Just1covenanter
Puritan Board Freshman
I'm curious if anyone has insight into this passage. I'm writing a sermon on the second summary statement of Acts, and I've been trying to figure out the significance of the mention of Barnabas here. I've consulted several commentaries. Options seem to be one or more of the following:
1) Barnabas is mentioned by way of introduction because he will be mentioned in more detail later.
2) Barnabas is presented as a contrast to the upcoming Ananias and Sapphira passage.
3) Barnabas is a special example of sacrifice for some reason. This could be because:
a) He was a Levite and therefore entitled to provision from others (this seems
doubtful given the context and the fact that he was from Cyprus, where Jewish
law was probably not followed to this extent)
b) He was a Levite and therefore had to purchase his land, making it a greater
sacrifice (greater than the others who were selling ancestral land? Doesn't seem
likely)
But the itch remains: if it's not number 3, are 1 and 2 strong enough reasons to warrant mention of him? Am I missing something?
1) Barnabas is mentioned by way of introduction because he will be mentioned in more detail later.
2) Barnabas is presented as a contrast to the upcoming Ananias and Sapphira passage.
3) Barnabas is a special example of sacrifice for some reason. This could be because:
a) He was a Levite and therefore entitled to provision from others (this seems
doubtful given the context and the fact that he was from Cyprus, where Jewish
law was probably not followed to this extent)
b) He was a Levite and therefore had to purchase his land, making it a greater
sacrifice (greater than the others who were selling ancestral land? Doesn't seem
likely)
But the itch remains: if it's not number 3, are 1 and 2 strong enough reasons to warrant mention of him? Am I missing something?