Joshua 20:1

Ch. Jos_20:1-6. The Divine Command respecting the Cities of Refuge

1. The Lord also spake unto Joshua] As soon as the Tribes had received the portion of their inheritance, the Lord directed that Joshua should carry out the injunctions which Moses had left respecting the Cities of Refuge for the accidental homicide.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jos 20:1 The LORD also spake unto Joshua, saying,

Ver. 1. The Lord also spake unto Joshua.] Whether in a sensible apparition, or prophetic revelation, or otherwise: for "at sundry times and in divers manner God spake to those ancients." {Heb 1:1}

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jos_20:1-9

Cities of refuge

The cities of refuge

1.

The first thought that naturally occurs to us when we read of these cities concerns the sanctity of human life; or, if we take the material symbol, the preciousness of human blood. God wished to impress on His people that to put an end to a mans life under any circumstances was a serious thing. Man was something higher than the beasts that perish. It is not a very pleasing feature of the Hebrew economy that this regard to the sanctity of human life was limited to members of the Hebrew nation. All outside the Hebrew circle were treated as little better than the beasts that perish. For Canaanites there was nothing but indiscriminate slaughter. Even in the We have here a point in which even the Hebrew race were still far behind times of King David we find a barbarity in the treatment of enemies that seems to shut out all the sense of brotherhood, and to smother all claim to compassion. They had not come under the influence of that blessed Teacher who taught us to love our enemies.

2. Even as apportioned to the Hebrew people, there was still an uncivilised element in the arrangements connected with these cities of refuge. This lay in the practice of making the go-el, or nearest of kin, the avenger of blood. Had the law been perfect, it would have simply handed over the killer to the magistrate, whose duty would have been calmly to investigate the case, and either punish or acquit, according as he should find that the man had committed a crime or had caused a misfortune. It was characteristic of the Hebrew legislation that it adapted itself to the condition of things which it found, and not to an ideal perfection which the people were not capable of at once realising. In the office of the go-el there was much that was of wholesome tendency. The feeling was deeply rooted in the Hebrew mind that the nearest of kin was the guardian of his brothers life, and for this reason he was bound to avenge his death; and instead of crossing this feeling, or seeking wholly to uproot it, the object of Moses was to place it under salutary checks, which should prevent it from inflicting gross injustice where no crime had really been committed.

3. The course to be followed by the involuntary manslayer was very minutely prescribed. He was to hurry with all speed to the nearest city of refuge, and stand at the entering of the gate till the elders assembled, and then to declare his cause in their ears. If he failed to establish his innocence, he got no protection; but if he made out his case he was free from the avenger of blood, so long as he remained within the city or its precincts. If, however, he wandered out, he was at the mercy of the avenger. Further, he was to remain in the city till the death of the high priest, it being probable that by that time all keen feeling in reference to this deed would have subsided, and no one would then think that justice had been defrauded when a man with blood on his hands was allowed to go at large.

4. As it was, the involuntary manslayer had thus to undergo a considerable penalty. Having to reside in the city of refuge, he could no longer cultivate his farm or follow his ordinary avocations; he must have found the means of living in some new employment as best he could. His friendships, his whole associations in life, were changed; perhaps he was even separated from his family. To us all this appears a harder line than justice would have prescribed. But, on the one hand, it was a necessary testimony to the strong, though somewhat unreasonable, feeling respecting the awfulness, through whatever cause, of shedding innocent blood. Then, on the other hand, the fact that the involuntary destruction of life was sure, even at the best, to be followed by such consequences, was fitted to make men very careful. In turning an incident like this to account, as bearing on our modern life, we are led to think how much harm we are liable to do to others without intending harm, and how deeply we ought to be affected by this consideration when we discover what we have really done. And where is the man--parent, teacher, pastor, or friend--that does not become conscious, at some time or other, of having influenced for harm those committed to his care? We taught them, perhaps, to despise some good man whose true worth we have afterwards been led to see. We repressed their zeal when we thought it misdirected, with a force which chilled their enthusiasm and carnalised their hearts. We failed to stimulate them to decision for Christ, and allowed the golden opportunity to pass which might have settled their relation to God all the rest of their life. The great realities of the spiritual life were not brought home to them with the earnestness, the fidelity, the affection that was fitting. Who can understand his errors? Who among us but, as he turns some new corner in the path of life, as he reaches some new view-point, as he sees a new flash from heaven reflected on the past--who among us but feels profoundly that all his life has been marred by unsuspected flaws, and almost wishes that he had never been born? Is there no city of refuge for us to fly to, and to escape the condemnation of our hearts? It is here that the blessed Lord presents Himself to us in a most blessed light. Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. And let us learn a lesson of charity. Let us learn to be very considerate of mischief done by others either unintentionally or in ignorance. What more inexcusable than the excitement of parents over their children or of masters over their servants when, most undesignedly and not through sheer carelessness, an article of some value is broken or damaged? Let them have their city of refuge for undesigned offences, and never again pursue them or fall on them in the excited spirit of the avenger of blood! So also with regard to opinions. Many who differ from us in religious opinion differ through ignorance. They have inherited their opinions from their parents or their other ancestors. If you are not called to provide for them a city of refuge, cover them at least with the mantle of charity. Believe that their intentions are better than their acts. (W. G. Blaikie, D. D.)

The cities of refuge

I. The right to life. Alone among the nations stood Israel in the value set upon human life. Its sacred book enjoined its worth. Philosophically, such a sacred value upon life would be expected of the people of God. The value of life increases in ratio with the belief in God and immortality. Deny immortality and you have prepared the ground for suicide. They who say, Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die, may voluntarily end the life before to-morrow comes. Greece with all her learning was far behind. Aristotle and Plato both advised putting to death the young and sickly among children. Plutarch records having seen many youths whipped to death at the foot of the altar of Diana. Seneca advised the drowning of disabled children--a course that Cicero commended. Heathenism gives but a dark history. It is one of the last lessons learned that each human life is its own master. No one can take it away except for a transcendent reason.

II. The surrender of life to what is greater. It is a larger condition to be good than to live wrongly. Better surrender life than do wrong. On the other hand, better be murdered than be a murderer. Better suffer wrong than do wrong. Whether in this late century the removal of capital punishment would increase crime we cannot verify; but the old law of the avenger is not yet stricken from the statutes of civilisation. No refuge in Gods sight for the hating heart. No palliation of deliberate human deeds of wickedness. No city of refuge for a murderer.

III. The motive marks the character. It is not the mere deed that reveals the man. Nor is it the catastrophe that marks the deed. Every ones motive is greater than all he does. The man who hates his brother is a murderer as truly as he who kills. Not always what one does, but what he would do, is the standard of his character. Take away every outside restraint; leave one alone with himself; and his unhindered wish and motive mark just what he is. The intentional taking away of life makes murder; the unintentional relieves from all crime. Crime, therefore, does not find its way from the hand, but from the heart. Thus does God look on the heart.

IV. The divine forbearance with human blunderings. This is what the city of refuge expressly declares. The stain of the deed of shedding blood rests in the fact that the life was made in the Divine likeness. The greatness of the life was evident in its kinship with God. Death by accident does not take away the terrible sorrow that settles like a pall. The careless taker away of life may go insane in his despair; but the awful agony of the blunderer does not make the loss any the less heavy. It will call out pity even for the careless one; but it will not counterbalance the loss.

V. The conditions of refuge. Each unfortunate held the keeping of his life in his own hands. The provided city did not alone save the delinquent from the avenger. Mansions in it were provided for all who should enter by right. Handicraft was taught those who found shelter within its walls. Food and raiment were furnished by kind hands outside the gates in addition to what they themselves should gather or earn for themselves. They had much provided; but the conditions they must themselves fulfil. It was not enough to rest within sight of the city; they must enter in. They must not venture forth; only as they remained could they be safe. We have no cities of refuge now; but God is our refuge. He is the hope of the careless who turn to Him. The conditions we cannot disregard. He gives the opportunities, of which we must take advantage for ourselves. We cannot set aside His condition.

VI. The responsibility for life in the choices we make. In a certain sense the safety of each unfortunate rested solely upon himself. It was no time for theories; it was the time for action; and on that action depended his own life. He held his temporal safety in his own care and keeping. In thousands of ways we are thus making choices that will shape our life and conduct in all future time. We have the power to save ourselves or to destroy. Peter had the opportunity to save his Lord even when he denied Him. Judas could have shielded his Master instead of betraying Him. Each one of us can choose whom to serve. The choice of evil made Peter weep, and made Judas become a suicide. We cannot choose evil and live. If we choose God for our refuge, we shall not die. He is our city. It rests with us to choose what we shall be. (David O. Mears.)

Blood-guiltiness removed from the Lords host; or, the cities of refuge

I. A beneficent political institution. In ancient Greece and Rome there were asylums and shrines where the supposed sanctity of the place sheltered the blood-stained fugitive from righteous retribution; and it is probable that here, as in innumerable other instances, the pagan institution was but an imitation of the Divine. In our own country, too, there were, in former times, similar sanctuaries. But how different the copy from the pattern--the one institution how pernicious, the other how salutary! By the so-called sanctuaries all that was unsanctified was promoted, for here wilful murderers were received, who, after a short period, were permitted to go forth to repeat a like violence with a like impunity. Not thus was it with him who fled to the city of refuge. We have heard of Indian savages who, when one of their people is killed by a hostile tribe, will go out and kill the first member of that tribe whom they may meet. We have heard, too, of those who for years would cherish vindictiveness and deadly hate against some enemy. Quite opposite to any such spirit of retaliation is that which was to stimulate the Goel in his pursuit. The express command of God placed a sword in his hand which he dared not sheathe. As one entrusted with a prisoner of war, so was it, as it were, said to him, Thy life for his if thou let him go.

II. A type of Christ. Each person concerned, each regulation for the direction of the various parties, each circumstance of the case finds its counterpart in the gospel antitype.

1. To begin with the unfortunate homicide himself--he represents the sinner in his guilt and danger, under the wrath of God.

2. Does any one doubt the efficacy of Gods way of saving sinners? Would any one fain flee to other refuges? Ah, they are but refuges of lies.

3. Money could procure no remission; nor will riches avail in the day of the Lords wrath.

4. Mercy could not be shown unless the prescribed conditions were observed.

5. Up, then, and flee, thou yet unsaved one! Wait not vainly till others bear thee thither perforce. Complain not of thy God as an austere judge because He saith, The soul that sinneth, it shall die; but bless Him for His clemency in preparing thee a place of safety.

6. This terrible Goel--the avenger of blood--whose fatal purpose no reward, no argument, no entreaty can turn aside, is but an impersonation of the righteous anger of the Lord against the sinner.

7. That we may more fully perceive the appositeness of the illustration which the cities of refuge furnish of the person and work of the Redeemer, let us notice their position in the country--in the midst, not in the borders, or in the corners of the land (Deu_19:2).

8. The very names of the six cities are, to say the least, in keeping with the symbolism of the subject.

9. The cities of refuge were not open to native Israelites only, but the stranger and the sojourner--in fact, every one among them was accepted (Num_35:15). Thus none is accounted an alien who, owning himself a sinner, flies to Christ.

10. There is a beautiful lesson in the fact that not only the city itself, but the very suburbs, afforded safety.

11. The isolation, the restrictions, and the privations experienced by him who was confined within the city of refuge may be compared to the separation of the Christian from the world and the things of the world; but what, after all, are temporary trials, if the precious life be spared?

12. We have spoken of the danger of delay in seeking the refuge. Let us earnestly bear in mind the danger of the opposite kind, namely, of afterwards quitting the safe retreat.

13. At the death of the high priest the manslayer was set free.

14. Before the homicide could be received as a permanent inmate of the city of refuge, a trial was appointed. If he was acquitted, he was admitted there; but if condemned as a designing murderer, he was given up to the avenger for summary execution. This condemnation may be read in two ways.

It suggests--

1. A blessed contrast. We have been tried, and found guilty. Our sins are of crimson dye. Yet the door of mercy stands still open; nay, more, it is the full admission of our guilt, and not the profession of our innocence, that is the condition of our entrance thereat.

2. A solemn comparison. Though it be so, that for all sin there is a pardon, yet the Scripture speaks of a sin that is unto death. The case of a deliberate murderer, in contradistinction to an unwitting manslayer, illustrates that of one whose sins are not the sins of ignorance, but presumptuous sins, namely, who has deliberately and persistently sinned against light and knowledge. From this depth of wickedness, for which no city of refuge is provided, and for which there is no forgiveness, either in this world or the next, the Lord graciously preserve us! (G. W. Butler, M. A.)

The cities of refuge

I. The appointment and use of these cities. It is very often said by thoughtless and ignorant persons that the laws of the Old Testament were barbarous and cruel. To this two answers might be made: First, that they were a great advance upon any other legislation at the period when they were given, and were full of wise sanitary provisions, and of tender care for human life and welfare; secondly, that the objection urged does not lie against Moses, but against the human race at that stage of its history. We are apt to forget that the laws of Moses were adaptations to an existing and very low order of society, and were designed to be a great training-school, leading children up into manhood. The cities of refuge were a merciful provision in times of lawless vengeance, and the entire legislation in regard to them was founded on an existing and very imperfect condition of society, while it looked towards a perfect state, towards the heavenly Jerusalem.

II. The reasons for the appointment of these cities.

1. All men at that early day recognised the right to kill an assassin; all exercised the right, or refrained from doing so, at their will; but Jehovah gave a positive command to Israel, without alternative. It should be blood for blood; and it certainly rests with the opposers of capital punishment to-day to show when and how this original law was abrogated. How it should be carried out was a matter of secondary consequence; that it should be observed was the first thing. When the law was given, the blood-avenger did what we to-day remand to courts of law. It was a step, surely, beyond an utterly lawless vengeance to appoint one person to carry out the Divine will that life should be forfeited for life.

2. But while this was the general rule, it was not a merciless and blind one; for the law distinguished between voluntary and unintentional homicide. It judged an act by its motives, and thus lifted tile whole question of punishment out of the sphere of personal revenge and family spite. Here at the very threshold of civilisation how clearly man is treated as a free moral agent, responsible for his acts, and yet judged by his motives! The materialism of to-day, which endeavours to sweep away this primitive morality, has human nature against it.

3. Then, in a system intended to train a nation into habits of self restraint and righteousness, it was necessary very early to bring in the lessons of mercy. God had always declared Himself the real avenger of blood. I will require mans blood, He said, when He gave the law for the death of a murderer; vengeance is Mine: I will repay. The unintentional act was not to be treated like that of malice aforethought. The accidental homicide had certain rights; and yet the mercy offered him was conditional. It was only a chance. It was not left as a small thing for a human life to be taken, even unintentionally: hence the limitations placed about the right of asylum in the cities of refuge.

4. But this was not all: the law demanded an expiation for the wrong, even when it was done without intent. Still it was a wrong; blood had been shed, and the Divine government never grants forgiveness without atonement. God cannot be tender and forgiving without at the same time showing His holiness and just claims upon the guilty. This principle found expression in a singular way in the cities of refuge, in the provision that, whenever the high priest died, the prisoners of hope should go freely back to their homes. The priest was in some sort a sacrifice for the sins of the people, even in his natural death. Here we find what we might call a constructive expiation, Thus from age to age death was associated in the public mind with deliverance from punishment, the death of successive high priests setting forth the death of Christ on the Cross.

III. The cities of refuge are a type of christ. Their very names have a typical meaning--Kedesh, holy; Shechem, shoulder; Hebron, fellowship; Bezer, refuge; Ramoth, high; and Golan, joy. (Sermons by the Monday Club.)

Christ our city of refuge

I. There is an analogy between our situation and the situation of those for whom the city of refuge was designed. It was not intended for the murderer. The law respecting him was that he should immediately be put to death, however palliating might be the circumstances connected with his crime, and however sacred the place to which he might flee for protection. Even the law respecting the manslayer bore in some points a resemblance to that which referred to the murderer. While provision was made for his safety if he chose to avail himself of it, it was also enjoined that should he be overtaken by the avenger of blood his life was to be the forfeit of his negligence. He had shed the blood of a fellow-man; and should he disregard the means of safety which were furnished to him, no guilt would be incurred, although by him whom he had injured his blood also should be shed. Now, all of us are chargeable with having transgressed the law of God. In one important respect, indeed, the comparison between us and the manslayer does not hold. He deprived his fellow of life without having meditated the deed, and therefore he did not contract moral guilt; for although the motive does not in every case sanctify the deed, it is to the motive that we must look in determining the virtuous or vicious nature of an action. We, however, have sinned against the Divine law voluntarily. We have done it in spite of knowledge, conviction, and obligation. Involved, then, as we are, in this universal charge of guilt, the justice of God is in pursuit of us, and is crying aloud for vengeance. And the condition of those whom it overtakes is utterly hopeless: death is the forfeit which they must pay. Let us guard against the callousness of those who, though they readily enough admit that they are sinners, seem to imagine that no danger is to be apprehended, and soothe themselves with the vague expectation that, since God is good, they shall somehow or other drop into heaven at last, and be taken beyond the reach of all that is painful. Oh! is it not infatuation thus to remain listless and secure, when Gods anger is provoked, and equity demands the execution of the threatening? Would it have been folly in the manslayer to have deluded himself into the notion of his safety, at the very time that his infuriated enemy was in hot pursuit? and is it wise in the sinner, when Divine justice is about to seize him, to remain insensible to the hazard of his situation? But let us not despair. Our sin, it is true, has veiled Jehovahs face in darkness; but through that darkness a bright beam has broken forth, revealing to us peace and reconciliation.

II. There is an analogy between our prospects and the prospects of the manslayer under the law. By Joshua six cities of refuge were appointed, three on either side of Jordan, that the distance might not be too great which the man-slayer required to travel. Now, in Christ Jesus we have a city of refuge to which we are encouraged to repair for protection from the justice which is in pursuit of us. This refuge God Himself has provided; so that He whom we have injured has also devised and revealed to us the method by which our salvation may be effected. Deliver, He said, from going down to the pit; I have found a ransom. Nor is this divinely-provided deliverance difficult of being reached. Christ is ever near to the sinner, and no tiresome pilgrimage requires to be performed before He can be found. All obstructions have been removed out of the way which leads to His Cross, and everything has been done to facilitate our flight to its blessed shelter.

The cities of refuge

I. The persons for whom the cities of refuge were provided were in circumstances of imminent danger.

1. The danger of man arises from sin and transgression against the authority of that law which God revealed for the personal rule and obedience of man, it being an essential arrangement in the Divine government that the infraction of the law should expose to the infliction of punishment.

2. The peril of man which thus arises from sin affects and involves his soul, which is pursued by justice as the avenger, and is exposed to the infliction of a future state of torment, the nature and intensity of which it is beyond the possibility of any finite mind to conceive, and the duration of which is restricted by no limits, but is coeval with eternity itself.

3. The peril of man thus arising from transgression and affecting and involving his soul applies not to a small portion, but extends to every individual of the species.

II. The persons for whom these cities of refuge were provided were furnished with ample directions and facilities to reach them.

1. The clearness with which the offices of the Lord Jesus Christ, in their adaptation to the condition of man, are revealed.

2. The nature of the method by which in their saving application and benefit the Saviours offices are to be applied.

III. The persons for whom cities of refuge were provided became on reaching them assured of inviolable security.

1. The grounds of this security; it arises from sources which render it unassailable and perfect. There is the faithfulness of the promise of the Father, which God has repeatedly addressed to His people; there is the efficacy of the mediation of the Son; and there is the pledge of the influences of the Holy Spirit.

2. The blessings involved in this security. And here we have not so much a comparison as a contrast. He who fled for refuge, after he had become a homicide, to the appointed asylum in the cities of Israel, became by necessity the subject of much privation. He was secure, but that was all, inasmuch, it is evident, that he was deprived of home, of kindred, of freedom, and of all those tender and endearing associations which are entwined around the heart of the exile, and the memory of which causes him to pine away, and oftentimes to die. But in obtaining, by the mediation and work of Christ, security from the perils of the wrath to come, we find that the scene of our security is the scene of privilege, of liberty, and of joy.

IV. If the persons for whom the cities of refuge were provided removed or were found away from them they were justly left to perish. There is a Saviour, but only one; an atonement, but only one; a way to heaven, but only one; and when once we have admitted the great fact with regard to the reason of the Saviours incarnation and sacrifice on the Cross and His ascension into heaven, we are by necessity brought to the conclusion and shut up to the confirmed belief of this truth, that neither is there salvation in any other, for there-is none other name, &c. (James Parsons.)

Cities of refuge

I. Notice a few points in which there is no correspondence between these cities provided for the manslayer and the protection which the gospel provides for the sinner

1. The cities of refuge afforded only a temporary protection for the body. The gospel, on the contrary, is a protection for the whole man, and for the whole man forever.

2. The cities afforded protection only to the unfortunate, whereas the refuge of the gospel is for the guilty.

3. The protection which the cities afforded involved the sacrificing of certain privileges; that of the gospel ensures every privilege.

4. Those who enjoyed the protection of the cities would desire to return to their former scenes; not so with those who enjoy the protection of the gospel.

II. Notice some of the more illustrative features of resemblance.

1. The cities of refuge were of Divine appointment; so is the protection offered in the gospel.

2. The cities of refuge were provisions against imminent danger; so is the gospel.

3. The cities of refuge were arranged so as to be available for all the manslayers in the country; so is the gospel provided for all sinners.

(1) Capacity enough to secure all.

(2) Within reach of all.

(3) Pointed out to all.

4. The cities of refuge were the exclusive asylums for such cases; so is the gospel the only way of salvation.

5. The cities of refuge were only serviceable to those who by suitable effort reached them.

(1) Individual effort.

(2) Immediate effort.

(3) Strenuous effort.

(4) Persevering effort. (Homilist.)

The cities of refuge

I. Let us, then, look at the people who dwelt in them Who were they? They were not exclusively rich people, nor were they exclusively poor. Poverty or wealth was no title to a residence there. Nor were they even educated people, or illiterate people. Some other plea than these must be urged in order to get an entrance there. They were guilty people. Upon their hands must be the mark of their foul sin. They must be avowed man-slayers, or else the gates were closed against them, and admission refused. I think I hear the Pharisee reply something like this: I am a religious man--a respectable man. This is a religious city established by God, kept by His priests--the peculiar care of Jehovah. There is a certain fitness between that city and myself. I mean to enter there, because I think it is a good thing to dwell in such a place. But they speak to him and say, Sir, you have made a mistake. Let us ask you one question--Have you ever done any harm? He looks at them, amazed at the question. Done any harm? No, sirs, mine has been a blameless life. Taken the life of another? Why, I would not hurt a fly. Then, sir, they say to him, this city cannot be your dwelling-place. It, with all its privileges, is for the man-slayer. Ah, sinner, now I know why you are not saved. You are not guilty: you do not believe it. But let me point out to you another mark of these people who dwelt in the cities. They were something more than guilty: they were conscious of their danger. They had found out that they had slain a man. They knew the penalty of the law: they believed it. They did not dare to doubt it, and they fled for their very lives. Sinner, would to God that we could get you to flee for your life! Oh, sinner, to-night you see it not, but there behind you is the keen, two-edged sword of that law that you have broken--that law that you have defied. It is very near to you. God says, Fly, fly for thy life to the city of refuge. And you--what are you doing? Why, you do not even hear the voice of God. You have no consciousness of your danger. One other word about these people: they were responsible, absolutely responsible, for their own safety. I think I see that man again. We have watched him, and we have spoken to him; he left us and ran; but we say to each other now, What is the matter? Our friend has stopped running. Look! He is sitting down by the road-side, and from that wallet behind his back, which we did not see before, he has taken out some bread. He is eating it leisurely, quietly. He must have made a mistake. Surely, the avenger of blood cannot be after him. Surely he cannot be guilty. We go up to him and we say, Friend, you told us just now that you were flying from the avenger of blood. How is it that you are taking your ease? Well, he says, the fact is I have been thinking over the matter, and I have changed my mind. Quite true, I have done wrong; quite true, I have taken a life; quite true, the avenger of blood is after me. But look here, sir. The logic of the matter is this: if I am to be saved I shall be saved. What folly! You may be saved if you flee; but, as God liveth, unless you get within its walls you never will be saved.

II. Look to some remarkable points about the cities of refuge themselves. Well, the point that strikes us, and which shows forth Jesus Christ and His willingness and power to save, is this: these cities were all easy of access. God took all the difficulties out of the way.

1. They were all upon the level plain. If you read chapter 20., and take the map, as I have done, and look at the land, you will be struck with this, that not one of them was built upon a mountain. What does it mean? Why, it means that an anxious and fleeing man--fleeing for his life--must have no weary mountain to travel up. There, upon the level plain, is the city whose welcome walls invite him for refuge. You have no hill of experience or of works or deeds to climb up. And then observe another fact about them, proving the ease of access which God had arranged for them.

2. If you were to look at the land of Palestine you would observe that it is divided nearly longitudinally--that is, from north to south--by a river at times broad and wide and deep, and with a mighty current--the river Jordan, Now, we will suppose that God had put the cities of refuge, we will say, on the other side. Here comes a poor man-slayer; he is flying for his life, and he reaches Jordan. There is no bridge; he has no boat; he cannot swim; and yet there within sight of him is the welcome city. Oh, he says in his bitter despair, Gods promise has brought me so far only to mock me. But no, God arranges otherwise. God said, Let there be six cities, three on each side of the river; one north, one in the middle, one in the south, on one side; one in the south, one in the middle, one on the north on the other side. What does it mean? Why, it means this, that wherever there could be a poor, guilty man-slayer there was a city of refuge. Oh, The Word is nigh thee, &c.

3. May I add, too, that the gates were always open. Eighteen hundred years have the gates been open. Mans infidelity and opposition have never closed the gates.

4. Observe, too, about these cities, that they were all well known. That was of the very greatest importance. God ordained that there should be six. Their names were given. I think the mothers of Israel must have taught their little children those six names by heart. It would never do that by and by their child should be in danger, and know not where to escape. We are told by Josephus that where cross-roads met there were always finger-posts established, having these words, To the city of refuge. And I often think that persons like myself, or even the most distinguished ministers of Christ, cannot save a soul, but they may be fingerposts pointing clearly to Jesus, and saying in life and ministry and deed, To the city of refuge. Let me point out to you another fact of great importance about these cities--the most important fact of all, without which all other facts would be useless. Within these walls was perfect safety. God had said it: Jehovahs word was staked to it. Perfect safety. Gods honour was at stake. Every man who fled inside that city should be saved. (J. T. Barnardo.)

Refuge

Life is full of alleviations, shelters, ways of deliverance. So that however gloomy things look at times, the worst never comes to the worst. At the moment when all seems lost the gate of the city of refuge opens before us, and friendly hands are held out to draw us within its sanctuary.

I. I want to give some illustrations of this, and, first of all, from what we may call the ordinary arrangements of the providence of God--the means of refuge which this God-made world provides within itself against the commoner ills. The daily round seems so trivial, our cares are so petty, the things that we are working for so utterly unworthy of beings laying any claim to greatness, that we should be tempted to forego our claim and settle down in mechanical acceptance of the humdrum and the commonplace if we did not avail ourselves of means of escape into a higher realm of thought and feeling. To some of us the culture of music affords a city of refuge from the drearier side of life. The transformation of Scotts wandering harper, scorned and poor, under the potent spell of his own music is repeated a thousand times a day.

In varying cadence, soft or strong,

He swept the sounding chords along

The present scene, the future lot,

His toils, his wants were all forgot.

Cold diffidence and ages frost,

In the full tide of song were lost.

Others find their city in the contemplation of great pictures. A man, crusted over with the sordidness of his daily task, will get away into a picture gallery. He will sit down tired and uninterested before some great masterpiece, and after a while it will begin to take hold of him. As he sits there, passively yielding to its influence, just letting it lay itself against his spirit, there will gradually steal over him a great restfulness and calm. Presently a deeper life will wake up. He will pass from the passive to the active state. Imagination will become alive; thought will stir; a new world will grow into realness around him--a larger, higher, finer world, not less real, but more real; not foreign to him, but more truly native to him than the world whose dust he has just shaken from his feet. And a greater number, perhaps, find their way of escape by the door of good books than by either music or pictures, or both together. And it is more than a merely temporary refuge. If books are really great, if the art is really elevating, we get something more than a short respite from an unfriendly world. When we go back to it the world is changed. The avenger of blood is no longer there. But there are tenser forms of evil to be saved from than the dull pain of a prosaic and uninspiring existence. There are sharp strokes of misfortune, the sudden loss of health, an overwhelming catastrophe in business, or bereavement. It is marvellous how at such a time people find themselves ringed round with friends. The story of Naomi is the story of the destitute in every age. What could have been more hopeless than the outlook for her? Yet she got through. She found friends among the foreigners; and when after the long years of exile she returned to Bethlehem, she found herself taken to peoples hearts. And Ruth the Moabitess was befriended also. There are many who could say with old John Brown of Haddington, There might be put upon my coffin, Here lies one of the cares of Providence, who early wanted both father and mother, and yet never missed them! So true is this that of late years we have begun to hear in tones of complaint and foreboding of the survival of the unfit. The world, it seems, is too kind. There is too much providence. That complaint need not distress us. But it is a confirmation of the Christian view of the world under Gods fatherly administration from a somewhat unexpected quarter; and it is none the less valuable for the source from which it comes. God is love, and He will be yet more fully known in the worlds palaces of science as a refuge. But we cannot think long on the subject without being sorrowfully conscious that there are other foes of the soul against which the ordinary providence of God offers no defence; and our sorrow is only turned into joy when we recognise that in these cases a still better refuge is provided. God Himself is our refuge, a very present help in time of trouble.

1. For example, there is sin. It is possible for men to go through life without any distinct perception of sin as an enemy of their happiness, But whenever the conscience is truly awakened, from that moment sin stands forth as the saddest fact in life. It is the one foe that peace cannot dwell with. Other evils we may escape, leaving them still in possession of the outer suburbs, while we retreat into the inner citadel of the soul. But not with sin. For the awfulness of that is that its very seat is in our inmost soul, so that the more deeply we live the more vivid is the fatal consciousness of its presence. And whether you count the burning shame of it, the self-contempt it breeds, the vague but awful terrors which of necessity dwell with it, or the feeling of helplessness which grows upon us as we realise how impossible it is to escape unaided from its power, as soon as its burden presses upon a man it is felt as the heaviest burden of life, different, not only in degree but in kind, from every other, intolerable, and yet never to be shaken off by any human strength. Here is an avenger for which earth provides no city of refuge. Great books, great pictures give no relief now; they aggravate. Mother Nature with her healing ministries has no balm for this wound. Thank God there is deliverance. The troubled conscience comes to peace in Jesus Christ.

2. Another case in which God alone in His own person can be a refuge for us, is when we are oppressed by the sense of finiteness that comes to us some time or other in our experience of all things earthly. There are times when we seem to see round everything. We have reached the limit of our friends capacity to satisfy us; music is nothing more to us than a combination, more or less faulty, of sounds that jar upon the nerves. Vanity of vanities, all is vanity and vexation of spirit. And all human goodness is as the morning cloud. All men are liars, you say in your haste. And if not that, then at least, I have seen an end of all perfection. Blessed is the man who in that hour knows the way to God. The secret of the Lord is with him, and the water that he drinks of shall be in him a well of water springing up unto everlasting life.

3. Death and deliverance. And then there is death. There are those who through fear of death are all their life-time subject to bondage. Well, God delivers us from that spectre. When we walk through the valley of that shadow, we fear no evil for He is with us. We who have fled for refuge to the hope set before us find ourselves holding by an anchor that enters into that within the veil.

II. Now, it will be a great help to us if we recognise in every lightening of the burdens of life the sign that god has been going before us preparing deliverance. Do not let us shut God out of the alleviations that spring up out of the earth as we pass along. There were six cities of refuge appointed for the Hebrews, and now one and now another of these cities would offer a practicable way of escape from the avenger. And God fulfils Himself in many ways. The doors of hope that seem entirely earth-fashioned and of human provision are equally of Gods appointment with that heavenly door by which alone we can find deliverance from the deeper sorrows. Your God-given way of escape is not always along the path of extreme religious fervour. A week of rest at the seaside will do you more spiritual good sometimes than a week of revival services. A hearty shake of the hand from a genial unbeliever will give you a mightier lift than a lecture from a saint. And you are to use the means of escape that lies nearest you, and is most suitable--and see Gods gracious provision in it whatever it is that gives you effectual relief. I dont mean that all ministries are of the same order, or intrinsically of equal worth. But then all troubles are not of the same order either. Paul is equally the minister of God when to the gaoler crying, What must I do to be saved? he says, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved; and to the sailors worn out with long battling with the storm, he recommends, not prayer, but to take food.

III. Let me direct your minds to a duty which god laid upon the Israelites in relation to their cities of refuge. Thou shalt prepare thee a way and divide the coasts of thy land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee to inherit, into three parts, that every slayer may flee thither. That is, there shall not only be a city of refuge, but there shall be a road to it. And these roads were to be kept in order. And it came afterwards to be a law that finger-posts should be placed wherever other roads crossed the road to the city of refuge, so that a man in search of it might the more easily find his way. Now the meaning of this in the larger bearing which we are giving it all, is that we should make ourselves familiar beforehand with the means of access to the doors of deliverance which God has provided. We are bidden to have resources. We must know the use of pictures and of great books; we must know the way to Natures treasure-house, or be able, like Boethius, to solace ourselves amid the disorders of the world by contemplating the Divine order of the stars. In the day of comparative prosperity we are to prepare for adversity. And this is a counsel of tremendous significance when we think of the supreme needs of the soul, those needs which nothing short of God can meet. Thou shalt prepare thee a way. One of the most pathetic stories in the Old Testament is that which relates how King Saul, who had gone his own timeserving, politician-like way all his life, came at last in his extremity to feel his need of God, and did not know how to come to Him. Acquaint thyself with Him. Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth--in the springtime of life, when all is bright and hope-inspiring. Now is the time to make a path for yourself to Him. (C. S. Pedley, M. A.)

The Christians cities of refuge

I. Our first city of refuge is prayer. Whatever trouble comes to us, we can run to prayer for help, as the man of old ran to the city of refuge.

II. Our second city of refuge is the bible. When Jesus was tempted three times by the devil in the wilderness to do wrong, every time His heart ran to the Bible as a city of refuge and quoted some precious promise.

III. A third city of refuge is sacred song. If our hearts and voices are full of sweet and pure songs about God, and heaven, and doing good, they will keep away a great many wicked thoughts and evil words.

IV. The fourth city of refuge is trust in God as our father. A child was asked the question, What is faith? She answered, God has spoken, and I believe it. That is a part of what it means to trust in God.

V. Our fifth city of refuge is the holy spirit as our guide.

VI. The sixth city of refuge, the last one and the most precious, is Jesus as our saviour. (Christian Age.)

The number of the cities of refuge

These were doubtless sufficient to answer the exigencies that might arise; but why six were appointed, and not seven, the perfect number, we may conceive was the reference they all had to one other, the only perfection of types, the Lord Jesus, and in whom alone security can be found. The perfection of the covenant and of every covenant blessing is found in Him. In whatever trouble, whether in first convictions or after-trials, the Christian, as the prophet, with thoughts raised to Christ, may exclaim, O Lord, my strength and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction. (W. Seaton.)

The situation of the cities of refuge

In the division of land east and west of Jordan which was nearly equal the Lord made equal provision for both, that it might be no disadvantage on which side soever any dwelt who were within the extent of the inheritance. Christ is for general benefit, wherever men live, within the sound of His gospel; so that it matters not where that is, in what part or quarter of the world. How great a mercy to be stationed near this refuge! and how great a sin to neglect or despise its security! (W. Seaton.)

The cities of refuge illustrative of Christs redeeming work

How illustrative of the way of life, the facilities grace has given to sensible and alarmed sinners to flee from the wrath to come!

I. In the gospel of Christ is found nothing to impede or discourage an immediate application for salvation, but the way is set before men under directions so plain and obvious that hardly any one can err, except through wilful ignorance and determined rebellion. Faithful ministers are designed to answer the end of directing-posts; they are to stand in byways and corners, to distinguish the right way from the wrong, and thereby, if possible, to prevent any from proceeding to their own destruction. Mercy has placed them on the road to life purposely to remind sinners of their danger, to direct the perplexed, and to admonish the careless. How important is simplicity in a matter that involves in it the concerns of life and death! What if the line of inscription, To the City of Refuge, had been in any other language than the one generally understood? and what if gospel ministers express themselves in a way that few only can reap the benefit of their instructions? They ruin more than they save, and cannot avoid a fearful charge in the day when every work will be brought into judgment.

II. Next, consider the requirements made of the man who had occasion to avail himself of the provision appointed; and as if having witnessed the act of slaughter, follow him to the gates of the city. His first and obvious duty, and that to which necessity compelled, was to leave the dead and run for his life, to rise from his bleeding neighbour and betake himself, with all possible haste, to the nearest refuge. This was to be voluntary, for no one could compel him. Another requirement was that he who had set out should make all possible haste till he had got within the walls of the city; for security was not in the way, but at the end; not while escaping, but when refuged. And what shall be said of them who, professing to flee for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before them in Christ, think neither of danger nor security, but are taken up, as their chief concern, with the pleasure and pursuits of the world?

III. The internal constitution of these cities, like the way to them, and the requisitions made of those for whose benefit they were instituted, instructs us in the knowledge of many evangelical truths. Let us enter for examination, or rather consider ourselves as needing the security they give. Refuge was not allowed till after judicial investigation. They were no asylum for murderers, but for those guilty of manslaughter only. In this the legal refuge came short of that the gospel sets before us: it was wisely and necessarily so; for no typical institutions could be ordained contrary to public justice and security, or that would have perpetually endangered the life and peace of society. Herein the pre-eminence of the gospel appears, and the infinite merit of Christs blood, which has efficacy to atone for the worst of crimes. The government under which these cities were placed must not be forgotten; they were given to the Levites, and though distinct from those they were to inhabit, yet they were numbered among them. This denoted an appointment of mercy, namely, that all the privileges peculiar to them, the security, residence, and provision there afforded, were all the fruit of priestly merits, and under the regulation of sacerdotal dominion. The streams of mercy from Christ flow to sinners through the prevalence of His atoning sacrifice and the exercise of His availing intercession. Again, safety was nowhere but within the city--not only was the manslayer required to flee to it, but to remain there the life of the high priest. Expressive appointment! Who out of Christ can be safe? One cannot but remark the deficiency of the type, as to the liberty as well as security which every believer obtains through Christ. As long as the high priest lived the slayer of blood was deprived of liberty beyond the bounds of the city. With all the mercy there provided, it must have been no little inconvenience to have been compelled so suddenly to give up connections, occupations, inheritance, and family for so uncertain a period, Nevertheless we are left to admire the wisdom of the Divine procedure, in that regard to the ends of public justice and social right, ever observed in even those institutions which were principally designed to set forth the unbounded grace of Christ. While the life of the high priest typified the security of Christ, the death of the high priest was to express the redemption of the forfeited possession. After the death of the high priest, the slayer shall return to the land of his possession. His life was a blessing that protected the slayer from the avenger, but his death unmistakably greater, for that secured liberty with life. The death of Christ has not only availed to deliver us from all the penalties of a broken covenant, burro interest us in all the positive blessings of the new; not only to save from all the sorrows of guilt, but to restore to us all the joys of innocence. (W. Seaton.)

.

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jos 20:1-2. The Lord also spake unto Joshua — Probably from the tabernacle, at the door of which he and Eleazar and the princes had been making a division of the land, as the last verse of the preceding chapter informs us. Appoint out for you — The possessions being now divided among you, reserve some of them for the use which I have commanded; cities of refuge — Designed to typify the relief which the gospel provides for poor penitent sinners, and their protection from the curse of the law and the wrath of God, in our Lord Jesus, to whom believers flee for refuge.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

THE SIX CITIES OF REFUGE, Jos_20:1-9.

The sentiment of justice impels uncultivated men to the immediate infliction of punishment upon those who give offence to that sentiment by a wrong act, especially the act of taking human life. But a man may accidentally and innocently slay his fellow-man. The safeguard of law is therefore needed that vengeance may not hastily wreak itself on the guiltless. In ordinary cases in highly civilized lands there is such a respect for law that the manslayer is screened from summary punishment, and is entrusted to the courts for trial. But where the veneration for law is not strong, (especially as was the case among the Hebrews, who had so recently been in the house of bondage,) where might and not right is the law, the slayer of a brother man would not be safe in the hands of his outraged and excited neighbours. Hence cities of refuge at convenient distances were appointed. In the wilderness, and up to this time in Canaan, the tabernacle of the Lord seems, from Exo_21:14, to have answered for a place of refuge for the man guilty of homicide; but in the time of Moses commandment was given by God to appoint such cities of refuge in the Land of Canaan. See notes on Num_35:9-34.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

THE CITIES OF REFUGE

CRITICAL NOTES.—

Jos_20:2. Appoint out for you cities of refuge] Heb. “Appoint,” or “Give for you the cities of refuge.” The article, which is omitted in A.V., points to the fact that God had already commanded these cities to be set apart, as the verse itself proceeds to state. Since the intimation in Exo_21:13, and the instructions in Numbers 35, these cities were a well-recognised part of the constitution. The word rendered “refuge” is from the root kâlat, “to contract,” “to draw together;” hence “to receive a fugitive to oneself.” [Gesen.]

Jos_20:3. Unawares and unwittingly] i.e., “in ignorance” by mistake; “inadvertently,” by accident, without intention; perhaps, also, “suddenly” “impulsively,” and thus without the “knowledge” which would have come had time been taken for thought. The repeated notion in the Hebrew words is very emphatic, coming to much the same thing as the negative of our English form, “with malice aforethought.” This idea is fully expressed in Deu_4:42, “and hated him not in times past” (cf. Deu_19:4; Deu_19:6, marg.). A man might be slain by mere accident, by carelessness, by the “mistake” of an avenger pursuing the wrong person, and thus committing murder “in ignorance;” or death might ensue from a sudden assault, in passion, when there was no intention to slay. For all, who might so take life, these cities were to be a refuge. But they were to afford no permanent refuge for the “wilful murderer;” he was to be taken even from the altar of sanctuary, and put to death (Exo_21:14; 1Ki_2:28-34; 2Ki_11:15).

Jos_20:4. Shall stand at the entering of the gate, etc.] “This is not to be understood, as it is by Michaelis, as implying that the man was to stand outside the city gate, and there relate his cause to the elders, and that he was not to enter the city till they had declared him not guilty of premeditated murder; but the gate of the city means the forum, the public place of judgment in the city, where the elders were to hear and examine his statement.” [Keil.] “The open space at the gate of Eastern cities was like the Greek agora and the Roman forum, the usual place of public resort; hence the well-known phrase ‘judges within thy gates’ ” [Groser].

Jos_20:6. Until the death of the high priest] It is added in Num_35:25, “which was anointed with the holy oil.” Thus, as Keil points out, the liberation was made to be dependent on the death of the anointed “mediator and representative of the people in the presence of God.” The stress laid on the official position of the high priest by this reference to the anointing oil seems clearly intended to prefigure the corresponding “deliverance of the captives,” which is effected by the death of the anointed Saviour.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Jos_20:1-6

THE CUSTOM OF BLOOD-REVENGE

The custom of blood-revenge is undoubtedly very ancient among other nations than that of the Jews. The Arabs, the Persians, the Druses of Syria, the Abyssinians, the Circassians, and others, have long recognised this “law of blood,” which is said to remain in force even to the present day in certain parts of the East. Mahomet legislated concerning it in the Koran, and there is ample evidence of its existence previous to his time. The Asyla of the ancient Greeks and Romans present both an extension and a modification of the practice; shewing its application to other matters than blood, and limiting its duration otherwise than by the measure of a life, as known among the Jews. Thus it is said: “The temple of Diana, at Ephesus, was a refuge for debtors, and the tomb of Theseus for slaves. In order to people Rome, a celebrated asylum was opened by Romulus, between the mounts Palatine and Capitoline, for all sorts of persons indiscriminately, fugitive slaves, debtors, and criminals of every kind. It had a temple dedicated to the god Asylæus. It was by this means, and with such inhabitants, that Thebes, Athens, and Rome were first stocked. We even read of Asyla at Lyons and Vienne, among the ancient Gauls; and some of the cities in Germany have preserved this right to the present century. On the medals of several ancient cities, particularly in Syria, we meet with the inscription ΑΣΥΛΟΙ, to which is added IEPAI.”—[Lond. Encye. (1829), “Asyla.”]

Arguing from the ancient and widely spread character of this practice of establishing cities of refuge, many theological writers have assumed that Moses found the custom already existing among surrounding nations, and that, because it was so deeply rooted in society, God instructed Moses to regulate it rather than to suddenly attempt its abolition. Thus it is frequently regarded as something which God found existing and tolerated, rather than something solemnly chosen and deliberately enforced. It has even been placed on a level with polygamy, which God long suffered, but never approved. Such a view strangely overlooks the real origin of “blood-revenge.” Instead of viewing it as a custom which the Jews adopted from barbarous nations around them, it is rather to be regarded as a practice which barbarous nations adopted from the Jews, and presently perverted. The real origin of the custom is as far back as in Gen_9:5-6; and, rightly contemplated, is a solemn vindication of the sacredness of human life. It is by no means a cultivation of the spirit of a heathenish vengeance. Given, that God’s law said, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed,” how was that law to be carried out? At the time when it was given, there were no set places of judgment, and no selected judges; for men were not grouped in nations. There was no central authority around which the ever-dispersing tribes of Noah’s house could gather. Then, the family was the nation, and the head of the family the ruler. The patriarchs were their own family priests, and their own family judges. If this law were to be carried out at all, it must be carried out by the family itself. An aged and infirm man would not be fit for the task of pursuing and doing justice on a murderer; hence the solemn task fell, in more general terms, on some one suitable among “the next of kin.” The internal evidence of Scripture itself is altogether opposed to the superficial view of Divine toleration. Both among the Romans and Arabs the practice of ransoming even a wilful murderer was common. In the Koran special provision is made for thus settling such blood-feuds with “the price of blood.” So far from tolerating the avenging of blood, God expressly enjoined by Moses that the wilful murderer was on no account to be suffered to escape. He was to be taken even from God’s altar to be slain (Exo_21:14), and ransom was strictly forbidden (Num_35:31; Num_35:33). The remark made on this passage in the Speaker’s Commentary justly estimates the superior morality of the Mosaic regulations: “The permission to make compensation for murders undoubtedly mitigates, in practice, the system of private retaliation; but it does so by sacrificing the principle which is the basis of that retaliation itself. Resting ultimately upon the law of God, that ‘Whosoever shed leth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed,’ it bids men rest content with a convenient evasion of that law, and converts the authority given to men to act as God’s ministers, in taking life for life, into a warrant for enabling the kinsman of a murdered man to make gain out of his murder.” Rightly interpreted, this custom of thus vindicating the blood of men wilfully slain was the expression of God’s justice, and no less an expression of the mercy which, using the best social machinery of the time, thus hastened to prevent the guilt of many would-be murderers, and to spare the lives of those who would have become their victims.

THE SACREDNESS OF HUMAN LIFE

I. The Lord’s care for human life. When we think of even a few of the things represented in the life of any individual man, we need not wonder that its Divine Maker has fenced it about with so jealous a care.

1. It is life fashioned in the likeness of God. He has made it “in His own image.” The life of man stands alone in the earth. There is nothing near to it. There is nothing which approaches it. In communion with myriads of its kind, human life is a bearable and thus a grand solitude; isolate it from such communion, and though it might be surrounded by a very ark of other life—“two of every kind”—the solitude would be awful. Science, so called, may prattle as it will about “development;” it is enough that in his heart no man believes the small poetical story. Given that man is banished from his fellows, there is no “next-of-kin” whom he can take into his confidence. Darwin himself would pine away and die. In all terrestrial creation there is not a soul outside his own family to whom a man can talk, unless it be in some, such imaginary intercourse as that in which a child holds fellowship with its doll. Put a man out from his own kind, and let him surround himself with what other life he may, he has to be talker and listener too. There is no other earthly life to which he can tell his secrets, or from which, in his keenest sorrows, he can beg a single tear of sympathy. But man can have fellowship with God. Every generation of men has found some men putting this to practical proof. Let scepticism sneer at prayer as it will, prayer has supported its millions. Men have turned to the great “likeness” of themselves above, and in their deepest sufferings they have “endured as seeing Him who is invisible.” Man is made in the image of God: man feels it is so; God says it is so. What wonder can it be that God guards such a life so sacredly? To slay life such as this, is to insult it in its Divine representative above. To take the life of a man is to offer scorn to that life in God (Gen_9:6). Even the man-slaying beast was to be put to death when it thus, though unknowingly, did violence to life fashioned in the likeness of life’s infinite Author (Gen_9:5; Exo_21:28-29). This was not a blind vengeance on the poor beast, but a lesson of such significance and worth for man, that, properly learned, it alone was of more value than the life of the heedless brute which had offended.

2. It is life the taking of which is connected with much suffering. The more exalted life is, the more it suffers in death. Intelligent life suffers more than brute life; it can think on the unkindness and hate which propose to slay it, and thus, oven in a few moments of dying by violence, it can suffer murder in the sensitive mind as well as in the sensitive body. Thus the slain man suffers. The surviving relatives suffer proportionately. It is not merely the death but the murder of their loved one which such survivors mourn. God is very pitiful: He would spare men such woe.

3. It is life capable of vast progress. Being man, man can “develope.” Give him time and tutors and discipline, there is no knowing where unto his life may grow. The limit of what a man may become has not yet been discovered. There are such vast possibilities of penitence for the wicked, of generosity for the selfish, of knowledge for the ignorant, of usefulness for the useless, that he who would slay a fellow-man may well be held to be a foe to the universe. Only God knows what a life may become, and whether it is best that any particular life should be spared or taken. Who knows? the murderers that have been may have robbed the world of great philosophers, wise statesmen, generous philanthropists, useful writers, or saintly Christians. If the lives of men like John Howard, John Bunyan, John Milton, Isaac Newton, and William Wilberforce, had been taken just before the great works in which their names stand famous, how much the world would have lost I and how ignorant of the measure of that loss the World would have been!

4. Human life is life which has on earth only its beginning. A man’s life is only the portico to his individual eternity. If he be slain ere his life be given to God through Christ in penitence and faith, his eternity must be one of “destruction from the presence of the Lord.” If the murderer had let the life alone, the great Husbandman might soon have made it fruitful unto life everlasting. To cut a man off in his sins is an act of awful responsibility. He who murders may murder not only a body, but a human soul.

II. The merciful considerateness of the Lord for the man who might slay his fellow unintentionally. Manslaughter may be through carelessness, more or less culpable, or through a passionate assault in which there is no design to slay. The cities of refuge were, apparently, intended to afford security even to those guilty of homicide in the more aggravated form.

1. The unintentional manslayer was not to be put to death. His carelessness might have been gross, or his passion very blameworthy indeed; but God graciously discerned between such and those who intended to kill. Only the wilful murderer was to be delivered up to death.

2. The unintentional manslayer was to be imprisoned under pain of death. For the guilt of his carelessness, or the sin of his passion, he might be deprived of his liberty for many years. He could only regain his freedom at the death of the high priest. Thus manslaughter was severely punished.

3. It is possible that some intermediate penalty may have been inflicted in cases where the judges might deem it necessary. These laws are possibly not the full law given to Moses. They deal with the main features of the questions which they touch, but not with all the details which might arise. Probably much was purposely left to the discretion of the judges. Hence criminal neglect or passion might be met with a punishment short of death, and yet the refugees thus guilty might be more severely dealt with than others.

III. The purpose of the Lord that even the murderer should have a hearing. The facilities offered for the permanent escape of the unintentional homicide were equally available for the temporary security of the man who had committed murder wilfully.

1. The delay would afford the murderer time for repentance. Though human life must be protected, and those who take it must die, God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

2. The delay would tend to exercise a salutary influence on the avenger. Instead of slaying the murderer in the heat of passion, the goel would have time to think, and time to understand that God imposed upon him this dreadful task to teach a lesson, and not to license rage. The goel was to be “the redeemer of blood,” rather than one revenging it in a fury almost as horrible as the murder itself. The redeemer of blood was to rescue it from contempt before men. His solemn act, based as it was upon justice, was to reinstate the blood and the life of man, as deservedly priceless, in the estimation of society. God did not teach the “avenger” to play echo to murder.

3. The delay would thus be beneficial to all the nation. Men would have time to read the true character of justice, discerning in it the firmness of a mercy which could not spare, rather than a hungry appetite which would not be satisfied without its meal. Justice is the awful side of Love, and not the best side of hatred; it is Love looking out upon the multitude, weeping while she rightfully destroys the one in order to keep the many from destroying each other and themselves.

IV. The command given by the Lord, that the wilful murderer should be put to death. There was to be no place of refuge for those found thus guilty. These cities of refuge supply an effective answer to the occasional demand made by some for the abolition of capital punishment. The passage in Genesis, though sufficiently plain to most people, has been thought by some open to argument. Thus Dr. Kalisch, after assuming that Gen_9:5-6, is a prehistoric invention of Moses rather than a command of God, and after representing Moses as “unquestionably and strongly averse to the barbarous custom of revenge of blood” (an aversion of which he does not even attempt to supply any evidence), proceeds to question whether the Mosaic law is decisive for or against “capital punishment.” On philological grounds, though he leaves the translation substantially unaltered, he says of the fifth verse: “Therefore the words, ‘I shall demand the soul of man from the brother of every one,’ do not allude to the custom of revenge of blood, according to which the nearest relative was bound to pursue the murderer, but to the legal punishment inflicted by the ordinary authorities.” That is simply saying that this law, thus formally promulgated so soon after the deluge, alludes to the law, or, in other words, to itself; and as Dr. Kalisch does not tell us who “the ordinary authorities” for the execution of the murderer were, he at least leaves room for the conclusion that they may have been the avengers, or redeemers of blood, themselves. With one family alive on the earth when this “legal punishment” was commanded to Noah, who else could these “ordinary authorities” have been? But these laboured exegetical efforts in the discussion of two verses in Genesis leave the cities of refuge still untouched. In those six cities we see God commanding that shelter shall be deliberately prepared for the unintentional manslayer; we see also that the wilful murderer, after being pronounced to be such, was just as deliberately excluded from any shelter whatever. He was beyond the reach of ransom. No price was allowed to be taken for the blood of his victim. Thus, whatever discussion may be raised on the meaning of a few words in a verse, these six cities calmly and sadly deny that exegesis of the heart which is offered by an unthoughtful mercy. The wisdom of mercy has so much regard for the multitude, that, though it gladly gives in the delay required for judgment an opportunity for the repentance of the one, it cannot spare him. It is just that he should die; it would be an injustice to living men, and unmerciful to them, if he did not die. The Scripture answer and the moral answer made to the demand for the abolition of capital punishment is very like that of the modern Italian statesman, “Let the assassins begin.”

V. The instruction of the Lord that the refuge afforded to the manslayer should be a refuge in the name of the Lord. The manslayer was undoubtedly held to have been guilty, though acquitted of murder. Even carelessness might be so culpable as to be judged worthy of punishment by death (Exo_21:29). It is a mistake to suppose that “the stay in those cities was not deemed ignominious, but the effect of an inscrutable Divine decree.” Even the man who had taken life unwittingly had sinned more or less grievously, as each case itself would determine. For that sin the manslayer was for a short time exposed to death. Rescuing him from such exposure, God Himself would be the sanctuary. The Israelites should find safety alone in Jehovah. It was religion that was seen stretching forth her hands to protect the endangered life. This was the case before these cities were appointed. The manslayer fled for refuge to the altar of God (Exo_21:13-14). So these cities of refuge are all Levitical cities. They were chosen without exception from the cities given as places of residence to the consecrated tribe. It was only in the mercy of Jehovah that there should be found a covert from human sin. Already the Lord was teaching His children the song: “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.” The name of the Lord was the strong tower into which the righteous and the sinner must alike run for safety.

OUTLINES AND COMMENTS ON THE VERSES

Jos_20:1-3.—GOD A REFUGE FOR MAN, AND FOR ALL THE MAN.

I. The cities of refuge as a manifestation of God’s care for our physical life.

II. The cities of refuge as an expression of God’s concern for the education of our moral feelings.

III. The cities of refuge as a symbol of God’s provision for our spiritual salvation.

Jos_20:3.—“THE AVENGER OF BLOOD.” “The blood of a human being cries for revenge to heaven (Gen_4:10; Heb_12:24).

“The soul of the slain raises its voice (Job_24:12; Rev_6:9).

“The blood of the innocent victims hangs at the skirts of the murderer’s garments (Jer_2:34).

“The blood is identical with the life of the individual (Psa_94:21; Mat_23:35).

“This latter view was not unfamiliar to other ancient nations; for, in the Egyptian hieroglyphics, the hawk, which was believed to feed upon blood alone, represents the human soul (Horapollo i. 7); Aristotle considered the blood as the seat of the soul (De Anim. i. 2); whilst Empedocles limited it to the blood of the heart; Virgil speaks of an effusion of the ‘purple soul’ (Æn. ix. 349); it was the doctrine of Critias that blood is the soul; and of Pythagoras, that the soul is nourished by the blood. The vital principle, or the soul (‘nephesh’), lies in an unsubstantial breath; it is invisible, and removes the organism after laws which will eternally remain a secret, known to the Creator alone: but as its visible representative the blood was considered, in which the physical power is concentrated; for a diminution of blood is attended with a decrease of the vital powers, and at last with dissolution and death. The breath is purely spiritual, and comes from God; the blood is a physical element, of earthly material; the former is indestructible, and escapes when the latter is shed; but as it has once been the medium through which the vigour of the soul manifested itself, it is an object of sacredness, and is, not inappropriately, itself called the soul (Lev_17:11). But it is remarkable that the Bible never attributes to the blood a higher mental power, nor does it ever identify the blood with the spirit (‘ruach’), but invariably represents it as the principle of physical life (‘nephesh’). Blood would defile the earth, if it remained unpunished.”—[M. M. Kalisch.]

Jos_20:2-4. PREPARATION FOR MERCY AND JUDGMENT.

I. The Lord contemplating His people’s future. “Whereof I spake unto you by the hand of Moses.” This provision of the cities of refuge had long been thought of and purposed by God.

1. Divine outlook.

2. Divine preparation.

3. Divine patience.

II. The Lord judging men, not by the deed of the hand, but by the thought of the heart. “Unawares and unwittingly.” Men are too apt to look only on the acts which their fellows have done. God would have men ask how the acts were committed, and why.

III. The Lord committing His own judgment to the execution of men. “He shall declare his cause in the ears of the elders of that city; and they shall take,” etc.

1. God could have avenged the slain Himself. Had He been so minded, He could have carried out His own judgments. He would but have had to will, and the guilty would have suffered, or died, and the innocent would have been delivered.

2. God preferred that His people should execute His judgments. (a) Direct judgment would have made virtue mechanical. (b) If men executed the Lord’s decisions, they would better learn to approve them and sympathise with them.

IV. The Lord saving men in connection with the urgent efforts of the men themselves. Those who would benefit by the gracious provision of God must “flee unto one of those cities.” With the avenger of blood behind him, the pursued man might have to flee with all his powers. “Salvation is of the Lord,” but the Lord does not save the man who does not concern himself to be saved.

Jos_20:6.—LIBERTY THROUGH THE DEATH OF THE HIGH PRIEST.

I. Condemnation coming through offence against God’s law. The condemnation was

(1) for an actual and great offence;

(2) it was after deliberate investigation and judgment;

(3) and it remained in force till release came after the manner of Divine appointment.

II. Pardon given through the death of God’s anointed High Priest.

1. Release came only through the death of the people’s anointed mediator. No other death would suffice. The death of the high priest was held to be efficacious, because he had been “anointed with the holy oil” (Num_35:25).

2. The death of one might thus become the release of many. Every refugee in each of the six cities would at once obtain his liberty.

III. Liberty that follows God’s pardon, and as such, liberty as full and complete as that enjoyed before the offence. Each offender would be as free to return, and as free in his home and in the city where it was situated, as if he had never transgressed. Thus does God look forward and prepare a way by which He may pass over our offences. He never passes over our better deeds. The service rendered by Nebuchadrezzar was not forgotten (Eze_29:18-20). Even the cup of cold water is not to lose its reward. God concerns Himself to remember our services, but to blot out our sins. As in the ancient festival of the exodus, as in this liberation of these captives on the death of the high priest, and as in the glorious work of Calvary, the passovers of God never have to do with our services, often have to do with our sins, and always with our deliverance from Buffering and danger.

THE CITIES OF REFUGE AS AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE WORK OF CHRIST.

“I. There were several cities of refuge, and they were so appointed in several parts of the country, that the manslayer, wherever he dwelt in the land of Israel, might, in half a day, reach one or other of them; so, though there is but one Christ appointed for our refuge, yet, wherever we are, He is a refuge at hand, a very present help; for the word is nigh us, and Christ in the word.

“II. The manslayer was safe in any of these cities; so in Christ, believers that flee to Him, and rest in Him, are protected from the wrath of God and the curse of the law. ‘There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.’

“III. They were all Levites’ cities. It was kindness to the poor prisoner, that, though he might not go up to the place where the ark was, yet he was in the midst of Levites who would teach him the good knowledge of the Lord. So it is the work of ministers of the gospel to bid sinners welcome to Christ, and to assist and counsel those who, through Christ, are in Him.

“IV. Even strangers and sojourners, though they were not native Israelites, might take the benefit of these cities of refuge. So in Christ Jesus no difference is made between Greek and Jew. Even the sons of the stranger that by faith flee to Christ shall be safe in Him.

“V. Even the suburbs or borders of the city were a sufficient security to the offender. So there is virtue even in the hem of Christ’s garment for the healing and saving of poor sinners. If we cannot reach to a full assurance, we may comfort ourselves in a good hope through grace.

“VI. The protection which the manslayer found in the city of refuge was not owing to the strength of its walls, or gates, or bars, but purely to the Divine appointment. So it is the word of the gospel that gives souls safety in Christ; ‘for Him hath God the Father sealed.’

“VII. If the offender were ever caught straggling without the borders of his city of refuge, or stealing home to his own house again, he lost the benefit of his protection, and lay exposed to the avenger of blood. So those that are in Christ must abide in Christ; for it is at their peril if they forsake Him and wander from Him. Drawing back is to perdition.”—[Matt., Henry.]

THE MORAL INFLUENCE OF ACCEPTING PECUNIARY RANSOM FOR A MURDERER

“The punishment of murder by a pecuniary fine, which is admitted by the Mohammedan law, would not only be revolting to all feelings of justice, but it would be extremely dangerous for the safety of society; it would destroy the equality of the rich and the poor before the law, and would necessarily lead to a fatal deterioration of public morality.”—[Kalisch.]

THE LAW OF RETALIATION

“It will be evident that what some have so highly extolled for its equity, the lex talionis, or law of retaliation, can never be, in all cases, an adequate or permanent rule of punishment. In some cases, indeed, it seems to be dictated by natural reason; as in the cases of conspiracies to do an injury, or false accusations of the innocent; to which we may add the law of the Jews and Egyptians mentioned by Josephus and Diodorus Siculus, that whoever, without sufficient cause, was found with any mortal poison in his possession, should himself be obliged to take it. But in general the difference of persons, place, time, provocation, or other circumstances, may enhance or mitigate the offence; and in such cases retaliation can never be a proper measure of justice … There are very many crimes that will in no shape admit of these penalties, without manifest absurdity and wickedness. Theft cannot be punished by theft, defamation by defamation, forgery by forgery, and the like; and we may add that those instances wherein retaliation appears to be used, even by the Divine authority, do not really proceed upon the rule of exact retribution, by doing to the criminal the same hurt he has done to his neighbour, and no more; but this correspondence between the crime and punishment is a consequence from some other principle. Death is punished with death as the appropriate manner of visiting an offence of the highest enormity, but not as an equivalent, for that would be expiation, and not punishment. Nor is death always an equivalent for death; the execution of a needy, decrepit assassin is a poor satisfaction for the murder of a nobleman in the bloom of his youth, and full enjoyment of his friends, his honours, and his fortune. But the reason on which this sentence is grounded seems to be that this is the highest penalty that man can inflict, and tends most to the security of mankind, by removing one murderer from the earth, and setting a dreadful example to deter others: so that even this grand instance proceeds upon other principles than those of retaliation.

“We may remark that it was once attempted to introduce into England the law of retaliation as a punishment for such only as preferred malicious accusations against others; it being enacted by Stat. 37, Edw. III., c. 18, that such as preferred any suggestions to the king’s great council should put in sureties of taliation; that is, to incur the same pain that the other should have had, in case the suggestions were found untrue. But, after one year’s experience, this punishment of taliation was rejected, and imprisonment adopted in its stead.”—[Stephen’s Commentaries on the Laws of England.]

THE SUPPOSED PROMINENCE OF THE CITIES OF REFUGE

“I somewhere read, when young, that these cities were situated on commanding heights, so as to be visible at a great distance; but this one (Kedesh-Naphtali), at least, is hid away under the mountain, and cannot be seen until one is close upon it. The idea, though common and even ancient, is certainty a mistake. Nablûs and Hebron, the other two cities west of the Jordan, lie in low valleys, and it is evident that the selection was made without reference to elevation.”—[The Land and the Book.]

Was it not well that these cities should be placed upon the plain, or in the valley, rather than upon a hill? The roads to these cities were ordered to be kept with special care, and the direction in which they lay is said to have been indicated by guide-posts. Each Israelite would thus have no difficulty in finding his adjacent sanctuary. The breath and strength of the runner are to be considered, as well as his knowledge. Pursued by the impassioned avenger, and dispirited by fear, it might be all important to the manslayer that in the last mile of his flight, when exhausted and spent, he should not find the city set upon a hill, up which, even in that condition, be must still flee for safety.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. Appointment of the Cities of Refuge

Joshua 20

a. The Command of God to Joshua

Jos_20:1-6

1The Lord also [And Jehovah] spake unto Joshua, saying, Speak to the children 2[sons] of Israel, saying, Appoint out [Appoint] for you [the] cities of refuge, whereof I spake unto you by the hand of Moses: 3that the slayer that killeth [smiteth] any person unawares [by mistake] and unwittingly, may flee thither and they shall be your refuge from the avenger of blood. 4And when he that doth flee unto one of those cities shall stand at the entering of the gate of the city, and shall declare his cause [speak his words] in the ears of the elders of that city, they shall take him into the city unto them, and give him a place, that he may dwell among them. 5And if the avenger of blood pursue after him, then they shall not deliver the slayer up into his hand; because he smote his neighbor unwittingly, and hated him not beforetime. 6And he shall dwell in that city, until he stand before the congregation for judgment, and until the death of the high priest that shall be in those days: then shall the slayer return, and come unto his own city, and unto his own house, unto the city from whence he fled.

b. Fulfillment of this Command

Jos_20:7-9

7And they appointed [consecrated] Kedesh in Galilee in mount Naphtali, and Shechem in mount Ephraim, and Kirjath-arba, (which is Hebron) in the mountain of Judah. 8And on the other side [of the] Jordan by Jericho eastward, they assigned [appointed Jos_20:2 ] Bezer in the wilderness upon the plain [the table land] out of the tribe of Reuben, and Ramoth in Gilead out of the tribe of Gad, and Golan in Bashan out of the tribe of Manasseh. 9These were the cities appointed [prop. of appointment] for all the children of Israel, and for the stranger [sojourner] that sojourneth among them, that whosoever killeth [smiteth] any person at unawares [by mistake] might flee thither, and not die by the hand of the avenger of blood, until he stood before the congregation.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Ch. 20 contains the designation of the free cities for homicides as Moses had already (Num_35:9-34; Deu_19:1-13) ordained. There were to be six of them (Num_35:6; Num_35:13; Deu_19:3-9) and they were taken from the number of the Levitical cities (Num_35:6). The way to them must be prepared (Deu_19:3), that the fugitive might as quickly as possible reach his asylum.

a. Jos_20:1-6. God’s Command to Joshua, Jos_20:1-2. Recollection of the ordinance established by God through Moses (Num_35:9 ff; Deu_19:5 ff., with which Gen_9:5 ff., and Exo_21:12-14 may be further compared). The cities are called ע׳ הַמִּקְלָט. The root קָלַט signifies (1.) to draw together, to contract ones self, (2.) to draw in, hence to receive (a fugitive), as in the Chal. (Gesen.) [The meaning of the noun comes near to asylum].

Jos_20:3. In these cities the man-slayer (רוֹצֵחַ, from רָצָח, prop. “to break or crush in pieces”) might flee, yet only the one who smote (מַכֵּה) a soul by mistake (בִּשְׁגָגָח, from שָׁגַג, to go astray, to err,” for which in Num_35:22, בְּפֶתַע [in a twinkling] stands). Knobel remarks on בִּשְׁגָגָה, on Lev_4:2 : “This expression, as well as שׁגג and שגה, occurs in reference to transgressions of the divine law which are committed without consciousness of their being unlawful, and which are only afterwards recognized as sins (Joshua 20:13, 22, 27; 5:18; Jos_22:14), e.g., of sins of the congregation without their knowledge (Num_15:24 ff.), or even of unlawful conduct which has resulted from some weakness, carelessness (Jos_5:15), or which was occasioned by some unfortunate accident (Num_35:11; Num_35:15; Num_35:22 f.; Jos_20:3; Jos_20:9). Hence it stands in general for unpremeditated sins in opposition to בְּיָד רָמָה, i.e., violent intentional sins, which must be punished with death (Num_15:27-31), and could not be expiated with sacrifices.” Thus it is added here also, unwittingly (בִּבֶלִי־דַעַת, without his knowing it). Now for those who had slain any person by mistake, without intending it, these cities should be for a refuge from the avenger of blood. He is גּאֵֹל הַדָּם, LXX. ὁ ἀγχιστεύωντὸ αἷμα (ἀγχιστεύς, whence ἀγχιστεύω, is the nearest of kin, according to Ammonius the one entitled to the heirship, different from συγγενεῖς, who have no such right, and from οἰκεῖοι, related by marriage, Herod, 10:80. The word ἀγχιστεύω occurs frequently in the LXX. still also in Isæus, Orat. Att. ii. 11, and in Eurip. Trach. 243). Vulg.: ultor sanguinis.גָּאַל signifies properly to demand back, reclaim what belongs to one, hence, in connection with דָּם, to require, revenge the blood which has been stolen by the murderer. As such a reclamation in reference to real estate belonged to the family (Lev_25:35; Rth_4:4-6), so that they alone had a right to repurchase it; so also the reclamation for the blood of a member of a family was a duty of the family, and they alone had a right in regard to it. Precisely so was it with the duty of marrying a brother’s widow (Deu_25:5; Mat_22:23 ff.; Mar_12:19; Luk_20:28) which is expressed Rth_3:13 by גָּאַל. On the custom itself of vengeance for blood [the vendetta], see the Theological and Ethical.

Jos_20:4. More particular directions, not given in the passages of the Pentateuch, how the man-slayer should proceed on his arrival at the free city. He must remain standing at the entering of the gate of the city, i.e. ante portam (Vulg.), and state his case before the ears of the elders of that city. Then they shall gather him (יאָסְפוּ) into the city, and shall give him a place, that he may dwell among them, i.e. assign to him a habitation.

Jos_20:5-6. He might not be delivered to the avenger of blood, but might, according to Jos_20:6, to the congregation, that is, as appears from Num_35:24 ff., to the congregation of his own city, who should hold judgment upon him, and either, if they found him guilty, give him up to the avenger of blood, or, if they esteemed him innocent, send him back to the city of refuge, where he must remain until the death of the anointed high-priest (Num_35:25), that is, of the ruling high-priest. After the death of the latter there follows, somewhat as upon the death of an anointed prince, an amnesty and the man-slayer is at liberty to return to his home. If, however, he presumptuously leaves his asylum sooner, he is exposed to the anger of the avenger. (Num_35:26; Num_35:28).

b. Jos_20:7-9. Fulfillment of this Command, Jos_20:7. They consecrated to this use six cities. הִקְדִּישׁ, as Keil rightly notices, is not merely to set apart, but to set apart something to a holy destination from the remaining mass of things. “The free cities” as Ranke says (Untersuch. über den Pentateuch, ii. 316, apud Keil, pp. 363), “are intended to keep the people and land of Jehovah pure from blood guiltiness. They exist as a monument of Jehovah’s love for his chosen.” Hence not cities at random but Levitical cities were chosen (Num_35:6).

Kedesh in Galilee. Jos_12:22; Jos_19:37. נָּלִיל, from נָּלַל, signifies a ring, Est_1:6; Son_5:14, then circle, section of land, like כִּכָּר. In particular it is a circuit of twenty cities (1Ki_9:11) in the tribe of Naphtali, הַגָּלִיל, within whose borders many heathen still dwelt, and hence called, Isa_8:13, גּ׳ הַגּו̇ים (comp. Mat_4:15, Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν). From it the name Galilee, which occurs in the translation here and in Jos_21:32, has been formed. Shechem, Jos_17:7. Kirjatharba, Jos_15:13. The three cities of refuge west of the Jordan thus lay so distributed that one (Kedesh) was found in the north, one (Shechem) in the centre, and one (Kirjath-arba = Hebron) in the southern part of the land.

Jos_20:8. East of the Jordan there are likewise three which Moses had already (Deu_4:41-43) established.

Bezer, perhaps identical with Bozra (Jer_48:24), but not to be identified more particularly, although we may, as Knobel remarks on Num_32:33, compare the place of ruins Burazin, some way east of Heshbon in the plain (Robinson, App. p. 170), or Berza (Robinson, ibid.).

Ramoth in Gilead, the same city which is called, Jos_13:26, Ramath-Mizpeh,1 now, as was shown at the place cited (comp. also Knobel on Num_32:42, p. 183), es-Salt, and therefore not to be placed so far northward as on Menke’s Map iii.; comp. Gen_31:49.

Golan in the country of Gaulanitis (Jaulan) not yet discovered by modern travellers, but in the time of Eusebius and Jerome called a κώμη μεγίστη and villa prœgrandis. Since Ramoth in Gilead lay in the middle of the land, Bezer probably in the south, and Golan in the north, there seems to have been a similarly fit distribution of the cities to that which we have noticed in West Palestine. But while they were enumerated there from north to south, these are mentioned, as in Deu_4:43, in the opposite order.

Jos_20:9. These were the cities appointed,—עָרֵי הַמּוּעָדָה, the Vulgate, rightly: civitates constitutœ, cities of appointment (from יָעַד, to appoint), i.e., which were appointed in order that every one. … might flee thither; Kimchi, inaccurately; urbes congregationis (with reference to the signification of יָעַד, in Niph.); Gesen., not precisely: urbes asyli, for in that view they are called, Jos_20:3, עָרֵי הַמִּקֻלָט. Luther [and Eng. Vers.] translated quite rightly: these were the cities appointed for all the children of Israel, etc.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

So long as no organized commonwealth exists among a people, a common consciousness of right develops itself first in that sphere of society which is immediately given by the divine order of nature—the family. It will therefore interpose when the right of one of the members is violated, whether in the loss of material goods through robbery, or by injury to body and life. So we find vengeance for blood, not only among the Hebrews, Arabs, Persians, but also among the Greeks, with the Germanic and Slavic peoples, in the infancy of their development, as now among savage nations. The theocratic legislation found the custom existing, and sought, without attempting to abolish, to restrain it. This purpose was served by the free cities, as also by the other restricting appointments in the passages of the law quoted above, as well as in this passage. It deserves to be carefully considered also, that according to the view of the O. T., in a case of manslaughter, not merely the family to which the slain man belonged was injured, but God himself in whose image man was created (Gen_9:6). On this account the real avenger of blood, as is said just before, is God himself (Gen_9:5; Psa_9:13; 2Ch_24:22). He avenges the murdered man even on brutes (Gen_9:5; Exo_21:28-29). Since God is wronged in intentional murder, even the altar itself affords no protection to the slayer (Exo_21:14), ransom is not allowed (Num_35:31), the land even is defiled and cannot be purified from the blood which has been shed in it, without the blood of him who has spilled it (Num_35:33). The legislation of the O. T. is, therefore, on this side, much stricter than the Greek, Roman, or German idea of right. These allowed ransom, and regarded consecrated places as places of asylum even for the intentional murderer (comp. Winer, Realw., art. “Freistatt”). On the other hand, it appears much more humane and equitable in regarding God himself as the proper avenger (see Gen_9:5 ff., and comp. Lange on the passage), in distinguishing between premeditated and unintentional homicide, and in requiring punishment of the perpetrator only, not at all of his relations. Comp. on this subject the art. “Bluträcher” by Oehler in Herzog’s Realencyk. 2:260 ff, also Winer, art. “Bluträcher,” Keil, Com. on Josh. in loc., [and Smith’s Dict. of the Bible, arts. “Blood, Avenger of,” and “Cities of Refuge.”—Tr.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The chapter is suitable to be treated as a Bible lesson, to show, with reference to the passages Gen_9:5 ff; Exo_21:12-14; Num_35:9 ff; Deu_19:1 ff, how solemnly and strictly, and at the same time how justly and mildly, the O. T. legislation spoke concerning violence to human life; how it in part clung still to the patriarchal institutions, but in part prepared for a better order; in particular, how this arrangement for free cities put a check on family revenge, and endless, bloody quarrels. For the practical application, the following comments of Starke give hints: The name of the Lord is a strong tower and safe refuge; the righteous flee thereto and are protected, Pro_18:19; Psa_18:2-3.—The blood of a man is highly esteemed before God; he who sheds it has God’s wrath upon him, Gen_4:10; Gen_9:6; Gal_5:21; Rev_22:15.—God has no pleasure in sin, Psa_5:5, nor delight in the death of the sinner, Eze_18:23-24.

Footnotes:

[1][Osborn’s large map makes them distinct places.—Tr.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joshua

THE CITIES OF REFUGE

Jos 20:1 - Jos 20:9.

Our Lord has taught us that parts of the Mosaic legislation were given because of the ‘hardness’ of the people’s hearts. The moral and religious condition of the recipients of revelation determines and is taken into account in the form and contents of revelation. That is strikingly obvious in this institution of the ‘cities of refuge.’ They have no typical meaning, though they may illustrate Christian truth. But their true significance is that they are instances of revelation permitting, and, while permitting, checking, a custom for the abolition of which Israel was not ready.

I. Cities of refuge were needed, because the ‘avenger of blood’ was recognised as performing an imperative duty. ‘Blood for blood’ was the law for the then stage of civilisation. The weaker the central authority, the more need for supplementing it with the wild justice of personal avenging. Neither Israel nor surrounding nations were fit for the higher commandment of the Sermon on the Mount. ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,’ corresponded to their stage of progress; and to have hurried them forward to ‘I say unto you, Resist not evil,’ would only have led to weakening the restraint on evil, and would have had no response in the hearers’ consciences. It is a commonplace that legislation which is too far ahead of public opinion is useless, except to make hypocrites. And the divine law was shaped in accordance with that truth. Therefore the goel, or kinsman-avenger of blood, was not only permitted but enjoined by Moses.

But the evils inherent in his existence were great. Blood feuds were handed down through generations, involving an ever-increasing number of innocent people, and finally leading to more murders than they prevented. But the thing could not be abolished. Therefore it was checked by this institution. The lessons taught by it are the gracious forbearance of God with the imperfections attaching to each stage of His people’s moral and religious progress; the uselessness of violent changes forced on people who are not ready for them; the presence of a temporary element in the Old Testament law and ethics.

No doubt many things in the present institutions of so-called Christian nations and in the churches are destined to drop away, as the principles of Christianity become more clearly discerned and more honestly applied to social and national life. But the good shepherd does not overdrive his flock, but, like Jacob, ‘leads on softly, according to the pace of the cattle that is before’ him. We must be content to bring the world gradually to the Christian ideal. To abolish or to impose institutions or customs by force is useless. Revolutions made by violence never last. To fell the upas-tree maybe very heroic, but what is the use of doing it, if the soil is full of seeds of others, and the climate and conditions favourable to their growth? Change the elevation of the land, and the `flora’ will change itself. Institutions are the outcome of the whole mental and moral state of a nation, and when that changes, and not till then, do they change. The New Testament in its treatment of slavery and war shows us the Christian way of destroying evils; namely, by establishing the principles which will make them impossible. It is better to girdle the tree and leave it to die than to fell it.

II. Another striking lesson from the cities of refuge is the now well-worn truth that the same act, when done from different motives, is not the same. The kinsman-avenger took no heed of the motive of the slaying. His duty was to slay, whatever the slayer’s intention had been. The asylum of the city of refuge was open for the unintentional homicide, and for him only, Deliberate murder had no escape thither. So the lesson was taught that motive is of supreme importance in determining the nature of an act. In God’s sight, a deed is done when it is determined on, and it is not done, though done, when it was not meant by the doer. ‘Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer,’ and he that killeth his brother unawares is none. We suppose ourselves to have learned that so thoroughly that it is trivial to repeat the lesson.

What, then, of our thoughts and desires which never come to light in acts? Do we recognise our criminality in regard to these as vividly as we should? Do we regulate the hidden man of the heart accordingly? A man may break all the commandments sitting in an easy-chair and doing nothing. Von Moltke fought the Austro-Prussian war in his cabinet in Berlin, bending over maps. The soldiers on the field were but pawns in the dreadful game. So our battles are waged, and we are beaten or conquerors, on the field of our inner desires and purposes. ‘Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.’

III. The elaborately careful specification of cases which gave the fugitive a right to shelter in the city is set forth at length in Num 35:15 - Num 35:24, and Deu 19:4 - Deu 19:13. The broad principle is there laid down that the cities were open for one who slew a man ‘unwittingly.’ But the plea of not intending to slay was held to be negatived, not only if intention could be otherwise shown but if the weapon used was such as would probably kill; such, for instance, as ‘an instrument of iron,’ or a stone, or a ‘weapon of wood, whereby a man may die.’ If we do what is likely to have a given result, we are responsible for that result, should it come about, even though we did not consciously seek to bring it. That is plain common sense. ‘I never thought the house would catch fire’ is no defence from the guilt of burning it down, if we fired a revolver into a powder barrel. Further, if the fatal blow was struck in ‘hatred,’ or if the slayer had lain in ambush to catch his victim, he was not allowed shelter. These careful definitions freed the cities from becoming nests of desperate criminals, as the ‘sanctuaries’ of the Middle Ages in Europe became. They were not harbours for the guilty, but asylums for the innocent.

IV. The procedure by which the fugitive secured protection is described at length in the passages cited, with which the briefer account here should be compared. It is not quite free from obscurity, but probably the process was as follows. Suppose the poor hunted man arrived panting at the limits of the city, perhaps with the avenger’s sword within half a foot of his neck; he was safe for the time. But before he could enter the city, a preliminary inquiry was held ‘at the gate’ by the city elders. That could only be of a rough-and-ready kind; most frequently there would be no evidence available but the man’s own word. It, however, secured interim protection. A fuller investigation followed, and, as would appear, was held in another place,-perhaps at the scene of the accident. ‘The congregation’ was the judge in this second examination, where the whole facts would be fully gone into, probably in the presence of the avenger. If the plea of non-intention was sustained, the fugitive was ‘restored to his city of refuge,’ and there remained safely till the death of the high-priest, when he was at liberty to return to his home, and to stay there without fear.

Attempts have been made to find a spiritual significance in this last provision of the law, and to make out a lame parallel between the death of the high-priest, which cancelled the crime of the fugitive, and the death of Christ, which takes away our sins. But-to say nothing of the fact that the fugitive was where he was just because he had done no crime-the parallel breaks down at other points. It is more probable that the death of one high-priest and the accession of another were regarded simply as closing one epoch and beginning another, just as a king’s accession is often attended with an amnesty. It was natural to begin a new era with a clean sheet, as it were.

V. The selection of the cities brings out a difference between the Jewish right of asylum and the somewhat similar right in heathen and mediaeval times. The temples or churches were usually the sanctuaries in these. But not the Tabernacle or Temple, but the priestly cities, were chosen here. Their inhabitants represented God to Israel, and as such were the fit persons to cast a shield over the fugitives; while yet their cities were less sacred than the Temple, and in them the innocent man-slayer could live for long years. The sanctity of the Temple was preserved intact, the necessary provision for possibly protracted stay was made, evils attendant on the use of the place of worship as a refuge were avoided.

Another reason-namely, accessibility swiftly from all parts of the land-dictated the choice of the cities, and also their number and locality. There were three on each side of Jordan, though the population was scantier on the east than on the west side, for the extent of country was about the same. They stood, roughly speaking, opposite each other,-Kedesh and Golan in the north, Shechem and Ramoth central, Hebron and Bezer in the south. So, wherever a fugitive was, he had no long distance between himself and safety.

We too have a ‘strong city’ to which we may ‘continually resort.’ The Israelite had right to enter only if his act had been inadvertent, but we have the right to hide ourselves in Christ just because we have sinned wilfully. The hurried, eager flight of the man who heard the tread of the avenger behind him, and dreaded every moment to be struck to the heart by his sword, may well set forth what should be the earnestness of our flight to ‘lay hold on the hope set before us in the gospel.’ His safety, as soon as he was within the gate, and could turn round and look calmly at the pursuer shaking his useless spear and grinding his teeth in disappointment, is but a feeble shadow of the security of those who rest in Christ’s love, and are sheltered by His work for sinners. ‘I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall pluck them out of My hand.’

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

7. The Cities of Refuge

CHAPTER 20

1. The ordinance repeated (Jos 20:1-6)

2. The cities named (Jos 20:7-9)

The reader will find the meaning of the ordinance of the cities of refuge in Numbers and Deuteronomy, so that we do not need to repeat it here. But only three cities are mentioned in the Pentateuch. Here the three cities in the land are added. Kedesh was in Naphtah, Kedesh means “sanctuary,” and Naphtali means “wrestler-struggler.” Christ is the refuge for the struggling sinner. Shechem means “shoulder,” and is the type of service. He who is the perfect servant, who ministered and gave His life, is the place of refuge. Kirjath-arba, which is Hebron, is the third, and Hebron means “communion.” This we find in Him. Bezer (defense), Ramoth (heights) and Golan (rejoicing) were the other three beyond Jordan, named already in the Pentateuch.

Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

20:1–21:45 Before the land was fully allotted, Joshua needed to establish six cities of refuge and assign cities for the Levites to live in.

20:1-6 These verses contain a review of the law concerning cities of refuge (see also Num 35:6-34).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Many things were by the law of Moses ordered to be done when they came to Canaan and this among the rest, the appointing of sanctuaries for the protecting of those that were guilty of casual murder, which was a privilege to all Israel, since no man could be sure but some time or other it might be his own case; and it was for the interest of the land that the blood of an innocent person, whose hand only was guilty but not his heart, should not be shed, no, not by the avenger of blood: of this law, which was so much for their advantage, God here reminds them, that they might remind themselves of the other laws he had given them, which concerned his honour. 1. Orders are given for the appointing of these cities (Jos 20:2), and very seasonably at this time when the land was newly surveyed, and so they were the better able to divide the coasts of it into three parts, as God had directed them, in order to the more convenient situation of these cities of refuge, Deu 19:3. Yet it is probable that it was not done till after the Levites had their portion assigned them in the next chapter, because the cities of refuge were all to be Levites' cities. As soon as ever God had given them cities of rest, he bade them appoint cities of refuge, to which none of them knew but they might be glad to escape. Thus God provided, not only for their ease at all times, but for their safety in times of danger, and such times we must expect and prepare for in this world. And it intimates what God's spiritual Israel have and shall have, in Christ and heaven, not only rest to repose themselves in, but refuge to secure themselves in. And we cannot think these cities of refuge would have been so often and so much spoken of in the law of Moses, and have had so much care taken about them (when the intention of them might have been effectually answered, as it is in our law, by authorizing the courts of judgment to protect and acquit the manslayer in all those cases wherein he was to have privilege of sanctuary), if they were not designed to typify the relief which the gospel provides for poor penitent sinners, and their protection from the curse of the law and the wrath of God, in our Lord Jesus, to whom believers flee for refuge (Heb 6:18), and in whom they are found (Phi 3:9) as in a sanctuary, where they are privileged from arrests, and there is now no condemnation to them, Rom 8:1. 2. Instructions are given for the using of these cities. The laws in this matter we had before, Num 35:10, etc., where they were opened at large. (1.) It is supposed that a man might possibly kill a person, it might be his own child or dearest friend, unawares and unwittingly (Jos 20:3), not only whom he hated not, but whom he truly loved beforetime (Jos 20:5); for the way of man is not in himself. What reason have we to thank God who has kept us both from slaying and from being slain by accident! In this case, it is supposed that the relations of the person slain would demand the life of the slayer, as a satisfaction to that ancient law that whoso sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. (2.) It is provided that if upon trial it appeared that the murder was done purely by accident, and not by design, either upon an old grudge or a sudden passion, then the slayer should be sheltered from the avenger of blood in any one of these cities, Jos 20:4-6. By this law he was entitled to a dwelling in that city, was taken into the care of the government of it, but was confined to it, as prisoner at large; only, if he survived the high priest, then, and not till then, he might return to his own city. And the Jews say, "If he died before the high priest in the city of his refuge and exile, and was buried there, yet, at the death of the high priest, his bones should be removed with respect to the place of his fathers' sepulchres."

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

CHAPTER XX

Joshua is commanded to appoint cities of refuge, 1, 2.

The purpose of their institution, 34.

Three cities are appointed in the promised land, 7;

and three on the east side of Jordan, 8, 9.

NOTES ON CHAP. XX

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

1. The Lord also spoke unto Joshua, etc In the fact of its not having occurred to their own minds, to designate the cities of refuge, till they were again reminded of it, their sluggishness appears to be indirectly censured. The divine command to that effect had been given beyond the Jordan. When the reason for it remained always equally valid, why do they wait? Why do they not give full effect to that which they had rightly begun? We may add, how important it was that there should be places of refuge for the innocent, in order that the land might not be polluted with blood. For if that remedy had not been provided, the kindred of those who had been killed would have doubled the evil, by proceeding without discrimination to avenge their death. It certainly did not become the people to be idle in guarding the land from stain and taint. Hence we perceive how tardy men are, not only to perform their duty, but to provide for their own safety, unless the Lord frequently urge them, and prick them forward by the stimulus of exhortation. But that they sinned only from thoughtlessness, is apparent from this, that they are forthwith ready to obey, neither procrastinating nor creating obstacles or delays to a necessary matter, by disputing the propriety of it.

The nature of the asylum afforded by the cities of refuge has been already explained. It gave no impunity to voluntary murder, but if any one, by mistake, had slain a man, with whom he was not at enmity, he found a safe refuge by fleeing to one of these cities destined for that purpose. Thus God assisted the unfortunate, and prevented their suffering the punishment of an atrocious deed, when they had not been guilty of it. Meanwhile respect was so far paid to the feelings of the brethren and kindred of the deceased, that their sorrow was not increased by the constant presence of the persons who had caused their bereavement. Lastly, the people were accustomed to detest murder, since homicide, even when not culpable, was followed by exile from country and home, till the death of the high priest. For that temporary exile clearly showed how precious human blood is in the sight of God. Thus the law was just, equitable, and useful, as well in a public as in a private point of view. But it is to be briefly observed, that everything is not here mentioned in order. For one who had accidentally killed a man might have remained in safety, by sisting himself before the court to plead his cause, and obtaining an acquittal, after due and thorough investigation, as we explained more fully in the books of Moses, when treating of this matter.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

The Lord also spake unto Joshua,.... Out of the tabernacle, at the door of which he with the high priest and princes were; the Lord had spoken to him before concerning dividing the land among the tribes, Jos 13:1; and this being done he speaks to him again:

saying:

as follows.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

The Appointment of Cities of Refuge

The allotment of the tribal inheritance is followed by the appointment of six cities of refuge previously provided and in part assigned by Moses, according to the terms of the Sinaitic law concerning manslaughter: cp. Exo_21:13; Num_35:6. These are enumerated in the following order:—W. of Jordan: Kedesh (N.), Shechem (central), Hebron (S.); E. of Jordan: Bezer (S.), Ramoth-Gilead (central), Golan (N.). Geographical considerations must have had the first place; the six cities are so placed as to give nearly equal facilities of access from all parts of Palestine. But it is interesting to observe that the three western cities were ancient traditional sanctuaries. This is inferred from the name of Kedesh (= Holy) and known of the other two. The same may be true of the eastern cities also.

This chapter has a special interest as introducing us to a phase of Hebrew Law typical of many of the Mosaic ordinances. Moses was inspired not so much to produce a system entirely novel as to take up the Semitic customs already in existence, and regulate and purify them. So here, the primitive law of blood-revenge, which laid on the kin of the slain the duty of taking vengeance on the slayer, and which often failed to distinguish between intentional and unintentional homicide, is regulated by the formulation of a clear distinction corresponding to our 'wilful murder' and 'manslaughter,' and by the provision of definite asylums for the unintentional manslayer.

1-9. The Cities of Refuge.

2. Whereof I spake by the hand of Moses] cp. Exo_21:13; Num_35:6.; Deu_4:41.

3. Unwittingly] manslaughter, as we should say, as distinct from murder. See the elaborate rules and distinctions drawn out in Num_35:16-23. Note that this is not the ordinary, almost universal, principle of 'Sanctuary,' by which any criminal whatsoever could claim the protection of some holy place, as e.g. Joab tried to do (1Ki_2:28), when he fled to the tabernacle and caught hold of the horns of the altar. It will be observed that Solomon did not respect the Sanctuary in that case.

9. Until he stood before the congregation] The purpose is to provide every homicide a fair trial: see Num_35:12, Num_35:24-25. If he is found guilty of murder, the City of Refuge is no sanctuary to him; if only of manslaughter (cp. Jos_20:6), it is a safe asylum to him till the death of the high priest, after which he is free to return home.

J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

THE CITIES OF REFUGE.

Cities of refuge. The original is more definite, the cities of refuge. So LXX Whereof I spake to you. In Exo_21:13 Num_35:9 Deu_19:2. Here, again, Joshua is represented as aware of the existence of the Pentateuch. It must, therefore, have existed in something like its present shape when the Book of Joshua was written. The words are partly quoted from Numbers and partly from Deuteronomy; another proof that these books were regarded as constituting one law, from the "hand of Moses," when Joshua was written.

Vers. 1-9. The cities of refuge.

The institution of these cities was intended to put bounds to revenge, while providing for the punishment of crime. As Lange remarks, the Mosaic law found the principle of vengeance at the hand of the nearest relative of the deceased already recognised, and desired to direct and restrain it. Three considerations suggest themselves on this point.

I THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE. The most serious crime one man could commit against another (offences against God or one"s own parents are not included in this estimate), according to the Mosaic, and even the pre-Mosaic code, was to take his life. The sanctity of human life was ever rated high in the Old Testament. Nothing could compensate for it but the death of him who violated it. The duty had always been incumbent on the nearest blood relative, and Moses did not think it necessary to institute any other law in its place. He only placed the restriction upon the avenger of blood, that in case the murderer should reach a city of refuge, he should have a fair trial before he was given into the hands of his adversary, in ease it should prove that, instead of murder, the deed was simply homicide by misadventure. It has been strongly urged that capital punishment, even for murder, is opposed to the gentler spirit of Christianity. Without presuming to decide the question, this much is clear, that God in His law has always regarded human life as a most sacred thing, and any attempt to take it away as a most awful crime. It may be observed, moreover, that in Switzerland, where the punishment was abolished, it has had in several cantons to be reimposed. It is also a curious fact, and one somewhat difficult to explain, that a higher value is set, as a rule, upon human life in Protestant than in Roman Catholic communities. There can be no doubt that the severer view is in accordance with the Old Testament Scriptures, and we may see why. The evil effect of other crimes may, in a measure, be repaired, but life once taken away can never be restored. Man, moreover, is the image of God, and life His greatest gift. To deface the Divine image, to take away finally and irrevocably, so far as the natural man can see, what God has given, is surely the highest of crimes.

II VENGEANCE MUST BE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE LAW. The rule for Christians as individuals is, never to take vengeance at all, but to submit to the most grievous wrongs in silence. But there are times when a Christian is bound to regard himself as a member of a community, and in the interests of that community to punish wrong doers. We learn a useful lesson from the chapter before us. We may not take the law into our own hands. We are not the best judges in our own cause. The punishment we inflict is likely to be disproportionate to the offence. We are bidden, if our neighbour will not listen to us (Mat_18:15-17) to take others with us to support us in our complaint, and if that be in vain, to bring the matter before the assembly of the faithful, who take the place in the Christian dispensation of the elders of Israel. But in all cases the decision must not rest with ourselves. It would be well if every one, before bringing an action or prosecution at law against another, would submit the matter to some perfectly disinterested persons before doing so. It would be well if the Christian congregations exercised more frequently the power of arbitration, which was clearly committed to them by Christ. It should be the city of refuge to which the offender should betake himself, and he should be free from all penalties until the "elders of that city" declare that he has deserved them.

III WHERE WE CANNOT ABOLISH AN EVIL CUSTOM, WE MAY AT LEAST MITIGATE ITS EVIL EFFECTS. It must often happen to the Christian to find laws and customs in existence which we feel to be opposed to the spirit of Christianity. Two courses are open to us, to denounce and resist them, or to accept them and try to reduce the amount of evil they produce. There are, of course, some customs and laws against which a Christian must set his face. But there are many more in which it would be fanaticism, not Christianity, to do so. Such a spirit was displayed by the Montanists of old (as in the case of Tertullian, in his celebrated treatise "De Corona"), who frequently reviled and struck down the images of the gods. Such a spirit is often displayed by Christians of more zeal than discretion now. A remarkable instance of the opposite spirit is shown by the attitude of Christ"s apostles towards slavery. Slavery is alien to the first principles of Christianity. And yet the Christians were not forced to manumit their slaves, but were only enjoined to treat them gently and kindly. Such was obviously the best course, so long as Christianity was a persecuted and forbidden religion. It is often our duty so to deal with customs which are undesirable in themselves, but which, as individuals, we have no power to put down. So long as we have it in our power to remove from them, in our own case, what is objectionable or sinful, it is our duty to conform to them, at the same time hoping and praying for better times.

HOMILIES BY R. GLOVER Ver. 1. Cities of refuge.

The institution of cities of refuge interests us as at once an admirable instance of the spirit of the Mosaic legislation, and as an arrangement of gracious wisdom. In the absence of courts of law and any sufficient arrangement for the administration of justice, a system has uniformly arisen in all primitive tribes, and is found in many places today, of charging the nearest male relative with the duty of putting to death the murderer of his kinsman. The Vendetta, as it is termed, is still practised among the Arab tribes, and even survives vigorously in the island of Corsica. By it there was always a judge and an executive wherever there was a crime. And doubtless such a custom exercised a highly deterrent influence. At the same time a rough and ready system of punishment like this was incapable of being applied with that discrimination essentially necessary to justice. In the heat of revenge, or in the excitement and danger incident to what was regarded as the discharge of a kinsman"s duty, men would often not inquire whether the death was the result of accident or of intention. It might chance that none bewailed the death more than him who committed it. But the rude law left the responsible kinsman no alternative. The one who slew might be his own relative, it might be that a blow of anger, not meant to kill, or some sheer accident, took away the life of one dear to him who struck the blow, or was the unhappy cause of the accident. But where blood had been shed, blood was to be shed. And so one fault and one bereavement not infrequently involved the commission of a greater fault, and the experience of a greater bereavement. In this position of things Moses stepped in. And in the legislation he gave on the subject there is much that is worthy of notice.

I Observe, WHAT HE DID NOT PRESCRIBE. The payment of "damages" for a death inflicted has been a form in which the severity of these rules for the punishment of a murder has been mitigated. In Saxon times in England, blood money was continually offered and taken. In many other lands a fine has been laid on the murderer for the benefit of his family. The Koran permits such a compensation; and today, in some Arab tribes, a man may escape the penalty of murder if he can pay the fine which custom prescribes. But though such an alternative must have been familiar to Moses, it is not adopted by him. On the contrary, he expressly forbids the relatives to condone a crime by receiving any money payment for it: (see last chapter of Numbers). This is a very striking fact, for many would very much have preferred a law allowing the giving and receiving of such a fine, to the law actually given. His not adopting such a rule shows that Moses was apprehensive of the danger of conscience being dulled, and crime encouraged by any compromise effected between guilt on the one side, and greed on the other. Such a rule would always mitigate the abhorrence of crime; would make it safer for the rich to indulge their animosities, than for the poor to injure, by accident, a fellow man. Law, duty, self respect would be lowered. Life would be held less sacred. Instead of its being invested with a Divine sanction, and the destruction of it made an awful crime, it would appear as something worth so many pounds sterling, and men would indulge their taste for the murder of those they disliked, according to their judgment of what they could afford to pay. The poor substitute of a fine instead of the punishment of death is not only not accepted, but explicitly forbidden. And so far the legislation of Moses suggests that whatever course our criminal legislation may take in dealing with crime, it will do well to maintain the sanctity of life and to guard against such a method of dealing as would increase the crime that it should prevent. But observe, secondly, that while the sanctity of life is maintained.

II JUSTICE IS SUBSTITUTED FOR REVENGE. The six cities of refuge were simply six cities of assize, where an authoritative verdict could be found as to whether the death was wilfully or unintentionally inflicted. The man who had taken a life claimed of the elders of the city (ver. 4) protection, and received it until his case was adjudicated on. He was tried before the congregation, the assembly of the adult citizens. As these were all Levites (the six cities of refuge being all of them Levitical cities) they were familiar with law, and had, probably, a little more moral culture than their non-Levitical brethren. A calm unbiassed "judgment by their peers" was thus provided for every accused person a tribunal too large to be moved by animus or corrupted by bribes. If on explicit evidence of two or three witnesses it proved to be a case of wilful murder, further asylum was denied him, and he was delivered to death. If it proved a case of either accident or manslaughter, the asylum was lengthened, and beneath the protection of God he was safe, as long as he kept within the precincts of the city and its suburbs. How admirable such an arrangement! A better court of judgment in such cases, than such a jury of two or three hundred honest men, could not be devised. It was costless; it was simple; it involved no delay. It restrained a universally recognised right, but did it so wisely and fairly none could complain. A provision of unconditional asylum, as it developed later in connection with religious buildings, has proved an unmitigated evil even in Christian lands, an encouragement to all crimes, promoting not morality, but only the cunning which committed them within easy reach of such sanctuary. This gave Israel, for the most important of all cases, a court of justice that protected innocence, that soothed revenge, that prevented blood feuds settling and growing to large dimensions. It is a lesson for us, as individuals, always to guard against our being carried away by passion, and to import into every quarrel it may be our unhappiness to fall into, the calm and unbiassed judgment of others. It may be our duty to others to prosecute or punish a criminal. But revenge is an unholy passion which has no sanction from on high. Lastly observe:

III A CURIOUS PROVISION IN THE LAW. If innocent of wilful murder, the man had a right of asylum in the city. But leaving the city, he lost it, and might lawfully be slain. The nearness of living Levites was his protection. But the perpetual residence in the city of refuge was not enjoined. For when the high priest died, he could go back to his proper home and dwell there. The high priest was to be thought of as an intercessor who had entered within the veil beneath the protection of whose prayers all these refugees were sacred; and for them the whole land became one great place of refuge. THE DEATH OF ANOTHER HIGH PRIEST WAS AN ENTERING WITHIN THE VEIL, WHICH BENEFITS WITH DIVINE PROTECTION ALL WHO TAKE REFUGE IN THE DIVINELY APPOINTED PLACE. They by innocence got the benefit of his pleading we by repentance. Are we all under the shadow of the heavenly Intercessor? G.

HOMILIES BY J. WAITE Vers. 1-6. The manslayer and his refuge.

The institution of the cities of refuge stands as a conspicuous memorial of the beneficent spirit of the Mosaic economy. It bore a resemblance to that right of asylum, or sanctuary, which in some form or other has found a place in the usage of all nations from the earliest times, but it was not liable to the same abuse. Every provision of the Mosaic economy enshrined some enduring principle. Some great moral lesson was intended to be impressed by it on the minds of the people. The institution changes or passes utterly away; the principle, the lesson, remains. Note here

I THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE. The institution bore striking witness to this. This was its root principle. It was intended as a check on that form of ferocity for which Oriental tribes have ever been remarkable the thirst for vengeance in the shedding of blood. It threw a shield overan endangered life. This at once commends it to a radical instinct of our nature. God has implanted in our breasts an intuitive sense of the value of life. Not only the instinct of self preservation, ("skin for skin," etc., Job_2:4) but something also that prompts to respect for the life of another. The most barbarous conditions of humanity are not altogether destitute of the traces of this. The natural effect of religion and civilisation is to develop it. Mainly on this instinct rests the admiration we feel for any marvellous triumph of surgical skill, for the rescue of imprisoned miners, or of a shipwrecked crew, or of a wounded comrade from the battlefield. It is not merely satisfaction in beholding consummate skill, resolute endurance, deeds of daring and self sacrifice but in the fact that life is saved. The "vital spark," so mysterious in itself, and so mysteriously kindled, is kept from being extinguished. The humane spirit, the spirit in sympathy with humanity as such, feels just the same however feeble or apparently worthless and despicable the life may be. We don"t stay to consider either its actual conditions or its latent possibilities; we only know that it is good to save it. There is no higher mark of Christian civilisation than the diffusion of a nobler sentiment as to the inherent value of human life. "The Son of Man came not to destroy men"s lives, but to save them". (Luk_9:56) This fact has its manifest, though indirect, bearings on the question of man"s immortality. If physical life is surrounded by such sanctions and safeguards, does it not at least suggest the indestructibility of the essential being of the man? "That not one life shall be destroyed, Or cast as rubbish on the void, When God shall make the pile complete.

II FORFEITURE OF LIFE. This principle of sanctity bears on the slain as well as on the slayer. If it shields the one, not less does it avenge the other. The right of asylum was based on the foregoing right of the Goel , the blood avenger. (see Num_35:19, et seq. , Deu_19:11-13) This was the outgrowth of the ancient law given to Noah, "Whoso sheddeth man"s blood, by man shall his blood be shed". (Gen_9:6) And, again, to Moses at Sinai, "Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth," etc. (Exo_21:23, Exo_21:24) So severely was this rule to be applied, that no kind or measure of "satisfaction" could be taken for the forfeited life of the murderer. (Num_35:31) Such was the Mosaic law. The gentler spirit of Christianity inculcates a different rule. As that softened and restrained the natural savagery of the olden times, so this brings in the reign of still nobler principles of moral and social life. (Mat_5:38, 39 Rom_12:19) It is questionable whether the teaching of Christ and his Apostles does not throw such an air of sanctity over the being of every man, and make restorative love rather than retributive justice the universal law, as completely to annul the old order of "life for life." At the same time the principle of retribution is in no way obliterated less literal, less circumstantial, entrusted less to the hands of man, but not less real. The avenger still tracks the steps of the transgressor. He cannot escape "the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds". (Rom_2:5, Rom_2:6) Vengeance may suffer even "the murderer to live," but he bears the penalty and the curse within. "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth," etc. (Gal_6:7, Gal_6:8)

III THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SPIRIT ABOVE THE FORM OF EVERY DEED. The city of refuge was a provision for the protection of the manslayer from lawless and indiscriminate violence, that he might be subject to judicial inquiry as to the real meaning and intent of what he had done. He must be brought before tribunal of the people. The "congregation" must judge between the slayer and the avenger, and if it is shown that he was not the enemy of the man slain, nor "sought his harm," he shall be delivered. (Num_35:22-25) Here was a striking witness to the principle that it is the spirit, the purpose, that determines the real quality of every deed. God is the "Searcher of hearts," and He would have man, according to the measure of his insight, estimate everything by what gives birth to it there. The "Sermon on the Mount" is a Divine lesson on the importance of the spirit above the form. (Mat_5:21, et seq.) The law of Christ is a "discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." It is the motive that determines the merit or demerit of every deed. God has given us no power infallibly to trace or weigh the motives of men, but as far as they are disclosed so let us judge.

IV THE BLENDING OF JUSTICE WITH MERCY IN THE TREATMENT OF TRANSGRESSION. The city of refuge bore witness to the principle of equity between man and man, and equity is the qualification of law by reason and humanity. The manslayer, however innocent, must suffer for the ill that he has done, but safeguards are provided against his being subject to any flagrant wrong. Whatever it may cost him he must flee to the city, but it is not more than six miles distant and the way is clear. He loses his liberty, home, perhaps property, but he is safe. In all this there is a remarkable blending of regard for the majesty of law and the sanctity of social order, with kindly protection of human weakness.. It is full of instruction. A true social economy is the due balance of reciprocal rights, interests, etc. We deal righteously with each other only when mercy tempers justice, when law is interpreted liberally and applied with charity.

V AN ANALOGY IS OFTEN INSTITUTED BETWEEN THE CITY OF REFUGE AND THE GOSPEL WAY OF SALVATION. There is an essential mark of difference between the two; the one was for the protection of the innocent, the other is God"s provision for the redemption of the guilty. But they are alike in this, that they tell of shelter from the fatal stroke of the avenger. We are reminded how"All the lives that are were forfeit once, And He who might the vantage best have took Found out the remedy.

When He "maketh inquisition for blood," then shall it be found that "there is no condemnation for them that are in Christ Jesus," who have "fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before them. W.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The laws concerning the cities of refuge, ver. 1-6. The appointment of those cities, ver. 7-9.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The Cities of Refuge.

Since the Lord had commanded, Numbers 35, that cities of refuge should be chosen in various parts of the country, this matter was next attended to.

v. 1. The Lord also spake unto Joshua, saying,

v. 2. Speak to the children of Israel, saying, Appoint out for you cities of refuge, whereof I spake unto you by the hand of Moses, Exo 21:13; Num 35:6; Deu 19:2-9,

v. 3. that the slayer that killeth any person unawares and unwittingly, without malice, without evil intention, may flee thither; and they shall be your refuge from the avenger of blood, as had been provided for in detail by the precepts governing such cases.

v. 4. And when he that doth flee unto one of those cities shall stand at the entering of the gate of the city, when begging for admission to the safety of its sacred precincts, and shall declare his cause in the ears of the elders of that city, they shall take him into the city unto them, the preliminary hearing at the gate being made to safeguard their interests, and give him a place that he may dwell among them.

v. 5. And if the avenger of blood, the relative upon whom the duty of requiring an atonement devolved, pursue after him, then they shall not deliver the slayer up into his hand, because he smote his neighbor unwittingly, and hated him not beforetime, the slaying thus evidently being an accident.

v. 6. And he shall dwell in that city until he stand before the congregation for judgment, and until the death of the high priest that shall be in those days; then shall the slayer return and come unto his own city and unto his own house, unto the city from whence he fled. "He might not be delivered to the avenger of blood, but. . to the congregation of his own city, which should hold judgment upon him, and either, if they found him guilty, give him up to the avenger of blood or, if they esteemed him innocent, send him back to the city of refuge, where he must remain until the death of the anointed high priest, Num 35:25, that is, of the ruling high priest. After the death of the latter there follows, somewhat as upon the death of an anointed prince, an amnesty, and the manslayer is at liberty to return to his home. If, however, he presumptuously leaves his asylum sooner, he is exposed to the anger of the avenger, Num 35:26-28. " 2)

v. 7. And they, in accordance with this express order of the Lord, appointed Kedesh in Galilee in Mount Naphtali, in the extreme northern part of Canaan, and Shechem in Mount Ephraim, in the approximate center, and Kirjath-arba, which is Hebron, in the mountain of Judah, in the southern part of the land.

v. 8. And on the other side Jordan, by Jericho eastward, in the territory of the two and one half tribes, they assigned Bezer in the wilderness upon the plain out of the tribe of Reuben, in the south, and Ramoth in Gilead, out of the tribe of Gad, in the center, and Golan in Bashan out of the tribe of Manasseh, in the north, as Moses had directed, Deu 4:43.

v. 9. These were the cities appointed for all the children of Israel, literally, "the cities of appointment," and for the stranger that sojourneth among them, that whosoever killeth any person at unawares might flee thither, and not die by the hand of the avenger of blood, until he stood before the congregation and thus had the opportunity of proving the absence of any evil intention in the slaying which had happened. The entire chapter testifies to the grace and mercy of the Lord. We Christians learn here that even sins that are done unintentionally, unwittingly, are nevertheless transgressions of God’s holy Law, just as is the inherited tendency to all sins which we bear in our hearts. But God has placed before us the true city of refuge, in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Every one who flees to the Redeemer and His mercy, relying upon His atonement alone, will in no wise be cast out.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

by the hand of Moses

Here "hand of Moses" refers to the scriptures that Moses wrote down. AT: "through the things that Moses wrote" (See: Metonymy)

unintentionally kills

This happens when a person accidentally kills another person, without intending to do so.

avenge the blood of a person who was killed

Here the shed blood of a person represents their death. This can be stated in active form. AT: "avenge a person's death" (See: Metonymy and Active or Passive)

translationWords

Yahweh

Joshua

Israel

refuge

Moses

avenge

blood

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.