Levites weren’t imagined to personal land—or so the widespread understanding goes. But in Acts 4:36-37, we examine Barnabas, a Levite, who sells a discipline and generously donates the proceeds to the Apostles. Was Barnabas appearing in disobedience to his heritage? Or is that this a attainable contradiction within the particulars of Scripture? The reply is that the Levites’ relationship with land possession is a little more complicated than we’d initially count on.
The Levites and Land Possession
It’s a well-known incontrovertible fact that, as a tribe, the Levites weren’t given their very own land allotment amongst their fellow tribes. Whereas Joshua delegated particular tribal allotments to the eleven tribes of Israel (cf. Josh 12–22), the tribe of Levi didn’t obtain any particular land allotment. The Levites weren’t left utterly homeless, nevertheless, for they got cities to dwell in amongst their brothers (cf. Josh 14:4). They’d at the least be capable to have a spot they may name dwelling whereas they ministered among the many different eleven tribes.
One of many widespread conceptions is that which means that Levites by no means owned land. Nonetheless, there are two passages particularly that appear to point that it was allowable for Levites to personal land, so long as it was within the metropolis (or a part of the pasturelands of that metropolis) which belonged to the Levites.
Previous Testomony Texts that Reveal Land Possession for the Levites
The primary textual content is Jeremiah 32:6-8 the place the Lord tells Jeremiah, a levitical priest, to purchase the sector of his uncle in Anathoth. If our presupposition is that Levites couldn’t personal land, we now have God contradicting that understanding. Anathoth is situated within the land of Benjamin, and in keeping with Joshua 21:18, this particular land was given to Aaron’s sons as a part of Levi’s inheritance. Thus, this “proper of redemption” (Jer 32:7) really did belong to Jeremiah, and he might purchase the land.
The second passage is from the legislation itself in Leviticus 25. Within the midst of the dialogue about redemption (i.e., the shopping for again of 1’s possessions), verse 32 says, “As for the cities of the Levites, the Levites could redeem at any time the homes within the cities they possess.” This passage appears to point that there was a proper of land possession among the many Levites, which correlated with their allotted cities and pasturelands. It was apparently understood that the Levites would personal allotments throughout the particular cities that had been allotted to them throughout the borders of the opposite tribes of Israel.
Utility to Acts 4:36-37
By utility, maybe these particulars assist us learn Acts 4:36-37: “Thus Joseph, who was additionally referred to as by the apostles Barnabas (which suggests son of encouragement), a Levite, a local of Cyprus, bought a discipline that belonged to him and introduced the cash and laid it on the apostles’ toes.”
Some have supposed that by this time, the Levites had built-in into possession of the land after the return from exile. If that was the case, maybe this man (Barnabas) realized his wrongdoing and repented and bought the land he mustn’t have owned. Nonetheless, in gentle of Jeremiah 32 and Leviticus 25, it appears extra prone to me that Barnabas had land in his household that was a reputable a part of his Levitical metropolis inheritance. If that is so, then it is a utterly free-will act in giving up his personal land, which he had each proper to maintain. This could additionally clarify why Luke would use this instance, a giving perspective of 1 for the good thing about others. Luke’s level is that the church was marked by this pure and devoted love for each other (Acts 4:32).
In conclusion, the case of Barnabas and his land highlights the often-overlooked nuance within the Levites’ relationship with property possession. Whereas the Levites weren’t granted a tribal allotment like the opposite tribes, the Scriptures present that they did maintain rights to property inside particular cities and pasturelands designated for his or her use. This allowance offered a stability: they may personal land in a restricted capability that aligned with their distinctive calling amongst their kinsmen.
In gentle of this understanding, Barnabas’s act in Acts 4:36-37 is most certainly not one among disobedience however relatively an expression of profound generosity. His sale of land, possible a part of his lawful Levitical inheritance, exemplifies the early church’s spirit of unity and selflessness. Luke’s account underscores how believers within the early church prioritized the wants of others above their very own rights and sources. I suppose we are able to study from that too.
