Was Ananias a Levite?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
D

Depleted

Guest
#21
the addition of chapters & verses to the scripture is undoubtedly helpful in some respects, but it also makes us sometimes act as though scripture comes in these numbered 'packets' and is not related to the preceding of following texts.

[HR][/HR]
we see a thread about Ananias, for example, so we open up the book of Acts and we start reading at the place marked chapter 5 - without looking at chapter 4.

this story isn't isolated from the rest of the text in the way the chapter designation may make it seem however: ch. 5 v. 1 starts with the word "
but" or "however" -- clearly tying it to the preceding paragraphs.


Now Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means Son of Encouragement),and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet.

(Acts 4:36-37, 5:1-2)


Immediately previous to this, in Acts 4:32-35, we're told how the believers were pooling all their resources and acting very socialist, indeed even communist ((oh the horrors)). Barnabas, a Levite, sold property and symbolically laid the money at Peter's feet.
But Ananias also sold property and kept some of the price back.

it is very significant that Barnabas, a Levite, had property to sell in the first place. as a Levite, it was against the Law for him to own property. we ought to ask ourselves how it came about that he did, and what it meant for him to be doing this, and why it is written for us in obvious conjunction with Ananias & Sapphira?


is it likely that Ananias was also a Levite?

[HR][/HR]
what does it mean if he was?
if he was, then the property he owned, he should never have owned, and should never have been sold to him.
what Peter said to him and his wife indicates Peter understood that they had conspired together to do what they did - why? is it really so simple as wanting to hoard some of the money?
could the conspiracy have gone deeper than that?

where does this take place, and who is there watching? Acts 5:12 tells us they were at Solomon's Porch - at the temple. if the setting is the temple mount, then they were meeting in the religious public square - where the Pharisees would also be nearby - just as Jesus had often done. when Jesus was teaching here, we have story after story of the Pharisees and others conspiring together to tempt Him, to trick Him, to catch Him in something so they could turn the people against Him. is it possible this was continuing here?

supposing what Peter says is literally true:

Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test?
(Acts 5:9)​

suppose they were not just conspiring to keep money, but they were in fact conspiring specifically to put the Spirit to the test. suppose this was a Levite, in league with the Pharisees, wishing to trap Peter. what's the trap?

Barnabas, a Levite, is not supposed to own property. he repents fully, sells it and effectively gives all the money over to God. do the Pharisees see an opportunity here, and plant Ananias, also a Levite owning property, to sell it but only give a portion, not all, of his illegally-gotten gain. he only half-repents? what can they say then, about the believers, if Ananias is among them, still wealthy with mammon, and neither Peter nor the Spirit of God takes any notice? how does that put the Spirit to the test, and how can they use this scenario to defame the church?


[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]

this might be going nowhere, but i just wanted to put it out there and see what y'all think. it seems to me that there was more going on here than what's typically brought out in pre-fab sermons, and maybe some of you can help me piece it together -- or maybe not. thanks for reading & thinking about it :)




Your timing is impeccable. I was just reading about Joseph/Barnabus today. Ananias and Sapphira are tomorrow. (I go along with how Matthew Henry wrote his commentary.)

First, and firmly I can give you


That's as much as I am absolutely positive about.

But, I am thinking women couldn't own land either, so what's with this Sapphira stuff? Why is she guilty, since, technically, she can't be a landowner either. Sort of like hubby selling his tools. They're his tools, so he can do whatever he wants with them. (I have my own, although he has no problem if I borrow one of his.) I wouldn't even expect him to share the money, if he did that. (Hope it. He has a LOT of tools. lol)

I'm wondering if maybe this isn't the Samaritan influence on Judea. You know those weirdo Samaritans. Sorta Jews/sorta Not-Jews. Maybe it's a by-marriage kind of deal. Barnabas comes from a mixed family, but Mom is Levite. And Saphhira, or Ananias, is Jewish, but the other one isn't. (My money is on Saphhira, considering everyone knows Jewish women can't own land. Then again, that IDK thing tells me this isn't a bet worth making.)

Good question!
 
D

Depleted

Guest
#22
thank you

the Lord instructed that cities & pasture land around them were to be set aside out of the inheritance of all the tribes for the Levites to dwell in (Leviticus 35:1-2) - but this land was never to be sold (Leviticus 25:34), and any houses belonging to Levites that had been sold were to be returned in the Jubilee year (Leviticus 25:31-33). Levi was not to have a share of the inheritance ((land)) of the tribes, because the LORD is their portion (Deuteronomy 10:9 e.g.), but they were to possess, permanently, cities and fields within the inheritance of each tribe. what's the status of this land, then, reconciling Deuteronomy with Leviticus? all the land belongs to God (Leviticus 25:23), and everyone resides in it as foreigners and strangers.

Acts 4:37 seems to me to be clearly "a field" i.e. a piece of land, which Barnabas had owned. how can we get from the text the conclusion that it isn't land?
it would have been wrong for him to sell any of the land set aside for Levi around one of the cities set aside for Levi, and if he owned any property in Israel, it was property designated as inheritance to one of the tribes - which should also have been returned at Jubliee, right? not permanent ownership (Leviticus 25:23) in any case other than a house in a walled city - can the word in Acts 4:37 mean a house in a walled city?

it's of course possible that we're taking about a field outside of Israel, since he was 'of Cyprian birth' - but the scripture takes the time to point out that he is a Levite. why? what's significant about Joseph, called Baranabas, being a Levite who owned a field and sold it, and gave all the price of it before the apostles feet, and how does that fact figure into Ananias being set up as a contrast to what he did?
I do think a field is a field, but if the Levites are releasing their outside-holdings in the Year of Jubilee, that means they have holdings to release.

There is a subdivision not too far from here where everyone has houses, but they don't own the houses. The ones who live in those houses have all the responsibility of ownership, (do your own maintenance, do your own upgrades, and pay for the property), but when they die, even if they lived in that house for over 30 years, it does not go as inheritance. It goes to the next person on the list.

Barnabas could have done something like that. Buy land, rent it out to whoever, and with full understanding he had to release it in the Year of Jubilee. Not a bad deal, if it was good grazing land, had a cistern, or even had a vineyard on it.
 

ComeLordJesus

Senior Member
Dec 26, 2017
372
39
28
#23
Your timing is impeccable. I was just reading about Joseph/Barnabus today. Ananias and Sapphira are tomorrow. (I go along with how Matthew Henry wrote his commentary.)

First, and firmly I can give you


That's as much as I am absolutely positive about.

But, I am thinking women couldn't own land either, so what's with this Sapphira stuff? Why is she guilty, since, technically, she can't be a landowner either. Sort of like hubby selling his tools. They're his tools, so he can do whatever he wants with them. (I have my own, although he has no problem if I borrow one of his.) I wouldn't even expect him to share the money, if he did that. (Hope it. He has a LOT of tools. lol)

I'm wondering if maybe this isn't the Samaritan influence on Judea. You know those weirdo Samaritans. Sorta Jews/sorta Not-Jews. Maybe it's a by-marriage kind of deal. Barnabas comes from a mixed family, but Mom is Levite. And Saphhira, or Ananias, is Jewish, but the other one isn't. (My money is on Saphhira, considering everyone knows Jewish women can't own land. Then again, that IDK thing tells me this isn't a bet worth making.)

Good question!
I think Sapphira was guilty because she knew what he had done but she backed him.
 
D

Depleted

Guest
#24
Re: Was Ananias a Levite?


Would you believe that Ananias was the same high priest Annas?

Of course, Ananias is written Ananias and not Annas, so it is obviously couldn't be the same person. So would that mean that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke weren't referring unto Noah written of in Genesis?

Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, Matt 26:65-67


And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. Acts 23:2






LOL, talk about conflict of interest....
No, they weren't the same people. Just a few paragraphs before this story, Annas shows up in Acts. He's still got the high-honcho-of-the-Sanhedrin gig going on for him, even after "losing Jesus' body."
 
D

Depleted

Guest
#25
That rule dated back to Pharaoh;

Only the land of the priests bought he not; for the priests had a portion assigned them of Pharaoh, and did eat their portion which Pharaoh gave them: wherefore they sold not their lands. Gen 47:22


And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part; except the land of the priests only, which became not Pharaoh's. Gen 47:26
Post was quoting the Law to Moses, not Egyptian law.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,555
13,320
113
#26
Leviticus 25 talks about land being redeemed, and homes being redeemed, or else returned at Jubilee to the owners according to inheritance, with homes inside walled cities being the only exception. could we be looking at Barnabas redeeming land that he'd held in trust because of debt? then we have a picture of him giving all the redemption price over to God, and if Ananias is doing the same, then he is withholding some of the redemption price from God. is the great evil being punished here then, that lie that some of the price of redemption does not apply to God?
This doesn't make sense to me. When a property is held in trust, the money given for it was not "borrowed from God". It was in the hands of the one buying the trust. When the trust is redeemed, it is not really "sold", for the price paid for it was not that for purchasing the land, but for purchasing the crops from the land, according to Leviticus 25:13-16.

So, when the property is redeemed, the money goes back to the one who held the land in trust. It is his private property once again, and he is not automatically obligated to give that money to God... or even part of it.

Acts 5:4 makes it clear (to me at least) that the sin was lying about the value of the property sold; simple as that.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,098
113
#27
This doesn't make sense to me. When a property is held in trust, the money given for it was not "borrowed from God". It was in the hands of the one buying the trust. When the trust is redeemed, it is not really "sold", for the price paid for it was not that for purchasing the land, but for purchasing the crops from the land, according to Leviticus 25:13-16.

So, when the property is redeemed, the money goes back to the one who held the land in trust. It is his private property once again, and he is not automatically obligated to give that money to God... or even part of it.

Acts 5:4 makes it clear (to me at least) that the sin was lying about the value of the property sold; simple as that.
i think it means, either you could take out a loan using land as collateral, or if someone owed you money, and didn't have it, they could pay you with land, if they possessed it - and like a pawn shop, they could buy the land back when they had money (('redeem it')) - and the option to redeem it had to remain open, because the land belongs ultimately to God, and God had given it as inheritance, tribe-by-tribe, so one tribe couldn't take all the land of another through loans, not permanently, anyway, because it would be either returned at Jubliee or bought back, i.e. 'redeemed' before then.

so if Barnabas had owned a field in Judea, perhaps he sold it for its redemption price, back to the family whose inheritance it was -- Barnabas being a Levite, it couldn't have been his permanently, unless it was some of the land set aside for Levites by the Law - but this land was never to be sold, according to Leviticus 25, so it must have been a field originally belonging to another tribe, or it was a field not in Israel at all.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,098
113
#28
Acts 5:4 makes it clear (to me at least) that the sin was lying about the value of the property sold; simple as that.

yes, it is clear.

but there's the fact that we don't see people being struck dead in a snap of the fingers by the Holy Spirit very often! when else? Aaron's sons offering strange fire in Leviticus 10?
it's a significant event, by its rarity, and don't you think this means there is a great evil going on here that God judges in an immediate and profound way? it's like saying Sodom was just about homosexuality - well, God doesn't rain fire and brimstone down on every household where homosexuality is practiced. so why here, why now, why because of this does He act in judgement?

and there's that in verse 9, Peter says they conspired to test/tempt the Spirit.

so what i think we're looking at, is yes, they lied about the price of the land, keeping back some of the money, and that is the obvious & central thing, but there is more to it, because Peter calls it a conspiracy against the Spirit, and God responds with immediate and severe physical judgement.

we're at the temple, on Solomon's porch, where the religious & cultural leadership had been devising ways to trick and trap Jesus in His teaching, and now those same people are threatening the apostles - this story is sandwiched between accounts of the apostles being arrested and accosted by them, and them praying for boldness. the Spirit doesn't strike dead their soldiers when they come to arrest them, and later when Paul is taking up collections for the poor in Jerusalem, he writes that no one must give under compulsion ((2 Cor. 9:7)) - no hint of being struck dead for not giving all, which is certainly a compulsion!

great fear spread over everyone who heard about this ((Acts 5:11)) -- does that indicate it's for a sign?


so i put all these things together and wonder if Ananias & Sapphira are part of a larger conspiracy, that the Spirit confounds, just as Jesus confounded all the rulers and teachers when they thought they'd devised a way to trap Him. and if that's so, does it have anything to do with Barnabas being a Levite - because that fact is carefully preserved for us side-by-side and in contrast with these two.


hehe maybe this out to be in the conspiracy section.
i had been under the mistaken impression that Levites couldn't own property at all - thank you Marc, i have at least learned one thing from this thread :)

 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,098
113
#29
I think Sapphira was guilty because she knew what he had done but she backed him.
Peter says they conspired together - does that indicate more active participation than just awareness?

How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord?"
(Acts 5:9)

maybe the active participation in the conspiracy is limited to her also lying about the price. maybe that wasn't premeditated, or maybe it was?

 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,098
113
#30
My post about the requirements not being the same in Greece made no sense. If Barnabas as a Levite he had to live in one of the cities and they were in the Holy Land.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levitical_city
i don't think he had to live in one of these cities. for example in Judges 17 we have a Levite apparently just wandering around Israel, who a man named Micah hires out to live with him. at this point in history, we're after the Israelites had been led away captive and resettled all over by the Assyrians, and possibly ((?)) even the Romans -- i don't think the Law required Levites to live in certain places, but had instituted cities within each tribe for the Levites, originally, when all the Israelites were together in the land.

it does leave open the possibility that he owned land in Cyprus by some means or another, and that is what he sold -- the only thing is that he is in Jerusalem at the time, which doesn't make it impossible, but if the land in question was nearby, it would certainly have been easier to have sold. that's all circumstantial though, leaving the location of the land an open question.
 
D

Depleted

Guest
#31

yes, it is clear.

but there's the fact that we don't see people being struck dead in a snap of the fingers by the Holy Spirit very often! when else? Aaron's sons offering strange fire in Leviticus 10?
it's a significant event, by its rarity, and don't you think this means there is a great evil going on here that God judges in an immediate and profound way? it's like saying Sodom was just about homosexuality - well, God doesn't rain fire and brimstone down on every household where homosexuality is practiced. so why here, why now, why because of this does He act in judgement?

and there's that in verse 9, Peter says they conspired to test/tempt the Spirit.

so what i think we're looking at, is yes, they lied about the price of the land, keeping back some of the money, and that is the obvious & central thing, but there is more to it, because Peter calls it a conspiracy against the Spirit, and God responds with immediate and severe physical judgement.

we're at the temple, on Solomon's porch, where the religious & cultural leadership had been devising ways to trick and trap Jesus in His teaching, and now those same people are threatening the apostles - this story is sandwiched between accounts of the apostles being arrested and accosted by them, and them praying for boldness. the Spirit doesn't strike dead their soldiers when they come to arrest them, and later when Paul is taking up collections for the poor in Jerusalem, he writes that no one must give under compulsion ((2 Cor. 9:7)) - no hint of being struck dead for not giving all, which is certainly a compulsion!

great fear spread over everyone who heard about this ((Acts 5:11)) -- does that indicate it's for a sign?


so i put all these things together and wonder if Ananias & Sapphira are part of a larger conspiracy, that the Spirit confounds, just as Jesus confounded all the rulers and teachers when they thought they'd devised a way to trap Him. and if that's so, does it have anything to do with Barnabas being a Levite - because that fact is carefully preserved for us side-by-side and in contrast with these two.


hehe maybe this out to be in the conspiracy section.
i had been under the mistaken impression that Levites couldn't own property at all - thank you Marc, i have at least learned one thing from this thread :)

A couple other times God did do the immediate-death thingy. Gold calf when Moses returns with the Law, and when the Israelites were trying to get the go-ahead from a city they had to pass in the Wilderness. They stayed long enough that quite a few Israelites were doing the horizontal-bop with the townies. Both times, (and others, but can't remember what the others were), God immediately zapped thousands to death.

I was taught, (by whom and when has been forgotten long ago), that this was all about boundaries within God's people. Precedence that shouldn't be set this early on were trying to be set, and God was having none of it.

It seemed reasonable when I was taught that, but I'm now thinking, shouldn't God keep doing that, since we have a tendency to go out of bounds often? Like Ananias and Sapphira got theirs. Why in the world didn't the RCC get clobbered for their intentional misleadings about 500 years later?
 

ComeLordJesus

Senior Member
Dec 26, 2017
372
39
28
#32
i don't think he had to live in one of these cities. for example in Judges 17 we have a Levite apparently just wandering around Israel, who a man named Micah hires out to live with him. at this point in history, we're after the Israelites had been led away captive and resettled all over by the Assyrians, and possibly ((?)) even the Romans -- i don't think the Law required Levites to live in certain places, but had instituted cities within each tribe for the Levites, originally, when all the Israelites were together in the land.

it does leave open the possibility that he owned land in Cyprus by some means or another, and that is what he sold -- the only thing is that he is in Jerusalem at the time, which doesn't make it impossible, but if the land in question was nearby, it would certainly have been easier to have sold. that's all circumstantial though, leaving the location of the land an open question.
He could have inherited property from a relative in Cyprus.
 

ComeLordJesus

Senior Member
Dec 26, 2017
372
39
28
#33
We did learn one thing from all this and there is a wrong way and right way to do things being that Barnabas didn't die.
 

Zmouth

Senior Member
Nov 21, 2012
3,391
134
63
#34
No, they weren't the same people.
Well, although the name was spelled differently, they were in fact a reference to the same person whether you spell the name Noe or Noah.

Just a few paragraphs before this story, Annas shows up in Acts. He's still got the high-honcho-of-the-Sanhedrin gig going on for him, even after "losing Jesus' body."
What do you mean 'still' the high priest?

Annas was not the high priest at the time of Jesus' public execution.


  • [*=1]Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him, And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.John 18:12-13
    [*=1]Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest. John 18:24

While it can't be said that Annas was not the high priest prior to that time, since the scripture aver to the fact that he was represented to be a high priest prior to that time. However, Paul wrote that Annas was the high priest during that time after Jesus was put to date, which would be in accordance with the OT law.

Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.
Acts 4:6​
And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them,....
And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments,..." (See Leviticus 21:1-10)​

Post was quoting the Law to Moses, not Egyptian law.
Well, if you are going to credit Pharaoh with teaching Moses how to write the spoken word then I would say that would make him God, since in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. After all faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
 

ComeLordJesus

Senior Member
Dec 26, 2017
372
39
28
#35
I have a Thomas Nelson study Bible and can usually find some interesting things in it but on this subject it was just the simple explanation.

I have a Henry Morris one and usually don't really find a lot of good explanations but this is what it said about this.

"lie to the Holy Ghost. The sin of Ananias and Sapphira was not greed, for they did give a substantial gift to the church. Rather it was pride, desiring the praise of others in the church and lying in order to gain prestige. Even so, it might not seem to be such a crime as to warrant immediate death. The judgement, however, came from God, not Peter, and was accomplished by providential miracle. In this very first church of our church age, it was absolutely vital that hypocrisy not gain a foothold and set a dangerous precedent. Consequently, it was right in God's eyes for Him to enact His judgement of death on sin (Ro.6:23) speedily in this case."
 

Zmouth

Senior Member
Nov 21, 2012
3,391
134
63
#36


[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]
this might be going nowhere, but i just wanted to put it out there and see what y'all think. it seems to me that there was more going on here than what's typically brought out in pre-fab sermons, and maybe some of you can help me piece it together -- or maybe not. thanks for reading & thinking about it :)
I was just curious, do you own any real property?
 
J

joefizz

Guest
#37
the addition of chapters & verses to the scripture is undoubtedly helpful in some respects, but it also makes us sometimes act as though scripture comes in these numbered 'packets' and is not related to the preceding of following texts.

[HR][/HR]
we see a thread about Ananias, for example, so we open up the book of Acts and we start reading at the place marked chapter 5 - without looking at chapter 4.

this story isn't isolated from the rest of the text in the way the chapter designation may make it seem however: ch. 5 v. 1 starts with the word "
but" or "however" -- clearly tying it to the preceding paragraphs.


Now Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means Son of Encouragement),and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet.

(Acts 4:36-37, 5:1-2)


Immediately previous to this, in Acts 4:32-35, we're told how the believers were pooling all their resources and acting very socialist, indeed even communist ((oh the horrors)). Barnabas, a Levite, sold property and symbolically laid the money at Peter's feet.
But Ananias also sold property and kept some of the price back.

it is very significant that Barnabas, a Levite, had property to sell in the first place. as a Levite, it was against the Law for him to own property. we ought to ask ourselves how it came about that he did, and what it meant for him to be doing this, and why it is written for us in obvious conjunction with Ananias & Sapphira?


is it likely that Ananias was also a Levite?

[HR][/HR]
what does it mean if he was?
if he was, then the property he owned, he should never have owned, and should never have been sold to him.
what Peter said to him and his wife indicates Peter understood that they had conspired together to do what they did - why? is it really so simple as wanting to hoard some of the money?
could the conspiracy have gone deeper than that?

where does this take place, and who is there watching? Acts 5:12 tells us they were at Solomon's Porch - at the temple. if the setting is the temple mount, then they were meeting in the religious public square - where the Pharisees would also be nearby - just as Jesus had often done. when Jesus was teaching here, we have story after story of the Pharisees and others conspiring together to tempt Him, to trick Him, to catch Him in something so they could turn the people against Him. is it possible this was continuing here?

supposing what Peter says is literally true:

Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test?
(Acts 5:9)​

suppose they were not just conspiring to keep money, but they were in fact conspiring specifically to put the Spirit to the test. suppose this was a Levite, in league with the Pharisees, wishing to trap Peter. what's the trap?

Barnabas, a Levite, is not supposed to own property. he repents fully, sells it and effectively gives all the money over to God. do the Pharisees see an opportunity here, and plant Ananias, also a Levite owning property, to sell it but only give a portion, not all, of his illegally-gotten gain. he only half-repents? what can they say then, about the believers, if Ananias is among them, still wealthy with mammon, and neither Peter nor the Spirit of God takes any notice? how does that put the Spirit to the test, and how can they use this scenario to defame the church?


[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]

this might be going nowhere, but i just wanted to put it out there and see what y'all think. it seems to me that there was more going on here than what's typically brought out in pre-fab sermons, and maybe some of you can help me piece it together -- or maybe not. thanks for reading & thinking about it :)




At the least this a better and more useful topic than a bunch of the threads with silly number speculations.
 
Sep 14, 2017
900
23
0
#38
IMO, the speaking of Barnabas as a Levite is very important, for Barnabas' giving was total sacrificial giving, because he had no levitical income due to the fact that Levites were disowned & cast out of their position if they became christians. His property was all he had left to depend on for income, yet he gave everything for Christ...his levitical heritage, his extended family who disowned him, & now all of his property.

Barnabas forsook all to follow Christ. That's awesome, especially for a Levite.
 
Sep 14, 2017
900
23
0
#39
Ananias wasn't a Levite. Even if he was, it would have made no difference.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,098
113
#40
A couple other times God did do the immediate-death thingy. Gold calf when Moses returns with the Law, and when the Israelites were trying to get the go-ahead from a city they had to pass in the Wilderness. They stayed long enough that quite a few Israelites were doing the horizontal-bop with the townies. Both times, (and others, but can't remember what the others were), God immediately zapped thousands to death.
God didn't zap the people worshiping the golden calf. He was going to, but Moses was interceding ((Exodus 32:9-10)) - so the Levites rallied to Moses and killed 3,000 with their swords. incidentally, the same number of people saved at pentecost (())

not sure which other event you're thinking of - but was it God zapping, or people acting on God's behalf doing the zapping?