Joshua
21:1-3 The Levites came to Eleazar the priest and
to Joshua the son of Nun and to the heads of the fathers' houses of the tribes
of the people of Israel. And they said to them at Shiloh in the land of Canaan,
“The Lord commanded through Moses that we be given cities to dwell in, along
with their pasturelands for our livestock.” So by command of the Lord the
people of Israel gave to the Levites the following cities and pasturelands out
of their inheritance.
The recipients of the promise, the Levites, take the initiative,
not Joshua, to fulfill the Mosaic commands. The tribes would give lands to the
Levites as their portion. The cities are pictured as a sacrifice given by the
various tribes to the Levitical priests. Included in their lands are the cities
of refuge. (see Numbers 35:6ff)
The reason for this is simple. The Levites belong to God
and must serve him and his spiritual purposes. They are not to live to serve
their own financial interests. They must depend upon God for their livelihood.
God, not land, cattle, crops, nor gold, is the inheritance of the Levites. The
work of the priesthood, not farm work, is to occupy their days.
How is this to be done? Simple. The tribes of Israel, the
people of God, are responsible for the needs of the Levites. Part of the
support is a “parsonage”, the town in which they live with buildings. Each
tribe gives of the cities God had given them. They also give to the priests a
portion of their livestock and their crops. In this way the Levites have both
shelter and food. Yet sadly, such provision for the priests was open to abuse.
(see 1 Samuel 2:12-17)
The Christian church found
that it needed only the priesthood of Jesus Christ (see Hebrews), but the
problem opened itself in a new form. The church had gifted men who served as
evangelists, teachers and pastors. Paul, though seeking to provide for his own
living, reminded his followers that the ones “who proclaim the gospel should
get their living by the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:14). Joshua 21 represents the first
step in a long road to the rights of the minister. Such rights cannot be
asserted by the minister on his own behalf when this puts obstacles in the way
of others.
