Were Levites Allowed to Own Land? A Look at Acts 4:36-37

Levites weren’t supposed to own land—or so the common understanding goes. Yet in Acts 4:36-37, we read about Barnabas, a Levite, who sells a field and generously donates the proceeds to the Apostles. Was Barnabas acting in disobedience to his heritage? Or is this a possible contradiction in the details of Scripture? The answer is that the Levites’ relationship with land ownership is a bit more complex than we might initially expect.

The Levites and Land Ownership

It is a well-known fact that, as a tribe, the Levites were not given their own land allotment among their fellow tribes. While Joshua delegated specific tribal allotments to the eleven tribes of Israel (cf. Josh 12–22), the tribe of Levi did not receive any specific land allotment. The Levites were not left completely homeless, however, for they were given cities to dwell in among their brothers (cf. Josh 14:4). They would at least be able to have a place they could call home while they ministered among the other eleven tribes.

One of the common conceptions is that this means that Levites never owned land. However, there are two passages in particular that seem to indicate that it was allowable for Levites to own land, as long as it was in the city (or part of the pasturelands of that city) which belonged to the Levites.

Old Testament Texts that Demonstrate Land Ownership for the Levites

The first text is Jeremiah 32:6-8 where the Lord tells Jeremiah, a levitical priest, to buy the field of his uncle in Anathoth. If our presupposition is that Levites could not own land, we have God contradicting that understanding. Anathoth is located in the land of Benjamin, and according to Joshua 21:18, this specific land was given to Aaron’s sons as part of Levi’s inheritance. Thus, this “right of redemption” (Jer 32:7) truly did belong to Jeremiah, and he could buy the land.

The second passage is from the law itself in Leviticus 25. In the midst of the discussion about redemption (i.e., the buying back of one’s possessions), verse 32 says, “As for the cities of the Levites, the Levites may redeem at any time the houses in the cities they possess.” This passage seems to indicate that there was a right of land ownership among the Levites, which correlated with their allotted cities and pasturelands. It was apparently understood that the Levites would own allotments within the specific towns that were allocated to them within the borders of the other tribes of Israel.

Application to Acts 4:36-37

By application, perhaps these details help us read Acts 4:36-37: “Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.”

Some have supposed that by this time, the Levites had integrated into ownership of the land after the return from exile. If that was the case, perhaps this man (Barnabas) realized his wrongdoing and repented and sold the land he should not have owned. However, in light of Jeremiah 32 and Leviticus 25, it seems more likely to me that Barnabas had land in his family that was a legitimate part of his Levitical city inheritance. If this is the case, then this is a completely free-will act in giving up his own land, which he had every right to keep. This would also explain why Luke would use this example, a giving attitude of one for the benefit of others. Luke’s point is that the church was marked by this pure and devoted love for one another (Acts 4:32).

In conclusion, the case of Barnabas and his land highlights the often-overlooked nuance in the Levites’ relationship with property ownership. While the Levites were not granted a tribal allotment like the other tribes, the Scriptures show that they did hold rights to property within specific cities and pasturelands designated for their use. This allowance provided a balance: they could own land in a limited capacity that aligned with their unique calling among their kinsmen.

In light of this understanding, Barnabas’s act in Acts 4:36-37 is most likely not one of disobedience but rather an expression of profound generosity. His sale of land, likely part of his lawful Levitical inheritance, exemplifies the early church’s spirit of unity and selflessness. Luke’s account underscores how believers in the early church prioritized the needs of others above their own rights and resources. I suppose we can learn from that too.