Was Ananias a Levite?

[posthuman]

here's another time God Himself zaps someone:

But when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out toward the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen nearly upset it. And the anger of the LORD burned against Uzzah, and God struck him down there for his irreverence; and he died there by the ark of God.
(2 Samuel 6:6-7)
​

related? how?

 

[Depleted]

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.

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)​

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.

Zmouth, I really don't get you. Why are you on this site, in general? All you do here is create your own "facts," and they are so off the wall no one is buying them, so why are you here? Clearly, not to serve the Lord. Clearly not to understand him. Definitely not to learn anything, and obviously not to impart anything of value.

So why are you here?

 

[Depleted]

At the least this a better and more useful topic than a bunch of the threads with silly number speculations.

46!

 

[Depleted]

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?

If memory serves me, (and it doesn't always), in both cases the Israelites did go off with sword-in-hand and killed all the culprits they could find. But, after that, the Lord struck dead more. I was under the impression he got the ones they missed.

 

[Depleted]

here's another time God Himself zaps someone:

But when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out toward the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen nearly upset it. And the anger of the LORD burned against Uzzah, and God struck him down there for his irreverence; and he died there by the ark of God.
(2 Samuel 6:6-7)
​

related? how?

Particularly in this day and age, we have grown accustom to thinking sins not all that bad because God doesn't go around zapping people anymore. (Zapping! Good word. lol) I don't know if you wander around to other forums on this site, but we have threads going in a couple of the forums all about situational ethics, and people are confessing their sins, and getting a lot of, "oh, we've all screwed up. It's okay. God loves us anyway. Don't worry about it." It's the new modern Christianese gospel.

BUT sin IS that bad! It's so bad, the Trinity had to orchestrate the death of Christ to cover up our sin with his blood. His blood!!! The only blood ever to come on the face of the earth that was sinless. And the death wasn't simply a sword through the heart. He was convicted for what he didn't do, tortured in ways we can't even comprehend completely, and suffered in ways we can't empathize with even when we're giving it all our effort.

All those people who were zapped to death? The zapped-to-death wasn't the bad part. What happened after they died was the bad part. God did NOT save them. He did not have mercy on them. He did not love them. Those were the ones he got rid of for the sake of those he does save, have mercy on, and love.

Ananias and Sapphira were the beginning of an infection coming onto the people of God. They were looking righteous and good, because they had enough esteem already built up in them, that most people who saw them lay the money at Peter's feet, assumed they were doing it out of generosity. They weren't! And had that gone on any longer, that infection would have turned into a cancer that would have swallowed up the whole church just as the church was beginning.

What would the church look like today, if that selfishness grew right along with the beginning?

Sadly, we know. The history of the Reformation showed the other side too -- the Catholic Church. The RCC of that time, (and still to this day), is the cancer of the church. The only thing left in it is the spirit of Ananias and Sapphira. (And I don't mean that like some people, who call anything they disagree with "the spirit of," most used is "the spirit of Jezebel," when they're usually meaning that in a literal way, like the ghost of Jezebel is inhabiting someone else. lol)

And we see it all the time on this site too. Stingy! "T'is better to look good, than be good" attitude. And I don't just mean financially stingy, although that's included. I mean many give on the surface level, but won't commit deep inside. They don't even commit below the surface.

I did study Ananias and Sapphira today. What took me by surprise was timid Peter, the guy so afraid to let people know his relationship to the Lord that he really did deny him three times before the cock crowed, turned into someone bolder than I've ever met. He did something Jesus didn't do while on earth. He proclaimed God's outrage right before God zapped Ananias.

Can you imagine what a scandal/thing to hide that would be today? Imagine your pastor announcing someone sinned so badly God was going to strike them dead on the spot, and then God did just that! What would you do? What would that shocked pastor do?

And then, a little while later, just as the men who removed Ananias's body were returning, Sapphira was doing the same thing, so Peter did the same thing, and she got zapped.

Nowadays, we'd be busy repenting that we had such a bold idea. We'd regret. Peter didn't.

I'm not surprised God zapped people. What I don't get is why he still doesn't.

 

[Depleted]

I wanted to share Matthew Henry's take on this...

Acts 5:1-11


The sin of Ananias and Sapphira was, that they were ambitious of being thought eminent disciples, when they were not true disciples. Hypocrites may deny themselves, may forego their worldly advantage in one instance, with a prospect of finding their account in something else. They were covetous of the wealth of the world, and distrustful of God and his providence. They thought they might serve both God and mammon. They thought to deceive the apostles. The Spirit of God in Peter discerned the principle of unbelief reigning in the heart of Ananias. But whatever Satan might suggest, he could not have filled the heart of Ananias with this wickedness had he not been consenting. The falsehood was an attempt to deceive the Spirit of truth, who so manifestly spoke and acted by the apostles. The crime of Ananias was not his retaining part of the price of the land; he might have kept it all, had he pleased; but his endeavouring to impose upon the apostles with an awful lie, from a desire to make a vain show, joined with covetousness. But if we think to put a cheat upon God, we shall put a fatal cheat upon our own souls. How sad to see those relations who should quicken one another to that which is good, hardening one another in that which is evil! And this punishment was in reality mercy to vast numbers. It would cause strict self-examination, prayer, and dread of hypocrisy, covetousness, and vain-glory, and it should still do so. It would prevent the increase of false professors. Let us learn hence how hateful falsehood is to the God of truth, and not only shun a direct lie, but all advantages from the use of doubtful expressions, and double meaning in our speech.

 

[garee]

A Levi is used to represent the kingdom of priest not of this world which today includes Christians after the order of Melchizedek. Christians the new name God named His bride are typified as Levites, the noble kingly ones who like the noble Bereans searched the scriptures daily as the final authority of hearing God not seen .

They can only become one of the member of the priesthood even if born in the family of the Levites, by the use of a ceremonial law (baptism)

Being born a Levite does not qualify them to serve after the manner of Melchizedek our eternal priest represented by the flesh of the Son of man . Even the Son of man needed to be baptized as a priest before he began his priestly ministry . It is why John a Levite performed the ceremonial baptism. And then the Son of man, Jesus as an officiator could also baptize welcoming other as member of the priestly order called Levites .

The Jews below were saying to John we can see you are not from the tribe of Levi but what about the Son of man he comes from the tribe of Judah. Who qualified him to be a priest ? The reason for Christian baptism has changed from its foundation found in the Old testament.

The results are the same that come from the same desire to become a ceremonial Levite and bring the gospel into the world the great commission for the kingdom of priest.

Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying.(water baptism) And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven. Joh 3:25

 

[MarcR]

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?

While the fields surrounding the Levitical cities could not be sols; nothing prevented the Levites from owning or selling other land.