Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | how can Barnabas sell or possess land | Acts 4:36 | stjohn | 215356 | ||
Hi jbjona, Having no 'inheritance' does not necessarily mean they cannot own land. Here's some more info that may help explain how a Levite can own add sell land, especially in this 'new covenant' historical context. I hope this helps. John "Ver. 37. Having land, sold it,.... Whether this was in Cyprus, or in Judea, is not certain; nor how he came by it, whether he had bought it, as the priests and Levites might, and as Jeremiah, who was of the priests, bought a field at Anathoth, Jer 32:9 or, whether it was his wife's dowry; for the Levites had nothing by inheritance: they had forty two cities, and the six cities of refuge to dwell in, and the field of the suburbs of these cities; which field or land was never to be sold, but to be a perpetual possession, Le 25:34 but now the ceremonial law was abolished, and this precept was not attended to, if the land was of this sort." John Gill |
||||||
2 | how can Barnabas sell or possess land | Acts 4:36 | MJH | 215361 | ||
John, I like Gills answer. It's informed and provides good examples. But to add the phrase," but now the ceremonial law was abolished" seems unnecessary given his answer. Of course you know my thoughts on the so called abolishment of the ceremonial law...so that aside, why feel the need to add it to this answer? Of course you are not Gill, so I am just curious as to why you think Gill included it. He basically says, according to the whole law, a Levite could have owned and sold land. That answer is enough. MJH |
||||||
3 | how can Barnabas sell or possess land | Acts 4:36 | stjohn | 215362 | ||
MJH, It seems simple enough that Gill, in order to exonerate Barnabas from any transgression of the law for those who may have a problem with this, was referring back to Liv.25:34 wherein it says: "But pasture fields of their cities shall not be sold, for that is their perpetual possession." so he pointed out quite rightly that the "ceremonial" law (which was a shadow of things to come, namely, Christ's work on the cross) had by this time been done away with. We must remember that not one dot or tittle of it shall be overlooked. And for those who feel or think they are in God's favor for putting themselves back under this ceremonial law... If you don't keep every part of it, and if you overlook one dot or tittle, the tiniest bit; one iota, you are in deep trouble. Frankly, I'd prefer to rely on His grace. John |
||||||
4 | how can Barnabas sell or possess land | Acts 4:36 | MJH | 215367 | ||
Hey John, Mind if I bring up old items? I just got back from a Bible teaching and I'm about to go nuts. I struggle with even saying anything in a class or even to a teacher; because I certainly don't desire to cause a problem...so I shut up. But here maybe I can speak.... Why do people want to say that obeying a law is the same as trying to earn merit by obeying a law? Paul obviously teaches against earning anything, particularly a right place with God in His Kingdom, by doing works or obeying any law. That's as obvious as anything in the New Testament. Then why do some further say that anyone obeying the law is in error? For example: the thousands of believing Jews in Jerusalem who were zealous for the Law. They are apparently in "error" because they were trying to "earn a place with God." But Acts never says they were trying to "earn" anything and Acts never says they were in "error." It simply says they were believers and zealous for the Law. What can possibly be wrong with this picture? Why can't people see the distinction? Is it blindness? Is it a fear of ever appearing to say anything positive about God's Law? UUUGGGHHHH. Okay... I vomited my thoughts all over. Sorry for the mess. MJH - p.s. I intentionally left the note under your name so as to not make too big of a scene. - Also, in regards to what this post is linked to; Barnabas could have owned and sold land as a Levite even before Jesus was born or died. That’s my point. The ceremonial law didn’t need to be abolished to absolve the man for selling property, so why mention it even if it’s true? I suppose he mentions it to make his point even stronger. |
||||||
5 | how can Barnabas sell or possess land | Acts 4:36 | stjohn | 215370 | ||
Hi MJH, No problem about the mess. I've cleaned up some pretty bad stuff in my day. I've been an attendant for an alcoholic quadriplegic, worked as a janitor in a government run day-care center, (with over a hundred kids) raised kids, lots of puppies, and barn-yard animals, so I'm no stranger to messes!:-) Well, I'll try to address your p.s. first. Though I thought already had? Liv.25:34 clearly says: "But pasture fields of their cities shall not be sold, for that is their perpetual possession." so though there is nothing wrong with Barnabas owning land under the OT ceremonial law, Gill points out that under the new covenant, Jesus having fulfilled the law, Barnabas was then free to sell that land, (Liv 25:34 says he cannot sell it) and now not being under that OT dispensation of not being allowed to sell the land, he is now free to do so. Now I think where the problem may lie with people saying you are in error for trying to keep the ceremonial law is, because some that do (and there is nothing wrong in doing that, if that's what you want to do) but some say they do it because it is obeying God's command to do so. That a real problem, because it brings into question the issue of not judging your brother in regard to feast days and holy days and sabbath days and eating clean or unclean foods. We are not to judge in regard to those things. But if it is said that it is commanded then, by implication, it judges those who do not chose to follow the ceremonial law, because again, by implication, they would be sining by not obeying. Anyway I think that is maybe where the problem is. So, if you want to, to honer God, then by all means, go for it, but just don't say it is commanded. And if they still say you are in error, then I believe they are the ones who are judging you, and, they then would be in error. It's very important to keep in mind too, that we are not talking about God's moral law, which we all should strive to keep, and God certainly does command us to do that. Though, of course we will fail, and we should bring our sins to the cross on a daily bases to get cleaned up. But hey, that's a joy, knowing He will always be there to wash us up and brush us off, just like any loving father would. :-) I hope that helps. Shalom and God bless John |
||||||