse de sabbatohn - every thought and every
word written "according to (as could and should be expected) the
Scriptures"!
The LAST 'day / period' is what Barnabas was writing about - not the First Day.
Four: Then for TZ's information: You
did not give in English what Matthew or Mark (16:9) wrote; you gave Justin's
perversion of Mt.28:1.
Five: And with that you have the
EARLIEST (after Gal.4:10) indication of how Sunday-observance started in the
Christian Church - it began with the adulteration of the Scriptures—
adulteration like that of TZ’s.
Gerhard Ebersöhn
Barnabas associates the
'Sabbaths' - the Old Covenant Sabbath by reason of the Law - with some
allegorical period which he describes metaphorically with the phrase "the
eighth day" - "the eighth day IN WHICH, Jesus also rose from the
dead, and was made manifest, and ascended into heaven".
Regardless of what the Gospels say, it is what is stated in Barnabas! 'Very specifically' this is NO specific 'day' of the week! The ONLY
thing 'pretty obvious', is that Barnabas
does NOT 'identify' the 'eighth day' with the First Day of the week,
but rather associates it with the 'old' Sabbaths, even in their 'present
unacceptability'.
Barnabas blames Christians ("children", 4) for keeping their
"present Sabbaths" without Christian meaning. He does not vent
'anti-Jewish sentiments' at all, but
explains that Christians, no longer should keep the Sabbath because the Law forces them to. According
to Barnabas, in believing in Christ, these Christians ought to have found the
true Sabbath that God from the beginning had intended for them - which
according to Barnabas was no literal
day whatsoever.
Barnabas does so through a
process of reasoning the literal Seventh
Day Sabbath of creation (15:1-3) as ‘meaning’ a period of "thousand
years" (4); as well as ‘meaning’ some metaphysical day of judgement (5).
The Sabbath – according to Barnabas – no longer can be a specific day, the
First Day of the week included, because impossible to keep properly, but rather
is 'meant' as a "promise" of Christ - 6-7.
8: "Further He says to them (at Sinai, 15:1, "my sons", 2), I
cannot stand your new moons and your Sabbaths! See what He means,
Unacceptable are (your) present Sabbaths to me, but that acceptable thing which
I had made, in which thing I shall rest everything, a beginning of an eighth
day that is (the) beginning of another world – wherefore also, we celebrate the
eighth day with joy, in which day Jesus rose from the dead, and (after) having
been made manifest, indeed ascended into heavens." (Rendering CGE)
In this there is no suggestion of the First Day of the week! Barnabas presents ‘the-new-meaning-the-Sabbath-received’
in the event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. It was this,
"... Something I had made / perfected - ho pepoiehka", and "in
which everything rested", which now, was made "a beginning of another
world" (8b). This is a direct reference by Barnabas to 15:3, where
"He (God) speaks of the Sabbath at the beginning of the creation",
when "God on the Seventh Day in the day (of it) made and end / perfected
(sunetelesen), and in it rested, and sanctified it (the Seventh Day)".
According to Barnabas this
day, and "in it", first of all, the 'new' world of the Christ-era
"became", or "was made a beginning of". And in the end, it
meant, that "When the Son comes, He will destroy the time of the wicked
one, and then He will truly rest on the Seventh Day". (5)
"No one, at the present time, has the power to keep holy the day which God
had made holy" (6) - which can 'mean' any or both of the Seventh Day or
the experiencing of the reality of the 'day' of the 'new beginning'. "But when all things have been made new
by the Lord; then we shall be able to keep it holy". (7) Barnabas here of
course refers to the new earth after Christ's return, and again he is ambiguous
as to the keeping holy of the Seventh Day or the 'day' of the 'new beginning'. In any case, Barnabas makes association
between the Seventh Day Sabbath of the creation and the new Sabbaths of after
Christ had come and had made everything new through resurrection from the dead.
The First Day never comes into the
picture.
Only one perfection is envisioned by Barnabas - the "ending made /
perfected" which is simultaneously the "beginning made /
perfected" of, and in, and by, the single and comprehensive moment of
Jesus Christ being 1, raised, and 2, of Him appearing (before the throne of
God), and 3, of Him being taken up or exalted into heavens. (9)
This is what Barnabas meant is the Sabbath-Seventh Day's "meaning":
"He (God) means this!", 4, "Notice children, what is the meaning
of He made and end ...". It is "an eighth day" that is BOTH and
AT ONCE God's "making and END", and His 'making a NEW
BEGINNING".
Common sense despite Barnabas himself, can only 'identify' this "eighth
day" with the Seventh Day he has been speaking of all along - the Sabbath
Day that "presently" was kept in an "unacceptable",
Judaistic way for the Law's sake, and not because and for the sake of Jesus
Christ. With that, my conviction is in perfect sympathy.
If the First Day of the week ever came into play or at all was relevant,
Barnabas would have mentioned it in so many words; he would have made the direct
association between the Christ-event and the First Day of the week which he is
making between the Christ-event and the Seventh Day Sabbath. Because Barnabas
specifically and in detail makes mention of God’s Divine acts of the Seventh Day, he would have pointed out
the actual deeds of God on and of the First Day, 'meant' he, the First Day of
the week. Barnabas would have done as Justin two or three decades later would
do - he would have mentioned the First Day, and he would have mentioned God's
creation of light on the First Day. Not the least allusion to anything of the
kind can be traced though. Barnabas at no stage had the First Day of the week
in mind, I repeat. And I repeat, to force the First Day into association with
the 'Eighth Day' because of false 'translation' of Mt.28:1, amounts to
adulterating the Scriptures— the exact same way Justin did.
If this gets regarded as below the standards of SDANet for publishing, I would
call it cowardice for hearing the truth. And kindly don't repeat the objection
it is "incoherent", for better coherency in this case of Barnabas'
allegorical reasoning, is just not possible, and is used as an easy but poor
excuse to present a better explanation of Barnabas in this matter than ever
before.
1 October 2005
Gerhard
Ebersöhn
Private
Bag 43
Sunninghill
2517