In Charles Meeks book “Christian Hope through Fulfilled Prophecy” page 360 of the Kindle version, in the chapter concerning “last days” we have this statement;
“Confirmation that the “last days” ended with the destruction of the temple comes from an ancient writing called “The Epistle of Barnabas”. This was written after the destruction of the temple, perhaps near the close of the first century. The writer of this document considered the destruction of the temple to have occurred “in the last days” (especially verse 16;5).
Now while understand the use of a quote from a church father does not equate an endorsement for “an inspired” text but we do understand that the early Church did place this epistle among the cannon of scripture but later removed it demonstrating some authenticity to its writing.
What is clearly understood that without church history we have no date of 70 AD to prove anything was fulfilled. Many Full preterist can claim “it happened” and yet refuse to accept any outside biblical text as supporting evidence but yet cite 70 AD as the date destruction of Jerusalem, which can only come from non biblical sources. Their apparent lack of honesty or outright hypocrisy is evidence enough to not take them seriously.
The accepting of external sources becomes a “thorn in the flesh” as will be demonstrated why:
Fulfillment must be verified after the fact as Charles Meeks uses the “Epistle of Barnabas” for exactly that.
“Again, it was revealed how the city and the temple and the people of Israel should be betrayed. For the scripture saith; And it shall be in the last days, that the Lord shall deliver up the sheep of the pasture and the fold and the tower thereof to destruction. And it came to pass as the Lord spake”. The Epistle of Barnabas 16.5 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/barnabas-lightfoot.html
The statement does place the writing of the epistle after 70 AD, yet the author does remain in doubt by some scholars as to actually being the Barnabus of the Books of Acts who traveled with Paul, being that tradition has Barnabas martyred in 61 AD. There is no verifiable proof of authorship.
“The first editor of the epistle, Hugo Menardus (1645) advocated the genuineness of its ascription to Barnabas, but the opinion today is that Barnabas was not the author. It was probably written between the years 70 – 131 and addressed to Christian Gentiles. In 16.3–4, the Epistle reads:
“Furthermore he says again, ‘Behold, those who tore down this temple will themselves build it.’ It is happening. For because of their fighting it was torn down by the enemies. And now the very servants of the enemies will themselves rebuild it.”
This passage clearly places The Epistle of Barnabas being written after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70. But it also places Barnabas before the Bar Kochba Revolt of AD 132, after which there could have been no hope that the Romans would help to rebuild the temple. The document must come from the period between the two revolts. The place of origin remains an open question, although the Greek-speaking Eastern Mediterranean appears most probable (Treat).” Wikipedia
The point then of Charles Meeks was to simple point out that an early church father recognized the destruction of the Temple was fulfillment of prophecy of Jesus IN “the last days”. In preterist understanding “last days” point to the fulfillment of all things.
It at this point I make the claim either Charles was being dishonest or incompetent.
In the previous chapter we have the statement also; Barnabas 15:5
“And He rested on the seventh day. This He meaneth; when His Son shall come, and shall abolish the time of the Lawless One, and shall judge the ungodly, and shall change the sun and the moon and the stars, then shall he truly rest on the seventh day.”
It becomes absolutely clear the writer has no knowledge or any understanding the “Last days” included the return of Christ or of the Great White Throne Judgment.
What this reveals is simple, while the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple was the “last days” of the Old Covenant, the fulfilling of the “days of vengeance” there is no understanding that the other events were to follow or happen at the same time which implies there is another “last days” or “day of the Lord” yet to come, the day of Judgment.
The writer makes it clear he believes the second coming is yet to happen and this being written between 70 AD and 130 AD demands attention that the Church had no knowledge or belief, or were ever taught that Christ returned, there was any type of resurrection of the dead or that anyone was changed and caught up to be with the Lord as the “epistle” was considered cannon for many years and was quoted by other church fathers as being an authentic understanding.
There is no written record of dispute among the first century writers stating Christ returned in 70 AD. As every early first century Church father learned directly from Paul John, and then from those who lived beyond 70 AD, Clement, Polycarp, Timothy, and Luke not one recorded a statement as to believing Christ had returned. Luke, not being an apostle yet writing under inspiration (unless you reject the gospel of Luke) and living through the 70 AD destruction makes no mention or teaches a “return”. (Died and was buried around 84 AD Luke’s tomb was located in Thebes (Greece), from where his relics were transferred to Constantinople in the year 357.)
In the previous verse the writer makes a bold statement about timing that many “futurist” have claimed and other church fathers have also repeated as believing.
Barnabas 15:4; “Give heed, children, what this meaneth; He ended in six days. He
meaneth this, that in six thousand years the Lord shall bring all things to an end; for the day with Him signifyeth a thousand years; and this He himself beareth me witness, saying; Behold, the day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, children, in six days, that is in six thousand years, everything shall come to an end.”
There is another end that comes with the arrival of Christ in his return and judgment.
This again as Charles Meeks points out can be a credible statement as there is no evidence from the text about what we should accept as gospel truth and what is not. But the statement destroys the preterist argument therefore it must be discredited by preterists. Now as to Charles inability to read and understand these passages become either a deliberate omission or he was just merely repeating what he heard from someone else and never bothered to read the book himself. In either case we have a clear demonstration of “selective scholarship”.
Citing early church fathers always becomes a two edged sword. It cuts both ways.
Leave a Reply