The Levites, the land and the LORD.

I'm preaching four different sermons in the next fortnight. The mix is bizarre considering our regular diet of exegesis; two overviews, one topical and one exegetical. First up on the list is Joshua as part of a series on biblical theology.

Joshua as you may be aware is all about the conquest of the land; the destruction and takeover of Canaan (Palestine). The number twelve is an important one in the Bible and it features quite prominently in Joshua as the twelve tribes of Israel each take their portion of the promised land. Yet within the allotment of the land to each of the twelve tribes, there's a little phrase that's repeated a few times which has got me a thinkin'. What's the significance of the Levites not getting land?

Joshua 13:14 says;

To the tribe of Levi alone Moses gave no inheritance. The offerings by fire to the LORD God of Israel are their inheritance, as he said to him.

Or again in 18:7;

The Levites have no portion among you, for the priesthood of the LORD is their heritage.

That phrase in Joshua 13:14 of "as he said to him" is a reference to Numbers 18:20ff;

And the LORD said to Aaron, "You shall have no inheritance in their land, neither shall you have any portion among them. I am your portion and your inheritance among the people of Israel."

In my mind, this concept of the people dedicated to the work of the LORD having God himself as their inheritance is a greater thing than simply getting land. I know that the land was more than the physical component: it was the place of rest from God's enemies, the place where Israel were to be in relationship with God through the humble obedience to his word. But I do wonder if the inheritance of the Levites points to this higher purpose of the conquest. That is, of greater supremacy to the physical land is the partaking of God himself.

The end point of this logic is that we as Christians today share in the inheritance not of the physical land of Canaan, but rather the greater inheritance of the Levites by having God himself. Qualification: this is not to disparage the land and all it signifies, but that the physical land itself also points to this greater purpose.

You dig?

But is this logic Biblical? I don't know my Bible well enough to answer that question (or the time before I preach) but is this logic consistent with the New Testament? I don't know if it's implied in the priesthood of all believers, I don't know if it's there in Stephen's speech in Acts about the relative insignificance of the temple, I don't know if it's part of our understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing regeneration and unification with Jesus. I just don't know.

But do you? Help requested.