Barnabas the Levite: Is it significant that Paul learned from a liturgical priest?

[Gxg (G²)]

Shalom & Blessings

Concerning why I was writing, I was going through the scriptures with a very dear friend of mine and came across something that has been on my mind for awhile:

Acts 4:35-37
​

33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
​

36 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.

​

Read this dozens of times over the years...thinking it was just about generosity in the church and how a church impacted by the Spirit will always seek to look out for one another. Often heard the same thing taught in many churches/sermons.

However, I was reminded recently of how often one can train themselves to read over things that are very central because they've trained themselves to in terms of themes rather than for details. And I say that in light of how I don't know why I never caught the fact that Barnabas..the same man who sponsored Paul before the apostles/trained him up for a good bit and worked with him building up the church ( Acts 9:26-28, Acts 11:24-26, Acts 11:25-27, Acts 13:1-3 )...that same Barnabas was a LEVITE!!!

Adds another dimension to things like reading the Epistle of Barnabas when considering that the Apostle Barnabas knew what priesthood was about on a personal level.​

​

​

Going through the OT simultaneously/seeing all that the Levites were required to do in the temple/tabernacle (from prayer/intercession to setting things up and even doing music...I Chronicles 23:24-32), it's wild considering that one would have been a teacher to Paul.

Someone experienced in priestly roles, who knew the seriousness of the precence of the Lord and what it meant to be set apart for special tasks that no one deserved......and somee who could be a good complinent to Paul who was amongst the Best of the Best in scholarship/knowing the Law. It makes sense as to why Barnabas was able to advocate for Paul before the apostles when they didn't trust Paul at first....for he wasn't someone randomly giving advice. Instead, he was a man of considerable authority/respect that even the apostles themselves would need to pay attention to because of his very background. Although they (the apostles) were chosen to follow Jesus/see what God's prescence was like over the years, Barnabas as a Levite would have grown up in it all of his life.

I stil wonder on how Barnabas could have owned land if he was a Levite since Levites owned no inherited land within the Holy Land, but mabye the regulations may not have applied to the Levities in other countries like Cyprus.

What I've seen thus far is that 2 Chronicles 31:19, Nehemiah 12:44, and Nehemiah 13:10 seem to speak on that issue the loudest.. The last one confirmed that Levites owned fields after the Babylonian exile....and it turns out that the portions of the Levites had not been given to them.. so that the Levites and the singers, who did the work, had fled each to his field (Nehemiah 13:10). Due to the mismanagement of the Temple by Eliashib the priest, the tithe for the Levites were neglected and they had to flee each to his field to earn his living. Of course, the situation was rectified by Nehemiah. But how did this ownership of field come about? It seems one would need to go all the way back to Moses when the Lord said "Command the people of Israel, that they give to the Levites, from the inheritance of their possession, cities to dwell in; and you shall give to the Levites pasture lands round about the cities." (Numbers 35:1-2)

Thus, the Levites were given cities to dwell in and pasture lands round about the cities and Joshua carried out this command. The cities of the Levites in the midst of the possession of the people of Israel were in all forty-eight cities with their pasture lands (Joshua 21:41). Therefore, the Levites were given 48 cities with their pasture lands after the Israelites had entered Canaan. It seems a lot of events had taken place before the age of the Apostles. Yet, the Levites were always entitled to own land.....as long as it was within certain territory.

But with Barnabas being born in Cyprus, I don't know if the land he got was from an inheritance he had from an ancestor who lived in Israel. That would be a good possibility. Even back in Jeremiah’s time, we find the prophet-priest owning land (see Jeremiah 32:6‒15). Moreover, scholars point to Deuteronomy 18:8 as evidence that Levites held property privately, though the tribe itself did not receive inheritances.

Who knows...

Nonetheless, I find it amazing how much the details can make a big differnece...and in considering how Barnabas was a Levite, part of me has wondering on how Barnabas being a Levite opens the door for seeing other possibilities. One of the biggest examples being what's seen in the Book of Hebrews and its detailed descriptions of the Levitical priesthood/New Covenant. FOr many have supposed that it was Paul who was a possible author...and in light of Paul being trained by a Levite, it'd make more sense.

​

Granted, hough he was a Levite, Barnabas may not have been a priest (kohen), as only the sons of Aharon were priests (kohanim). In other words, only certain Levites, not all of them. They had to be descended from Aharon patrilineally.

But it never says in scripture/the Torah that others who aided the Sons of Aaron in the Temple or Tabernacle did not do priestly duties. They were simply not doing the main duties of the premier priests. With the Levites, when they set themselves apart during the Golden Calf incidence, God blessed their dedication...and in reward for their dedication, God replaced the first borns with the tribe of Levi. "

"Consecrate yourselves today to the LORD, that He may bestow on you a blessing this day, for every man has opposed his son and his brother" (Exodus 32:29).

Now behold, I Myself have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of every firstborn who opens the womb among the children of Israel. Therefore the Levites shall be Mine, because all the firstborn are Mine. (Numbers 3:12-13).
​

The Levites then took on the duty of serving God.

"At that time the LORD separated the tribe of Levi to bear the ark of the covenant of the LORD, to stand before the LORD to minister to Him and to bless in His name, to this day" (Deuteronomy 10:8).
​

That service included serving the priests.

"And I have given the Levites as a gift to Aaron and his sons from among the children of Israel, to do the work for the children of Israel in the tabernacle of meeting (Numbers 8:19).
​

The other Levites who were not sons of a subordinate ministers appointed in the Mosaic Law for the service of the Tabernacle and of the Temple

Since all priests descend from Aaron, all priests are Levites. Yet all Levites are not priests the way that Aaron's descendants were, but they do serve the priests. Hence, you find mention of the priests and the Levites together, such as "And he gathered together all the leaders of Israel, with the priests and the Levites" (I Chronicles 23:2). One didn't have to be a priest as Aaron's sons in order to do priestly functions, just as Melchizedek didn't have to be of Aaron's line in order to be a priest Christ came from (Hebrews 7) and David didn't have to be of Aaron's line in order to be known as he was for having a priestly role as well as a prophet/king-role in what he did.

The sacred calling of the Levites is mentioned in various passages of the Pentateuch. ..as the author of the first chapters of Numbers, after recalling ( Exodus 28:29; Leviticus 8:9) the names and sacred functions of the sons of Aaron, adds the designation of the entire tribe of Levi who were to "stand in the sight of Aaron the priest to minister to him. And let them watch, and observe whatsoever appertaineth to the service of the multitude before the tabernacle of the testimony, and let them keep the vessels of the tabernacle, serving in the ministry thereof."

Though in Numbers 18:23, the special mission of the tribe is described broadly as a mediation between the Lord and his people, and though the Levite mentioned in the interesting a passage of Judges 17-18 is represented as exercising without qualification the functions of the priesthood, it is held by many commentators that at an early date a distinction was made between the priests of the family of Aaron and the simple Levites--a distinction which became very pronounced in the later religious history of God's people. The ceremonies with which the simple Levites were consecrated to the service of the Lord are described in Numbers 8:5-22. Besides their general function of assisting the priests, the Levites were assigned to carry the Tabernacle and its utensils, to keep watch about the sanctuary, etc. That is still a priestly duty...or a ministry role that was highly revered alongside the priesthood.

This is why, IMHO, it makes sense to say that Barnabas was a priest. As a Levite, he would have worked in the temple (been called to) and assisting those who were high priests (Sons of Aaron)--and although he would have not been in the position of priest as Aaron's sons were, there were more than enough other things he was called to teach..be it in knowing how to assist in the temple, the prescence of the Lord in the temple or what it was like to carry the Ark /do music and worship (as they were called to do, I Chronicles 9:1-34 and 1 Chronicles 15:11-17)

And when it comes to the terminology of "priests" it was never soley in reference to those who were Sons of Aarons.

Again, the Levites were formally set apart after the now-infamous incident with the golden calf idol that the Israelites made while Moses was away receiving The Ten Commandments from The Lord (Exodus chapter 32). Although others besides the Levites were righteous and not mentioned, scripture notes the Levites avoided the idolatry/actually killed 3,000 of those who were running wild, as ordered by Moses (Exodus 32:25-29). After the incident was over, Moses said of the Levites, "Today you have ordained yourselves for the service of The Lord, each one at the cost of his son and of his brother, that he may bestow a blessing upon you this day." (Exodus 32:29). The Levites were natural allies of Moses because Moses himself was of the tribe of Levi (Exodus 2:1-2,10).

Levi had 3 sons - Gershon, Kohath, and Merari...and from those branches of the family, the Levites were organized into 3 levels of service:

•The first level was composed of Aaron and his offspring, who were descended from Levi's son Kohath. They formed the priesthood.


•The second level was made up of all of the other descendants of Kohath who were not descendants of Aaron. They were in charge of the most sacred parts of the Tabernacle (Numbers 3:27-32, 4:4-15, 7:9).


•The third level consisted of all of the descendants of Gershon and Merari, who were given lesser duties (Numbers 3:21-26,33-37).

​

The Sons of Aaron were High priests, but the ministers who served in the temple as assistants were also known as priests as well (1 Chronicles 16:38-40, Nehemiah 3:1-3 ). Saying Barnabas was a Levite/priest isn't an issue, IMHO, since all Levites were considered priests due to their work in the temple assistance....even though the Levites descended from Aaron were the only ones who could be high priests and had a greater sense of weight with the term "priest"

2 Chronicles 11:14

13 The priests and Levites from all their districts throughout Israel sided with him. The Levites even abandoned their pasturelands and property and came to Judah and Jerusalem, because Jeroboam and his sons had rejected them as priests of the LORD 15 when he appointed(D) his own priests(E) for the high places and for the goat(F) and calf(G) idols he had made.

Deuteronomy 18:1
[ Offerings for Priests and Levites ] The Levitical priests—indeed, the whole tribe of Levi—are to have no allotment or inheritance with Israel.


​

The Early Church valued OT practice - and the concept of Paul learning on liturgical practices from someone like Barnabas who experienced it up-close and personal opens up a lot of doors when I consider the ways that Liturgy was a big deal in the early church - and that's a big deal, IMHO. All for Christ/Yeshua!!!

If anyone has any thoughts on the issue, would love to hear sometime. Shalom

 

[Gxg (G²)]

IMHO, it makes sense to say that Barnabas was a priest. For as a Levite, he would have worked in the temple (been called to)

Forgot to mention this earlier..

7 And the word of God kept on spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith. (Act 6:7NAS)
​

Who are the priests? Again, there were many types of priests in Jerusalem - with being a priest not always requiring being a Levite since David didn't have to be of Aaron's line in order to be known as having a priestly role as well as a prophet/king-role in what he did.. and the same with others (more discussed in-depth in #40 /#45 ) - although the immediate context in Acts 6 seems to be Mosaic priests since Acts 4-5 with confrontation with the priesthood - run by the Sadducees who were the aristocratic branch in Judaism which dominated the priesthood and often challenged Christ. IMHO, It wouldn't make sense to think the priests converting were all Sadducees.

My suspicion is that maybe they are the priestly leadership of the Essene type communities spread across Israel (some in Diaspora territories)....

Essenes - one of the main groups within Judaism apart from the other 3 (i.e. Pharisees, Saducees, Zealots, etc) and a separatist Jewish community - were one of the groups who refused to take part in the worship/sacrifical system that was set up in Jerusalem.

The Essenes were one of three major Torah schools; the other two were the Pharisees, who were mostly lay people, and the Sadducees, the aristocratic and powerful priestly class of Jerusalem. The nucleus of the Essene movement was made up of Zadokite kohanim, or priests. From the time of Solomon, the Temple's high priests had come from the house of Zadok, a son of Aaron, from whom the founders of the Essenes descended. After the successful second-century B.C.E. revolt of the Maccabees and the reestablishment of an independent Jewish state, the Hasmonean kings (from the Maccabee family) assumed not only the kingship but also the high priesthood. The king and high priest were one. The Zadokites among the Essenes considered the non-Zadokite priests usurpers and declared their Temple sacrifices illegal. The Essenes refused to take part in Hasmonean sacrificial offerings and adhered to purity rules far stricter than those the Temple authorities were enforcing.

Of course, that doesn't mean that Jerusalem's establishment had no Essene prescence in it.

According to the Damascus Document, a Dead Sea Scrolls text, a group of Zadokite priests(from the line of Zadok in King Davids time) left Jerusalem in the mid 2nd century BCE and went to Damascus do to the defiling of the temple by the Hellenistic changes taking place. The road to Damascus is where Christ met Saul and in Damascus lived Ananias who was probably a member of the Way. Paul stayed in Damascus for 3 years (Gal 1:18) Three years is the amount of time required to be a full member of the Essene communities. Moreover, the Dead Sea scrolls show that Phariseeism was not the norm and that the early believers had much more in common with the Essenes.

I'm reminded of a passage by the first-century C.E. Jewish historian Josephus, who refers to a "Gate of the Essenes," which appears to have been in the neighborhood of Mount Zion.

It's possible that Barnabas could have Essene origins (as many Essenes were Levites as well) since they did live outside of Jerusalem (due to being expelled before Christ arrived on the scene to address the camps in Judaism he did)---but no one can know for certain. Even if he didn't have Essene background, the prescence of the Essenes is more than present.

When speaking to a Jewish audience-----already aware of the fact that there's a group that is a minority (even though they had sigificance in more than one way)--then there's no need to mention them by name.....just as there's no need mentioning by name all of the historical figures/groups behind instances such as the ordering of a census or the banishment of Jews to a certain location ---such as what happened in Acts 18:1-2. SOme things are simply understood---and there are simply too many similarities/exact practices that the Essenes had that the early church had to act as if they were not there and influential in one way or another.

There was one point when some of the Qumranites experienced a battle in the wilderness and actually came back to Jerusalem around the time of the early church. If indeed Qumranities or the wider group which they were apart of (Essenes) joined a new group within Second Temple Judaism, the Palestinian Jesus Movement, then they would have not only influenced with their special knowledge/mysteries...but would have been able to adapt greatly. The Essenes were already known to be for pacifism/non-violence.

For something else to consider, the mission of the faithful community of Essenes was to prepare the way (Matthew 3:3) meaning God's road or path of obedience. They felt they must be ready to take their place in God's army by keeping their hearts and minds pure and their practices obedient. Their lifestyle reflected this commitment as the Essene community was carefully organized. They lived in small, self-sufficient communities having all property in common (Acts 2:44-45). They practiced ritual washing, similar to the baptism practices of John, to purify them of any ritual uncleanness or sin that might disqualify them from being part of God's work (more shared here / here). They wore white as a symbol of their purity. They grew their own food and were forbidden to eat food prepared by others. They spent significant time in study and in careful copying of their sacred texts. It is these scrolls, probably hidden when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in the First Jewish Revolt that are known as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

That said, the liturgical use of water was common in the Jewish world. The Law of Moses required ablutions (washings) on the part of priests following certain sacrifices and on certain individuals who were unclean because of an infectious disease (Num. 19:1-22; Lev 14,15, 16:24-28). The natural method of cleansing the body by washing and bathing in water was always customary in Israel. The washing of their clothes was an important means of sanctification imposed on the Israelites even before the law was given a Mt. Sinai (Ex 19:10). The use of water for cleansing was used symbolically as well in such passages as Eze 36:25 where God says "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities."

Toward the beginning of the Christian era, the Jews adopted (as a custom unrelated to Divine guidance) the custom of baptizing proselytes seven days after their circumcision. A series of specific interrogations made it possible to judge the real intentions of the candidate who wished to adopt the Jewish religion. After submitting to these interrogations, he was circumcised and later baptized before witnesses. In the baptism, he was immersed naked in a pool of flowing water; when he rose from the pool, he was a true son of Israel. After their baptism, new converts were allowed access to the sacrifices in the Temple.

For more:

• Qumran | Follow The Rabbi
• An Essene Cistern | Follow The Rabbi
• The Time Had Fully Come | Follow The Rabbi

Something else to consider is that in Acts 22:4, Paul discusses how he persecuted the "Way to death"--as seen in Acts 9. However, as it stands, the Essenes also referred to their sect as the Way----long before the Christians came along.....and as the term of "The Way" started to be used AFTER persecution of Chrisitians began, it makes sense to say that perhaps the Essenes influenced the Christians greatly in converting over. As the Pharisees and the Sadducees were already against the Essenes in power, it'd make even more sense as to why persecution began after Christians.

With Acts 6:7 on the large crowd of cohanim ("priests") becoming obediant to the faith, what needs to be kept in mind is that although most of the cohanim are presented in the New Testament as being opposed to Yeshua, this was not true of all. There were holy men in the priesthood such as the father of John the Baptist (Luke 1:5-25, Luke 1:57-59).....and as it concerns the theory that the cohanim coming to believe in Jesus were not part of the establishment---being instead those who had become disenchanted with it and had gone off to join the Essenes in Qumara---the reasoning is that the theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls is much closer to the New Testament than that of the Tz'dukim who controlled the Jerusalem priesthood.

Of course, since the activity of the believers had not yet spread to other parts of the Land than Jerusalem, one could make a case that the cohanim becoming obediant to the faith at this time in Acts 6:7 were those who made it their buisness to be in Jerusalem, rather than retreat to the desert. For God can reach the hearts even of people whose usual ties and associations might be expected to lead them to an opposing stance.

Of course, it could also be said that God already had others not in Jerusalem who were bringing the Good News to others. Luke 9:49-50 and Mark 9:38-41 comes to mind....as there was a believer who was outside the circle of the Twelve and the disciples were quick to criticize those belonged to Christ and yet did not belong to their group. At the time, the disciples/Christ were already outside of Jerusalem.....as seen in Mark 9:38-43 when he goes past Galilee (the "Ghetto" of Jesus's time) and warns them of his impending suffering in Jerusalem to come.. .and yet, beginning at Capernum, Jesus was apparently diverted from the more direct route when Samaritans refused him access (Luke 9:51-56). As seen in Mark 10:1, he went into the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan---possibly choosing to travel through Perea....before later pasing through Jericho and proceeding to Jerusalem.

In regards to the Essene Community, we do know that Qumran served as a study site for the Essenes, a Jewish sect existing in Jesus's day. Located at the edge of the Judea Wilderness, Qumran was an isolated community. The Essenes could live out their beliefs in separation from other corrupt priests in Jerusalem. Not far from Qumran, the oases of Jericho and En Gedi provided desert homes for other ancient people. The Dead Sea was also nearby, with the land of Moab easily visible on its eastern shore.....and as Jesus travled at one point past Jericho on his way to Jerusalem, he would have come EXCEPTIONALLY CLOSE to Qumran again

With the Essenes, there's no real way of assuming that their prescence was not within the text in some kind of way---for as numerous scholars have noted (and as was mentioned earlier), many of the practices of the Nazarene sect that Paul was apart of were in line with the Essenes. The same goes for many of the practices/teachings of John the Baptist and Jesus, down to a T. We see in Acts 2:42-47 and Acts 4:32-37 where Luke shows clearly how they engaged in the practice of sharing goods, holding Barnabas as a model (Acts 4:32-37). The believers' sharing exemplified the OT ideal of there not being a needy person aong them---that is, there should be no poor in the community of faith (Deuteronomy 15:4-11). To realize this ideal, Christians would sell some of their goods and bring the proceeds to the apostles for distrubtion to the needy. Other scholars have noted how this sharing is very much what was practiced by the Essenes, as the Essene communities shared all things in common, including food and clothing (Josephus, Jewish War 2.122, 127; Philo, Good Person 86). Wages were given to a steward, who would purchase and distribute goods to those in need (Josephus, Jewish War 2.123; Philo, Hypothetica 11.10). They cared for their elderly and sick (Philo, Good Person 87). There's much basis ---as many scholars have noted---in seeing how the Jerusalem churh adopted a similar way of life (Acts 2:44-45, Acts 4:34-35, James 1:27).....

Another way in which the Essenes can be seen in the scriptures is within ther realm of how they made disciples. The Essene group survived by attracting converts. Pliny claims that they drew large crowds (Natural History 5.15.73). A Convert would follow their way of life for a year (Josephus, Jewish War 2.137). He could then be baptized, but was not allowed to live with them for another two years (Jewish War 2.138). The Essenes practiced a form of ritual cleansing by water, similar to baptism. Minus the probationary period that the Essenes practiced, followers of Jesus were similarly baptized into the church (Acts 2:37-47, Acts 8:37-38).

Another way in which the Essene prescence can be seen in scripture clearly is in regards to eschatology. For the Essenes believed that God was the cause of all things (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 13.172; 18:18; Philo, Good Person 84). Consequently, they viewed all governments as ordained (Josephus, Jewish War 2.140). However, the Dead Sea Scrolls assume belief in two spirits---one divine, the other satanic--that will be in conflict to the end of the age (e.g., 1QS Col.3.17-19; Col. 4.16-17). When the Messiah arrived, the Essenes wanted him to find people who were prepared to reestablish the true priesthood and true kingship of David and to battle the forces of spiritual darkness. Their mission was to prepare the way for the Messiah and to bring spiritual light to the world. Paul similarly ties spiritual warfare with God's ultimate sovereignty over all things, including governments (Romans 13:1-7, Ephesians 2:1-3, etc)----and as seen in the very message of John the Baptist in preparing the Way/Road for the Messiah.

There are way too many similarities to ignore, IMHO, A REAL connection going on. ...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

7 And the word of God kept on spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith. (Act 6:7NAS)

Going back to Acts 6:7on "great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith" ..If it was indeed the case that the priests were from the Sadducees who were the aristocratic branch in Judaism and often challenged Christ, a case could be made on some level for it.. IMHO, It would not make sense to think that the priests converting were all Sadducees - which dominated the priesthood in the days of Christ - and yet there were many types of Sadducees just as there were various types of Pharisees - and some SAdducces may've come to faith in the Lord...Caiphas being one of the most notable/debated in Biblical Archeological circles . Nonetheless, IMHO, it seems to make more sense that the priests being saved were those of the Essene camp who were already ousted from Jerusalem predominately - and connected with Christians in many ways MORE SO than other groups.

Again, there are some Christian concepts that were being followed by the Essenes 200 years before the temple was destroyed:

• Called themselves children of light
• Called themselves the New Israel
• Called themselves the "Way"
• Lived under a New Covenant
• Had bishops and deacons
• Believed they were saved by grace
• Waiting for the return of a Messiah
• Ate a communal meal that symbolizes a marriage feast
• Lived in communities where all things were held in common
• Practiced a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins

Additionally, the Essenes believed they were living at the end of an age and expected two Messiahs—a priest messiah and a king messiah—to come imminently. The early church also thought of the Messiah as a perfect priest and king, but they recognized that these qualities were united in the one person of Jesus. According to Josephus the Essenes had communities spread all over Israel- Qumran, Damascus,Nazareth,Jerusalem etc. and Alexandria in Egypt.

The Essenes observed a covenant renewal ceremony yearly during Shavuot(Pentacost). There they would renew their covenant with YHVH by oath. Now the Essenes observed a different calendar than the Pharisees. This calendar is first written down about in Enoch 1(300 BCE). It has a 364 day year. The Book of Jubilees also has this same 364 day calendar. The Dead Sea Scrolls also follow this same 364 day calendar. They contain a 6 consecutive year calendar showing the Sabbaths, Feast Days, lunar observances (that shows their Chodesh was not based on lunar observation), and the priestly mishmarot (when the priestly families served). The lunar Pharisee calendar was the one they followed in exile in Persia. I said all of this to show that 2 calenders were being observed at that time, and that the observed feast days are on different days usually. In the Book of Acts, we see 3000 people filled with the Holy Spirit. According to Josephus's writings 2.5 to 3 million people came up to Jerusalem for the feasts. That is only 0.1% of the observant population. But the Essenes who numbered around 4000 to 5000 observed Shavuot on a different day. So are we seeing a majority of the Essenes being "filled" on Shavuot or a minority of the rest of the population. This would explain what happened to most of the Essenes....they became most of the first century believers.

For more information on the Essenes themselves and their monastic background, one I was recommended by the leader at my fellowship that I've seen to be the most helpful is entitled " The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance For Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity " by Peter Flint and James VanderKam. Very detailed, easy to read and lots of documentation (including pictures, if being a visual type of person) from multiple scholars within the world of Christendom. Loved it

More was shared here in one thread on Desert Monasticism ( #26 ). Also, as it concerns the experiences of Jewish believers in what they went through (especially as it concerns the Diaspora and being prepared to live "on the road" with a Temple lifestyle/mindset), one can go to Jewish Christianity in apostolic times: A native Jewish Church . Additionally, for reference, a good E-Book that is freely available is entitled "The History Of Jewish Christianity: From the First to the Twentieth Century" by Hugh J Schonfield. Moreover, another to consider is Nazarene Jewish Christianity: from the end of the New Testament Until Its Disappearance in the Fourth Century (Studia Post-Biblica)... By Ray Pritz - a comprehensive study of the heirs of the earliest Jerusalem church, their history and doctrines, their relations with both synagogue and the growing Gentile church...with the author analyzing all sources, Jewish, Christian, and pagan, which can throw light on the sect and its ultimate mysterious disappearance.

On the Essenes, I do take it significant seeing the location that John lived in (Desert) and the clothing style he utilized ...for it has been noted by many scholars that John himself probably went out to the Essene community in the wilderness/lived there for a time. His dress style was similar to what many of them (in a monastic spirit) dressed due to their focus/ascetic practices. Additionally, although not a dominant group in Jerusalem, they were hated by the other groups in Jerusalem -especially the priesthood - due to their actions being somewhat "outside the lines of jurisdiction." The book "In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity" did an awesome job covering the issue - and for more, one can go here or here.
__________________

With the Levitical priesthood dynamic, it is also interesting to see that Mary - a cousin of Elizabeth (a daughter of Aaron) - would also have had Levitical background...and thus, even apart from John, Jesus would have had legal rights to the Levitical priesthood in addition to what he had from his father Joseph (of Judah/David's kingship). More was shared elsewhere on that in #999 of the thread How many other children did Mary have?

Jesus was affirmed by the Lord himself...although it makes sense that John would declare Jesus as He was since John was also descended from a Levitical line - and perhaps one of the few who actually had any real right to the priesthood after the Hasmonean Dynasty messed things up and set up their own, Roman enforced priesthood with no connection to the Levitical line/ Zadokites. It couldn't be any old priest from those appointed by Herod's choice - as John was miraculously born for the purpose of declaring the Son of God - and it'd make sense for God to use him in a very public anointing of Christ as King/Priest.

Many think John was the High Priest of the true Temple - in Qumran - and so Yeshua was properly anointed according to the Law. This links in with his gown not being torn too - Leviticus 10 - that a priest who tears his gown shall die, so his gown was not torn by the soldiers. It was a part of acknowledging his Priesthood, just as the Charge, above his head on the cross, acknowledged his Kingship as well as his Godly role as seen in Philippians.

And all of that ties in with the concept that being a priest was very complicated With Barnabas - as a Levite not connected with the establishment in Jerusalem - being a type/example of priests serving the Lord and training others.

Reading in Galatians 1-2 as well as what He noted when facing King Agrippa and noting how he had not been disobediant to the heavenly vision the Lord showed to him on the road to Damascus (Acts 9), Paul was given direct revelation from Christ. Nonetheless, Paul was not a maverick who did not take time to learn from other believers/work with them.....and there seems to be more than enough present in the NT to show that to be the case. Although he was trained by Gamaliel in Acts 22:2-4, his interactions with Barnabas indicate some level of training that took place as well.

When Barnabas is introduced to us in the book of Acts, we see him selling some land to help provide for fellow Christian believers (Acts 4:36-37). Barnabas' given name was Joses, or Joseph, but the apostles gave him the name Barnabas, which means "Son of Encouragement" or " Son of Exhortation" (Acts 4:36). ..and he lived that out with Paul. For When Paul, formerly called Saul, tried to reconcile with the Jerusalem church after having persecuted many of its members before he became a Christian, Barnabas was at his side (Acts 9:26-30). Many in Jerusalem were concerned to once again see Paul, remembering his former deeds...but Barnabas spoke to the apostles in sponsorship of Paul and verified Paul's story of his conversion. Barnabas also supported Paul by explaining how strongly he had preached in Damascus. Eventually, Paul was accepted within the Church (albeit perhaps with some caution)....and Paul was later sent to Tarsus at one point and later to Antioch. He wouldn't have been accepted in Antioch and Jerusalem had he not been "vouched for" by someone with such a solid reputation as Barnabas. By the time of Acts 11:22-24 we find Barnabas still active in the Jerusalem congregation and trusted by the leadership to go to Antioch to begin working with (giving encouragement and direction to) people who were responding to God's Word....and he did so actively. investigate.

When Barnabas arrived, he found that not only was the gospel being preached..but many people believed in Jesus. A new church had started and was growing quickly and Barnabas needed someone to help him teach these new Christians. According to Acts 11:25-26:

“Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he found him, he brought him back to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.”
​

He had Paul sent for so that Paul could work as his associate. Scripture seems to show plainly (as many scholars have often pointed out) that Barnabas mentored Paul as he began working alongside the other teachers in Antioch. Subsequently, Barnabas took Paul and a young disciple, John Mark (the aforementioned Mark who later became author of the Gospel bearing his name), on a trip through Asia Minor. ...and by this time Barnabas and Paul were both referred to as apostles (Acts 14:14). Although Paul grew more in prominence, Barnabas was not forgotten.

Barnabas took the side of Peter, initially at least, in the circumcision debate, and that Paul would mention that "even Barnabas" was led astray ( Gal 2:13 ) would indicate that Barnabas pulled a lot of weight in the church and was reknown in Galatia even though it appears that he split up with Paul before ever going to Galatia. I think it's fair to say that Barnabas was probably converted in one of the early groups of converts while the Apostles were preaching in the Temple. Being a Levite in and around the temple would also seem to increase the probability of Barnabas being a priest, and Luke does indeed record a number of priests converting. This would also be a good explaination as to why Barnabas was highly regarded by the early church. Of course, it's also possible that he was part of the nebulous 70 in Luke 10 or one of the nebulous 500 that saw the risen Lord, though I don't think there is any hard indication of Barnabas being in either of these.


When you read Acts 13:1-3, you see that Barnabas encouraged other people to become leaders by being a humble helper. The church in Antioch sent Barnabas and Paul out as missionaries...and Barnabas was the older, more experienced Christian. Barnabas had trained Paul. So you might expect there to be a “senpai-kohai” relationship between Barnabas and Paul. You might expect Barnabas to always be in the lead and Paul to assist Barnabas. But if you read about what happened in Acts 13-15, you find the opposite. Paul became the leader and Barnabas assisted Paul. This is because Barnabas was a humble man. He did not care about being the “senpai.” He did not care about being the leader or the boss. Instead, Barnabas served Paul and Barnabas encouraged Paul to use the abilities that God had given him to serve God

Barnabas truly an example of what a godly priest is meant to be about

 

[Gxg (G²)]

the concept of Paul learning on liturgical practices from someone who experienced it up-close and personal opens up a lot of doors when I consider the ways that Liturgy was a big deal in the early church.

Seeing Barnabas as a Levite may be difficult due to how many may think that the Levites could only operate at the Temple in Jerusalem. However, when seeing precedents set prior to the creation of the temple, Barnabas' role as a Levite takes on another dimension.

It makes more sense as to the sheer variety of places that Jesus taught when realizing what the perspective was upon meeting places. For although synagouges themselves were useful as places of fellowship/community, the system itself was set up during a time when sacrifices could not be made at the Temple during the Exile. It was a system developed in order to create something that'd help give a semblance of order.....and had the temple remained/the people of Israel and Judah were not punished, the synagouge concept would possibly have not come into existence. For models of community apart from the Synagouge model were the Temple Model and the Tabernacle model that was first given in the Mosaic Law (Exodus 25-36, Exodus 38 , Exodus 39, Exodus 40, Leviticus 8, Leviticus 17 , Numbers 1:52-54 /Numbers 1 , Numbers 3 , Numbers 4, Numbers 9 , Numbers 10 , Numbers 16:8-10 , Numbers 19:12-14 )...one where much travel was involved. Some are of the mindset that the synagouge concept (as it was not outlined within scripture as a command) was meant to be something that could evolve with the times (seen here/here/here )....and one that eventually did when Jewish believers were being kicked out of synagouges for their faith.....with them having to learn how to live mobile just as Christ did.

The early church seemed based more so on a tabernacle model....often accussed of not supporting Temple. The example of Stephen comes to mind, as he refuted the final charge, that he has spoken imroperly against the Temple (Acts 6:13-14), by showing that it was the people, not God, who wanted a dwelling place or house more substantial than the Tent of Witness or "Tabernacle" originally authorized in the Torah ( Acts 7:43-45 ). The concept of the temple came into more view under the life of David---as seen in 2 Samuel 7:1-3 and 2 Samuel 7 ( 1 Chronicles 6:31-33/, 1 Chronicles 22:4-6, 1 Chronicles 23:25-27 , and 1 Chronicles 24-26 )- --- when it came to his desire for a physical temple for God. The Lord conceded....and of course, the centralized location of Temple had its benefits---especially as it concerned management. There were many benefits to having a mobile place of God's dwelling..and its something that's often discussed for reference today when it comes to the concept of Simple/Organic and Missional Church....a church that's based on the concept that church is not a building as much as the people/God's prescence within us. A focus not on preaching, but of the Prescence of Christ...as the Lord would often go places/not preach at all because of what His Spirit BROUGHT in (i.e healings, miracles, deliverance, etc), some of it similar to a good old fashion Tent Revival when seeing how the Lord sometimes ended up doing deliverance ministry/laying hands on people for hours rather than preaching

Jesus lived out the mobile concept of God's prescence when going to places/preaching there even when others would not while they remained in synagouge. Although he often preached in synagogues, it was never done to establish a case against preaching in other formats...or assuming that Christ would NEVER have been for preaching in a Church. Jesus and the apostles frequently taught in synagogues (Matt. 4:23; Lk. 4:15; Luke 6:6; Luke 13:10, etc). However, Jesus did use synagogues to teach against Jewish traditions that were inaccurate and he spoke in synagouge on misconceptions about the Law. In one of the more notable of these passages the Jews became so angry over what Jesus taught in the Synagogue that they tried to kill Him (Luke 4:16-29). Luke 13:10-17 also records an occasion on which Jesus taught in a synagogue, but people were also upset with Him there. In fact, this passage shows that Jesus debated in the synagogue.

Vastly different from the image of Jesus simply using synagouges as a place to preach regularly. Because of who Christ was and what He represented, he was often kicked out of synagogues...and the same went for his followers, as synagogue members were excommunicated for believing that Jesus was the Messiah (Jn. 9:22; John 12:42; John 16:2).

It is because of those factors that Christ often went to the mountains or the fields and preached in the places that could be accessible for all....in the same way that many churches do so today. His preaching in synagouge was indeed beautiful, but it was not His focus when it came to preaching wherever he could to bring people to Him

In regards to Acts 7, Stephen seems to make the case that the Temple (as the Jews knew of it) was inferior to the Tabernacle..as seen in the case in Acts 7. To my knowledge, the Temple didn't have as much significance in the NT church with Jewish believers as it did with those in mainline Judaism. For we read that they met in homes, sure, but they also had a “third” place they seemed to frequent on a daily basis – the temple courts (Acts 2:46). While they may have been there to engage in actual temple worship on a daily basis ( Acts 3:1), it is more likely they turned the temple courtyard into the equivalent of a first-century "Starbucks" in order to gather as a community (e.g., Acts 5:12)...in honor of what God did in making them His new temple.

For others in the camp have noted, the first dwelling place God designed for Himself was a mobile home (a tabernacle) because He wanted to be on the move with His people. ....and as we see today, whenever we become focused solely on buildings rather than relationship, we end up not being able to do as Jesus did when he went to bring his message to places that others wouldn't go because they wouldn't go but to the Temple in Jerusalem. ...and the same mess also occurred with the Jews who had the OUTER symbolism of the Temple and yet they didn't have God's prescence..

John 4:19-26
​

19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”

21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”


​

1 Corinthians 3:16-17
​

​

16 Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.


​

2 Corinthians 6:16
What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.”
​

This is not to say buildings are not important - as the Early Church was VERY Liturgical...but with the increase in persecution against the believers/pressure put on them to conform to the Temple System without Christ (as the Book of Hebrews notes), it makes sense that they had to do a lot of reinterpretation of Liturgical Practices abroad. Especially when they were being kicked out of synagouges/denied access to the temple. Some of this is similar to what happened historically when believers met in caves during eras of persecution and thrived by turning those places into Holy Places (like the Cave CHurch of Hagia Sophia ), sanctifying where they were at/turing it into Holy Ground. Although differing aspects of Liturgical practice may be more difficult when on the run (as Paul was/many believers), some things remain timeless/transferable when it comes to the Temple Roots of Liturgy /Non-Temple Liturgy and their capacity for adaptation to differing environments (more shared here, here, & here)..and As referenced elsewhere, one excellent work on the issue is "Orthodox Worship: A Living Continuity With the Temple, the Synagogue and the Early Church" ( ).

​

Many Jews do not even go to synagouge and do not focus on whether a sermon or teaching is shared in synagouge simply because that was done historically. For the many who may be Jewish and yet live in the outdoors, living in a very earthy manner that would make them feel highly uncomfortable in a synagouge...and for them, they'd probably prefer the nomadic/travelling lifestyle that the Patriarchs and ancient Israel had when living outside in tents (Genesis 25 ,Genesis 13:4-6 , Numbers 1:51-53 )/farming and raising herds. If their form of ministry involved travel and gathering together in the community to have the brotherhood share words of encouragment or the main leader of the camp give his own perspective, they would see that reflected in the work of Messiah.

There has always been a very vast diversity level within Judaism itself--and many times, that doesn't seem to be well represented. On groups of Jews that may not always fit the mold, Berber Jews (seen here , here and here)come immediately to my mind, as they live in the mountains and have a lifestyle that would be RADICALLY diifferent from the way many Jews in the U.S are used to...especially as it concerns synagouge life I'm also reminded of Jews who were of Bedouin heritage..and who live off the land....and are very devout/honoring of the Lord, even though they may not have a traditional focus on synagouge as other Jewish communities do.

For those Jewish communities in existence today that are adapted to a nomadic lifestyle, to hear of synagouge being mandatory for true fellowship/sharing of the scriptures is foreign to them. They are in the same camp as other Jewish groups (As well as the patriarchs) who traveled extensively and lived off the land....and thus, when they become saved/hear of Jesus traveling to speak in differing places, it's not really a concern that He spoke in synagouges rather than in some of the places deemed to be churches. To them, the issue is that he simply preached/taught...and lived

And with Barnabas being born in Cyprus - away from the Temple in Jerusalem and living in Diaspora - that point of what Jesus did would not have been missed. For he would've understood what it meant to take the principles/concepts applied in the temple and take then abroad with the coming of the Holy Spirit when others may've not had as much access to things as those in the city. As a travelling priest, he could introduce others to liturgy on the way rather than being stuck in one location for doing so.....a principle he most likely taught Paul as well. More was discussed in the book In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity - Page 101 when seeing the significance of what he did.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Paul learning on liturgical practices from someone who experienced it up-close and personal opens up a lot of doors when I consider the ways that Liturgy was a big deal in the early church.

St. Barnabas was a Levite—a Jewish priest who became a Christian — had some very interesting characteristics...and the most striking thing about him was his commitment to prayer, characterized by a retreat he and St. Paul had at Antioch, where they ministered to the Lord and fasted ( Acts 14:22-24 ) - a precedent he and St.Paul experienced before when other believers did the same ( Acts 13:1-3 ). For when Paul/Barnabas fasted, here, it has been said by others that the word “ministered” means celebrated the liturgy and the Holy Mysteries of the Eucharist daily. I am still looking up more information on that issue - but it does stand out. In the midst of this, the Holy Ghost directed the Church to separate (make holy—ordain) Barnabas and Paul for the work He had for them. As a result of focused prayer, then their work began ministry for both men and yielded the Church we know today. The huge lesson, then, is the great mission of the Church Militant stems from the liturgy (people’s work) of prayer and worship—not wishing, planning, scheming, or manipulating.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Paul learning on liturgical practices from someone who experienced it up-close and personal opens up a lot of doors when I consider the ways that Liturgy was a big deal in the early church.

For anyone interested,

Here's a really good review from one of my favorite ministries :

• MYSTAGOGY: The Apostle Barnabas and the Church of Cyprus

The Monastery of Saint Barnabas in Cyprus

St. Barnabas Monastery North Cyprus ​

 

[Thekla]

Wow -- thanks for posting this.

I've nothing to add - not all of this is new to me as (for ex.) the Essene and Nazarite connection are sometimes discussed in EO circles imexperience. Also the liturgical reality of the NT (as in Paul and Barnabas ministering/liturgizing).

But this is nicely 'laid out' and detailed, which is wonderful.

And I do hope more people come to read here !

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Wow -- thanks for posting this.
.

I've nothing to add - not all of this is new to me as (for ex.) the Essene and Nazarite connection are sometimes discussed in EO circles imexperience

The Nazarite/Essene connection is really amazing, IMHO (even though both groups were not necessarily the same at all points - more discussed here at Temple and Righteousness in Qumran and Early Christianity - Jewish Roots of Eastern Christian Mysticism )...even though there was a strong understanding of the Divine/Sacred.

There's also the amazing resources over in modeoflife |- one of them being John S. Urban (Eastern Baptist Seminary) in his article giving a Close examination of the concept of mysticism in Jewish literature and the Apostles Paul and John addressing the mystical parallelism primarily in the Mystical Union.

That aside, would you happen to have any specific references on the issue of what is or isn't discussed with that dynamic? Or is what you're speaking of more so in the realm of annecdotal evidence (i.e. books your parish went through, dialouges that occurred on the Essene/Nazarite dynamic, etc.)? If so, I'd love to hear sometime.

Also the liturgical reality of the NT (as in Paul and Barnabas ministering/liturgizing).

It is interesting to see some of the liturgical realities present - especially when examining early Jewish Synagouges and what was present in them - if recalling, for example, some of the things discussed in the thread Ancient Jewish Icons (#15 /#27 /#28 ). I was seeking to find some good books on the issue that may help in breaking that aspect down more so...specifically with Paul/Barbabas ministering and liturgizing. There was one that came to mind - but if you have any suggestions, by all means let me know..

But this is nicely 'laid out' and detailed, which is wonderful.

And I do hope more people come to read here

Glad to know you think the layout is sufficient. And I do hope the same - that others would read/be blessed (especially those who deny that there was a liturgical reality in what the Apostles did since it's not well-known in much of the Western/Protestant world sadly....but that can change!). And as it concerns Barnabas, I hope others are blessed studying more on who he was - a man who was so not like the Levite in the Good Samaritan story of Luke 10:29-35 when it came to avoiding what real ministry is. Shalom/Blessings

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I've nothing to add - not all of this is new to me as (for ex.) the Essene and Nazarite connection are sometimes discussed in EO circles imexperience. Also the liturgical reality of the NT (as in Paul and Barnabas ministering/liturgizing).

One good resource I was blessed by that gives a lot of good study material on the issue:

• Early Christian Liturgics | Worship in the Early Church - Liturgicajavascript:void(0)

The other one that I was blessed by is First-century Christian synagogue liturgy ( http://silouanthompson.net/2007/09/first-century-christian-synagogue-liturgy/ ). Blessings

 

[Thekla]

Not much help with your question, but I did find this hagiography:

OCA - Apostle Barnabas of the Seventy

It notes that St. Barnabas also studied under Gamaliel ...

 

[Thekla]

One good resource I was blessed by that gives a lot of good study material on the issue:

• Early Christian Liturgics | Worship in the Early Church - Liturgica

Blessings

Thanks !

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Not much help with your question, but I did find this hagiography:

OCA - Apostle Barnabas of the Seventy

It notes that St. Barnabas also studied under Gamaliel ...

Interesting to consider - on the Gamaliel aspect. Perhaps it's just me - but in considering the issue of how Paul may've studied with Barnabas at the same time, it seems to make the story of their seperation even more intensive. Both taken in by a great teacher in their day - and perhaps having the experiences of needing to mature (and we know St.Paul had a lot of reasons to boast with his experiences under Gamaliel since he was literally seen as the best of the best - a "Hebrew of Hebrews" with much to boast in as he claimed in Philippians 3:4-6 - and he was one who had a very strong work ethic according to 1 Corinthians 15:9-11 since he was pretty hard-core). And yet only with St.Barnabas do you see where he was willing to take on others even if they messed up in ministry.

To be more clear, people can easily react to what others do/assume "THey just do that because they want to upset others..."---or they can read scripture where they see something and say, "Man, if I was there in their position, I'd do it differently!!!!"....but as the Word doesn't always give all the details behind every situation, what we often have is a mere snapshot of an event....and sometimes, that snapshot only shows actions rather than showing the real mindsets behind what occurred. In realizing this, IMHO, we can better have grace for things in the Word and better relate to characters.

In example, Acts 15-16 came to mind ...as the Apostle Paul did not want to take John Mark on his missionary journey's because the man was "not profitable." Later at the end of Paul's ministry the Apostle said to bring John Mark saying he was "now" profitable.

Some say that Paul was correct for blasting Mark as he did in Acts--and assuming that Barnabas was the weaker of the two. However, with .Acts 15:35-37., there is a context which others may not see clearly. Prior to that, John Mark was Barnabas Cousin (Colossians 4:9-11/Colossians 4 ), whose mother often opened his home the apostles (Acts 12:11-13 / Acts 12 (). Later, he joined them (Acts 12:25 )... But later abandoned them halfway (Acts 13:12-14 /Acts 13 ). No reason is given for this.

THere are some Suggestions other scholars have brought up that make John Mark's situation seem to be more sympathetic rather than condeming him as a coward:

• (1). He was homesick

• (2) he resented the change in leadership from Barnabas (his cousin) to Paul;

• (3) he became ill (an illness that may've affected all of them---see Galatians 4:13);

• (4) he was unable to withstand the rigors and dangers of the missionary journey;

• (5) he may have planned to go only that far but had not communicated this to Paul and Barnabas.

Of course John Mark was REMEMBERED by Paul/criticisized. For taking him along would've possibly been a mistake if he hadn't of PROVED HIMSELF first---and this is something Paul seems to have learned a lesson from in choosing to lay hands too quickly on a person who hasn't proven themselves ( 1 Timothy 3:9-11 / 1 Timothy 3 ,1 Timothy 5:21-23/ 1 Timothy 5).

But nowhere in the text does it say WHY John Mark left...and reading into it something negative simply because Paul is often deemed to only be "positive"/above struggle himself may not be reasonable, IMHO.

Moreover, TAKING NOTE of PAUL not taking John Mark as a sign of it being good seems to assume that it was COMMENDABLE. That can be an argument from silence that can be argued BOTH WAYS, especially seeing that Paul was Human and showed signs of MATURITY. Seeing the myriad of possibilities that John Mark may've left, it seems possible that Paul was in error for implicitly accusing John Mark of lacking courage and commitment.

Despite John's depature, Barnabas overlooked it/again suggested Mark. Though Paul disagreed, Barnabas took Mark with him in patience, and the young man repaid his investment---with Paul himself changing his mind about Mark (Colossians 4:9-11) & coming to later realize how vital Mark was to the growth of the early church ...even seeing him as a good friend/trusted leader (2 Timothy 4:10-12 / 2 Timothy 4, Philemon 1:24Philemon 1:23-25 / Philemon 1 ).

Could it not be possible that St. Paul, alongside the believers who said nothing, could've been wrong in spurrning John as a deserter? God was Sovereign in the entire ordeal/works even through conflict/disagreement, as the issue caused the two preachers to form two teams, opening up two missionary endeavors instead of one (Acts 15:39-40/Acts 15 ).

But it can be also be said that it perhaps BARNABAS who was the more commendable one in the story-----whose encouragement made all the difference, just as it did when Barnabas first came alongside Paul at a time when he was a newly born believer, and when none of the apostles would associate with him, fearing him and REMEMBERNG ALL OF HIS OLD FAULTS THAT HE REPENTED OF. Though underst andably reluctant to welcome him, only Barnabas proved willing to risk his life to meet with Paul and then convince the others that he was no longer a former enemy..and just as it was when Barnabas sought Paul to ministry with him in Antioch, too, and was an example of ministering with kindness/encouragement (Acts 11:22-24 / Acts 11 , Acts 9:27-15:39, 1 Corinthians 9:5-7/ 1 Corinthians 9, Galatians 2:1-3 Galatians 2.

http://breadsite.org​

If you were in the situation that St.Paul and St.Barnabas were in, what do you feel you would do with any possible scenarios that were in place with why John Mark left? Would you relate more so with Paul if you felt someone wasn'nt trustworthy? Would you feel that you would have done differently if someone seemed to be inconsistent in ministry? Or would you do as St.Barnabas and stay?

Things can differ depending on the person...and it gets even more crazy when considering the family dynamic--in light of how St.Barnabas was John Mark's cousin ( Colossians 4:9-11 ) and its generally the case that many cultures often give positions to people based upon FAMILY relationships rather than CHARACTER alone....especially within Middle-Eastern contexts.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Thanks !

Not much help with your question, but I did find this hagiography:

OCA - Apostle Barnabas of the Seventy

It notes that St. Barnabas also studied under Gamaliel ...

If you were in the situation that St.Paul and St.Barnabas were in, what do you feel you would do with any possible scenarios that were in place with why John Mark left? Would you relate more so with Paul if you felt someone wasn'nt trustworthy? Would you feel that you would have done differently if someone seemed to be inconsistent in ministry? Or would you do as St.Barnabas and stay?

Things can differ depending on the person...and it gets even more crazy when considering the family dynamic--in light of how St.Barnabas was John Mark's cousin ( Colossians 4:9-11 ) and its generally the case that many cultures often give positions to people based upon FAMILY relationships rather than CHARACTER alone....especially within Middle-Eastern contexts.

Processing how St.Paul and St.Barnabas differed, as it concerns considering personality bents making a difference in interpretation of actions (even when they may've studied together)... some of the actions of Barnabas are not surprising. As one of my dear brothers in the Lord said best when talking on Barnabas being known for his encouragement (for brief excerpt:

I
Barnabas is a mark of a biblical leader. We never see Barnabas write a book of the bible, we don’t see people arguing over him much in Academic circles, but the fruit of His encouragement is how the Gospel went westward and ultimately into the whole world and it started with a gift that is not mentioned enough in the local assembly. Encouragement takes a divestiture of self interest. It is coming along side of people and bringing them along side of you. It is a getting underneath and individual and propping him up and it a gift that we see consistently through the book of Acts “strengthening the church” (each time Barnabas is mentioned the church is strengthened or grows). As leaders we are to covet such a trait. Paul says “don’t look out for you own interest” he also says “think of others more highly than yourself”. This is the mind of Christ. Christ displayed this gift without the limitation of sin. We see him encouraging the disciples for 3 years and then after His resurrection encouraging them some more. We see the Holy Spirit being called the “Comforter” or the “Encourager”. One of His functions in our lives is to encourage us. So to lead His sheep we are to encourage them and this takes, time, sacrifice, relationship and a commitment not to give up on others.


​

That really made me process back when he stated such....

Perhaps it's just me....but when seeing St. Barnabas's example contrasted with Paul, I think that St.Paul growing in encouraging others was something He had to struggle with and grow in.....and that doesn't mean that he is any less of a figure to listen to. What it does mean is that he was human.

Some say it's not possible that Paul could've matured. But Is it possible that the Paul of 2 Timothy 2:23-25/ 2 Timothy 2showed the same attitude towards the Galatians? If not, why not? If so, how so? Let’s say for argument sake that we are dealing with a different Paul, in terms of these two books lying at opposite ends of his writing career. If so, and I’m willing to grant this very reasonable line of thought, then isn’t the Paul in 2 Timothy (facing martyrdom) much more mature than the Paul of Galatians (at the very beginning of his writing ministry)? Certainly, there's evidence of this in other places, like his progressive humility in 1 Corinthians 15:7-9 /1 Corinthians 15to Ephesians 3:7-9 /Ephesians 3 ( 1 Timothy 1:14-161 Timothy 1 ) or else his separation with John Mark in Acts 15 and his request for John Mark’s assistance in 2 Timothy 4/2 Timothy 4:10-12? Is it possible that if he had it to do over again he might change his tone a bit toward the Galatians like he did toward John Mark? The argument of inspiration with the inclusion of the human side makes this a tough argument to think through, indeed. But it is certainly one worthy to consider.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Not much help with your question, but I did find this hagiography:

OCA - Apostle Barnabas of the Seventy

It notes that St. Barnabas also studied under Gamaliel ...

Seeing the ways that St.Barnabas and St.Paul may've studied together gives an entirely different dynamic when it comes to the ways Barnabas/Paul related to each other - for it's like they were college buddies together in college..studying under the same professor and being in the same classroom - even though they both went into differing directions later in the future . And with them being both peers and yet Barnabas in the mentoring position initially - it's somewhat like Anakin Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi (except it didn't end in tragedy )But thanks again for sharing the info that you did on that - as I was not previously aware of it. And it really adds another level to things, IMHO.

There was actually a really amazing book on the issue that I was able to come across recently that I think you'd enjoy - entitled Joseph Barnabas: His Life and Legacy by Bernd Kollmann and Miranda Henry. It was an awesome read dedicated to addressing the issue of how often neglected in New Testament scholarship is Joseph Barnabas....and how we often speak more of St.Paul (Due to the epistles he wrote/his leadership) - but do not give proper recognition to St.Barnabas as a founding member of the Christian Church, pioneer of the mission to the Gentiles, and patron of the apostle Paul. I appreciated the way they addressed the cultural context surrounding the life of St.Joseph Barnabas and examined the various Barnabas traditions of the early church.

​

• MYSTAGOGY: The Holy Apostle Barnabas of the Seventy​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Not much help with your question, but I did find this hagiography:

OCA - Apostle Barnabas of the Seventy

It'd be good at some point if it could discovered how old Barnabas was when he and Paul studied together with Gamaliel..if that tradition is indeed the right one.

Thanks !

Not a problem

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Came across this recently and thought it was an excellent find on the history of Liturgics..

And of course, this is from the Church that one of my friends (Fr. Paul) goes to when it comes to explaining the dynamic of Vestments and their symbolism, just as priests had symbolism in their dress.

 

[ArmyMatt]

the symbolism and meaning of vestments from Scripture is something that always shakes up my Protestant buddies

 

[Gxg (G²)]

the symbolism and meaning of vestments from Scripture is something that always shakes up my Protestant buddies

I think it depends on the Protestants, as I've met Baptists (who are my friends) that actually spoke in-depth on the issue of symbolism and it took some of their Protestant friends off guard when they spoke on the issue. I loved it!

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think it depends on the Protestants, as I've met Baptists (who are my friends) that actually spoke in-depth on the issue of symbolism and it took some of their Protestant friends off guard when they spoke on the issue. I loved it!

oh sure, Protestantism is a many and varied thing. I meant looking at our bishops' vestments and then showing how each corresponds to something from Scripture.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

oh sure, Protestantism is a many and varied thing. I meant looking at our bishops' vestments and then showing how each corresponds to something from Scripture.

I understand - and to be clear, I meant that there are Protestants already aware of the Scriptural symbolism present in the vestments and many other issues.

I am curious as to what exactly it is you heard other Protestants say when they spoke about vestments...or what happens at the altar, for that matter.