- mer sense, of course, would aptly refer to his generosity in comforting
the poor apostolic community, by his pecuniary contributions, as just before mentioned; and this has induced many to prefer that meaning; but the majority of critical translators and commentators have been led, on a careful investigation both of the original Hebrew word and of the Greek translation of it, to prefer the meaning of "son of exhortation" or "instruction," a meaning which certainly well accords with the subsequent distinction attained by him in his apostolic labors. Both senses may, however, have been referred to, with an intentional equivoque.
"Acts, ch. iv. ver. 37. [Greek: hyparchontos autô agrou.] He could not have sold that which
was his paternal inheritance as a Levite; but this might perhaps be some legacy, or
purchase of land in Judea, to which he might have a title till the next jubilee, or
perhaps some land in Cyprus. (Doddridge.) That it was lawful for the Levites to
buy land, we learn from the example of Jeremiah himself, who was of the tribe of
Levi. See Jer. xxxii. 17. It is observed by Bp. Pearce, that those commentators
who contend that this land must have belonged to his wife, because, according to the
law mentioned in Numb. xviii. 20, 23 and 24, a Levite could have no inheritance in Israel,
seem to have mistaken the sense of that law, 'which,' says he, 'means only
that the Levites, as a tribe, were not to have a share in the division of Canaan
among the other tribes. This did not hinder any Levite from possessing lands in
Judea, either by purchase or by gift, as well as in right of his wife. Josephus was a
Levite, and a priest too; and yet in his Life, ch. 76, he speaks of lands which he had
lying about Jerusalem, and in exchange of which, Vespasian gave him others, for his
greater benefit and advantage. After all, I see no reason why we may not suppose
that this land, which Barnabas had and sold, was not land in Judea; and if so, the
words of the law, 'no inheritance in Israel,' did not, however understood, affect
their case. His land might have been in his own country, Cyprus, an island of no
great distance from Judea; and he might have sold it at Jerusalem to some purchaser
there; perhaps to one of his own countrymen.'" (Bloomfield's Annot. Vol.
IV. pp. 147, 148.)
In all the other passages of the New Testament in which he
is mentioned, he is associated with Paul, and every recorded act
of his life has been already given in the life of his great associate.
His first acquaintance with him on his return to Jerusalem
after his conversion,—his mission to Antioch and labors there in
conjunction with Paul, when he had brought him from Tarsus,—their
visit to Jerusalem,—their return to Antioch,—their first
great mission through Asia Minor—their visit to Jerusalem at
the council, and their joint report,—their second return to Antioch,—their
proposed association in a new mission,—their quarrel
and separation,—have all been fully detailed; nor is there any
authentic source from which any facts can be derived, as to the
subsequent incidents of his life. All that is related of him in
the Acts, is, that after his separation from Paul, he sailed to Cyprus;
nor is any mention made, in any of the epistles, of his subsequent
life. The time and place of his death are also unknown.
