WAS BARNABAS A TRINITARIAN

WAS BARNABAS A TRINITARIAN?

The Epistle of Barnabas, referenced by early church father Clement of Alexandria, remains a unique voice among early Christian writings. J.B. Lightfoot notes: “It stands alone in the literature of the early Church” (The Apostolic Fathers, p. 133). Though some in antiquity believed it to be authored by Paul’s early missionary companion (Acts 13:2), the epistle was not universally accepted as canonical. Scholars generally assign it a date between 70–79 AD, placing it close to the apostolic era but independent in tone and theology.

The question arises: was Barnabas a Trinitarian? A close reading of the epistle provides a resounding no. Those looking for a formal Trinitarian doctrine — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as coequal, coeternal persons in one essence — will be disappointed. The work lacks any developed theology remotely resembling later creeds such as the Nicene or Athanasian definitions.

The epistle begins by invoking divine authority: “Blessed be God who has placed wisdom, understanding, and insight of his ordinances within us through his Spirit” (Barnabas 1.1). Some eager Trinitarian interpreters attempt to construct a triadic formula from such verses: “God,” “Spirit,” and later, “the Lord.” However, this loose grouping does not suggest co-equal persons or a divine essence shared among three. These are not presented as one God in three persons, but as distinct entities functioning in different capacities.

A commonly cited passage comes from Barnabas 5.5. It reads:

“If the Lord endured to suffer for our soul, He being Lord of the whole world, unto whom God said from the foundation of the world, ‘Let us make man after our image and likeness,’ how did He endure to suffer at the hands of men?”

Here, two beings are plainly mentioned: one is "the Lord," identified with Jesus who suffers; the other is "God," who speaks to this Lord. The quotation from Genesis 1:26 is key: “Let us make man in our image.” According to this passage, God is addressing the Lord (Jesus), attributing to Him preexistence and involvement in creation. But the relationship is dialogical—one speaks to another—not ontological in the Trinitarian sense. There is no conflation of being or essence. Rather, the distinction between the speaker (God) and the one addressed (the Lord) is clear.

The term “Lord of the whole world” is worth examining. The passage calls Jesus “Lord of the whole world,” a title that implies dominion and divine authority. But this title is not exclusive. Near the conclusion of the epistle, Barnabas writes:

“And may God, who is Lord of the whole world, give you wisdom, understanding, and knowledge of his judgments.” (Barnabas 21.3)

This statement assigns the title “Lord of the whole world” to God — presumably the Father, Yahweh. If the same title is given to both Jesus and God, then by any fair and literal reading, Barnabas is speaking of two divine figures. This does not resolve into a singular divine being with three coequal persons, but rather two distinct beings: God and the Lord. The title is shared, not unified. As such, Barnabas’s theology is best described as henotheistic — the belief in one supreme God while acknowledging the existence (and even worship) of other divine beings.

This is further confirmed in Barnabas 6.12, where the Genesis 1:26 quotation appears again:

“The Son of God says again to the Jews, when they smote Him: ‘Why do you strike me, who have prepared your way?’ If the Lord endured to suffer for our soul, though He was Lord of the whole world, to whom God said from the foundation of the world, ‘Let us make man after our image and likeness,’ how did He endure to suffer at the hands of men?”

Once again, God speaks to the Son, and the Son is presented as subordinate — not coequal. This is not Trinitarianism. It is a hierarchy: God above, the Son beneath, and the Spirit barely mentioned at all.

Indeed, references to the Spirit are extremely rare in the letter. Aside from the mention of “his Spirit” in 1.1, the Spirit does not play a central role in Barnabas’s theology. There is no discussion of the Spirit as a divine person, no doxologies involving the Spirit, and no language that would support later formulations of a divine third person of the Godhead. This absence is striking when compared with the works of later Trinitarian theologians.

Even when divine actions are attributed to the Spirit, such as imparting wisdom or inspiration, the language used is functional, not personal. The Spirit is a means by which God acts, not a coequal identity within a unified Godhead.

In sum, The Epistle of Barnabas offers no evidence that its author was a Trinitarian. Rather, the document reflects an early Christian worldview in which God (Yahweh) is supreme, Jesus is his exalted agent — even preexistent — but clearly distinct from God, and the Spirit is an impersonal force or power. When titles like “Lord of the whole world” are applied to both God and the Son, this is not an affirmation of one God in three persons, but rather an acknowledgment of divine hierarchy and shared authority.

Thus, the theology of Barnabas aligns more closely with early Jewish-Christian henotheism than with the later philosophical doctrines of the Trinity. The epistle stands as an early witness against Trinitarianism, not for it.