A verse by verse commentary on Joshua 21 dealing with the towns set aside for the Levites as the Lord had commanded.

1. JOSHUA 21 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
Towns for the Levites
1 ow the family heads of the Levites approached
Eleazar the priest, Joshua son of un, and the
heads of the other tribal families of Israel
BAR ES, "A list of the Levitical cities, varying in some particulars from that given in
this chapter, is also, given in 1 Chr. 6:54-81.
CLARKE, "The heads of the fathers of the Levites - The Levites were
composed of three brand families, the Gershonites, Koathites, and Merarites,
independently of the family of Aaron, who might be said to form a fourth. To none of
these had God assigned any portion in the division of the land. But in this general
division it must have been evidently intended that the different tribes were to furnish
them with habitations; and this was according to a positive command of God, Num_
35:2, etc. Finding now that each tribe had its inheritance appointed to it, the heads of
the Levites came before Eleazar, Joshua, and the chiefs of the tribes who had been
employed in dividing the land, and requested that cities and suburbs should be granted
them according to the Divine command.
GILL, "Then came near the heads of the fathers of the Levites,.... When the
land was divided to the several tribes, and everyone knew the cities that belonged to
them, and what they could and should part with to the Levites, and when the six cities of
refuge were fixed; the Levites came to put in their claim for cities of habitation, they
having no share in the division of the land; and yet it was necessary they should have
habitations; the persons that undertook to put in a claim for them were the principal
men among them; the fathers of them were Kohath, Gershon, and Merari; the heads of
those were the chief men that were then living: these came
unto Eleazar the priest, and unto Joshua the son of Nun; the high priest and
chief magistrate:

2. and unto the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel; the
princes appointed to divide the land with the two great personages before mentioned,
Num_34:17.
HE RY 1-8, "Here is, I. The Levites' petition presented to this general convention of
the states, now sitting at Shiloh, Jos_21:1, Jos_21:2. Observe, 1. They had not their lot
assigned them till they made their claim. There is an inheritance provided for all the
saints, that royal priesthood, but then they must petition for it. Ask, and it shall be given
you. Joshua had quickened the rest of the tribes who were slack to put in their claims,
but the Levites, it may be supposed, knew their duty and interest better than the rest,
and were therefore forward in this matter, when it came to their turn, without being
called upon. They build their claim upon a very good foundation, not their own merits
nor services, but the divine precept: “The Lord commanded by the hand of Moses to
give us cities, commanded you to grant them, which implied a command to us to ask
them.” Note, The maintenance of ministers is not an arbitrary thing, left purely to the
good-will of the people, who may let them starve if they please; no, as the God of Israel
commanded that the Levites should be well provided for, so has the Lord Jesus, the King
of the Christian church, ordained, and a perpetual ordinance it is that those who preach
the gospel should live of the gospel (1Co_9:14), and should live comfortably. 2. They did
not make their claim till all the rest of the tribes were provided for, and then they did it
immediately. There was some reason for it; every tribe must first know their own, else
they would not know what they gave the Levites, and so it could not be such a reasonable
service as it ought to be. But it is also an instance of their humility, modesty, and
patience (and Levites should be examples of these and other virtues), that they were
willing to be served last, and they fared never the worse for it. Let not God's ministers
complain if at any time they find themselves postponed in men's thoughts and cares, but
let them make sure of the favour of God and the honour that comes from him, and then
they may well enough afford to bear the slights and neglects of men.
II. The Levites' petition granted immediately, without any dispute, the princes of
Israel being perhaps ashamed that they needed to be called upon in this matter, and that
the motion had not been made among themselves for the settling of the Levites. 1. The
children of Israel are said to give the cities for the Levites. God had appointed how many
they should be in all, forty-eight. It is probable that Joshua and the princes, upon
consideration of the extent and value of the lot of each tribe as it was laid before them,
had appointed how many cities should be taken out of each; and then the fathers of the
several tribes themselves agreed which they should be, and therefore are said to give
them, as an offering, to the Lord; so God had appointed. Num_35:8, Every one shall
give of his cities to the Levites. Here God tried their generosity, and it was found to
praise and honour, for it appears by the following catalogue that the cities they gave to
the Levites were generally some of the best and most considerable in each tribe. And it is
probable that they had an eye to the situation of them, taking care they should be so
dispersed as that no part of the country should be too far distant from a Levites' city. 2.
They gave them at the commandment of the Lord, that is, with an eye to the command
and in obedience to it, which was it that sanctified the grant. They gave the number that
God commanded, and it was well this matter was settled that the Levites might not ask
more nor the Israelites offer less. They gave them also with their suburbs, or glebe-lands,
belonging to them, so many cubits by measure from the walls of the city, as God had
commanded (Num_35:4, Num_35:5), and did not go about to cut them short. 3. When
the forty-eight cities were pitched upon, they were divided into four lots, as they lay next
together, and then by lot were determined to the four several families of the tribe of Levi.
When the Israelites had surrendered the cities into the hand of God, he would himself

3. have the distributing of them among his servants. (1.) The family of Aaron, who were the
only priests, had for their share the thirteen cities that were given by the tribes of Judah,
Simeon, and Benjamin, Jos_21:4. God in wisdom ordered it thus, that though Jerusalem
itself was not one of their cities, it being as yet in the possession of the Jebusites (and
those generous tribes would not mock the Levites, who had another warfare to mind,
with a city that must be recovered by the sword before it could be enjoyed), yet the cities
that fell to their lot were those which lay next to Jerusalem, because that was to be, in
process of time, the holy city, where their business would chiefly lie. (2.) The Kohathite-
Levites (among whom were the posterity of Moses, though never distinguished from
them) had the cities that lay in the lot of Dan, which lay next to Judah, and in that of
Ephraim, and the half-tribe of Manasseh, which lay next to Benjamin. So those who
descended from Aaron's father joined nearest to Aaron's sons. (3.) Gershon was the
eldest son of Levi, and therefore, though the younger house of the Kohathites was
preferred before his, yet his children had the precedency of the other family of Merari,
Jos_21:6. (4.) The Merarites, the youngest house, had their lot last, and it lay furthest
off, Jos_21:7. The rest of the sons of Jacob had a lot for every tribe only, but Levi, God's
tribe, had a lot for each of its families; for there is a particular providence directing and
attending the removals and settlements of ministers, and appointing where those shall
fix who are to be the lights of the world.
JAMISO , "Jos_21:1-8. Forty-eight cities given by lot out of the other tribes unto the
Levites.
Then came near the heads of the fathers of the Levites — The most venerable
and distinguished members of the three Levitical families, on behalf of their tribe,
applied for the special provision that had been promised them to be now awarded (see
on Num_35:2). Their inheritance lay within the territory of every tribe. It was assigned
in the same place and manner, and by the same commissioners as the other allotments.
While the people, knowing the important duties they were to perform, are described
(Jos_21:3) as readily conceding this “peculiar” to them, it had most probably been
specified and reserved for their use while the distribution of the land was in progress.
K&D 1-3, "After the cities of refuge had been set apart, the towns were also selected,
which the different tribes were to give up for the priest and Levites to dwell in according
to the Mosaic instructions in Num_35:1-8, together with the necessary fields as
pasturage for their cattle. The setting apart of the cities of refuge took place before the
appointment of the Levitical towns, because the Lord had given commandment through
Moses in Num_35:6, that they were to give to the Levites the six cities of refuge, and
forty-two cities besides, i.e., forty-eight cities in all. From the introductory statement in
Jos_21:1, Jos_21:2, that the heads of the fathers (see Exo_6:14, Exo_6:25) of the
Levitical families reminded the distribution committee at Shiloh of the command of God
that had been issued through Moses, that towns were to be given them to dwell in, we
cannot infer, as Calvin has done, that the Levites had been forgotten, till they came and
asserted their claims. All that is stated in these words is, “that when the business had
reached that point, they approached the dividers of the land in the common name of the
members of their tribe, to receive by lot the cities appointed for them. They simply
expressed the commands of God, and said in so many words, that they had been deputed
by the Levites generally to draw lots for those forty-eight cities with their suburbs, which
had been appointed for that tribe” (Masius). The clause appended to Shiloh, “in the land

4. of Canaan,” points to the instructions in Num_34:29 and Num_35:10, to give the
children of Israel their inheritance in the land of Canaan.
CALVI , "1.Then came near the heads, etc Here we have at a later period a
narrative of what ought to have preceded. For no cities of refuge were appointed
before they had been assigned to the Levites. To this may be added what was
formerly said, that Joshua and Eleazar had made an end of dividing the land. ow,
the land was not truly divided till the habitation of the Levites was fixed. We must
understand, therefore, that when the lot was cast in the name of the ten tribes, a
reservation was made of cities in the land of Canaan for the habitation of the
Levites. Beyond the Jordan their portion had already been assigned to them. But as
the Levites come forward and request a ratification of the divine grant, it is
probable that they were neglected till they pleaded their own cause. For so it is apt
to happen, every one being so attentive in looking after his own affairs that even
brethren are forgotten. It was certainly disgraceful to the people that they required
to be pulled by the ear, and put in mind of what the Lord had clearly ordered
respecting the Levites. But had they not demanded a domicile for themselves, there
was a risk of their being left to lie in the open air; although, at the same time, we are
permitted to infer that the people erred more from carelessness and forgetfulness
than from any intention to deceive, as they make no delay as soon as they are
admonished; nay, they are praised for their obedience in that they did what was just
and right according to the word of the Lord.
COFFMA , "Here we have the list of the forty-eight Levitical cities, appointed by
Joshua, and the other Jewish authorities, at the end of the general subjugation of
Canaan, shortly prior to the death of Joshua. The screams of the Bible's critical
enemies declare this chapter to be "unhistorical,"[1] but we reject this out of hand
as being merely the prejudice of unbelievers and totally irresponsible! Equally
objectional is the efforts of critics to assign a seventh-century B.C. date to this list on
the basis of, "The distinction between the priests and the Levites in the division of
these cities (which is post-exilic)."[2] We reject this because it was Moses himself
who made that distinction, a distinction that is just as historical as anything else in
the Bible, occurring in the fifteenth century B.C., not in the seventh century! It will
be remembered from the Book of umbers that only the priests (the sons of Aaron)
could prepare the sacred furniture of the tabernacle for transporting it, and that the
Levites were assigned the task of actually carrying it or hauling it in wagons. The
acceptable versions of the Holy Bible all teach this, but the critical enemies of the
Word of God have made their own corrupt "bible," and it is from it that they
procure all this O SE SE about how they suppose it to have been put together by
a whole stable of "editors" and "redactors," etc.; and if one wishes to find
something "unhistorical," it is that revised "bible" of the critics!
Here is the record of one of the sons of Jacob - Levi. And there are no valid reasons
whatever for denying the HISTORICAL REALITY of the Levitical cities appointed
here. The Levites were exempt from military service, and the historical fact of the
Levites having no allotted territory, as did all the others, actually demands the

5. appointment of these cities. If we have been told once, up to this point in the five
Books of Moses and in Joshua that, "Levi received no inheritance, because the Lord
is his inheritance, we have encountered that statement or its equivalent fifteen
times!" ow, the question is, "How could it be supposed that the whole tribe of Levi
sat still on the matter of requesting the cities Moses had promised for five hundred
years or so. That the events reported in this chapter actually occurred within the
lifetime of Joshua and almost simultaneously with the final allotments to the various
tribes appears to be an absolute certainty, required by the actual circumstances of
the case.
Some have complained that the Levitical cities were the last to be assigned, but, as
Plummer noted: "Since the Levitical cities were to be assigned within the limits of
the property of the other tribes, it was impossible to apportion them until the
allotments to all the other tribes had been made."[3]
These cities were appointed by lot, indicating the Divine authority of the
assignments, and, of course, all of those allegations about late dates, etc., deny
absolutely that God had anything to do with this.
ot only that, "This distribution of the Levitical cities was a fulfillment of Jacob's
curse on Levi (Genesis 49:5-7), but God overruled it, through Moses, because of this
tribe's having stood with Moses in a crucial hour (Exodus 32:26)."[4] The Levitical
cities, although `scattered' as Jacob foretold, nevertheless preserved the identity of
the Levites, and their assignment as the teachers of Israel made them necessary and
important.
We are indebted to J. R. Dummelow for the following chapter divisions:
(1) The authorities - Eleazar, Joshua, and the princes - are approached by the
Levites with a request for the cities, which God, through Moses, had promised
(Joshua 21:1-2).
(2) The number and location of the cities is summarized (Joshua 21:3-8).
(3) The Aaronic priests receive their cities in Judah and Benjamin (Joshua 21:9-19).
(4) The cities of the Kohathites are selected from Ephraim, Dan, and West
Manasseh (Joshua 21:20-26).
(5) The cities of the Gershonites were chosen in East Manasseh, Issachar, Asher, and
aphtali (Joshua 21:27-33).
(6) The cities of the Merarites were chosen from Zebulun, Reuben, and Gad (Joshua
21:34-42).
(7) Then we have the fulfillment of all of God's promises and His giving rest to the
people (Joshua 21:43-45).

6. "Then came near the heads of fathers' houses of the Levites unto Eleazar the priest,
and unto Joshua the son of un, and unto the heads of fathers' houses of the
children of Israel; and they spake unto them at Shiloh in the land of Canaan, saying,
Jehovah commanded by Moses to give us cities to dwell in, with the suburbs thereof
for our cattle."
The mention of Eleazar in this passage is not an indication of "P" as a source of this
paragraph. This is merely a statement of what happened. The whole government of
Israel at that moment in their history was somewhat of a triple authority composed
of the head of religion (Eleazar), the executive head of the nation (Joshua), and the
representative of all the people. Plummer pointed out that, throughout history this
multiple division of governmental powers has persisted. In England, there is the
Monarch, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons, and the Judicial System.
In America, we have the same divisions, the "house of Lords" in the Senate, the
"house of Commons" in the House of Representatives, the executive head of the
nation in the presidency, and the judicial authority in the Supreme Court. The
meaning of these verses is therefore that the Levites appealed to the central
government, and backed up their request by appealing to the commandment of God
through Moses. Can anyone believe that the Levites WAITED HU DREDS OF
YEARS to do this? otice further that the appointment of these Levitical cities was
to be done after the appointment of the six cities of refuge, since "That is exactly
how Moses commanded it to be done."[5]
COKE, "Ver. 1. Then came near the heads of the fathers of the Levites unto
Eleazar— Immediately after the designation of the cities of refuge, the heads of the
Levites, i.e. the chiefs of the families of Levi, who descended from Kohath, Gershom,
and Merari, came and presented themselves before Eleazar, Joshua, and the princes
of the tribes, ( umbers 34:18.,) whom God had commissioned to divide the country.
They related the orders which God had formerly issued in their favour, umbers
35:2; umbers 35:34 and therefore begged that the council at Shilo would be
pleased to assign them cities in the several tribes. It is to be observed, that the Lord,
displeased at the violence used by Simeon and Levi towards the Shechemites, had
denounced against them, that he would divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in
Israel. This sentence had been already executed towards the descendants of Simeon,
whose portion was placed within that of Judah. It would have been the same with
respect to the descendants of Levi, but for the fidelity of that tribe at the time of the
idolatry of the golden calf. Without revoking, therefore, the sentence pronounced
against Levi's posterity, the Lord so disposed matters, that what had at first been a
disgrace to the Levites, became a mark of honour. By commanding that they should
be divided in Jacob, and scattered in Israel, he had declared, that he himself would
be their portion; and that being dispersed, as his ministers, among the rest of their
brethren, they should be maintained by them, as the interpreters of his word and
will. To effect this arrangement, so honourable to them, they here solicit Joshua and
the commissioners with him on the subject.
BE SO , ". The heads of the fathers of the Levites — The fathers of the Levites

7. were Kohath, Gershon, and Merari; and the heads of these were the chief persons
now alive of these several families. Thus, the princes of the several tribes, who
divided the land in conjunction with Joshua, are called, at the conclusion of this
verse and elsewhere, the heads of the fathers of the tribes. The whole land being
distributed to the several tribes, but not yet actually possessed by them, and this
being the proper season for their making such a claim, these principal Levites now
come to the princes of the tribes, and remind them of the command of God
respecting the cities to be assigned them.
WHEDO , "1. Heads of the fathers — The most venerable and influential of the
three Levitical families. These applied to the same commissioners for the cities
promised by Moses, ( umbers 35:1-5.) It is not enough that God makes special
promises and provisions. The very persons to whom these promises are made will
fail to receive them unless they exert themselves to secure them. Prayer is the key to
God’s treasury.
TRAPP, "Verse 1
Joshua 21:1 Then came near the heads of the fathers of the Levites unto Eleazar the
priest, and unto Joshua the son of un, and unto the heads of the fathers of the
tribes of the children of Israel;
Ver. 1. Then came near the heads of the fathers.] Some are of opinion that the chief
of the priests and Levites did here demand their due when they were not thought of,
but by great oversight were passed over in the division. But others, for better
reason, hold that they came near now in the proper season, because they were to
have their cities and inheritances out of the several tribes and portions allotted unto
them, which also they had with very good will, and to a very fair proportion. Once
amongst us, the statute of Mortmain provided that men should give no more to the
church; so liberal were our forefathers to their clergy. But tempora mutantur; these
later times have seen the springs of bounty, like Jordan, turned back, which
heretofore did run fresh and fast in to the church. How apt are men to dispute God
out of his own, and to begrudge his ministers a competent subsistence; to allow the
ox nothing but the straw for treading out the grain, and so much straw as
themselves please! This is a sure sign of gasping devotion, and of cursed
covetousness, as that great apostle coneludeth. [2 Corinthians 9:5] The Levites,
under the law, had a liberal and honourable maintenance by God’s own
appointment. Besides all the rest of their incomes by sacrifices, freewill offerings,
&c., here they have their cities to dwell in, with the suburbs thereof for their cattle,
and those of due belonging to them by virtue of God’s command, whom only, and
not the people, they were to acknowledge for their benefactor. either hath he made
worse provision for the ministers of the gospel than he did for the priests of the law.
See 1 Corinthians 9:13-14. But many have learned of Julian the apostate, to take
away ministers’ maintenance, pretending conscience, for that too much living was a
burden to them, and a hindrance to their ministry.
CO STABLE, "The casting of lots21:1-8

8. Probably the leaders identified the towns first and then assigned the various groups
of Levites to particular cities by lot ( Joshua 21:3-4). The priests (Aaron"s
descendants) received13cities within the tribal territories of Judah, Simeon, and
Benjamin ( Joshua 21:4). The rest of the Kohathites-Aaron was a descendant of
Kohath-obtained10 cities in Ephraim, Daniel , and western Manasseh ( Joshua
21:5). The Gershonites lived in13cities in Issachar, Asher, aphtali, and eastern
Manasseh ( Joshua 21:6). The Merarites inherited12cities in Reuben, Gad, and
Zebulun ( Joshua 21:7). The names of these Levitical towns appear in the following
verses ( Joshua 21:9-40).
PULPIT, "Joshua 21:1
Then came near the heads of the fathers of the Levites. We are not to suppose, with
Calvin, that the Levites had been overlooked. Such a supposition is little in keeping
with the devout spirit of him who now directed the affairs of the Israelites, who had
been minister to Moses the Levite, and had but lately been concerned with Eleazar,
the high priest, in making a public recognition of that God to whose service the
Levites had been specially set apart. The delay in appointing to the Levites their
cities arose from the nature of the arrangement which had to be made for the
Levitical cities. The prophecy which threatened (Genesis 49:7) to "scatter them in
Israel" was to be fulfilled for the benefit of the whole people. Instead of a portion
for himself, Levi, as we have been repeatedly informed (Joshua 13:33; Joshua 14:3;
Joshua 18:7), was to have "the Lord God of Israel for his inheritance." Since,
therefore, their cities were to be assigned them within the limits of the other tribes, it
was impossible to apportion them until the other tribes had been provided for. Unto
Eleazar the priest. The close connection between the military and the sacerdotal
power is kept up throughout the book. Warned by his one act of neglect in the case
of the Gibeonites, Joshua never again appears to have neglected to have recourse to
the high priest, that he might ask counsel of God for him, as had been prescribed in
umbers 27:21. Eleazar is placed first here, because, as the acknowledged head of
the tribe, he was the proper person to prefer its request to the leader. But the whole
history shows how entirely Joshua and Eleazar acted in concert. And unto Joshua
the son of un. In a matter of ecclesiastical organisation the ecclesiastical took
precedence of the civil leader. And unto the heads. The position of Joshua was that
of a chief magistrate ruling by constitutional methods. The representatives of the
tribes were invariably consulted in all matters of moment. Such appear to have been
the original constitution of all early communities, whether Aryan or Semitic. We
find it in existence among Homer's heroes. It meets us in the early history of
Germanic peoples. It took a form precisely analogous to the Jewish in the old
English Witan where the chief men in Church and State took counsel with the
monarch on all matters affecting the commonweal of the realm; and the remains of
this aristocratic system still meet us in our own House of Lords.
PI K, "The residence of the Levites. On this occasion it will be the cities which were
Divinely appointed them for residence which will engage our attention. Since it has
pleased the Lord to devote a whole chapter, and a lengthy one, to the subject, it is
evident that—whether or not we can discern it—there must be that in it which is of

9. spiritual importance and practical value for us today. or shall we experience any
difficulty in ascertaining its central message if we bear in mind that the ministers of
the Gospel are the counterparts of the Levites of old. In that chapter we find it
recorded that the heads of the tribe of Levi came before the assembled court of
Israel and presented their claim for suitable places where they might settle with
their families and possessions. Their petition was received favorably, and their
request was granted. Forty-eight cities with their suburbs were assigned them—
appointed by the "lot," as had been the case with all the other tribes.
"Then came near the heads of the fathers of the Levites unto Eleazar the priest, and
unto Joshua the son of un, and unto the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the
children of Israel; and they spake unto them at Shiloh in the land of Canaan, saying,
The Lord commanded by the hand of Moses to give us cities to dwell in, with the
suburbs thereof for our cattle. And the children of Israel gave unto the Levites out
of their inheritance, at the commandment of the Lord, these cities and their
suburbs" (Josh. 21:1-3). Aaron was a descendant of Levi, and in his official capacity
as the high priest of Israel he foreshadowed the Lord Jesus, who now, as the Son of
God consecrated for evermore, is "a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true
tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man" (Heb. 7:28—8:2, and cf. Rev.
15:3-5). The sons of Aaron, by natural generation, are types of Christians who are
given to Christ to serve Him ( um. 3:63), the brethren of Christ sharing by grace
His double title of both king and priest (Rev. 1:6, 7). The priestly sons of Aaron and
the ministering Levites were also a figure of the public servants of the Lord in the
present dispensation, as is clear from 1 Corinthians 9: "Do ye not know that they
which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which
wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that
they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel" (vv. 13, 14).
In stating that ministers of the Gospel are present-day counterparts of Israel’s
priests and Levites, it must be borne carefully in mind that (in keeping with the
radical differences which characterize the old and the new covenants) there are
marked features of dissimilarity as well as resemblance between them. It was the
failure, or refusal, to recognize that fact which laid the foundation for the Judaizing
and paganizing of public Christianity and the erection and development of "mystery
Babylon," with all its sacerdotal and ritualistic pretensions. While there is, as 1
Corinthians 9:13, 14, shows, an analogy in the provision made for the support of the
ministers respectively in both dispensations, there is none whatever in the services
they render. The priests had no commission to go forth and evangelize (that fell
more to the lot of the prophets—Jonah 1:2, etc.), nor is the preacher today called of
God to act as an intermediary between others and himself, or in any way to offer
satisfaction for their sins—only on the essential ground of his being a Christian (and
not in an official character as a clergyman) may he intercede for his brethren or
present a sacrifice of praise on their behalf.
Israel’s priests and Levites were, by their birth and calling, nearer to God than were
those for whom they acted, and by virtue of their office holier than they. But both
nearness to God and sanctification are conferred in Christ, without any distinction,

10. upon all who are called of God unto the fellowship of His Son, so that,
fundamentally, saved ministers and the believers to whom they minister are equal
before God. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is
neither male nor female [and we may add, there is neither clergy nor laity]: for ye
are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). Whatever vital privilege and spiritual
dignity Christ purchased for one He secured for all His redeemed alike. It is most
important that we should be quite clear upon this point, for it gives the death-blow
to all priest-craft. There is absolutely nothing of a sacerdotal character in true
Christian ministry, and therefore the whole system of Romanism is antichristian.
Again, the Jewish priesthood was restricted to the limits of a single family—the
Aaronic—whereas in the selection of those whom He calls to preach the Gospel of
His Son God is no respecter of persons, but acts according to His sovereign grace
and power.
Stating it in its simplest terms, Joshua 21 sets forth the gracious provision which
Jehovah made to meet the temporal needs of the Levites. They were the ones who
served Him in the tabernacle and ministered to the congregation in holy things, and
as such suitably adumbrated the Divinely called ministers of the Gospel, whose lives
are devoted to Christ and His churches. Unlike all the other tribes, no separate
portion of Canaan was allotted to the Levites upon the distribution of the land
(Deut. 10:8, 9; Joshua 13:14). In like manner, the good soldier of Jesus Christ is
forbidden to entangle himself with the affairs of this life (2 Tim. 2:3, 4), for it would
ill become one who was the messenger of heaven to occupy his heart with earthly
avocations. He is called upon to practice what he preaches, to be a living
exemplification of his sermons, denying all fleshly and worldly lusts, and be "an
example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in
purity." He is required to walk in entire separation from the world, and give himself
"wholly" to the things of God and the welfare of souls, that his profiting may
appear unto all (1 Tim. 4:12, 15). What mortification of corrupt affections and
inordinate desires of earthly things and what spiritual mindedness are necessary if
the preacher is to give a just representation of Him in whose name he ministers.
But though no separate portion of Canaan was to be apportioned to the Levites, that
was far from signifying that they must in some way secure their own interests, or
that they were left dependent upon the capricious charity of their brethren. It was
not the Divine will that they should earn their living by the sweat of the brow, or
that they should beg their daily bread. ot so does the Lord treat His beloved
servants. He is no Egyptian taskmaster, demanding that they make bricks but
refusing to provide them with straw; instead, He is "the God of all grace," who has
promised to supply their every need. Thus it was with the Levites. Full provision
was made for their temporal sustenance. The Lord had not only appointed that a
liberal part of the heave and wave offerings was to be their food, as well as the best
of the oil, and the wine, and the first-fruits, with the tithes of the children of Israel
( um. 18:9-19, 24); but He had also given a commandment that the other tribes
should give unto the Levites, out of their own inheritance, cities to dwell in and the
suburbs round about them ( um. 35:2-5). In like manner, God has stipulated that
those of His people who are indebted to the spiritual ministrations of His servants

11. should, in turn, minister to their temporal subsistence. This is clear from 1
Corinthians 9:13, 14, and, though it may be somewhat of a digression, we will take a
closer look at that passage.
In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul was vindicating his apostleship (v. 3), which his traducers
denied. They objected that he had not personally seen Jesus Christ (v. 1), as had the
twelve. That he did not live like other men, going without the ordinary comforts of
life (v. 4), being unmarried (v. 5). That he and his companion Barnabas were
obliged to support themselves by their own manual labors (v. 6), and therefore that
he knew they were not entitled to count upon the gifts of believers for their
sustenance (v. 12). The main drift of his reply was that, though he acted voluntarily
on the principle of self-denial, yet that by no means disproved that he was sent of
God, or that he had not a right to be maintained by the saints. So far from that
being the case, he was clearly and fully warranted in claiming their support. This he
demonstrates by a number of plain and irrefutable arguments, educed from a
variety of cogent considerations. Those arguments lay down principles which are
applicable to the servants of Christ in all generations, and therefore are pertinent
for today, making known as they do the revealed will of God on this practical
matter. It therefore behooves the Lord’s people carefully to weigh the same and be
regulated by them.
He began by asking, "Have not we power to forbear working?" (v. 6). The word
"power" there signifies right or authority, being used in the same sense as it is in
John 1:12. Though in the interrogative form, it has the force of an emphatic
affirmative: such is our legitimate prerogative, if we choose to exercise it—to abstain
from earning our own living, and to count upon the saints ministering to our bodily
needs. This he proceeded to prove by three obvious analogies. First, this accords
with the universally recognized rule: "Who goeth a warfare at any lime at his own
charges?" (v. 7): as it is the bounden duty of the State to provide for its defenders,
equally so of the churches to care for the soldiers of Christ. Second, this is in
keeping with the well-established principle that the workman is entitled to
remuneration: "Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof?"
Third, this is exemplified by the law of nature: "Or who feedeth a flock, and eateth
not the milk of the flock?" (v. 7): the husbandman by virtue of his calling has a right
to a livelihood from the same. But, conclusive as was such reasoning, the apostle did
not conclude at that point.
Paul then proceeded to show that the duty he was contending for—the temporal
maintenance of Christ’s servants—was not only required by the law of nations, and
the dictates of nature, but was urged by the law of God: "For it is written in the law
of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn (cf.
Deuteronomy 25:4)—an example of the humanity which marks the statutes that
God gave to Israel (cf. Exodus 23:19, twice repeated; Deuteronomy 22:6). Laboring
for its owner, the ox was worthy of its food, and must not be deprived thereof. Upon
which the apostle asks, "Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith He it altogether [i.e.
assuredly] for our sakes?" (v. 9). If He be so solicitious about the welfare of animals
and requires that they be treated justly and kindly, is He indifferent as to how His

12. honored servants be dealt with? Surely not. "For our sakes, no doubt, this is
written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope, and that he that thresheth in
hope should be partaker of his hope" (v. 10). The Mosaic precept was designed in its
ultimate application to enforce the principle that labor should have its
remuneration, so that men would work more cheerfully. In the next verse the
obvious conclusion is drawn.
"If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your
carnal things?" (v. 11). If it be right and meet that those who cultivate the earth
should be encouraged to do their work diligently by the assurance that they shall
themselves be permitted to enjoy the fruit of their labors, then surely those who
engage in the far more important and exacting task of toiling in Christ’s vineyard,
endeavoring to advance His cause, proclaim His Gospel, feed His sheep, should be
recognized and rewarded. The same precept is enforced again in 2 Timothy 2:6,
"The husbandman that laboreth must be first partaker of the fruits." Still more
plainly is the exhortation given, "Let him that is taught in the word communicate
unto him that teacheth in all good things. Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for
whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" (Gal. 6:6, 7). Thus it is laid down
as an unchanging principle that spiritual benefits demand a temporal return. ot
that any price can be put upon the invaluable ministry of the Gospel, but that those
whom God has set apart to preach it have a just claim for generous compensation.
And that not in the way of charity or gratuity, but as a sacred debt—a debt which
professing Christians fail to discharge at the peril of their souls. For let none be
deceived: if they fail to support the Gospel, God will severely chastise them.
Such a statement as that in verse 11 rebukes and shames any spirit of miserliness or
stinginess on the part of those who participate in the privileges of a Gospel ministry
but fail to do their fair part in supporting the same, If God’s servants have been
used of Him to bestow one class of benefits, is it unreasonable or unequal that they
should receive another class of benefits in return? Why, there is no proportion
between the one and the other. They dispense that which is spiritual and concerns
the eternal interests of the soul, whereas you are required to contribute only that
which is material for the needs of the body. If they have faithfully executed their
office, will you consider it burdensome to discharge your obvious obligations?
Shame on you if you feel that way. Instead, it should be regarded as a holy privilege.
"On every principle of commutative justice the minister’s right to a subsistence
must be conceded" (Hodge). But the apostle did not conclude his appeal even at this
point, but clinched his argument by citing scriptural proof that God had ordained
this very thing.
"Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the
temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?" (v. 13). Here
the testimony of God’s own institution is quoted, linking all that has been before us
in 1 Corinthians 9 with the theme of Joshua 21, for the reference has directly in view
the provision made by the Lord for the maintenance of Israel’s priests and Levites.
They were supported in their work by the offerings of the people, being Divinely
permitted to eat a portion of the animals which had been presented to God in

13. sacrifice. The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor
inheritance with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and
His inheritance" (Deut. 18:1, and cf. um. 5:9, 10). "A part of the animal offered in
sacrifice is burned as an offering to God, and a part becomes the property of the
priest for his support; and thus the altar and the priest become joint participators of
the sacrifice. From these offerings the priests derived their maintenance" (A.
Barnes, to whom we are indebted for not a little of the above). Thus, that for which
the apostle was contending was sanctioned by Divine authority.
"Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of
the gospel" (v. 14). Here, by Divine inspiration, the apostle declares that Christ has
made the same ordinance for this dispensation as obtained under the old one. He
who provided that those who served Him in His earthly temple should be partakers
of the altar has also willed that those who minister His Gospel should be duly cared
for. This is not optional, but obligatory. It is a Divine command, which demands
obedience. If on the one hand the minister is entitled to support, on the other hand
his hearers are not at liberty to withhold the same. It is both a duty and a privilege
to comply. It is not a matter of charity, but of right, that the preacher should be
compensated for his labors. "The maintenance of ministers is not an arbitrary thing,
left purely to the good will of the people, who may let them starve if they please; no,
as the God of Israel commanded that Levites should be well provided for, so has the
Lord Jesus, the King of the Church, ordained, and a perpetual ordinance it is"
(Matthew Henry). Devotion to the Lord, the spirit of gratitude, the claims of love,
and the workings of grace should make the duty a delight. The honor of Christ’s
cause, the usefulness of His servants, yes, and the happiness of His people (Acts
20:35), are bound up in heeding this rule.
A beautiful illustration of compliance with the Divine requirement is found in
Philippians 4. There we have the apostle expressing his appreciation and gratitude
unto an assembly of the saints for the practical way in which they had manifested
their love to him and their fellowship in the Gospel: "But I rejoiced in the Lord
greatly, that now at the last your care of me hath flourished again; wherein ye were
also careful [solicitous], but ye lacked opportunity" (v. 10). They were not among
that large class of professing Christians who deem themselves willing to profit from
a Gospel ministry, but who have very little concern for the temporal welfare of
Christ’s servants. On the contrary, they had been mindful of His minister, and as
occasion arose and opportunity was afforded they had sent of their substance to him
while he was away laboring in other parts. This brought back to his memory similar
kindnesses which they had shown him years before: " ow ye Philippians know also,
that in the beginning of the gospel [when he commenced his evangelistic career],
when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning
giving and receiving, but ye only. For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again
unto my necessity" (vv. 15, 16). So far from being a case of "out of sight, out of
mind," he was constantly in their thoughts.
During Paul’s extensive travels the Philippians had lost touch with him—though not
their interest in him, as the "wherein [i.e. during the lengthy interval] ye were also

14. careful" attests, but they had no "opportunity" to communicate with him. But now
that they learned that he was a prisoner in Rome for the Truth’s sake, they sent to
him a further token of their affection and esteem by Epaphroditus (v. 18). Most
blessed is it to mark the spirit in which the apostle received their gift. First, while
gratefully acknowledging their present (v. 14), he looked above them to the One who
had put into their hearts the desire to minister unto him: "I rejoiced in the Lord
greatly (v. 10). Second, he was made happy too on their behalf: " ot because I
desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account" (v. 17)—it
furnished proof of the workings of the spirit of grace within, evidencing that they
were in a healthy condition spiritually. Third, he declared that their gift met with
the approval of his Master, that it was "an odor of a sweet smell, a sacrifice
acceptable, well-pleasing to God" (v. 18). Fourth, he assured them that they would
be no losers by caring for him: "But my God shall supply all your need according to
His riches in glory by Christ Jesus" (v. 19).
"Then came near the heads of the fathers of the Levites unto Eleazar the priest, and
unto Joshua the son of un, and unto the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the
children of Israel" (Josh. 21:1). There are one or two details here which call for a
brief word of explanation. First, each of the tribes was divided into or was grouped
under its leading families: they being the descendants of the original sons—the
heads, or chiefs, being designated "fathers." Second, Eleazar is mentioned here
because this transaction involved the use of "the lot," and he was the one who bore
the sacred bag containing the Urim and the Thummim, by which the Divine will was
made known. Joshua was also present as Israel’s commander, to see that all was
done in an orderly manner. Third, the additional reference to "the heads of the
fathers of the tribes" clearly intimates that they were now formally assembled as a
court, to examine the petitions of claimants and determine their cases.
The careful reader will observe that the chapter opens with the word "Then." That
time-mark is more than a historical reference, pointing an important practical
lesson which we do well to heed. Historically, the incident recorded here occurred
"when they had made an end of dividing the land for inheritance by their coasts,"
and when "the children of Israel gave an inheritance to Joshua the son of un"
(Josh. 21:49). Then Joshua was bidden by the Lord, "Speak to the children of Israel,
saying, Appoint out for you cities of refuge, whereof I spake unto you by the hand of
Moses" (Josh. 20:2). ow the Lord had previously given orders that those cities of
refuge (six in number) were to be "among the cities which ye shall give unto the
Levites . . . and to them ye shall add forty and two cities. So all the cities which ye
shall give to the Levites shall be forty and eight cities: them shall ye give with their
suburbs" ( um. 35:6, 7). Those cities of refuge had now been specified (Josh. 21:7,
8), but as yet the remaining forty-two had not been assigned them.
"And they spake unto them at Shiloh in the land of Canaan" (v. 2), for that was
where the tabernacle was now situated, and therefore the place where the mind of
the Lord could be authoritatively ascertained. It is blessed to see that the Levites
deferred their appeal until all the other tribes had been provided for, thereby setting
an admirable pattern before all the official servants of God, to suppress everything

15. in themselves which has even the appearance of covetousness. How incongruous and
reprehensible it is for those who profess to be the ministers of grace and truth to
exhibit a mercenary or greedy demeanor! It was "an instance of their humility,
modesty, and patience (and Levites should be examples of these and other virtues)
that they were willing to be served last, and they fared never the worse for it. Let
not God’s ministers complain if at any time they find themselves postponed in men’s
thoughts and cares, but let them make sure of the favor of God and the honor that
comes from Him, and then they may well enough afford to bear the slights and
neglects of men" (Matthew Henry).
It should also be carefully noted that these God-honoring Levites made known their
claim openly and publicly, instead of secretly and privately. They did not engage in
a "whispering campaign," going around sowing the seeds of dissension among their
brethren, or of criticism of Joshua, complaining at their being neglected—for as yet
no provision had been made where they should reside with their families and flocks.
o, they applied in an orderly and frank manner before the Divinely appointed
court, saying, "The Lord commanded by the hand of Moses to give us cities to dwell
in, with the suburbs thereof for our cattle" (v. 2). Their petition was brief and to the
point; their language firm but reverent. They came not as beggars, and asked for no
favors. Their appeal was neither to charity nor to equity—as being due them on the
ground of fairness. They used no claim of worthiness or fidelity to duty. Instead,
their appeal was made to the word of God, that which He had commanded by
Moses; and thus they acted on the basis of a "Thus saith the Lord."
It is quite evident, then, that on this occasion the Levites were far from being
actuated by a spirit of either discontent or covetousness. Had they been moved by
avarice they had not waited until now, but had either taken matters into their own
hands or had put in their claim much earlier. o, it was an orderly request that they
should now receive that to which they were entitled by Divine grant. Most
commendable was their meekness and patience. How different the character and
conduct of so many ecclesiastics during the Christian era, whose love of money and
lust for power knew no bounds, scrupling not to employ the most tyrannous
measures and heartless methods to impoverish their members while they lived in
luxury and resided in their "palaces"! And the same spirit is by nature in every
preacher, and against its least indulgence he needs to be on his guard. Unspeakably
solemn is it to note that the oft-quoted words, "For the love of money is the root of
all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced
themselves through with many sorrows," occur in one of the pastoral epistles! They
are succeeded by, "But thou, O man of God [i.e. servant of Christ], flee these things;
and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness" (1 Tim.
6:10, 11).
or is it without reason that the injunction "having food and raiment, let us be
therewith content" is found in the same epistle (Josh. 6:8), immediately preceding
the above warning and exhortation. Few realize the sinfulness of discontent, which
is nothing but a species of self-will, a secret murmuring against Providence, a being
dissatisfied with the portion God has given us. Contrariwise, contentment is a holy

16. composure of mind, a resting in the Lord, a thankful enjoyment of what He has
graciously bestowed. Hence, contentment is the spiritual antidote to covetousness:
"Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as
ye have" (Heb. 13:5)—the former vice can be avoided only by assiduously
cultivating the opposite virtue. If the preacher is to magnify his office and glorify his
Master, he needs to mortify his fleshly lusts and carnal ambitions, abstaining from
all extravagance, and living frugally: evidencing that his affections are set upon
things above and not on things below. When Socrates the pagan philosopher beheld
a display of costly and elegant articles for sale, he exclaimed: "How many things are
here that I need not!" Such ought to be the attitude and language of every child of
God as he passes through this "Vanity Fair," pre-eminently so in the case of His
servants.
"Giving no offense in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed: but in all things
approving [commending] ourselves as the ministers of God" (2 Cor. 6:3, 4). What an
exalted standard of piety is that! Yet nothing less is what the Holy One requires of
His representatives. The unbelieving are ever ready to charge the Gospel itself with
having a strong tendency to encourage the carnalities which disgrace the character
of so many professors, and especially if the same appear in the lives of those who
preach it. or is that a thing to be wondered at. What can be expected from those
who have no experiential acquaintance with the things of God than to conclude that
those who preach salvation by grace through Jesus Christ are the products of the
same? In their judgment, the daily life of the preacher either commends or
condemns his message. Hence it is that, among other reasons, the minister of Christ
is bidden: "In all things showing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine
showing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, sound speech [and not the slang of the
world], that cannot be condemned, that he that is of the contrary part may be
ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you" (Titus 2:7, 8).
Returning more directly to the Levites in Joshua 21. In their "The Lord
commanded by the hand of Moses to give us cities to dwell in" they were, in reality,
pleading a Divine promise! It was recorded in umbers 35:1-8, that Jehovah issued
definite orders to that end, and therefore they were asking only for that to which
they had a right by Divine authority. Here too they have left an example, which
needs to be followed not only by God’s servants but by all of His people, for it is the
use which we make of His promises that, to a considerable extent, regulates our
spiritual prosperity, as well as the peace and joy of our hearts. First, we should
labor to become well acquainted with the same, for while we, remain in ignorance
no benefit can be derived from them. Those Levites were informed upon that which
concerned their interests. So should we be. We should daily search the Scriptures
for them, and make an inventory of our spiritual wealth. The Divine promises are
the peculiar treasure of the saints, for the substance of faith’s inheritance is
wrapped up in them. Second, they should be carefully stored in our minds,
constantly meditated upon, and every effort of Satan’s to rob us of the same
steadfastly resisted.
Third, God’s promises are to be personally appropriated and pleaded before His

17. throne of grace. This is one reason why He has given them to us: not only to
manifest His loving-kindness in making known His gracious intentions, but also for
the comfort of our hearts. Had He so pleased, our Father could have bestowed His
blessings without giving us notice of His benign purposes; but He has ordained that
we should enjoy them twice over: first by faith, and then by fruition. By this means
He weans our hearts away from things seen and temporal, and draws them onward
and upward to things which are spiritual and eternal. Thus are we to make His
promises the support and stay of our souls. ot only are they to be the food of faith,
but the regulators of our petitions. Real prayer is the making request for those
things which God is pledged to bestow: "And this is the confidence that we have in
Him, that, if we ask any thing according to His will, He heareth us" (1 John 5:14):
that is, according as His will is made known to us in His Word—anything other than
that is self-will on our part (Jam. 4:3).
While on the one hand God has promised to bestow, on the other hand we are
required to make request—that He may be duly owned and honored, that we
express our dependence upon Him. "Ask, and ye shall receive" is the Divinely
appointed way. In Ezekiel 36:36, God makes most definite promise to His people,
adding, "I the Lord have spoken it, and I will do it." Yet immediately after, He
declares, "Thus saith the Lord God: I will yet [nevertheless] for this be enquired of
by the house of Israel, to do it for them." Such inquiry is designed for the
strengthening of our faith, the quickening of our hope, the development of our
patience. Cities had been Divinely assured unto the Levites, yet they received them
not until they appealed for them by pleading God’s word to them through Moses!
And that has been recorded for our instruction. One wonders how often it is the
case that "ye have not, because ye ask not" (James 4:2)—always so when faith be
not in exercise (James 1:6, 7). Observe well how Jacob pleaded the Divine promise
in Genesis 32:18; Moses in Exodus 32:13; David in Psalm 119:58; Solomon in 1
Kings 8:25, and go thou and do likewise.
PETT, "Chapter 21 The Establishment of the Levites Throughout Israel.
This chapter contains the approach of the Levites to the leaders, to have cities and
suburbs given to them in accordance with the command of God by Moses. Grants
were made by lot out of the different tribes, details of which are given. The chapter
is concludes by observing, that God gave Israel all the land of Canaan, and gave
them rest in it, according to his promise, and that nothing failed of all that God had
promised.
We do not know the time scale for all these events. The first conquests had taken
around five to seven years (based on the age of Caleb which was in round numbers -
Joshua 14:10). The further surveying of the land and its division according to the
size of the tribes must then have taken quite some time, and we must leave time for
advancement and settlement, the cutting down of forests, the establishing of the
people in various parts of the land, the reconquest of cities, and the discovery that
while the conquest had been a success, in that it had enabled this settlement, there
remained yet much to be done.

18. At what stage Joshua 20 and Joshua 21 occurred we are not told. But it is clear that
the central sanctuary was now set up at Shiloh and was regularly visited by the
tribes. We need not doubt that under Joshua the regular feasts were held and the
covenant constantly renewed, with the regular sacrifices being offered. Israel were
becoming established in the land.
Verse 1
‘Then came near the heads of the fathers of the Levites, to Eleazar the priest, and to
Joshua, the son of un, and to the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children
of Israel.’
The land having been allocated, and cities of refuge appointed, the Levites now
came to remind the leaders, who had accomplished the work, of God’s promise to
them that cities with lands for their use would be allocated to them throughout
Israel. ote the hierarchy, ‘the heads of the fathers’. The princes of the sub-tribes
(the thousands?) were over the fathers of the extended families (the hundreds?),
who were over the fathers of the closer families (the tens?). These princes then
approached the priest of the central sanctuary, and Joshua their great leader, and
the princes of the other tribes.
EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE COMME TARY
THE I HERITA CE OF THE LEVITES.
Joshua 21:1-42.
O CE and again we have found reference made to the fact that Levites received no
territorial inheritance among their brethren (Joshua 13:14, Joshua 13:33; Joshua
14:3-4). They had a higher privilege: the Lord was their inheritance. In the present
chapter we have an elaborate account of the arrangements for their settlement; it
will therefore be suitable here to rehearse their history, and ascertain the relation
they now stood in to the rest of the tribes.
In the days of the patriarchs and during the sojourn in Egypt there were no official
priests. Each head of a house discharged the duties of the priesthood in patriarchal
times, and a similar arrangement prevailed during the residence in Egypt. The
whole nation was holy; in this sense it was a nation of priests; all were set apart for
the service of God. By-and-by it pleased God to select a portion of the nation
specially for His service, to establish, as it were, a holy of holies within the
consecrated nation. The first intimation of this was given on that awful occasion
when the firstborn of the Egyptians was slain. In token of His mercy in sparing
Israel on that night, all the firstborn of Israel, both of man and beast, were specially
consecrated to the Lord. The animals were to be offered in sacrifice, except in the
case of some, such as the ass, not suited for sacrifice; these were to be redeemed by
the sacrifice of another animal. Afterwards a similar arrangement was made with

19. reference to the firstborn of men, the tribe of Levi being substituted for them (see
umbers 3:12). But this arrangement was not made till after the tribe of Levi had
shown, by a special act of service, that they were fitted for this honour.
Certainly we should not have thought beforehand that the descendants of Levi
would be the specially sacred tribe. Levi himself comes before us in the patriarchal
history in no attractive light. He and Simeon were associated together in that
massacre of the Shechemites, which we can never read of without horror (Genesis
34:25). Levi was likewise an accomplice with his brethren in the lamentable tragedy
of Joseph. And as nothing better is recorded of him, we are apt to think of him as
through life the same. But this were hardly fair. Why should not Levi have shared
in that softening influence which undoubtedly came on the other brethren? Why
may he not have become a true man of God, and transmitted to his tribe the
memory and the example of a holy character? Certain it is that we find among his
descendants in Egypt some very noble specimens of godliness. The mother of Moses,
a daughter of the house of Levi, is a woman of incomparable faith. Moses, her son, is
emphatically "the man of God." Aaron, his brother, moved by a Divine influence,
goes to the wilderness to find him when the very crisis of oppression seems to
indicate that God's time for the deliverance of Israel is drawing nigh. Miriam, his
sister, though far from faultless, piously watched his bulrush-cradle, and afterwards
led the choir whose praises rose to God in a great volume of thanksgiving after
crossing the sea.
The first honour conferred on Levi in connection with religious service was the
appointment of Aaron and his sons to the special service of the priesthood (Exodus
28:1-43; umbers 18:1). This did not necessarily involve any spiritual distinction for
the whole tribe of which Aaron was a member, nor was that distinction conferred at
that time. It was after the affair of the golden calf that the tribe of Levi received this
honour. For when Moses, in his holy zeal against that scandal, called upon all who
were on the Lord's side to come to him, ''all the sons of Levi gathered themselves
unto him" (Exodus 32:26). This seems to imply that that tribe alone held itself aloof
from the atrocious idolatry into which even Aaron had been drawn. And apparently
it was in connection with this high act of service that Levi was selected as the sacred
tribe, and in due time formally substituted for the firstborn in every family
( umbers 3:12, sqq. umbers 8:6 sqq. umbers 18:2 sqq.) From this time the tribe
of Levi stood to God in a relation of peculiar honour and sacredness, and had duties
assigned to them in harmony with this eminent position.
The tribe of Levi consisted of three main branches, corresponding to Levi's three
sons - Kohath, Gershon, and Merari. The Kohathites, though apparently not the
oldest (see umbers 3:17) were the most distinguished, Moses and Aaron being of
that branch. As Levites, the Kohathites had charge of the ark and its sacred
furniture, guarding it at all times, and carrying it from place to place during the
journeys of the wilderness. The Gershonites had charge of the tabernacle, with its
cords, curtains, and coverings. The sons of Merari had charge of the more solid
parts of the tabernacle, "its boards and bars, its pillars and its pins, and all the
vessels thereof." Korah, the leader of the rebellion against Moses and Aaron, was,

20. like them, of the family of Kohath, and the object of his rebellion was to punish
what he considered the presumption of the two brothers in giving to Aaron the
special honours of a priesthood which, in former days, had belonged alike to all the
congregation ( umbers 16:3). We are accustomed to think that the supernatural
proofs of the Divine commission to Moses were so overwhelming that it would have
been out of the question for any man to challenge them. But many things show that,
though we might have thought opposition to Moses impossible, it prevailed to a
great extent. The making of the golden calf, the report of the spies and the
commotion that followed, the rebellion of Korah, and many other things, prove that
the prevalent spirit was usually that of unbelief and rebellion, and that it was only
after many signal miracles and signal judgments that Moses was enabled at last to
exercise an unchallenged authority. The rationalist idea, that it was enthusiasm for
Moses that led the people to follow him out of Egypt, and endure all the hardships
of the wilderness, and that there is nothing more in the Exodus than the story of an
Eastern nation leaving one country under a trusted leader to settle in another, is one
to which the whole tenor of the history offers unqualified contradiction. And not the
least valid ground of opposition is the bitter, deadly spirit in which attempts to
frustrate Moses were so often made.
Many of the duties of the Levites as detailed in the Pentateuch were duties for the
wilderness. After the settlement in Canaan, and the establishment of the tabernacle
at Shiloh, these duties would undergo a change. The Levites were not all needed to
be about the tabernacle. The Gibeonites indeed had been retained as ''hewers of
wood and drawers of water for the congregation and for the altar of the Lord," so
that the more laborious part of the work at Shiloh would be done by them. If the
Levites had clustered like a swarm of bees around the sacred establishment, loss
would have been sustained alike by themselves and by the people. It was desirable,
in accordance with the great law of distribution already referred to, that they
should be dispersed over the whole country. The men that stood nearest to God, and
who were a standing testimony to the superiority of the spiritual over the secular,
who were Divine witnesses, indeed, to the higher part of man's nature, as well as to
God's preeminent claims, must have failed egregiously of their mission had they
been confined to a single city or to the territory of a single tribe. Jacob had foretold
both of Simeon and Levi that they would be "divided in Jacob and scattered in
Israel." In the case of Levi, the scattering was overruled for good. Designed to point
God-wards and heavenwards, the mission of Levi was to remind the people over the
whole country that they were not mere earth-worms, created to grub and burrow in
the ground, but beings with a nobler destiny, whose highest honour it was to be in
communion with God.
The functions of the Levites throughout the country seem to have differed somewhat
in successive periods of their history. Here, as in other matters, there was doubtless
some development, according as new wants appeared in the spiritual condition of
the people, and consequently new obligations for the Levites to fulfil.
When the people fell under special temptations to idolatry, it would naturally fall to
the Levites, in connection with the priesthood, to warn them against these

21. temptations, and strive to keep them faithful to their God. But it does not appear
that even the Levites could be trusted to continue faithful. It is a sad and singular
fact that a grandson of Moses was one of the first to go astray. The Authorized
Version, indeed, says that the young man who became a priest to the Danites when
they set up a graven image in the city of Dan, was Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the
son of Manasseh ( 18:30). But the Revised Version, not without authority, calls him
Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses. Here we have a glimpse of two
remarkable facts: in the first place, that a grandson of Moses, a Levite, was located
in so confined a place that he had to leave it in search of another, ''to sojourn where
he could find a place" - so entirely had Moses abstained from steps to secure
superior provision for his own family; and, in the second place, that even with his
remarkable advantages and relations, this Jonathan, in defiance of the law, was
tempted to assume an office of priesthood, and to discharge that office at the shrine
of a graven image. We are far indeed from the truth when we suppose that the
whole nation of Israel submitted to the law of Moses from the beginning with
absolute loyalty, or when we accept the prevalent practice among them at any one
period as undoubted evidence of what was then the law.
But let us now turn our attention to the distribution of the Levites as it was planned.
We say deliberately "as it was planned," because there is every reason to believe
that the plan was not effectually carried out. In no case does there seem to have been
such a failure of official arrangements as in the case of Levi. And the reason is not
difficult to find. Few of the cities allotted to them were free of Canaanites at the
time. To get actual possession of the cities they must have dispossessed the
remaining Canaanites. But, scattered as they were, this was peculiarly difficult. And
the other tribes seem to have been in no humour to help them. Hence it is that in the
early period of the Judges we find Levites wandering here and there seeking for a
settlement, and glad of any occupation they could find ( 18:7; 19:1).
The provision made by Joshua for the Levites was that out of all the other tribes,
forty-eight cities with their suburbs, including the six cities of refuge, were allotted
to them. It is necessary for us here to call to mind how much Canaan, like other
Eastern countries and some countries not Eastern, was a land of towns and villages.
Cottages and country-houses standing by themselves were hardly known. A house in
its own grounds - "a lodge in a garden of cucumbers " - might shelter a man for a
time, but could not be his permanent home. The country was too liable to hostile
raids for its inhabitants to dwell thus unprotected. Most of the people had their
homes in the towns and villages with which their fields were connected. In
consequence of this each town had a circuit of land around it, which always fell to
the conquerors when the town was taken. And it is this fact that sometimes makes
the boundaries of the tribes so difficult to follow, because these boundaries had to
embrace all the lands connected with the cities which they embraced. If it be asked,
Did the Levites receive as part of their inheritance all the lands adjacent to their
cities, the answer is, o. For in that case the only difference between them and the
other tribes would have been that the Levites had forty-eight little territories instead
of one large possession, and there would have been no ground for the distinction so
emphatically made that "the Lord was their inheritance," or ''the sacrifices of the

22. Lord made by fire."
The cities given to the Levites, even when cleared of Canaanites, were not possessed
by Levites alone. We may gather the normal state of affairs from what is said
regarding Hebron and Caleb. Hebron was a Levitical city, a city of the priests, a city
of refuge; they gave to the Kohathites the city, with the suburbs thereof roundabout;
"but the fields of the city, and the villages thereof, gave they to Caleb the son of
Jephunneh for his possession " (Joshua 21:11-12). What are called "suburbs," or, as
some prefer to render, "cattle drives," extended for two thousand cubits round
about the city on every side ( umbers 35:5), and were used only for pasture. It
behooved the Levites to have cattle of some kind to supply them with their food, the
main part of which, besides fruit, was milk and its produce. But, beyond this, the
Levites were not entangled with the business of husbandry. They were left free for
more spiritual service. It was their part to raise the souls of the people above the
level of earth, and, like the angel in the "Pilgrim's Progress," call on those who
might otherwise have worshipped the mud-rake to lift up their eyes to the crown of
glory, and accept the heavenly gift.
In fact, the whole function of the Levites, ideally at least, was as Moses sung: -
"And of Levi he said, Let thy Urim and thy Thummim be with thy godly one, Whom
thou didst prove at Massah,
With whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah;
Who said of his father, and of his mother, I have not seen him;
either did he acknowledge his brethren,
or knew his own children:
For they have observed Thy word,
And kept Thy covenant.
They shall teach Jacob Thy judgments,
And Israel Thy law:
They shall put incense before Thee,
And whole burnt offering upon Thine altar.
Bless, Lord, his substance,
And accept the work of his hands:

23. Smite through the loins of them that rise up against him,
And of them that hate him, that they rise not again."
Deuteronomy 33:8-11 (R.V.).
But to come now to the division itself. The Kohathites, or leading family, had no
fewer than thirteen cities in the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Simeon, and ten
more in Ephraim, Dan, and Manasseh. The thirteen in Judah, Benjamin, and
Simeon were for the priests; the other ten were for the other branches of the
Kohathites. At first the priests, strictly so called, could not occupy them all. But, as
the history advances, the priests become more and more prominent, while the
Levites as such seem to hold a less and less conspicuous place. In the Psalms, for
example, we sometimes find the house of Levi left out when all classes of
worshippers are called on to praise the Lord. In the 135th Psalm all are included: -
"O house of Israel, bless ye the Lord: O house of Aaron, bless ye the Lord: O house
of Levi, bless ye the Lord: Ye that fear the Lord, bless ye the Lord."
But in the 15th the Levites are left out: -
"O Israel, trust thou in the Lord: He is their help and their shield. O house of
Aaron, trust ye in the Lord: He is their help and their shield.
Ye that fear the Lord, trust in the Lord: He is their help and their shield."
And in the 18th: -
"Let Israel now say That His mercy endureth for ever. Let the house of Aaron now
say That His mercy endureth for ever. Let them now that fear the Lord say That His
mercy endureth for ever."
There is this to be said for the region where the priests, the house of Aaron, had
their cities, viz., the tribe of Judah, that it maintained its integrity longest of any;
nor did it thoroughly succumb to idolatry till the dark days of Manasseh, one of its
later kings. But, on the other hand, in ew Testament times, Judaea was the most
bigoted part of the country, and the most bitterly opposed to our Lord. And the
explanation is, that the true spirit of Divine service had utterly evaporated from
among the priesthood, and the miserable spirit of formalism had come in. The living
sap of the institution had been turned into stone, and the plant of renown of early
days had become a stony fossil. So true is it that the best institutions, when
perverted from their true end, become the sources of greatest evil, and the highest
gifts of heaven, when seized by the devil and turned to his purposes, become the
most efficient instruments of hell.
The other portions of the family of Kohath were distributed in ten cities over the
central part of Western Palestine. Some of them were important centres of

24. influence, such as Bethhoron, Shechem, and Taanach. But the influence of the
Levites for good seems to have been feeble in this region, for it was here that
Jeroboam reigned, and here that Ahab and Jezebel all but obliterated the worship
of Jehovah.
It is commonly believed that Samuel was a member of the tribe of Levi, although
there is some confusion in the genealogy as given in 1 Chronicles 6:28; 1 Chronicles
6:34; yet Ramathaim Zophim, his father's place of abode, was not one of the
Levitical cities. And Samuel's influence was exerted more on the southern than the
central district; for, after the destruction of Shiloh, Mizpeh appears to have been his
ordinary residence (1 Samuel 7:6), and afterwards Ramah (1 Samuel 7:17). It would
indeed be a pleasant thought that the inefficiency of the Kohathites as a whole was
in some measure redeemed by the incomparable service of Samuel. If Samuel was a
Levite, he was a noble instance of what may be done by one zealous and consecrated
man, amid the all but universal defection of his official brethren.
Ramathaim and Ramah are used interchangeably (1 Samuel 1:1; 1 Samuel 1:19; 1
Samuel 2:11).
The Gershonites were placed in cities in eastern Manasseh, Issachar, Asher, and
aphtali; while the Merarites were in Zebulun, and in the transjordanic tribes of
Gad and Reuben. They thus garrisoned the northern and eastern districts. Those
placed in the north ought to have been barriers against the gross idolatry of Tyre
and Sidon, and those in the east, besides resisting the idolatry of the desert tribes,
should have held back that of Damascus and Syria. But there is very little to show
that the Levites as a whole rose to the dignity of their mission in these regions, or
that they formed a very efficient barrier against the idolatry and corruption which
they were designed to meet. o doubt they did much to train the people to the
outward observance of the law. They would call them to the celebration of the great
annual festivals, and of the new moons and other observances that had to be locally
celebrated. They would look after cases of ceremonial defilement, and no doubt they
would be careful to enjoin payment of the tithes to which they had a claim. They
would do their best to maintain the external distinctions in religion, by which the
nation was separated from its neighbours. But, except in rare cases, they do not
appear to have been spiritually earnest, nor to have done much of that service which
Samuel did in the southern part of the country. Externalism and formalism seem to
have been their most frequent characteristics; and externalism and formalism are
poor weapons when the enemy cometh in like a flood.
And, whatever may have been the usual life and work of the Levites over the
country, they never seem to have realized the glory of the distinction divinely
accorded to them - ''The Lord is their inheritance." Few, indeed, in any age or
country have come to know what is meant by having God for their portion. Unbelief
can never grasp that there is a life in God - a real life, so full of enjoyment that all
other happiness may be dispensed with; a real property, so rich in every blessing,
that the goods and chattels of this world are mere shadows in comparison. Yet that
there have been men profoundly impressed by these convictions, in all ages and in

25. many lands, amid prevailing ungodliness, cannot be denied. How otherwise is such a
life as that of St. Bernard or that of St. Francis to be accounted for? Or that of St.
Columba and the missionaries of lona? Or, to go farther back, that of St. Paul?
There is a magic virtue, or rather a Divine power, in real consecration. "Them that
honour Me, I will honour." It is the want of such men that makes our churches
feeble. It is our mixing up our own interests with the interests of God's kingdom and
refusing to leave self out of view while we profess to give ourselves wholly to God,
that explains the slowness of our progress. If the Levites had all been consecrated
men, idolatry and its great brood of corruptions would never have spread over the
land of Israel. If all Christian ministers were like their Master, Christianity would
spread like wildfire, and in a very little time the light of salvation would brighten
the globe.
ote. - In this chapter we have accepted the statements of the Pentateuch regarding
the Levites as they stand. We readily own that there are difficulties not a few
connected with the received view. The modern critical theory that maintains that the
Levitical order was a much later institution would no doubt remove many of these
difficulties, but only by creating other difficulties far more serious. Besides, the
hypothesis of Wellhausen that the tribe of Levi was destroyed with Simeon at the
invasion of Canaan - having no foundation to rest on, except the assumption that the
prophecy ascribed to Jacob was written at a later date - is ludicrously inadequate to
sustain the structure made to rest on it. or is it conceivable that, after the captivity,
the priests should have been able to make the people believe a totally different
account of the history of one of the tribes from that which had previously been
received. It is likewise incredible that the Levites should have been "annihilated " or
"extinguished " in the days of Joshua, without a single allusion in the history to so
terrible a fact. How inconsistent with the concern expressed when the tribe of
Benjamin was in danger of extinction ( 21:17). The loss of a tribe was like the loss of
a limb; it would have marred essentially the symmetry of the nation.
BI 1-45, "Unto the Levites . . . these cities.
Ministers liberally treated
The liberality both of God and of His people to the ministers of God is here very
marvellous, in giving forty-eight cities to this one tribe of Levi, which was the least of all
the tribes, yet have they the most cities given to them (Jos_21:4; Jos_21:10; Jos_21:41),
because it was the Lord’s pleasure to have this tribe provided for in an honourable
manner, seeing He Himself took upon Him to be their portion and made choice of them
for His peculiar service; therefore did He deal thus bountifully with His ministers, partly
to put honour upon those whom He foresaw many would be prone to despise, and partly
that by this liberality they, being freed from worldly distractions, might more entirely
devote themselves to God’s service and to the instruction of souls. (C. Ness.)
Ministers wisely located
God provided for the residence of His ministers in most ample extent and number, and
in a way suited to the spiritual instruction and benefit of the nation. In temple service

26. they were round about the habitation of His holiness; and yet, in their ministerial
instructions, dispersed over the whole land. How exact a fulfilment of dying Jacob’s
prediction, and that even though mercy changed the curse into a blessing: “I will divide
them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel.” What an important appointment! and how
adapted to the communication and diffusion of Divine truth for their lips, as the
messengers of the Lord of hosts, were to keep knowledge, and at their mouth the people
were to seek the law! It is no common privilege, under the more exalted and
distinguished dispensation of the gospel, that the ministers of salvation are not removed
into a corner, but that as servants of the most high God they have their stations assigned
them, as may best promote the increase and instruction of the Church. These are the
stars which He holds in His right hand, and which, great in wisdom and power, He
numbers and calls by their names, What holy and heavenly light and influence are they
ordained to impart in their several spheres! Without them the Christian Church would
soon be involved in the most degrading and destructive ignorance, and overwhelmed
with the miseries of corruption and error. Who that admits the importance of their
services would not yield room to them as being equally a privilege as a duty. Their
residence is to be esteemed a mercy, and no intrusion. Thus it has appeared that the
Lord has ever paid special regard to His ministers, and as here enjoined upon His
people, in obligation the most reasonable, to provide them habitations as well as
support. (W. Seaton.)
There failed not ought of any good thing which the Lord had spoken.
Divine faithfulness
I. The faithfulness of God in accomplishing his engagements toward the tribes of Israel.
II. The faithfulness of God to his church collectively in subsequent engagements.
III. The faithfulness of God in his engagements to individual believers. I believe there is
no person experiencing the power of religion who has not had an increasing evidence of
the faithfulness of God in verifying His promises on which He has caused him to hope.
He has found—notwithstanding the dark appearances of Divine providence—he has
found that sort of satisfaction which he was taught to expect from the exercise of faith
and confidence in Jesus Christ and obedience to Him. He has found, in seasons of pain
and difficulty, that kind of assistance on which he was taught to rely. The faithfulness of
God in performing His promises at present must, however, be in a great degree obscured
by the darkness of our present state; for everything is in perpetual motion. No one can
understand the nature of a beautiful building in the rubbish, or, while it is actually
rising, in the midst of the complicated instruments used in its erection, but we must wait
till it is finished before we can form a just estimate of its beauty. And with respect to that
great hope of which the possession of Canaan was but a shadow and figure—the
possession of the heavenly inheritance—in a very short time every real believer will be
able to put his seal to the truth of the Divine promise. Let us rejoice that we have a
covenant of God, and a covenant ordered in all things and sure, which is all our salvation
and all our desire. And first, by way of improvement, let us observe the propriety of
remembering the way in which the Lord God hath led us. If we consider the trials and
sorrows of the present life as a part of that holy dispensation, in that proportion shall we
be disposed to glorify God. If we trace the hand of man in these events, this may produce
disquietude; but if we could extend our view to the furthest limit, all this would
frequently be matter of gratitude, and we should be enabled to give thanks to God in
everything. Let us look forward to that state in which we shall have His kindness fully

27. displayed. (R. Hall, M. A.)
The triumphant record of God’s faithfulness
Verses 43-45 are the trophy reared on the battlefield, like the lion of Marathon, which
the Greeks set on its sacred soil. But the only name inscribed on this monument is
Jehovah’s. Other memorials of victories have borne the pompous titles of commanders
who arrogated the glory to themselves; but the Bible knows of only one conqueror, and
that is God. “The help that is done on earth, He doeth it all Himself.” The military genius
and heroic constancy of Joshua, the eagerness for perilous honour that flamed,
undimmed by age, in Caleb, the daring and strong arms of many a humbler private in
the ranks, have their due recognition and reward; but when the history that tells of these
comes to sum up the whole, and to put the “philosophy” of the conquest into a sentence,
it has only one name to speak as cause of Israel’s victory. That is the true point of view
from which to look at the history of the world and of the Church in the world. The
difference between the “miraculous” conquest of Canaan and the “ordinary” facts of
history is not that God did the one and men do the other; both are equally, though in
different methods, His acts. In the field of human affairs, as in the realm of nature, God
is immanent, though in the former His working is complicated by the mysterious power
of man’s will to set itself in antagonism to His; while yet, in manner insoluble to us, His
will is supreme. The very powers which are arrayed against Him are His gift, and the
issue which they finally subserve is His appointment. It does not need that we should be
able to pierce to the bottom of the bottomless in order to attain and hold fast by the
great conviction that there is no power but of God, and that from Him are all things and
to Him are all things. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)
The Divine fidelity acknowledged
We may note, too, in these verses, the threefold repetition of the one thought, of God’s
punctual and perfect fulfilment of His word. He “gave unto Israel all the land which He
sware to give”; “He gave them rest . . . according to all that He sware”; “there failed not
ought of any good thing which the Lord had spoken.” It is the joy of thankful hearts to
compare the promise with the reality, to lay the one upon the other, as it were, and to
declare how precisely their, outlines correspond. The finished building is exactly
according to the plans drawn long before. God gives us the power of checking His work,
and we are unworthy to receive His gifts if we do not take delight in marking and
proclaiming how completely He has fulfilled His contract. It is no small part of Christian
duty, and a still greater part of Christian blessedness, to do this. Many a fulfilment
passes unnoticed, and many a joy, which might be sacred and sweet as a token of love
from His own hand, remains common and unhallowed, because we fail to see that it is a
fulfilled promise. The eye that is trained to watch for God’s being as good as His word
will never have long to wait for proofs that He is. “Whoso is wise, and will observe these
things, even he shall understand the lovingkindness of the Lord.” And to such an one
faith will become easier, being sustained by experience; and a present thus manifestly
studded with indications of God’s faithfulness will merge into a future still fuller of
these. For it does not need that we should wait for the end of the war to have many a
token that His every word is true. The struggling soldier can say, “No good thing has
failed of all that the Lord has spoken.” We look, indeed, for completer fulfilment when
the fighting is done; but there are brooks by the way for the warriors in the thick of the

28. fight, of which they drink, and, refreshed, lift up the head. We need not postpone this
glad acknowledgment till we can look back and down from the land of peace on the
completed campaign, but may rear this trophy on many a field, whilst still we look for
another conflict to-morrow. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)
The Supreme Worker
We read that on a pyramid in Egypt the name and sounding titles of the king in whose
reign it was erected were blazoned on the plaster facing, but beneath that transitory
inscription the name of the architect was hewn, imperishable, in the granite, and stood
out when the plaster dropped away. So, when all the short-lived records which ascribe
the events of the Church’s progress to her great men have perished, the one name of the
true Builder will shine out, and to the name of Jesus every knee shall bow. Let us not rely
on our own skill, courage, talents, orthodoxy, or methods, nor try to build tabernacles
for the witnessing servants beside the central one for the supreme Lord, but ever seek to
deepen our conviction that Christ, and Christ only, gives all their powers to all, and that
to Him, and Him only, is all victory to be ascribed. It is an elementary and simple truth;
but if we really lived in its power we should go into the battle with more confidence, and
come out of it with less self-gratulation. (A. Maclaren, D. D.).
2 at Shiloh in Canaan and said to them, “The
Lord commanded through Moses that you give us
towns to live in, with pasturelands for our
livestock.”
GILL, "And they spake unto them at Shiloh in the land of Canaan,.... Where
the tabernacle was fixed, at or near which the above persons met to cast lots for the
division of the land to the seven tribes that had not received their inheritance:
saying, the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses to give us cities to dwell
in, with the suburbs thereof for our cattle; this command is extant in Num_35:2.
HE RY, "
JAMISO , "
BE SO , "Joshua 21:2. The Lord commanded — Observe: the maintenance of
ministers is not an arbitrary thing, left purely to the good-will of the people. o: as

29. the God of Israel commanded that the Levites should be provided for, so hath the
Lord Jesus ordained (and a perpetual ordinance it is) “that they who preach the
gospel should live of the gospel.”
WHEDO , "2. With the suburbs thereof — The area of these suburbs is laid down
in umbers 35:4-5, but so obscurely that great diversity of computation has arisen
among expositors. The suburbs were to reach a thousand cubits from the wall of the
city on each of the four sides, and yet the measure on each side of the city was to be
two thousand cubits. This Keil explains, as in the following diagram by picturing the
city and its suburbs in squares, with the city in the midst, and understanding the
two thousand cubits as the length of each outer side of the suburbs, apart from the
walls of the cities, which latter, of course, might vary in size. Or we may understand
with Maimonides that the two thousand cubits were added to the one thousand as
“fields of the suburbs,” (Leviticus 25:34,) and lay outside the suburbs proper.
TRAPP, "Joshua 21:2 And they spake unto them at Shiloh in the land of Canaan,
saying, The LORD commanded by the hand of Moses to give us cities to dwell in,
with the suburbs thereof for our cattle.
Ver 2. The Lord commanded.] He left not his Levites to the will and devotion of the
people: for then they should have had Micah’s allowance, [ 17:10] prisoners’
pittances, such as will neither keep them alive, nor suffer them to die. Spoliantur
parochiae et scholae, non aliter ac si tame necare nos velint, is Luther’s complain:
they keep us so poor as if they meant to famish us all. Therefore the Lord
commanded, as here; lest men should deal by his Levites, as Louis XI of France did
by his chaplains, to whom he allowed twenty shillings a month, whereas to his
barber, John Cottier, he allowed ten thousand crowns a month.
PULPIT, "Joshua 21:2
At Shiloh. Another instance of exact accuracy. Shiloh was now the place of assembly
in Israel (see Joshua 18:1). The Lord commanded. The command is given in
umbers 35:1-34. We have here, therefore, another quotation from the books of
Moses. If we refer to it we find how exactly the precepts were carried out. First, the
six cities of refuge were to be appointed, and then forty-two more were to be added
to them. Calvin, not noticing this, has complained that this narrative is not in its
proper place, and that it should have been inserted before the details in umbers
20:1-29. The very reverse is the fact. These cities of refuge are included, in what
follows, among the number of forty-eight cities in all, assigned to the Levites.
Suburbs. See Joshua 14:4. And so throughout the chapter.
PETT, "Verse 2
‘And they spoke to them at Shiloh in the land of Canaan, saying, “YHWH
commanded by the hand of Moses to give us cities to dwell in, with their suburbs for
our cattle.” ’
The approach would probably be made before the Tent of Meeting with due
solemnity. The Levites had a responsibility to Israel in respect of guidance in

30. accordance with the Law, overseeing the tithes, and generally observing that the
Law was fulfilled. In return they had to be given cities to dwell in and land for their
cattle, but not land to plant and sow.
3 So, as the Lord had commanded, the Israelites
gave the Levites the following towns and
pasturelands out of their own inheritance:
CLARKE, "And the children of Israel gave unto the Levites - They cheerfully
obeyed the Divine command, and cities for habitations were appointed to them out of
the different tribes by lot, that it might as fully appear that God designed them their
habitations, as he designed the others their inheritances.
GILL, "And the children of Israel gave unto the Levites out of their
inheritance,.... Knowing full well there was such a command, made no objection to
their motion, but freely gave them cities out of the portion of inheritance allotted to
them; this they did
at the commandment of the Lord, and in obedience to it, even gave these
cities and suburbs; after mentioned: this was done by the tribes themselves; as there
were a certain number fixed by the commandment of God, they agreed among
themselves how many and what cities should be given out of each tribe; and then lots
were cast for them by Joshua, what and which cities should be appropriated to their
several divisions, as the Kohathites that sprang from Aaron, and the rest of them that
did not, and the Gershonites and Merarites, as follows.
COFFMA , "A SUMMARY OF THE CITIES ASSIG ED
"And the children of Israel gave unto the Levites out of their inheritance, according
to the commandment of Jehovah, these cities with their suburbs.
"And the lot came out for the families of the Kohathites: and the children of Aaron
the priest, who were of the Levites, and by lot out of the tribe of Judah, and out of
the tribe of the Simeonites, and out of the tribe of Benjamin, thirteen cities.
"And the rest of the children of Kohath had by lot out of the families of the tribe of
Ephraim, and out of the tribe of Dan, and out of the half-tribe of Manasseh, ten

31. cities.
"And the children of Gershon had by lot out of the families of the tribe of Issachar,
and out of the tribe of Asher, and out of the tribe of aphtali, and out of the tribe of
Manasseh in Bashan, thirteen cities.
"The children of Merari according to their families had out of the tribe of Reuben,
and out of the tribe of Gad, and out of the tribe of Zebulun, twelve cities.
"And the Children of Israel gave by lot unto the Levites these cities with their
suburbs, as Jehovah commanded by Moses."
"Thirteen cities ..." (Joshua 21:4) The simple fact that the children of Aaron at that
time could have numbered only a few families shows this assignment of `thirteen
cities' to them to be purely imaginary."[6] Again, this is due to a failure of the critic
to read the Bible. "It appears (1 Chronicles 24) that the two surviving sons of
Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar, had twenty-four sons!"[7] The same author declared
that, "Their number by this time might well have been several thousand."[8]
Besides that, as Plummer noted: (1) the cities, at first, were probably not inhabited
exclusively by priests; (2) all of these cities had not yet been taken from the
Canaanites; and (3) the cities themselves, in some cases, were very small.[9]
The Aaronic priests are all located within the area of Judah and Benjamin. The
working of providence is seen in this, because all of the priests drew cities in that
area which, in time, would become the center of Israel's worship in Jerusalem. Cook
thought this was because God "chose Jerusalem beforetime as the site of His
Temple."[10] We partially disagree with this, because it appears from 2 Samuel 7
that a Temple was never in God's purpose at all. God no doubt intended that the
Tabernacle should continue to be the location of God's altar after the entry into
Canaan. The Temple was David's idea, and, although God accommodated to it, we
believe the purpose of the providential placement of these priests in the Jerusalem
area was to have them near the Tabernacle, not the Temple.
BE SO , "Joshua 21:3. The children of Israel gave — Probably they gave the
Levites promiscuously such cities as God commanded, and the lot appropriated
them to their several houses or families. Out of their inheritance — That is, out of
their several possessions, that the burden might be equally divided; and that the
Levites, being dispersed among the several tribes, according to Jacob’s prediction,
(Genesis 49:7,) might more easily and effectually teach the Israelites God’s law and
judgments, which they were engaged to do, Deuteronomy 33:10; and that the people
might upon all occasions resort to them, and inquire the meaning of the law at their
mouths. And suburbs — ot only the use, but the absolute dominion of them, as is
manifest both from Joshua 21:11-12, where a distinction is made between the city
and suburbs of Hebron, and the fields and villages thereof; (the former being given
to the Levites, the latter to Caleb;) and from the return of these cities in the jubilee
unto the Levites as to their proper owners, Leviticus 25:33-34.