Luke gives an ideal example of a member of the early Christian community in Jerusalem: Joseph the Levite, also known as Barnabas (4:36). Barnabas is a significant figure in the book of Acts, introduced here as a member of the community at Jerusalem. The introduction of Barnabas at this point in the book is a typical Lukan literary style. He often introduces a character who will become significant later in the story (Saul in 8:1, John Mark and James, Jesus’ brother in chapter 12).
Joseph is a common name in the first century, so his second name might be a nickname. Luke tells us the name means “son of encouragement” although this derivation is not particular obvious. The phrase “son of ” can mean “characterized by, such as calling James and John “sons of thunder.” The name may be related to Bar-nabi, which would mean “son of a prophet.”
While this seems the most likely explanation for the name, it is not exactly what Luke says the name means. The role of the prophet is not limited to future-telling or condemnation of sin. For example, the second half of Isaiah has been rightly described as a “book of comfort” or “consolation.” Perhaps Barnabas had a personality which could speak the truth with strength and clarity, but in such a way as to bring comfort and encouragement to people as well.
Barnabas was from Cyprus. We know a community of Jews was present on Cyprus as early as 330 B.C., but they were expelled in A.D. 117. It is possible that Barnabas was in Jerusalem to serve his time in the Temple, or he may have been living in the city more or less full time. If he was wealthy, then he may have owned property in Jerusalem and Cyprus.
Luke calls him a Levite. Not all Levites were priests, but typically they were wealthy and well educated regardless of their role in the Temple. Levites could be anything from priests to doorkeepers in the Temple, but they also might be scribes or teachers of the Law. We are not told that Barnabas actually functioned as a Levite in the Temple, he may have simply been from a Levitical family. On the other hand, it is possible that he had worked in the Temple and was quite “traditional” within the spectrum of Second Temple Period Judaism. What matters here is that Barnabas was from the Diaspora, but had deep roots in Jerusalem and perhaps the Temple.
Barnabas sells some property and turns the proceeds over to the apostles. This stands in contrast to Ananias in the next paragraph, who claims to do the same thing but is not telling the truth. We are not told what the property is, although he may have owned some property around Jerusalem which was a source of income for his family while he worked in the Temple.
I think that it is important to observe here that Jews living living outside of Judea are not automatically “more liberal” on matters of Law. In fact, it seems to me that the violent resistance to the preaching of the Gospel in Acts comes first from Diaspora Jews, not the Aramaic-speaking Jews. That Barnabas has two Hebrew names, hast the title of Levite, and had some property in Jerusalem implies that he was less Hellenized and more traditional with respect to his religion.
E. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1:788-790 for detailed information on Barnabas.
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 29, 2013 at 10:31 pm
Richard Fellows
I think the term “nickname” is misleading. The name “Barnabas” has religious significance. A close parallel to this kind of naming can be found in BarKosiba who was given the name BarKokhba (son of the star). It was important for ancient Jewish prophets, in particular, to have names with appropriate meanings (consider the space devoted in the NT to the names of Jesus and John the baptist, and also consider Elymas BarJesus). It is probably coincidence that “Joseph” was a common name, and we should not assume that he was given his new name to distinguish him from other Josephs (his patronymic would have done that). “Barnabas” was surely no more a nickname than “Augustus” or “Benedict”. I don’t think the ancients made any distinction between someone’s “proper name” and the name that they used, so the term “nickname” seems anachronistic, at least when applied to Barnabas.
January 30, 2013 at 8:59 am
Phillip J. Long
You are correct, a “nickname” is too flip to describe the “son of” names. They seem to be titles (given? taken?) to describe the person’s life, personality, perhaps even destiny (son of perdition, for example). I am not sure there is an English / western practice that is quite the same, nickname is close.
Maybe a better example of a “nickname” is Judas “the Hammer.” That description does not use the “Son of’” formula, at least as far as I know.
The question here is whether Bar-Nabi is a possibility as a description of Levi’s personality as “like a prophet” rather than telling us his father’s name.
January 30, 2013 at 10:29 pm
Richard Fellows
Here is why I am convinced that “Barnabas” was a new name rather than a patronymic. 1) As mentioned before, Jewish prophets needed an appropriate name. 2) The meaning of the name is significant and this would be a remarkable coincidence if it were just his father’s name. 3) Luke highlights the meaning of the name. 4) It is appropriate for Luke to honor Barnabas at this point in the text since he (unlike Ananias, who receives no new name) made an honest benefaction. 5) Luke writes that the apostles called him “Barnabas”, and new names were invariably given by the person’s social superior(s). 6) I’m biased
January 30, 2013 at 2:20 pm
scottspooner64
Joseph also called Barnabas is introduced in Acts 4:36, where his gift to the apostles is recorded. I think that it is right to think that this story is in contrast to the story that follows of Ananias and Sapphira. But in the case of Ananias and Sapphira I do not think that the issue was that they did not give all the money to the apostles, but the fact that the lied and said they did. The background on Barnabas prepares for his role later in the book of Acts when he is commissioned with Paul in chapter 13. The fact that Barnabas was a Levite may entail that he had a good education in spiritual matters, which makes him a suitable companion for Paul. Paul and Barnabas’ separation occurs at the end of Acts 15:36-41, “Their disagreement was so sharp that they separated.” Barnabas leaves Paul because Paul is unwilling to take John Mark with them. I have always found this story puzzling as I never understood why Baranabas would come up with different judgment than Paul, in relation to John Marks faithfulness. But from what I have read about Barnabas character, it seems that he is generous and encouraging. It makes sense for Barnabas to take John Mark even Paul refused.
January 30, 2013 at 2:37 pm
lvinton
The apostles called Joseph the Levite “Barnabas,” (son of encouragement) (Acts 4:36). He shared what he had, unlike Ananias and Sapphira. It seems he was living simply, following the examples of the apostles and foremost, Jesus. He sold land and gave what he had to the apostles for them to use as they saw fit. Barnabas is already demonstrated as a man of faith. It was interesting reading some of the history that comes with being a Levite. It is probable that Barnabas was well educated and perhaps had a role in the Temple, but that is unclear.. It seemed that Barnabas was a nickname used by the apostles; it is awesome that Barnabas was so known for bringing comfort and encouragement to people that they literally named him “son of encouragement.”
January 30, 2013 at 4:58 pm
annalange
In Acts 4, Luke subtly introduces Barnabas, who later becomes a major character in the book of Acts. He shows that Barnabas is giving and faithful to the Jewish church in these verses by saying that Barnabas sold land and gave the money to the church (Acts 4:37). Barnabas was a great encouragement to the Jewish church and later to Paul. He and Paul were called by the Holy Spirit to spread the gospel (Acts 13:2). “Perhaps Barnabas had a personality which could speak the truth with strength and clarity, but in such a way as to bring comfort and encouragement to people as well” (Barnabas, Son of Encouragement” Post). He spoke boldly for the Lord (Acts 14:3). He became a faithful companion for Paul throughout the first missionary journey. Barnabas’ encouragement and faithfulness in relationships is a good example for us to follow.
January 30, 2013 at 7:57 pm
Hilary Rolff
The post talks of Barnabas’ title, “Son of Encouragement” possibility meaning “son of a prophet.” Barnabas’ encounters with Saul could have been one of many instances where Barnabas’ name gives tribute to his possible ability to “speak the truth with strength and clarity, but in such a way as to bring comfort and encouragement to people as well” (P.Long). I would define encouragement as “to spur on” or “push up” someone in distress, tired, or in a negative situation. Images of coaches form in my mind. I feel Acts 9:26-27 is an example of how Barnabas encouraged Saul. He spurred and perhaps coached him on. All of the disciples were afraid of Saul, yet Barnabas had faith in him. So much so that the author uses the strong word, “declared,” or publically avowed, Saul’s testimony. According to the ESV study notes, “this visit took place three years after his conversion.” If I was in Saul’s shoes, a new convert, feared and met with skepticism by fellow believers for years, I would be tired and in need of a lot of encouragement. In the days when Saul was an outcast to both the priests and believers, we see Barnabas alone urging him on faithfully.