Joshua 20 – Cities of Refuge

“… a man goes into the forest with his friend to cut wood, and his hand swings the axe to cut down the tree, and the iron head slips off the handle and strikes his friend so that he dies …”   Deuteronomy 19:5

    “Imagine yourself as the Israelite whose axhead had escaped its handle in mid-swing and killed his friend. Instantly, you have become a killer – your hands tainted with blood, your soul black with guilt, your tidy life suddenly in tatters. The terrible damage has been done, and you face its terrible consequences. You stare at your bleeding, lifeless neighbor, and swirling panic yanks you back and forth. Your own grief pushes you toward him as if a simple hug will bring him back to life, but simultaneously a terrible dread pushes you to make a quick getaway. Instead, you calmly lift your friend over your shoulders and slowly walk toward town.

    

 As you walk, you accept that there is no use in explaining, “It was an accident! I’m so sorry! I checked the tightness of the axhead but it just flew off as I chopped.” You imagine how the news will devastate the dead man’s family. You picture yourself facing his widow and children, your tearful apology and plea for forgiveness drowned out by the surging waves of their grief. You picture a shrouded body clutched by a wailing women whose sorrow drives and erratic rocking motion. You imagine the mystical sense of loss – the ugly tear in the family psyche- and the quiet outrage and urge for justice building among the man’s male relatives. You can expect revenge – family duty demands it. You curse God for letting it happen, but no reply comes. Inside boils a sinister stew of conflicting emotions – shame, guilt, self-doubt, dread, and above all, a desire to flee.”¹

     

At this point, the scriptures give specific directions for this unhappy fellow. After informing the family of the death of his companion, and asking forgiveness, he was to run with all haste to the nearest city of refuge. He was to stand at the gate of the city and make his appeal to the elders of that city. If he failed to establish his innocence, he received no protection and in time would face the ‘avenger of blood.’ If he made a case for his innocence, he would be protected from the ‘avenger’ and would be provided with a place to live and some sort of work. On the side of penalty, he would no longer live in his ancestral home, he would no longer cultivate his own fields, he would probably no longer practice his trade (the skill that he learned from his father), and he would have lost his family and closest friends. And he would have to accept all this quietly with the assurance that, without this mercy, the seriousness of the crime surely required his own death.

     

Chapter 20 of Joshua mentions the final allotting of these ‘Cities of Refuge’ and this is related to the giving of cites for the public good. Six cities were to be set aside for this purpose—three on one side of the Jordan River and three on the other side. Moses previously set aside three cities on the east side of the River - Bezer, Ramoth Gilead, and Golan (Deuteronomy 4:41-43).  In this chapter we see that Israel completes the rest of that task. On the east side of the Jordan they set aside the cities Kedesh in Galilee, Shechem, and Kiriath-arba (otherwise known as Hebron) as cities of refuge. These cities were strategically placed so that fugitives could travel to a place of refuge in a timely manner.

     

We see how they might serve justice for the individual but how do these Cities of Refuge serve the public good? Clearly, from Genesis 9:6 we know that killing another man was a serious matter that required judgment. Joshua 20 and Numbers 35 lay the ground work for the legal notion of accidental death, or what we call today, third-degree murder. First degree murder is killing someone intentionally. Second degree murder is the killing of a person unintentionally without premeditation but with malice. An example of second degree murder would be someone dying because of perhaps an argument resulting in the striking by another person with the intent to harm but not to kill (examples found in Numbers 35:16-21). The cities of refuge were not intended to protect those who had committed first or second degree murder (Deuteronomy 4:41-42). Third degree murder is due to an accident or a death resulting from perhaps negligence by another (see the examples given in Deuteronomy 19:4-13 & Numbers 35:22-24).

    

 Cities of refuge allow a person involved in murder (the Bible calls them, manslayers) to flee to a safe city to await proper legal proceedings (Numbers 35:12). The good from this is that the family of the victim is prevented from wrongfully taking revenge before all the evidence is obtained and a trial is held (Numbers 35:12). Traditionally, this is called ‘blood revenge’ where the relatives of the deceased felt honor-bound to avenge their kin - the Bible condemns vigilante behavior (Leviticus 19:18). If there were no cities of refuge then it would be possible that the ‘avenger’, that is the victim’s friends and relatives, might be guilty of murder themselves.          

    

 The Bible calls manslaying murder, the command to Noah was, “the one who sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed” (Genesis 9:6); but the Bible provides the possibility that the killing was accidental. The taking of a human life always requires a penalty, but not all murder requires capital punishment. In the case of accidental murder (third degree) the penalty specified is confinement to a city of refuge. If the city fathers judged his or her case as accidental death, they were to sentence the accidental murderer to live in the city of refuge until the current high priest would die. If the case was judged as guilty of first or second degree murder, the guilty would be excluded from the city of refuge and turned over to the avenger. If the person’s case was judged as accidental, cities of refuge would be both a blessing and a punishment. That person’s life would be spared and at the same time his or her life would be indefinitely put on hold in what we might today call, ’house arrest.’ Depending on how long the high priest lived a person might live the rest of his life confined to that one city. He might never go home but live the remainder of his life in a city far from family and friends - but he would live! The Jews had a custom that if the ‘accidental murderer’ died before the high priest died, they would return his bones to his home.² This merciful arrangement would hopefully comfort the victim’s family but also prevent an endless cycle of revenge such as was suggested in the case of Lamech (Genesis 4:23-24) who said, “...For I have killed a man for wounding me; and a boy for striking me; if Cain is avenged sevenfold, Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”

    

 Furthermore, I think these cities of refuge were intended to be places where ‘accidental’ murderers might be surrounded with legal protection and sympathetic generosity. Legal in the sense that though he was guilty of causing the death of another, he would be granted mercy. This city would be sympathetic because this was a community which was set up for the specific purpose of providing a safe place of protective ‘sanctuary’ for the accidental murderer. In addition, I would expect the citizens of this city would be thoughtful about the possibility that, but for the grace of God, they might have committed a similar crime.

    

 Since all Scripture was written for our instruction, it seems obvious that the Lord also desires His church to be a place of mercy and generosity. Mercy, demonstrated by the Lord Jesus Christ’s coming to satisfy the demands of justice for His people. Though we were guilty of the capital crime of cosmic treason liable to execution, we flee to Christ for protection. Mercy, in that Christ’s Church is to provide a city of refuge for those who are fleeing from the wrath to come. The church is to provide refugees (that is us!) with a community to live free and to provide the spiritual food necessary to flourish. Generosity, in that Christ Jesus not only satisfied the demands of the Law but also adopted us into his family. Sympathetic generosity should be demonstrated in the Lord’s Church by freely preaching the gospel and giving a hearty welcome to all who may come! Believers join together in little cites of refuge each Lord’s Day, entering into a city where Christ has provided both legal justification and protection! A place of sanctuary where fellow believers have a sympathetic understanding that we are all sinners saved by the grace of a merciful Lord and Master. Though our sins may differ, we understand both the conviction of sin and the blessing of forgiveness in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

                              

     

¹ Hubbard, Robert. The NIV Application Commentary – Joshua. Zondervan Grand Rapids, MI 2009

² I used the Kindle book commentary recommended by bro Steve Martin for this information about this Jewish custom of returning the bones to home. Here is brother Steve’s note: the Kindle editions of the NIV Application Commentary set are on sale for just $4.99 each. This is considered a very good popular-level series. I've asterisked volumes especially recommended by the various experts I rely on to help me sort through commentaries:  Genesis*; Leviticus, Numbers; Deuteronomy*;Joshua; Judges and Ruth*; 1 & 2 Kings; 1 & 2 Chronicles*; Esther*; Job; Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs*; Isaiah; Jeremiah, Lamentations; Ezekiel*; Daniel*; Joel, Obadiah, Malachi; Hosea, Amos, Micah; Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah; Haggai, Zechariah; Matthew; Mark*; Luke*; John; Acts*; Romans*; 1Corinthians*;Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians*; Colossians & Philemon*; 1 & 2 Thessalonians; 1& 2 Timothy & Titus*; Hebrews*; James; 1 Peter*; 2 Peter & Jude*; 1, 2, & 3 John*;Revelation*.

Joshua 19 – the Humble Servant

There are several places where Joshua is seen as a type of Christ and here, at the end of chapter 19, we see it again. The Promised Land has been successfully invaded, conquered, subdued, occupied, and now has been divided between the tribes of Israel. Every tribe is satisfied that they received the inheritance that was due them. Then they gave an inheritance to Joshua. We know that Caleb asked for his inheritance earlier (Chapter 14) and it was granted because of his great faithfulness in following the Lord. Caleb’s request included this reminder, “You know the word which the LORD spoke to Moses the man of God concerning you and me in Kadesh-barnea.” It is clear that at that early date the LORD’s promise included an inheritance for Caleb and Joshua.

Yet we do not see Joshua’s inheritance until the end of Chapter 19, after every other tribe had received their allotted lands. I found that fact a little curious considering Joshua was without doubt the oldest and greatest man of all Israel who, one would think, ought to have been at the front of the line choosing the best lands for himself and his family. Verse 49 says, “the sons of Israel gave an inheritance in their midst to Joshua the son of Nun.” Apparently, he not only waited until all his brothers had been given their lands, but he also waited for the other tribes to give him permission to settle, which implies great humility on the part of Joshua. On top of that, the land that they gave him required building a city. Remember that one of the blessings of the occupation was that Israel would displace (in a divine judgment– see Genesis 15:16) the Canaanites and occupy their cities and buildings. Verse 50 says, “So he (Joshua) built the city and settled in it” and this implies that there was work to be done before his inheritance was fit to be occupied.

There are several lessons here to be observed. First, I think we see an attitude of looking after the interests of others before himself. Philippians 2:3-4 says, “Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.” In the next several verses, the Apostle Paul says that this attitude was also in Christ Jesus – and so I see a type of Christ in Joshua’s attitude toward his brothers. Even if that is stretching the analogy, we certainly see Joshua living out the law of love re-stated in this New Testament command.

Secondly, I think we can see a peculiar attitude of leadership in Joshua which reflects directly on Jesus’ statement to his disciples some 1400 years later. Luke retells Jesus teaching his disciples that, “… the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant” (Luke 22:26). Of course, that does not mean that those in authority should not speak with authority, but rather that they should consider the interests of others before their own interests. Leaders, whether they lead nations or small families, should have an eye toward serving those whom they lead. And that is certainly what Joshua and Jesus demonstrated in their lives.

A third lesson: Israel moved into homes and cities that were built by the previous occupants, without the need for construction. We know that the Canaanites lived in the land for at least 400 years and can surmise that many of the homes and farms that they built were extensive, beautiful, and were furnished with the best of all possible amenities. In fact, the writer of Deuteronomy states that their inheritance included houses that were filled with, ‘all good things’ and the Promised Land had, ’ … hewn cisterns which you did not dig, vineyards and olive trees which you did not plant …’ (Deuteronomy 6:11). A Promised Land with ‘great and splendid cities which you did not build’ (Deuteronomy 6:10) was Israel’s new home by the grace of God.

In contrast, Joshua, the old battle weary man of God, inherited a land that required the building of a city. Joshua and his family probably needed to build farms and homes in haste - they were anxious to move out of tents, of course, but there was also the need to quickly build a defensible city for protection against wild animals and marauding Canaanite bandits which may have survived the occupation. 

So now, at the very end, Joshua’s family not only were granted a land without homes and cities, but also had to build them in haste. Remember that they had 40 plus years of wilderness experience - they may have been expert campers but during this time the fathers probably had little opportunity to apprentice their sons in the skills necessary for construction – a travelling tent city required few carpenters, plumbers, or roofers – they were skilled brick makers in Egypt, but by the time they got to the Promised Land skilled brick masons were few! Besides that, I expect they had an overriding interest in defense therefore whatever homes they build were of the most rudimentary type. No glorious mansions but rather a collection of shacks which kept the occupants warm and dry but without luxury. Many years may have passed before they were able to re-build substantial dwellings.

Joshua was clearly aware of all these apparent inequities yet he appeared to be a model of contentment. He judged those circumstance that the Lord had placed him and his family as a blessing. He forsook the rest that was due him in order to allow his people to rest. Apparently he was an example to the rest of Israel in his contentment and also in his energetic labors to fulfill God’s command to occupy the land. He was not one to grasp at the best of things nor at the glory that should have been his as the leader of the nation of Israel. But just so, Christ Jesus was also content to leave heaven and come to earth as a humble man; who lived in poverty; who gave of himself; who endured the shame (Hebrews 12:2); who built for his people a better home in heaven (1 Peter 1:4). As Matthew Henry observed in his commentary of this same passage, “Our Lord Jesus thus came and dwelt among us, not in pomp but in poverty, providing rest for us, yet himself not having where to lay his head. Even Christ pleased not himself.” Our Lord had no rest until he provided eternal rest for his people.

Believers ought to imitate the graces of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:21-25). We ought to be content and thankful with what the Lord has given us: our country, our homes, our families, our church. No doubt, we should work hard to make the best of what the Lord has given us but even so, remembering that the Lord has given us all good things for his glory and our good. In our interaction with our neighbors we should look after the interests of others, and with humility regarding others as more important than ourselves (Philippians 2:1-11).

Joshua 18 - Worship & Rejoice!

“Then the whole congregation of the sons of Israel assembled themselves at Shiloh, and
set up the tent of meeting there; and the land was subdued before them.” verse 1

In the first verse of this chapter we start to see the change to a fixed place of worship. Previously, the sons of Israel worshipped wherever their wanderings had taken them. During the wilderness journey we know that a tent was set up where Moses would meet with the Lord and the people would worship (Exodus 33:7- 10). It is interesting that this ‘tent of meeting’ is described as simply at tent at first, then later the Lord gave very specific instructions on its construction. I think this is another example of progressive revelation as this ’tent’ goes from a simple dwelling, and later, by divine instruction, becomes an elaborate symbol of both mercy and judgment. By the nature of the wilderness journey the tent of meeting was portable - it needed to move from place to place (Exodus 40:36-38) whenever the ‘cloud’ was taken up.

Here in Joshua chapter 18 we see the first long term location for the tent of meeting at Shiloh, which is about thirty miles north of Jerusalem. From the biblical record we know that this remained the primary center of worship until the time of the Kings (Judges 18:31; 1 Samuel 1:3). The prophet Jeremiah tells us many years later that the Lord chose Shiloh – “... My place which was in Shiloh, where I made My name dwell at the first …” (Jeremiah 7:12). Neither Joshua nor the people chose the place to worship – the Lord was very specific about how and where He was to be worshipped. Prior to entering the Promise Land, in a sermon about proper worship, Moses taught the people that the Lord retained the right to tell the sons of Israel where they ought to worship (Deuteronomy 12:1-15). Along with specific rules for worship, Moses’ sermon emphasized the concept of the Lord’s sovereign right to choose a place for his proper worship. Also, that the Nation must carefully avoid any association with the pagan worship practices of the Canaanites.

As we have said before, these things were written for our instruction (1 Corinthians 10:11). For the New Testament believer, things have changed – “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.” The ceremonial law of Moses was done away with, but some things have not changed! Yes, the Lord has not commanded us to worship at a specific location, nor are we commanded to worship in a particular type of building. But we believe that the Lord has not lost interest in how we worship. The inspired writer of the book of Hebrews makes it clear that the ceremonial law is abolished; nevertheless, if these things were written for our instruction, we may properly look deeper into the meaning of all the specific rules and regulations written for worship in the Old Testament nation of Israel! It should be clear to us today that Yahweh is highly interested in believers worshipping Him according to His commands and not according to our fallible desires.

In brief, that is the reason that our worship appears so plain and unadorned compared
with many other churches in America. We have a concern to worship God only in the ways
that He has specifically commanded. There is an equal concern, on our part, to avoid using elements
of a pagan culture in our worship.

We believe that God has not left us in the dark about how He wants us to worship Him. The
Bible teaches us that God has specified the how and when of worship - we are not free to make
up our own rules! The Bible tells us that God honoring worship consists of

• Prayer;
• Reading of the Word;
• Singing songs of praise;
• Preaching;
• Celebrating the Lord’s Supper;
• Celebrating Baptism.

But that does not mean that our worship should be boring, formalistic, or without great joy.
Moses sermon (Deuteronomy 12:1-15) was about regulations and commands about proper
worship – but also contained an equal emphasis on rejoicing! Deuteronomy 12:7 and verse 18,
the Lord says that we should “rejoice” in whatever circumstance the LORD your God has
blessed you. The New Testament believer may (and ought!) to worship with joy as we are reminded
that whatever lawful occupation or religious duty we have been called to do is blessed
by the Lord. Deuteronomy 12:10 says that the Lord will give us “rest from all your enemies
around you so that you live in security…” We may properly take this to be the encouragement
we get from Lord’s Day rest and from corporate worship – rest from a hostile culture and the
security of the gospel. Deuteronomy 12:12 reminds us that we are to rejoice with your “sons
and daughters” - as a family- a family that we hope and pray includes our blood relatives, but
also a family that includes spiritual brothers and sisters who are related by the blood of Christ
Jesus. “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is
faithful; and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking
our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the
more as you see the day drawing near” (Hebrews 10:23-25).

Slaves? - Joshua 17

So picture this, as far back as these particular sons of Israel can remember, they have been wandering in the wilderness, foraging here and there, never really settling down. For the last few years they have fought against the native Canaanites, moving from place to place throughout the land of Canaan. They had not plowed nor planted but they have eaten the grain remaining in the fields and food from the storehouses of their defeated enemies. As Joshua started to allocate land to each tribe it started to dawn on them that life was about to change. They had dreamed of a land of their own, but they may not have thought through the process of settling down to the routine rhythms of domestic life. Yes, there were still enemies that needed to be subdued, but the dream was in the process of becoming reality.

We see that Joshua reports (chapter 17, verse 12-13) the sons of Manasseh, ‘could not take possession of these cities’ because the Canaanites ‘persisted’ in staying in the land. Remember that the initial battles were not against Canaanite peasants but against their armies and against powerful city leaders and kings. Those battles were mostly won and the occupied land was now possessed by the Tribes of Abraham. Those remaining Canaanites were tradesmen, merchants, the poor, and perhaps a few subsistence farmers who were barely making a living on small parcels of land. So, if you were one of these remaining Canaanites, why would you leave unless you were forced to leave? Historically, remaining populations were grafted into conquering nations and simply remained wherever they were before the political climate was altered. It is reasonable to assume that their expectation was that they would now simply change allegiance from their Canaanite masters to their Israelite masters.

Remember that there were two purposes for the occupation of Canaan: first was that the Lord had promised this land to Abraham and his descendants, secondly, this was a judgment upon the wicked people of Canaan. This was not an arbitrary command by Yahweh. Rather this was His specifically defined directive to occupy and purify this promised land. Granted, there was grace to be found for all who would acknowledge Yahweh. We know at least one example of grace, Rahab and her family, who were spared due to their faith in Yahweh. To those who would trust in the Lord there was salvation, but to all who refused there was to be judgment.

So, in verse 13 we read this, “Now when the people of Israel grew strong, they put the Canaanites to forced labor, but did not utterly drive them out.” Do we see a possible motive for their disobedience? I see a certain laziness involved since they did not obey the Lord’s command to ‘drive them out.’ Joshua then reports that they put them to forced labor (slavery). What a peculiar thing, that the sons of Israel, having been slaves for 400 years, might enslave others when they had the chance! 

I think the kinder thing to do would have been to ‘drive them out’ as the Lord had commanded, rather than to enslave them. Is telling them that they do not have a part in Yahweh’s kingdom and that they need to leave the land a better thing than to enslave them? I think so! Driving unbelievers out of the Promised land was saying to them that this land is now Yahweh’s possession intended for God’s people; all who remain here are expected to trust and worship Him alone; all who remain shall worship Him in the manner that He has prescribed; in the Old Testament covenant with Israel all God’s people were to bear the outward mark of the covenant (circumcision). They were proclaiming the gospel to the indigenous peoples.

The church of the New Testament is commanded to do something similar but in a spiritual sense. Believers possess a special place as God’s covenant people today. We are commanded to join together in churches where we worship and fellowship together. As far as possible we restrict church membership to believers only. Keeping unbelievers from church membership is the spiritual equivalent of the nation of Israel ‘driving’ people out of the land. They are not a part of the fellowship of the redeemed. We certainly want unbelievers to attend worship. Obviously, they need to hear the preaching of the Word and the gospel. Unbelievers also need to observe the godly lives of the redeemed. But those who do not trust the Lord Jesus Christ do not enjoy the privileges and promises granted to believers. If we were to allow unbelievers membership in the church body we would be giving them a false feeling of citizenship. Unbelievers are as we once were—alienated from God and subject to His wrath and we should do nothing to obscure that reality.

In similar manner, church discipline is the biblical way that we keep the church pure. What is the outward mark that has replaced the Jewish circumcision? Circumcision of the heart! - the Lord grants us a new heart and a sincere desire to live in obedience to Christ. Yes, we exhort and admonish the unruly member but eventually the church must deal with a member who demonstrates a consistent disregard for obedience to Christ. This is not cruel, but rather another means to hopefully awaken unbelievers to their alienation from the righteous Judge. We can be lazy like the sons of Manasseh, and oppress the unruly brother by pushing them to bondage under the Law even though they may be unconverted and therefore have no interest in righteousness. But that is cruelty. We are not called to berate the drunkard, the thief, or the sexually immoral person into moral slavery. The Law of freedom accompanied by the gospel of freedom is what is required.

But that is the sad truth of our fallen human nature, that often those who were oppressed, when they gain power, become the oppressors. That is another reason believers need the gospel - as a balance to a self-righteous attitude that puts us before others. We have been given much, and what we have received we obtained by grace, yet we tend to look down on others who may live in a world with less light.

What I am saying it that we live in a world of unbelievers and we have been commanded to spread the gospel to all nations, including our neighbors. Should we obey the directives of our Lord or shall we enslave them to rules and expectations of righteous living?

Real Estate - Joshua 15

In 2 Corinthian 5, the Apostle Paul describes our inheritance as a "heavenly dwelling."  Modern Christianity has sometimes taken this as some sort of disembodied "spiritual" life. As I read Joshua chapter 15 I am struck by the focus on land, or property. I think we have another example of how the Old Testament can inform our New Testament understanding. This whole chapter reminds us that the Lord deals in physical things that can be seen and handled with our hands. This chapter describes real estate, with an emphasis on a specific land where God’s people live, work, and worship. The Bible seldom communicates in abstractions or theories but often in visible and tangible things.

We should not be surprised since the Lord created a whole physical universe that can be seen and touched. And the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, also came as a man who was seen and touched (John 1:14; 1 John 1:1). When we get to heaven and join that great heavenly congregation, we will not be floating around on some cloud as a vapor or mist. I believe we shall be walking around with a resurrection body in a new heaven and a new earth (Isaiah 65-66; Revelation 21-22).

I quote Dale Ralph Davis here, 

“So perhaps we can say that Israel’s concrete and tangible inheritance in Canaan is a foreshadowing of our own. Our full possession is in new heavens and a new earth, not in some earth-less, fleshless, void. Our full expectation ought not to be in dying and going to heaven, as the usual cliché has it. The New Testament language is that believers, when they die, are “with the Lord” (1 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23; Luke 23:43). But the New Testament always lifts our eyes and fixes our minds upon the fullness of our hope, the redemption of our bodies on resurrection day at the return of our Lord (Rom. 8:23; Phil. 3:20-21; 1 Thess. 4:16-17; 1 Cor. 15).”

Davis, Dale Ralph. No Falling Words. Baker Book House 1988

Manasseh & Ephraim - Joshua 16

Remember that over four hundred years earlier, Joseph, the son of Jacob, was sold into slavery and delivered into the royal household of Egypt, rising to become Pharaoh’s right hand man. The Lord purposed Joseph’s rise in order to accomplish His promise to Abraham and his descendants. Knowing that in all likelihood there were no kinsman relatives to whom Joseph might marry, his children were most likely half Egyptian.

After reconciliation between Joseph and his brothers was accomplished, father Jacob was reunited with Joseph and his starving family moved to Egypt. The word of the Lord came to Jacob indicating that the sons of Joseph, half-breed Manasseh and Ephraim, were to be adopted into the house of Israel (Genesis 48:3-6) with all the same Promise Land inheritance of  full-blooded members of Abraham’s family. In Genesis 47 we see that when it came time for the patriarchal blessing, Joseph assumed that the older child (Manasseh) would gain his rightful blessing. Matthew Henry observes that Jacob, “in blessing (the sons of Joseph), he crossed hands. Joseph placed them so as that Jacob’s right hand should be put on the head of Manasseh the elder, v. 12, 13. But Jacob would put it on the head of Ephraim the younger, v. 14. This displeased Joseph, who was willing to support the reputation of his first-born, and would therefore have removed his father’s hands, v. 17, 18. But Jacob gave him to understand that he (knew) what he did, and that he did it not by mistake, nor in a humour, nor from a partial affection to one more than the other, but from a spirit of prophecy, and in compliance with the divine counsels. Manasseh should be great, but truly Ephraim should be greater.”

This was Jacob’s decision in spite of Joseph’s direction. Joseph, like so many others, expected God to work in a certain way, but found that Yahweh is often pleased to work differently and sometimes even unconventionally.

The writer of the book of Joshua knows the proper birth order (Joshua 16:4) but in Joshua 16:5-10 and Joshua 17:1-13 we see the order of the blessing retained – Ephraim first and Manasseh second. Chapter 16 records Ephraim’s land allotment first, then the land allotment given to Manasseh.

The Bible is full of these sorts of reversals. Where our expectations and what we think of as right and proper are surprisingly turned by the Lord God into something unexpected. Just when we think that we can predict how God will act, He surprises us! And we would not have it any other way – indeed, without this hope who would hope to be saved? We are the most unlikely persons to earn God’s favor! We are not the best examples of human virtue, nor do we hold much political power. We are not the most influential persons, nor are we the most eloquent (1 Cor. 1:26-29). I like the way that Dale Ralph Davis puts it, “How often the divine way reverses the conventions of men, overthrows the human canon of what ought to be. That’s why the God of the Bible is so stimulating and refreshing. He is never the prisoner of what fallen man regards as normal. Again and again he turns human standards on their heads, causing us to wonder and cheer. Without this God who ignores our proprieties, most of us would have no hope.”

Indeed, though we may be members of a collection of the ‘unlikely to be saved’, faith recognizes that God’s ways are not man’s ways. The grace of God is not a thing to be bought, earned, or inherited; it is not some matter of ethnicity, or national affiliation; but is wonderfully granted according to the riches of our God and the Author of our salvation. Praise be to the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

I have a friend who is fond of saying that not so long ago, his ancestors ran around in the woods naked, painting their faces and worshiping trees and rocks. He remarks that but for the grace of God, through the means of the preaching of the gospel, and the work of the Holy Spirit, he would still be worshipping trees and rocks. This national holiday that we call Thanksgiving ought to be a special time for believers to remember that we were utterly lost and without hope, and as John Newton put it, “…but now am found ...”.