Hello and welcome. In this article, we'll examine relevant texts in the Epistle of Barnabas to understand who the proper recipients of baptism are and whether this text aligns with Credobaptism or Paedobaptism. For background context, we recommend reading our brief introduction article on the proper recipients of baptism from historical perspectives, which you can read here.
REVIEWING COMMON CLAIMS FROM PAEDOBAPTISTS
In the apologetic landscape, Paedobaptists defending their practice routinely claim that the baptismal practice of Christians always included infants, going back to the apostles. They argue that the practice of believers being the only proper recipients of baptism has no attestation until the 1500s, and that Paedobaptism was the universal practice before then.
“Since the Apostles themselves, paedobaptism was practiced and handed off to the Apostolic Fathers, who handed it off to the next generation, known as the Early Church Fathers. It must be noted that since the early church itself, dating back to the Apostles, paedobaptism has always been practiced.” - Trey Soto, Do Christians have to believe in Paedobaptism?
“Infant baptism was the universal practice of the church until after the Protestant Reformation.” - Theopolis Institute, Infant Baptism in the History of the Church
“Infant baptism is the universal practice of the Christian church for over the first 1500 years of its existence.” - Kim Riddlebarger, The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism, VI.D
“It is not infant baptism which is an odd practice, rather it is the rejection of infant baptism which is a novelty and only represents a single strand of Protestantism…. If we are going to compare opinions then I am convinced that it is only reasonable to believe that the earliest Christians, taught by the Apostles, had the correct understanding, and that any novel ideas, which are contrary to 1500 years of unanimous Christian teaching, cannot be authentic Christianity.” - St. George Orthodox Ministry, Infant Baptism?
“Infant baptism was the universal practice of the church until after the Protestant Reformation.” - Tim Lecroy, Infant Baptism in the History of the Church
“For fifteen hundred years after Christ, the practice of infant baptism was universal; that to this general fact there was absolutely no exception,” - Samuel Miller, cited by Booth in, Children of the Promise, p. 179
In this article, we will examine the Epistle of Barnabas.
WHAT IS THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS?
The Epistle of Barnabas is an early Christian work likely written sometime between 80 and 130 AD. While portions and fragments of the epistle have been preserved for centuries, interest in the document increased significantly in modern times following the 1859 discovery of the fourth-century manuscript Codex Sinaiticus at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mount Sinai, which contained the Epistle of Barnabas.
The Epistle of Barnabas is particularly notable for its allegorical interpretation of certain Old Testament passages and its efforts to distinguish Christianity from Judaism. As a result, the document provides valuable insight into the development of early Christian identity, biblical interpretation, and theological thought during a formative period of Church history.
Throughout history, some have believed the author to be the Barnabas mentioned in the book of Acts, but it is now generally attributed to an otherwise unknown early Christian teacher.
The Epistle of Barnabas is not to be confused with the Gospel of Barnabas, a non-canonical and pseudepigraphical gospel written in the Middle Ages with entirely different themes and content.
PRELIMINARY THOUGHTS
When it comes to making the case for Credobaptism in this text, there are three main lines of evidence we will unpack.
First, what the Epistle of Barnabas says about baptism itself.
Second, what the text says about children.
Third, what the text says about circumcision.
Unlike other texts we have covered so far, such as The Didache, we are not aware of any substantive comments from Paedobaptists at this time, arguing that the Epistle of Barnabas does not demonstrate Credobaptism. As a result, there is not much, if anything, to cover as far as rebuttals are concerned.
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS ON BAPTISM
Before looking at what the Epistle of Barnabas says about baptism, we first want to note that the text has a prominent evangelistic and credo-centric theme throughout multiple chapters.
"But they lost it by turning unto idols. For thus saith the Lord; Moses, Moses, come down quickly; for thy people whom thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt hath done unlawfully. And Moses understood, and threw the two tables from his hands; and their covenant was broken in pieces, that the covenant of the beloved Jesus might be sealed unto our hearts in the hope which springeth from faith in Him." - Barnabas 4:8
"Then again what saith He; And whosoever shall set his hope on Him, shall live forever. Is our hope then set upon a stone? Far be it. But it is because the Lord hath set His flesh in strength. For He saith; And He set Me as a hard rock." - Barnabas 6:3
"What then is the milk and the honey Because the child is first kept alive by honey, and then by milk. So in like manner we also, being kept alive by our faith in the promise and by the word, shall live and be lords of the earth." - Barnabas 6:17
"Wherefore was this? That they might learn that they cannot be saved, unless they should set their hope on Him." - Barnabas 12:3
"When therefore they were assembled together they entreated Moses that he should offer up intercession for them that they might be healed. And Moses said unto them; Whensoever, said he, one of you shall be bitten, let him come to the serpent which is placed on the tree, and let him believe and hope that the serpent being himself dead can make alive; and forthwith he shall be saved. And so they did. Here again thou hast in these things also the glory of Jesus, how that in Him and unto Him are all things." - Barnabas 12:7
"If then besides this He also recorded it through Abraham, we attain the completion of our knowledge. What then saith he to Abraham when he alone believed, and was ascribed for righteousness? Behold I have made thee, Abraham, a father of nations that believe in God in uncircumcision." - Barnabas 13:7
Throughout the epistle, the author references multiple Old Testament passages and draws soteriological connections and conclusions from them. It is within this overall theme that we find various relevant statements regarding baptism and proper recipients.
"But let us enquire whether the Lord took care to signify before hand concerning the water and the cross. Now concerning the water it is written in reference to Israel, how that they would not receive the baptism which bringeth remission of sins, but would build for themselves." - Barnabas 11:1
"And again He saith in another prophet; And He that doeth these things shall be as the tree that is planted by the parting streams of waters, which shall yield his fruit at his proper season, and his leaf shall not fall off, and all things whatsoever he doeth shall prosper." - Barnabas 11:6
"Ye perceive how He pointed out the water and the cross at the same time. For this is the meaning; Blessed are they that set their hope on the cross, and go down into the water; for He speaketh of the reward at his proper season; then, saith He, I will repay. But now what saith He? His leaves shall not fall off; He meaneth by this that every word, which shall come forth from you through your mouth in faith and love, shall be for the conversion and hope of many." - Barnabas 11:8
"Next what saith He? And there was a river streaming from the right hand, and beautiful trees rose up from it; and whosoever shall eat of them shall live forever. This He saith, because we go down into the water laden with sins and filth, and rise up from it bearing fruit in the heart, resting our fear and hope on Jesus in the spirit. And whosoever shall eat of these shall live forever; He meaneth this; whosoever, saith He, shall hear these things spoken and shall believe, shall live forever." - Barnabas 11:10-11
Within these broader credo-centric themes throughout the epistle, we find details about baptism in chapter 11, where the author makes multiple references to the Old Testament in connection to "the water and the cross". In 11:1, the author is likely referencing Jeremiah 2:13, which says:
Jer 2:13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.
In 11:6, the author is referencing Psalm 1, which says:
Psa 1:2-3 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
In this text, we see that those who delight in and meditate on the things of God are likened to a tree by the river. In 11:8, we get the author's interpretation and application. The tree is seen as the cross, and the river is seen as the water of baptism. And the meaning places the going down into the water on a credo basis, preceded by setting hope on the cross first. This, of course, parallels Psalm 1, where being planted like a tree is preceded by delighting in and meditating on the things of God. The author then indicates that those who have gone down into the water have faith and love, and their words help spread the gospel. So categorically, the people who are envisioned as receiving baptism or "going down into the water" are developed enough in body and mind to have personal faith and hope in what the cross means and be a Christian witness afterward.
Continuing on, in 11:10, the author is likely referencing Ezekiel 47:12, while blending themes of Genesis and Revelation, which says:
Ezk 47:12 And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine.
In this text, we see similar themes to those in Psalm 1. In the author's interpretation and application, a tree coming up from the bank of a river with fruit is seen as imagery of a person coming up out of the water of baptism with fruit in their heart. The author describes those who are going down into the water as people who have committed "sins" and are resting their fear and hope on Jesus. The entire event presupposes the recipient hearing and believing.
So we again see that the author categorically seems to envision baptism on a credo basis. Those who have committed sins, hear the gospel, believe, set their hope on Jesus, and look to the cross are then baptized. The epistle does not provide us with additional categories of people who qualify as recipients of baptism. This has led various Paedobaptist theologians to make the following comments, showing that we are not alone in our observation.
“The Epistle to Barnabas also furnishes an explicit discussion of baptism, from the perspective of its Old Testament foreshadowing…what he does say about baptism clearly has responsible agents in view.” - Wright, Infant Baptism in Historical Perspective, p. 47-48
“How instinctively Barnabas avoided envisaging infants as subjects of Christian initiation appears earlier in his work.” - Wright, Infant Baptism in Historical Perspective, p. 48
“It does seem from the statement concerning baptismal candidates who go down into the water, that they are doing so of their own accord.” - Stander & Louw, Baptism in the Early Church, p. 37
To conclude this section, when speaking on baptism, the Epistle of Barnabas seems to align squarely with the Credobaptist perspective.
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS ON CHILDREN
We have further evidence that the Epistle of Barnabas demonstrates Credobaptism by showing how the text doesn't align with or provide grounding for common reasons why infants are baptized in Paedobaptist theology. One reason why some Paedobaptist traditions baptize infants, and a major reason historically, is the concept that infants are guilty of sin, which needs to be remitted through baptism for the child not to be damned and be able to enter heaven. This is a topic we have written extensively on in other articles, so we won't go in much depth here. Let's look at three sources displaying this from the 5th century.
"Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema. For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, “By one man sin is come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned,” than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration." - Council in 418, Canon II
“Let there be then no eternal salvation promised to infants out of our own opinion, without Christ’s baptism; for none is promised in that Holy Scripture which is to be preferred to all human authority and opinion." - A treatise on the merits and forgiveness of sins, and on the baptism of infants, Chapter 33
“What do we understand by the darkness but sin? And whatever else it may embrace in its meaning, at any rate he who believes not in Christ will “abide in darkness,”—which, of course, is a penal state, not, as the darkness of the night, necessary for the refreshment of living beings. So that infants, unless they pass into the number of believers through the sacrament which was divinely instituted for this purpose, will undoubtedly remain in this darkness.” - A treatise on the merits and forgiveness of sins, and on the baptism of infants, Chapter 35
“For only the little ones who do not yet have their own actions, whether good ones or bad ones, will be condemned by reason of original sin alone, if the grace of the savior does not come to their aid by the bath of rebirth. But all the rest who, in using free choice, have added their own personal sins on top of original sin, if they are not rescued from the power of darkness by the grace of God and transferred to the kingdom of Christ, will receive judgment, not only according to the merits of their origin, but also according to merits of their own will.” - Second Letter of Augustine to Abbot Valentine, AP4 WSA 1.26.47
“Consider also the case of the whole multitude of children. In none of them do you find deserts, neither past nor future, only the sin in which the whole human race is born unto damnation. We speak now of children before the use of reason and before they are able to make any use of their free will. Some are regenerated in baptism and pass on to eternal happiness, others are not reborn and go to unending misery.” - The call of all nations, Book 1, Chapter 16
What we see in these three examples is that one prominent reason for baptizing infants is to remove the sin they are guilty of, so they aren't damned if they die and can go to heaven. What's the relevance of this to the Epistle of Barnabas? Well, this reason to baptize infants is premised on the idea that infants are guilty of sin. If a person in early Christianity didn't believe that infants were guilty of sin, it would mean they wouldn't affirm infant baptism for that particular reason. Without clear affirmation of the practice, the rejection of certain concepts which are often used as justification for the practice makes it less likely that the person affirms the practice and just failed to mention it in their writings. So what does the Epistle of Barnabas say about children? Is it in line with this premise that is used as a reason to baptize infants?
"Next what saith He? And there was a river streaming from the right hand, and beautiful trees rose up from it; and whosoever shall eat of them shall live forever. This He saith, because we go down into the water laden with sins and filth, and rise up from it bearing fruit in the heart, resting our fear and hope on Jesus in the spirit. And whosoever shall eat of these shall live forever; He meaneth this; whosoever, saith He, shall hear these things spoken and shall believe, shall live forever." - Barnabas 11:10-11
We looked at this part of the Epistle earlier, but notice that it expects and assumes that those who are baptized have committed sins.
"Forasmuch then as He renewed us in the remission of sins, He made us to be a new type, so that we should have the soul of children, as if He were recreating us." - Barnabas 6:11
Earlier in the Epistle, we're told that those who have been renewed and had their sins forgiven are made new. The writer likens this state to having "the soul of children". Likening the state of having no guilt of sin to being a child makes little sense if the writer believed children were actually guilty of sin from birth and required baptism to be saved from it. We can lay out how this strengthens the case for Credobaptism in the Epistle with a syllogism.
Premise 1. The Epistle of Barnabas expects that everyone baptized has previously been guilty of sin.
Premise 2. The Epistle of Barnabas indicates that infants (or children under discussion) are not guilty of sin.
Conclusion 1. Therefore, infants are not among those whom the Epistle expects to be baptized.
Premise 3. If the Epistle does not expect infants to be baptized, then it does not affirm infant baptism.
Conclusion 2. Therefore, the Epistle does not affirm infant baptism.
Kurt Aland makes the same observation when he said:
“In the Apostolic Fathers we repeatedly find the presumption of the ‘innocence’ (in the original meaning of the term) of children unambiguously intimated. In the Letter of Barnabas 6.11 it is declared that Christ renews Christians in the remission of sins as if they were born for a second time, ‘so that they should have the soul of children’….So long as and wherever this assumption held good, infant baptism was plainly not necessary, indeed it was superfluous,” - Aland, Did The Early Church Baptize Infants?, p. 105-106
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS ON CIRCUMCISION
Another underlying reason and premise for infant baptism, particularly prominent in Reformed and Presbyterian traditions, is the practice of infant circumcision in the Old Testament. Often tied to covenantal arguments for infant baptism, this premise holds that infants were circumcised in the Old Testament, and that baptism now has the same function within the covenant as circumcision did. As a result, infants should be baptized. Let's look at a few statements from Paedobaptist theologians that articulate this over the centuries.
“Hence we may conclude, that everything applicable to circumcision applies also to baptism, excepting always the difference in the visible ceremony…Hence it is incontrovertible, that baptism has been substituted for circumcision, and performs the same office.” - Institutes 4.16.4
“Having abolished circumcision, which was done with blood, he established in its place the sacrament of baptism...Moreover, what circumcision was to the Jews, that baptism is for our children” - Article 34
"Baptism occupies the place of circumcision in the New Testament, and has the same use that circumcision had in the Old Testament.” - Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, p. 367
“The New Testament establishes no essential difference between circumcision and baptism; such differences as there are are only formal. Baptism has taken the place of circumcision.” - The Biblical doctrine of infant baptism: Sacrament of the covenant of grace, p. 210
“Thus baptism and circumcision are equated, each within its own covenant…As circumcision operated; so baptism operates.” - The Anglican Evangelical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, p. 62
So where does the Epistle of Barnabas stand on this reasoning? Does the text understand biblical covenants and the fulfillment/replacement/substitution of circumcision in the same way?
"Furthermore He saith concerning the ears, how that it is our heart which He circumcised. The Lord saith in the prophet; With the hearing of the ears they listened to Me. And again He saith; They that are afar off shall hear with their ears, and shall perceive what I have done. And; Be ye circumcised in your hearts, saith the Lord." - Barnabas 9:1
The Epistle's ninth chapter is completely devoted to circumcision. It begins by talking about circumcision of the heart and ears.
"And again He saith; Hear, O Israel, for thus saith the Lord thy God. Who is he that desireth to live forever, let him hear with his ears the voice of My servant. And again He saith; Hear, O heaven, and give ear, O earth, for the Lord hath spoken these things for a testimony. And again He saith; Hear the words of the Lord, ye rulers of this people. And again He saith; Hear, O my children, the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Therefore He circumcised our ears, that hearing the word we might believe." - Barnabas 9:2
In the next verse, we again see circumcision of the ears, which is tied to hearing the word and believing.
"But moreover the circumcision, in which they have confidence, is abolished; for He hath said that a circumcision not of the flesh should be practiced. But they transgressed, for an evil angel taught them cleverness." - Barnabas 9:3
Then, we see that circumcision of the flesh "is abolished" and instead a circumcision that is not fleshly should be practiced.
"He saith unto them; Thus saith the Lord your God (so I find the commandment); sow not upon thorns, be ye circumcised in to your Lord. And what saith He? Be ye circumcised in the hardness of your heart; and then ye will not harden your neck. Take this again; Behold, sayeth the Lord, all the Gentiles are uncircumcised in their foreskin, but this people is uncircumcised in their hearts." - Barnabas 9:4
In the next verse, we see the clear contrast between circumcision of the flesh and circumcision of the heart.
"But thou wilt say; In truth the people hath been circumcised for a seal. Nay, but so likewise is every Syrian and Arabian and all the priests of the idols. Do all those then too belong to their covenant? Moreover the Egyptians also are included among the circumcised." - Barnabas 9:5
Next, the epistle seems to say that circumcision of the flesh was not a seal of the covenant. It is argued that if it were, then other nations would belong to the covenant as well since they practice circumcision.
"Learn therefore, children of love, concerning all things abundantly, that Abraham, who first appointed circumcision, looked forward in the spirit unto Jesus, when he circumcised having received the ordinances of three letters. For the scripture saith; And Abraham circumcised of his household eighteen males and three hundred. What then was the knowledge given unto him? Understand ye that He saith the eighteen first, and then after an interval three hundred In the eighteen 'I' stands for ten, 'H' for eight. Here thou hast JESUS (IHSOYS). And because the cross in the 'T' was to have grace, He saith also three hundred. So He revealeth Jesus in the two letters, and in the remaining one the cross." - Barnabas 9:6-7
In the following two verses, the author employs a highly allegorical interpretation, arguing that circumcision was never the ultimate covenant sign but rather pointed forward to Christ. The author argues that Abraham's circumcision already contained a hidden prophecy of Jesus and the cross through the symbolic value of the number 318.
"But whence should they perceive or understand these things? Howbeit we having justly perceived the commandments tell them as the Lord willed. To this end He circumcised our ears and hearts, that we might understand these things." - Barnabas 10:12
In chapter 10, we again see this circumcision of ears and hearts, which is the circumcision "not of the flesh" according to chapter 9 of the epistle.
"But let us enquire whether the Lord took care to signify before hand concerning the water and the cross. Now concerning the water it is written in reference to Israel, how that they would not receive the baptism which bringeth remission of sins, but would build for themselves." - Barnabas 11:1
When we finally arrive at the chapter that discusses baptism, it starts by asking if there are any signs or prefigurings of baptism in the Old Testament. The chapter goes on to reference multiple passages which we covered earlier, and none of them are about the circumcision of the flesh. The Epistle does not make a connection that baptism is the fulfillment/replacement/substitution of circumcision. This concept, in tandem with the belief that covenantal membership essentially functions the same in both Testaments, would lead to the conclusion that infants should be baptized. But the Epistle of Barnabas does not seem to grant the premises that lead to such a conclusion.
As Paedobaptist theologian David F. Wright observed:
“the writer with unmistakable purposefulness trace no connection between baptism and circumcision,” - Wright, Infant Baptism in Historical Perspective, p. 47
“Not only did the author devote a full section (Barn. 9) to circumcision, in which he apparently denies that it was for the people of Israel a seal of their covenant (Barn. 9:6), but his discussion of baptism explicitly sets out at the beginning to ascertain whether the Lord gave any Old Testament foreshadowing of it (Barn. 11:1). The deliberateness of his failure to relate circumcision to baptism could scarcely be more unequivocal.” - Wright, Infant Baptism in Historical Perspective, p. 52-53
So we again see another possible reason to baptize infants left unaffirmed by the Epistle, further strengthening the case that when the text discusses baptism, it has Credobaptism in view.
CONCLUSION
In this article, we have examined what the Epistle of Barnabas says to determine if it demonstrates the practice of Credobaptism in early Christianity. The text paints the picture that those who have committed sins, hear the gospel, believe, set their hope on Jesus, and look to the cross are the persons who are baptized. The Epistle does not provide us with additional categories of people who qualify as recipients of baptism. Considering what the text says about baptism, it aligns with Credobaptism.
As additional evidence, the Epistle of Barnabas does not find agreement with two prominent theological reasons often given for baptizing infants. This fact undermines the possibility that the author did believe infants were valid recipients of baptism, but just didn't mention them for one reason or another and was only speaking about adult converts from paganism in this instance.
As a tertiary piece of supportive evidence, various Paedobaptist theologians have made the same observation that this text provides positive evidence for believer-oriented baptismal practice, while offering no clear positive evidence or provision for infant baptism, and in fact offering evidence to the contrary. As a result, we have Credobaptism in The Epistle of Barnabas.
Thanks for reading. That concludes this article.
No comments:
Post a Comment