This position throws light upon the mind of our writer. He is sure that the patriarchs from Abra- ham to Moses stood in a special relation to God and received special promises from Him (v. 7, xiii. 7, xiv. 1). But, whereas St. Paul would say that the physical descendants of Abraham were not cut off from this special relationship until they cut themselves off when they refused to believe in Jesus (Ro 11), our author thinks that they were cut off" long before this, as long ago as the day of Aaron's golden calf. A Covenant, he says, was given to Moses to deliver to the Jews, but it was never really received. 'He hath given it (the Covenant), but they themselves were not found worthy to receive it by reason of their sins' (xiv. 1) ; for, when Moses perceived their idolatry, he cast out of his hands the two tables which he had received in the Mount, and tiiey were broken in pieces (xiv. 1-4, iv. 6-8). St. Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews know of two Covenants — an old and a new ; and the old was in force until the coming of tlie Messiah (Ko 7-''-, Gal 3-*^- 4^^ He 8>3). The Epistle of Barnabas says that only one Cove- nant was ever in force — the Covenant of Jesus.
Our author does not cut Christianity away from all historic connexion with the Jewish past ; on the contrary, he denies a place of privilege to the Jews after Mount Sinai, in order to sliow that that place really belonged to the Christians. There are two peoples — the Jews and the Chris- tians. Of these, the Jews, the elder, are in the position of Esau and of Manasseh, who, though the first-born of their respective fathers, did not inherit the blessing ; the Christians, like Jacob and Ephraim, though in each case the younger, have been made the recipients of the promises (ch. xiii.). Accordingly, to our author, the Christians have now come into what was always their own and had never belonged to the nation of Israel. ' Do not then say, "Our covenant remains to them also." Ours it is, btit they have lost it in this way for ever, when Moses had just received it' (iv. 6; cf. 8). The Christians are ' the new people ' of God (v. 7, vii. 5 ; cf. xiii. 6), a holy people (xiv. 6), who have been cleansed, forgiven (vi. 11), whose hearts have been redeemed out of darkness (xiv. 5), ' created afresh from the beginning ' (xvi. 8), ' a new type ' (vi. 11) ; 'He Himself prophesying in us, He Him- self dwelling in us, opening for us who had been in bondage unto death. . . . This is the spiritual temple built up to the Lord ' (xvi, 9, 10 ; cf. vi. 15).
It is not correct, then, to say with Kriiger (Hist, of Early Christian Lit., New York, 1897, p. 21) that to the writer of this Epistle 'Judaism was an error with which Christianity could have noth- ing to do, but which it must reject.' Our author accepts the Jewish Scriptures, the patriarchs, the l^romises, Moses, and the Law in its (to his mind) correct spiritual interpretation. His animus is against the Jews, not against the Jewish religion ; from Sinai onwards they have in reality stood out- side that religion ; its privileges were always the peculiar property of the Christians, held in reserve for them until the coming of the Messiah.
4. Christology. — In the facts of the earthly life of our Lord the Epistle of Barnabas has but little interest. From incidental notices one gathers that Jesus had j^erformed Avonders and miracles (v. 8) ; that He had chosen twelve apostles to preach His gospel (v. 9, viii. 3) ; that He was crucified, set at naught and spit upon (vii. 9) ; that He was given vinegar and gall to drink (vii. 3). It is evident that the writer did not think that his readers stood in need of instruction in the details of the life of Christ.
Nor does he aim at expounding a doctrine of Christ's Person and work ; but when one gathers together from ditierent parts of his work the pas- sages which refer to our Lord, one can see that his teaching is in line with that of the Catholic Church. Christ is 'the Beloved' of God (iii. 6, iv. 3, 8). He ' manifested Himself as the Son of God' (v. 9, 11, vii. 9), who was pre-existent, being pre- sent at and taking an 'active part in the Creation (v. 5, 10, vi. 12) ; One who came among men in the flesh (v. 6, 10, 11, vi. 7, 9, 14, xii. 10) ; who should not be called Son of David but Son of God, for David himself called him not son, but Lord (xii. 10, 11); who is about to come again, and that quickly, to judge both the quick and the dead (v. 7, vii. 2, xxi. 3).
His teaching on the Atonement belongs to the same early period of Christian teaching. He knows that Christ suffered for us (v. 5, vii. 2) and as a sacrifice for our sins (vii. 3, 5, v. 2), that we might be forgiven, sanctified (v. 1), and saved (v. 10) ; and that we may reign with Him hereafter when Ave have been made perfect (vi. IS, 19) ; that He might annul death, show the resurrection (v. 6) and give us life (vii. 2, xii. 5) ; that He might sum up the tale of the sins of those who persecuted His prophets (v. 11 ; cf. xiv. 5). He has no theory of