CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO LESSONS

JOSEPH, A LEVITE FROM CYPRUS!

Infamous! In the secular world the word brings to mind names like John Wilkes Booth, Jesse James, and Al Capone. All three committed notorious deeds, and all three died at a relatively young age. John Booth died at the age of 27 (1838 - 1865), Jesse James at the age of 35 (1847 - 1882) , and Al Capone managed to survive until the age of 48 (1899 - 1947). Today we consider forty-eight as being in your prime, but in the underworld of Chicago it was probably a ripe old age.
In the church, when we think of infamous people, we think of . . . huh . . . huh. Well, who do we think of as infamous within the church? Happily, not too many names come to mind. But there are two individuals who head the list and they put themselves on that list when the church was in its infancy. We read of their story in Acts 5:1 - 11. The first few verses read:
Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.
Apparently, this couple wanted to be known for their commitment to Christ. They wanted a reputation as dedicated disciples. Reluctantly, they came to the conclusion that the only way to do this was to get on the generosity bandwagon. Like others, they did this by selling a piece of property.
Unlike others, they were not about to give up the proceeds cheerfully and fully. Instead, wanting what the world had to offer as well as the applause of the church they came up with a scheme that maintained a healthy bank account and at the same time made them look good in front of the congregation. It was a scheme that resulted in an early grave with their names going down in infamy.
If we had to describe Ananias and Sapphira we would use words like:
DUPLICITOUS
CONNIVING
PRETENTIOUS
HYPOCRITICAL
IMPULSIVE
FEARFUL
DISTRUSTFUL
&
DISHONEST!
Now take a step back in the book of Acts and read vv. 32 - 37 of the fourth chapter. We read:
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34 There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.
I want you to notice that Dr. Luke didn’t have to set Joseph of Cyprus before us as an example. He could have singled out anyone from a number of people who had sold property and given the proceeds to the church. But, he chose Joseph, and then by way of contrast told us the story of Ananias and Sapphira.
So my guess is that he chose Joseph because here was a man who was in sharp contrast to Ananias and Sapphira. If so, this implies that he had all the qualities that were lacking in the two who tried to have the best of both worlds. In other words, by literally coming up with the antonyms from the previous list, this means that Joseph from Cyprus was:
STRAIGHTFORWARD
ABOVEBOARD
AUTHENTIC
SINCERE
INTROSPECTIVE
FEARLESS
TRUSTING
&
HONEST
On top of all these qualities, the apostles gave him the nickname of Barnabas, which as indicated in v. 36 means Son of Encouragement. So here was a man who lifted people up and built them up. He knew just the right words to say to the discouraged and, as we shall discover, he was quick to come to the defense of others. So early on, he was known by his nickname and it stuck with him throughout the pages of the New Testament. This tells us that there was a consistency about this man’s character. Year in and year out, he lived as an encouragement to the church as a whole and to its members.
But, I must tell you upfront that Barnabas wasn’t Mr. Perfect. As we look at his life you might be inclined to think that he came as close to modeling the Holy Spirit as anyone in the New Testament. In fact, a man by the name of Dean Church said that Barnabas was “an earthly reflection of the Paraclete.” In other words, he was a walking, talking, incarnation of the Holy Spirit.
Whew! That’s quite a compliment. Indeed, it’s a compliment that is pretty accurate for Barnabas seldom grieved or quenched the Holy Spirit. He was sensitive to the prompting of the Holy Spirit within him and 99.9% of the time he responded to it in an appropriate manner. But, there are a few things about his life that tell us he was a mere human being.
First, you’ll note that he was a Levite who owned a tract of land. What a Levite was doing with a tract of land is somewhat difficult to comprehend for the Old Testament prohibited them from owning land. In Numbers 18:20 - 24 we read:
The LORD said to Aaron, “You will have no inheritance in their land, nor will you have any share among them; I am your share and your inheritance among the Israelites.
“I give to the Levites all the tithes in Israel as their inheritance in return for the work they do while serving at the Tent of Meeting. 22 From now on the Israelites must not go near the Tent of Meeting, or they will bear the consequences of their sin and will die. 23 It is the Levites who are to do the work at the Tent of Meeting and bear the responsibility for offenses against it. This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. They will receive no inheritance among the Israelites. 24 Instead, I give to the Levites as their inheritance the tithes that the Israelites present as an offering to the LORD. That is why I said concerning them: ‘They will have no inheritance among the Israelites.’”
This prohibition against owning land, whether the land was in his native Cyprus or in Palestine, was apparently not enforced at the time in which Barnabas came to know Christ. Nor does Luke make an issue of it. Why? Well, in part, because it didn’t serve his purposes. But, more importantly, I think he didn’t make an issue of it because he knew that Barnabas was dealing with that issue in his life.
Second, we know from the letter to the Galatians that Barnabas’ encouraging nature occasionally trumped his good judgment. For in Galatians 2:11 - 13 we read:
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
Barnabas who was normally a thoughtful individual, who acted from deep personal convictions withdrew from the Gentile believers and aligned himself with the circumcision party. He gave into the pressure of wanting to be of encouragement to everybody at all times that he deserted the primary theological principle that the Gospel was for everyone and that it was to be received by faith and faith alone.
Third, just about everybody knows that Paul and Barnabas had a falling out over John Mark who happened to be the nephew of Barnabas. In Acts 15:36 - 39 we read:
Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the brothers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” 37 Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, 38 but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. 39 They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, 40 but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord. 41 He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.
Note the words of v. 39, “They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company.” Disagreements are inevitable, that was not the problem. The fact, however, that it was a sharp disagreement was a problem. The sharpness of it was what fractured the friendship between Paul and Barnabas. In the end, as we know, they chose to part company over the issue.
On the minus side, Paul and Barnabas probably said some things that they later regretted. Or maybe what they said wasn’t so much what caused the fracture but how they said it. It is one thing for Paul to say, “You know Barnabas, I really have a lot of trouble with including John Mark. In fact, I’d rather not go as to have him go along. I’m sorry, for I know how you feel about him, but I just can’t include him on this trip.” It is another thing to say, “ABSOLUTELY NOT! He deserted us once and I will not take a quitter with me on such an important trip. NO WAY!”
On the plus side, even though the church took Paul’s side on this particular issue, Barnabas was right in wanting to give Mark a second chance. History has shown that the coming alongside of Mark at this juncture in his life is probably what rescued him from oblivion. Barnabas was good at that sort of thing, rescuing people from oblivion. How about us? Are we good about giving others a second chance? Are we good at suggesting to others that there is a possibility of a comeback?

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO LESSONS