1–5 The Levites would not be receiving an allotment of land like the other tribes; their support would come from the tithes of the people (Numbers 18:20–24). However, they still needed a place to live and raise their families and their livestock. So the Lord told Moses to assign them cities in various locations throughout Canaan, each with an area of pastureland around it.106 In this way, the Levites would be spread throughout the land and thus better able to teach the people and minister to their religious needs.
Cities of Refuge (35:6–34) (Deuteronomy 4:41–43; 19:1–13; Joshua 20:1–9)
6–8 Out of a total of forty-eight cities that would be given to the Levites by the various tribes, six were to be set apart as cities of refuge (verse 6). These were cities to which a person could flee after killing someone accidentally (verse 11).
9–21 The reason such cities of refuge were necessary was that in ancient times the nearest relative of a murdered person was entitled to avenge his or her death; this relative was called the avenger of blood107 (verses 19,21). Jesus taught us that this ancient custom was wrong. We must not take vengeance into our own hands, but rather we must forgive those who wrong us or our family (Matthew 5:38–39,43–44). Paul wrote: Do not repay anyone evil for evil . . . Do not take revenge . . . “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord (Romans 12:17,19).
However, because this ancient custom did exist, God wanted to ensure that the “avenger of blood” did not wrongfully take the life of a suspected murderer. If the killing had clearly been deliberate, then the avenger of blood would be justified in taking the life of the murderer (verses 16–21); but if the original killing had been accidental, then the avenger of blood would not be justified. Only for deliberate sins was the death penalty justified (see Exodus 20:13; 21:12–14; Numbers 15:30–31 and comments).
Therefore, until the nature of the killing could be determined by the assembly, or council of elders (verse 12), the suspected murderer needed a place of refuge.
22–29 If the accused person was judged to be innocent of intentional killing, he still had to remain in the city of refuge—until the current high priest died (verses 25–28). Whenever a high priest died, those exiled in the cities of refuge were free to leave and go back to their own land and lead normal lives. It was as if they had been pardoned; the avenger of blood could no longer pursue them.
The pardon resulting from the death of a high priest in Old Testament times points forward to a greater High Priest, Jesus Christ, through whose death a greater pardon has been granted to all who believe in Him. The death of Israel’s high priest brought limited pardon on earth; the death of Jesus brings eternal pardon in heaven.
The selection of the six cities of refuge is described in Deuteronomy 4:41–43;Joshua 20:1–9. Three of the cities were to be on the east side of the Jordan River and three on the west, each city strategically located so that any Israelite could quickly reach one of them and find refuge from a pursuer.
Further discussion concerning the procedures for dealing with intentional and unintentional killing is found in Deuteronomy 19:1–13.
30 Any death sentence passed by the assembly of elders had to be based on the testimony of at least two witnesses. Obviously the witnesses had to agree; they also had to be people of integrity (see Deuteronomy 19:15–21 and comment). However, even having multiple witnesses does not guarantee that their testimony will be true (see 1 Kings 21:1–16).
The need for two or more witnesses applies not only to death sentences but also to any matter involving a dispute between two or more parties (Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1).
31–32 In many societies it is possible for a wealthy person to escape his just punishment by paying money; a less wealthy person may have a rich relative who can buy his freedom. But in Israel, such payment, or ransom, was against the law. Rich and poor were to be treated alike.
33–34 In particular, a murderer had to receive his just punishment—death—because that was the only way atonement could be made for the land. Bloodshed pollutes the land (verse 33). For that pollution to be cleansed—atoned for—the one who had shed the blood had to have his own blood shed (see Genesis 9:4–7 and comment).
Why does bloodshed pollute and defile the land? Because to wrongfully take life shows contempt for two of God’s greatest gifts: the gift of life and the gift of land, which is given to maintain life. Bloodshed cries out to the Lord, just as the blood of Abel cried out to the Lord from the ground where it was shed (Genesis 4:10).
Furthermore, the Lord will not dwell in a land that is polluted, defiled. If the Israelites wanted the Lord to continue dwelling with them, they had to make sure that the land He had given them did not become defiled.
1. And the Lord spake unto Moses. Although there was no inheritance assigned to the tribe of Levi, yet it was necessary that they should be supplied with dwelling-places. No lands were given then where they might sow and reap; but by way of compensation the tithes were a sufficient means of subsistence, even after deducting the tithes which were paid to the poor. God now, however, makes provision for their residences; and here we must carefully remark, that they were so distributed over the whole land, as to be, as it were, guards regularly posted for the preservation of the worship of God, lest any superstition should creep in, or the people should fall into gross contempt of God. For we know that they were chosen by Him, not only to attend to the ceremonies, but to be the interpreters of the law, and to cherish sincere piety among the people. Now if all had been placed in one station, it was dangerous lest the doctrine of the Law should immediately fall into oblivion through the whole land; and thus the other tribes should grow irreligious. Wherefore the incomparable goodness of God here shone forth, since their punishment was turned as it were into a reward of virtue, and their disgrace into honor; for this dispersion of the tribe of Levi had been foretold by the holy patriarch Jacob, (Gen 46:7,) that their posterity should be scattered in that land, which Levi the father of their race had polluted by a detestable murder and wicked perfidy. God proved eventually that this prophecy, which proceeded from Him, did not fall to the ground unfulfilled; nevertheless, although the Levites were to be banished here and there in token of their disgrace, yet were they set in various parts of the land, that they might retain the other tribes under the yoke of the Law. It was then in God’s wonderful providence that they were rather placed in peculiar and fixed residences, than allowed to mingle themselves promiscuously with the rest of the people; for the cities which God assigned to them were so many schools, where they might better and more freely engage themselves in teaching the Law, and prepare themselves for performing the office of teaching. For if they had lived indiscriminately among the multitude, they were liable to contract many vices, as well as to neglect the study of the Law; but when they were thus collected into separate classes, such an union reminded them that they were divided from the people that they might devote themselves altogether to God. Besides, their cities were like lamps shining into the very furthest corners of the land. They were therefore fortified, as it were, by walls, lest the corruptions of the people should penetrate to them. Their association together also should have stimulated them mutually to exhort each other to confinehey, decent and modest manners, temperance, and other virtues worthy of God’s servants; whilst, if they fell into dissolute habits, they were the less excusable. Thus their cities were like watch towers in which they might keep guard, so as to drive impiety away from the borders of the holy land. Hence was the light of heavenly doctrine diffused; hence was the seed of life scattered; hence were the examples to be sought of holiness and universal integrity.
4. And the suburbs of the cities. A discrepancy here appears, from whence a question arises; for Moses first limits the suburbs to a thousand cubits from the city in every direction; and then seems to extend them to two thousand. Some thus explain the difficulty, viz., that the parts nearest to the city were destined for cottages and gardens; and that then there was another space of a thousand cubits left free for their flocks and herds; but this seems only to be invented, in order to elude by the subterfuge the contradiction objected to. My own opinion rather is, that after Moses had given them a boundary of a thousand cubits on every side, he proceeds to shew the way in which they were to be measured, that thus he may obviate all the quarrels which might aria: from their neighbors. It is plain that, when he repeats the same thing twice, the latter verse is only an explanation of the former; and thus it would be absurd, that after having fixed a thousand cubits, he should immediately double that number. But it will be all very consistent, if this measurement be taken in a circuit; for if you draw a circle, and then a line from the center to the circumference, that line will be about a tenth part of the whole circumference; compare then the fourth part of the circle with the straight line which goes to the center, and it will be greater by one part and a half. But, if you leave a thousand cubits for the city, the two thousand cubits (199) in the four parts of the circumference will correspond with one thousand cubits from the city towards each of the boundaries.
It is afterwards prescribed, in accordance with equity, that a greater or less number of cities should be taken according to the size of the possessions belonging to each tribe; for, just as in paying tax or tribute, regard is had to each man’s means, so it was just that every tribe should contribute equitably in proportion to its abundance. As to the cities of refuge, I now omit to explain what their condition was, because this matter relates to the Sixth Commandment; only let us observe that the wretched exiles were entrusted to the care of the Levites, that they might be more safely guarded. Besides, it was probable that those who presided over holy things would be upright and honest judges, so as not to admit men indiscriminately out of hope of advantage, or from carelessness, but only to protect the innocent, after duly examining their case.
(199) “Les huit mille coudees prinses aux quatre quatriers conviendront avec les mille coudees d’espace entre la ville, et les bornes des fanbourgs.” — Fr. The more common solution of this difficulty appears to be that suggested by Maimonides, viz., that besides the 1000. cubits allotted to the suburbs, 2000. more were added for fields and vineyards. Rosenmuller, however, demurs to this interpretation, which he does not consider the text will bear. I have translated C. word for word, but I believe his figures are wrong. It is probable that his theory is the same as that of Corn. a Lapide, which he thus more clearly propounds, “God seems here to comprise the city and its suburbs in a circle, so that the center should be the city, and the circumference should end at the distance of 1000. cubits on every side of the city walls. This circle He divides into four triangles, each of which is isosceles, i e., it, has its two sides equal, which are drawn from the center to the circumference. God, therefore, here commands, that the suburbs on every side should be extended a thousand cubits, and that the east side should be contained in two lines (each, of course, of 1000. cubits) drawn from the city to the circumference of the suburbs, which two lines comprehend that east side in the shape of a triangle;” and so also with the other sides, “so that the two lines drawn to the circumference of each side, which are the two equal sides of the triangle, should together contain 2000. cubits."
10. Speak unto the children of Israel God appointed the cities of refuge, not only to make distinction between sills of malice and error, but also lest innocent blood should be rashly shed. Thus far we have seen how severely He would have murder punished: but, inasmuch as it would have been by no means just that he, who had not willfully but accidentally killed his neighbor, should be hurried away to the same punishment, to which willful murderers were subjected, an exception is added here, in order that he might escape who had killed another ignorantly, and unintentionally. Although, as has been said, God had a, further object, viz., lest murder upon murder should be committed, and the land should thus be polluted. Let us now examine the details in order. Although at the outset He only mentions the cities on the other side of Jordan, still we gather from what follows, that six cities were chosen for this purpose, of which three were on this side Jordan. He would have them so situated, that every part of the country should have one of them in its neighborhood, lest the exile of the unhappy persons, who were guiltless, should be rendered more painful by the distance they would have to travel. We have already briefly pointed out (52) that these cities were to be in the portions of Levi, in order that the dignity of the priesthood might the better protect the exiles, and also, because it was probable that there would be more prudence and serious feeling in the Levites, so that the refuge accorded to the innocent should not also shield the guilty.
(52) See vol. 2. p. 251, on Num 35:6.
16. And if he smite him with an instrument of iron. God appears to contradict Himself, when, a little further on, He absolves involuntary murderers, although they may have inflicted the wound with iron or with a stone; whilst here He absolutely declares that whosoever shall smite another with wood, or iron, or a stone, shall be guilty of death; but this is easily explained if we consider his meaning; for, after having pardoned the unintentional act (errori,) lest (53) any should misconstrue this as affording impunity for crime, He at once anticipates them, and again inculcates what has been said before. By the express mention of iron, wood, and stone, He more dearly explains that no voluntary murders are to be pardoned; else, as laws are wont to be evaded by various subtleties, they would have endeavored, perhaps, to limit what had been said respecting the punishment of murderers to one single species of murder, viz., when a person had been slain with a sword. It is not, then, without cause that God condemns to death every kind of murderer, whether he have committed the crime with a weapon (of iron,) or by throwing a stone, or with a dub; since it is sufficient for his condemnation that he had conceived the intention to do the evil act. It is well known that (54) by the Lex Cornelia, whosoever had carried a weapon with the intention of killing a man was guilty; and Martianus cites the reply of Adrian, — He who has killed a man, if he did it not with the intention of killing him, may be absolved; and he who has not killed a man, but has wounded him with intention to kill him, is to be condemned as a murderer; as Paulus also teaches, that in the said Lex Cornelia, the evil intention (dolus) is taken for the deed. Another reply of Adrian is very true, That in crimes, the will and not the result must be regarded. Whence that saying of Ulpian, That there is no difference between the man who kills, and him who causes the death of another. Here, therefore, God had no other object than to cut off from murderers all handles for subterfuge, if they should be convicted of a wicked intention, especially when it resulted in an actual attempt; since there was no difference whether they had made use of a sword, or a mallet, or a stone.
(53) “De peur que cela ne tirast trop longue queue, et que les criminels en fissent couverture d’impunite, il exprime notamment les facons de tuer plus communes, quand on y va de guet-a-pens. Ainsi en nommant les instrumens, qui sont destinez, ou qu’on applique a mal faire,” etc.; for fear this should be carried too far, and that criminals should make it a ground for impunity, he expressly mentions the more ordinary kinds of deliberate murder. Thus, by naming the instruments, which are intended, or used for inflicting injuries, etc. — Fr.
(54) Vide Digest. 48, tit. 8. In legem Corneliam de Sicariis, et Veneficiis, 1. Section 3. “Divus Hadrianus rescripsit, eum, qui hominem occidit, si non occidendi animo hoc admisit, absolvi posse: et qui hominem non occidit, sed vulneravit ut occidat, pro homicida damnandum: et ex re constituendum hoc.” — Ibid. , 11 “Ulpianus, lib. 8, ad legem Juliam, et Papiam. Nihil interest, occidat quis, an causam mortis praebeat.” Vide item, Julii Pauli Recept. Sentent., lib. 5, tit. 23, Section 2. “Qui hominem occiderit, aliquando absolvitur. Et qui non occidit, in homicida damnatur. Consilium enim uniuscujusque, non factum puniendum est. Ideoque qui cum velit occidere, id casu aliquo perpetrare non potuerit, ut homicida punietur. Et is, qui casu jactu teli hominem imprudenter occiderit, absolvitur.”
19. The revenger (55) of blood himself. When God commanded that murderers should suffer death, He required that they should be condemned by the judges after due trial; but it seems to savor somewhat of barbarism, that he should now permit the relative of the dead man to take vengeance; for it is a very bad precedent to give the power of the sword to private individuals, and this too in their own cause. It; was indeed formerly permitted, as we shall see in its proper place, to put to death robbers by night, as also it was lawful for the husband, or the father, of a ravished woman to kill the adulterer caught in the fact; but it is absurd that the law should allow a person to avenge the death of his brother. But it is not to be supposed that this license was ever accorded by God, that a man might neglect the public authorities, and inflict punishment on his brothers murderer, wherever he should meet him; for this would have been to give the reins to sudden anger, so that blood would be added to blood. Wherefore it is probable that the danger of this is here denounced, rather than the gate opened to private vengeance; as if it had been said, that unless a provision were made for the innocent, the fury of those whose kindred had been slain, could hardly be restrained; not because it was lawful for them to render violence for violence, but because they would not consider it a crime, and impunity would prove a stimulus even to them, if their just indignation should be pardoned. It must be understood, then, that when a man had been maliciously and willfully killed, a death inflicted by his relative in vengeance was not punished; because it was hard that a man should be capitally condemned as a criminal, who had only slain a murderer already exposed to capital punishment, under the impulse of that love towards his own blood, which is naturally implanted in all. This, however, was tolerated, and not approved of, because, as I have already said, punishments are to be inflicted by public judgment, and not by private will. But, since this indulgence was conceded on account of the people’s hardness of heart, God here reminds them how needful it was to provide an asylum for the innocent, because all murderers would else have been indiscriminately attacked. In short, a comparison is made between the guilty and the innocent, for, unless a just distinction had been drawn, all alike would have been exposed to death. The murderer, he says, is worthy of death, if, perchance, he is met by the kinsman of the man murdered. A remedy is, therefore, to be provided, lest one who is not criminal should accidentally receive the same punishment. Hence, at length it is gathered that a distinction is made between one and the other, by a lawful trial. The mode of procedure is also prescribed, viz., that the congregation should acquit the man who has killed another unwittingly. But because there is some perplexity in the words, it must be observed, that as soon as a person had slain another, he immediately betook himself to the place of refuge, and there declared that he sought shelter. After this declaration, it was open for the relatives of the dead man to lay their accusation, and then, after both parties were heard, judgment was pronounced. Otherwise there is a manifest contradiction in the context, since it is presently added; they “shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled,” whence it appears that, after the exile had presented himself to state his case, and to clear himself, it was usual that a day should be appointed, upon which his accusers should come forward. The sum is, that the murderer should nowhere find refuge, except he were acquitted of his crime. This was an excellent precaution, lest the same punishment should be inflicted upon mischance and criminality, whilst (56) at the same time, by the temporary banishment it was testified how carefully bloodshed was to be avoided. God likewise spared the eyes of those whose brother had been killed, lest their grief should be kept alive by continually beholding (the person who had killed him; (57)) and this we gather from verse 26, where impunity is conceded to the relations, if they had caught and killed out of the boundaries of his refuge the man, whose duty it was to withdraw himself; not because the fury of their indignation was excused before God, but because it would else have been difficult to restrain the strong desire of vengeance proceeding from the feelings of human nature.
(55) “Propinquus sanguinis.” — Lat.
(56) The Fr. gives a different turn to this sentence; “que pour obvier a un nouveau meurtre en bannissant pour un temps celuy, qui avoit tue quelqu’un par erreur;” as well as to prevent a fresh murder, by banishing, for a time, the person who had killed another unintentionally.
(57) Added from Fr.
28. Because he should have remained in the city of his refuge. The period of banishment is prescribed, “until the death of the high-priest,” because it would have been anything but humane that all hopes of restoration should have been cut off from the unhappy exile; and, when a new priest succeeded to reconcile the people to God, this renewal of grace was to propitiate all offenses. Wherefore it was not unreasonable that God should entirely restore those who were only punished for inadvertency.
30. Whoso killeth any person, He now returns to willful murderers, whom he will not have spared, but yet not given over to punishment unless convicted by legal proofs. Literally it is, Whoso smiteth a soul, at the mouth of witnesses he shall slay him that slayeth: and this sentence is obscure, from its brevity, unless a noun be supplied before the second verb; and this may be understood either of the judges or the accuser. In the substance, however, there is no ambiguity, viz., that no one should be condemned unless he be lawfully convicted. Moreover, He declares that one witness would be insufficient, inasmuch as it would be most unjust that a man’s life should be at the mercy of a single tongue. I have already adduced a similar passage, (58) in which Moses gave instructions that no capital causes was to be decided except at the mouth of two or three witnesses: and, because such declarations are of general application, I have purposely assigned to them a separate place. Now again, in referring to the condemnation of murderers, he takes occasion to state that two witnesses are required, since nothing is more likely to occur than that the innocent should be overwhelmed by calumnies and perjury, if it depended on the testimony of any single individual. But, when two are brought forward, it may be discovered in many ways, as has been said, whether there is any falsehood; for, if examined separately, they will scarcely accord in all particulars. But, whilst sure proof is required, in order to the punishment of guilt, so, when the murder is proved, God sternly requires, and commands that it should not remain unpunished. He expressly forbids that the right of refuge should be purchasable, since it would else have been in danger of being a shield for many crimes. When, therefore, He forbids a satisfaction to be taken from any one, who would betake himself to a city of refuge, His object is, that no one should enjoy this benefit, until his innocence was fully established; lest the mercy, whereby the innocent were succored, should be open to bribery.
(58) Deu 17:6. See ante, p. 45.
33. So ye shall not pollute the land. In this concluding sentence, He again reminds them that, unless they should exercise severe justice against murderers, they would be guilty of sin against God; because the land stained with human blood is polluted, and lying under His curse, until expiation has been made. Again, since God dwells in the land of Canaan, having chosen His abode among the children of Israel, his sanctity is also profaned. The sum is, that, in every respect, care should be taken lest the land, which is sacred to God, should be contaminated by bloodshed.
Num 35:1-3. And the Lord spake unto Moses,-saying- As the priests and Levites, were a distinct body from the rest of the nation, and had no share in the division of the country, God here assigns them several towns for their residence, with such a portion of ground about them as would serve for their decent subsistence. Under the name Levites are comprehended both priests and Levites, who were all of the tribe of Levi. See Jos 21:4. Notwithstanding this provision, it was lawful for them to hire or purchase houses in any other city, particularly Jerusalem; for we find in Scripture many proofs of their dwelling in other cities besides these which are assigned to them; and in like manner, no doubt, other people, with their permission, might dwell with them in their cities. It is plain, that the suburbs of the cities were for pasturage, and for the use of their cattle. Their goods mean stables for their cattle, and stowages for their provisions of all kinds. See Bonfrere on the place.
Num 35:4-5. The suburbs of the cities shall reach, &c.- In the version of the LXX, instead of a thousand cubits round about, it is two thousand cubits, which, from the next verse, appears evidently to have been the true and original reading; a reading which entirely removes all those difficulties wherewith the passage otherwise is loaded, and which commentators have so laboriously endeavoured to remove. The plain meaning seems to be, that the suburbs of these cities, whether from the wall, or from the centre of the city, as Le Clerc would render it, were to be two thousand cubits in extent on every side, the city standing in the midst. The reader, desirous to enter into the critical disquisitions of this subject, will find sufficient matter in almost every commentator, particularly in Calmet, Houbigant, Scheuchzer, and Le Clerc. If, however, this reading of the LXX should not be approved, we may well follow Mr. Lowman's interpretation: "In measuring from the wall of the city outward," says he, "the law appoints one thousand cubits only, not two thousand; which Grotius seems well to express by spatium mille cubitorum accessio urbium: it was but one thousand cubits to the cities. The next verse, indeed, directs that you shall measure from without the city, on the east side, two thousand cubits, and so each way. At first view, it is plain, that these two directions cannot be meant of the same measure from and to the very place, or from the walls of the city to the end of the ground without the walls; it must be meant of different measures, and therefore of different places. In the first case, measure from the walls outward to the end of the suburbs, and it will be one thousand cubits; in the other case, measure from without the city, or from the end of the suburbs inward, and so into the city, and to the centre of the whole ground, and it will be two thousand cubits each way. This gives a just and easy sense to these directions, and the difference is no more than measuring outward from the walls in one case, and from the parts without the city into the city itself in the other case: so that one measure gives the contents of the suburbs alone, the other the contents of the suburbs and cities together; yet, as it is thought by some, that the areas of the cities are not included in the four thousand cubits square, let the addition be made for the areas of the cities: what shall it be, one thousand, fifteen hundred, or two thousand cubits square? Be it two thousand; and then, the whole being a square of six thousand cubits, or thirty-six millions of square cubits, will be somewhat more than as much again as the former computation, or as thirty-six to sixteen. Let then, if you will, an allowance be made to the Levitical cities of one hundred and ten thousand acres, instead of near fifty-three thousand in the former calculation; this will not amount to a tenth of the remainder of one million two hundred thousand acres, after the division of ten millions, and is not one in a hundred to eleven millions two hundred and sixty-four thousand, the very longest contents of the whole land." See his Civ. Gov. of the Hebrews, p. 110. But respecting the subject, we refer to Joshua 20.
REFLECTIONS.-As the Levites would need an abode when they came into the land, God assigns them forty-eight cities, with their suburbs, for their cattle in the several tribes. They needed not arable land, as the tithes were their portion, and the care of the soil would have diverted them from the care of men's souls. For mutual edification, they dwell together; for general usefulness their cities are dispersed, each tribe; according to its extent, furnishing them out of their lot with a suitable abode. Note; (1.) To provide a gospel ministry should be the great concern of every people. (2.) They who are engaged in the ministry should, as much as possible, divest themselves of every worldly care. (3.) They who minister to us in spirituals have a right to reap our worldly things.
Num 35:6-15. And among the cities which ye shall give unto the Levites, there shall be six cities for refuge, &c.- The cities of the Levites were appointed for this purpose, rather than any other, because they were a kind of sacred places inhabited by sacred persons; and here men might spend their time better than in other places, being among the ministers of religion. These cities of refuge were only for those who killed any person unawares, Num 35:11 i.e. unwittingly, or ignorantly, as it is in Deu 19:4-5 and Jos 20:3. See also Num 35:22 following. The avenger, Num 35:12 says Mr. Locke, means the next heir, or next of kin. For the original word is גאל goel, see Lev 25:25. Maimonides justly observes, that this was a merciful provision, both for the man-slayer, that he might be preserved; and for the avenger, that his blood might be cooled by the removal of the man-slayer out of his sight. It appears, from the 12th verse, that the city of refuge protected him who fled thither, so as that the right of the judges to bring the matter to a fair trial remained entire; that the man-slayer die not, until he stand before the congregation in judgment. The elders of the city of refuge inquired, whether the man-slayer should be received or not, upon a summary hearing of the cause; Jos 20:4 but they were not the proper judges, neither could they examine witnesses; and therefore he was delivered, upon demand, to the court or senate of that city where the fact was committed, that he might be tried by them whether he was guilty or not of wilful murder. That the passage ought to be thus interpreted, is plain from Num 35:24-25 where it is said, if the congregation found him innocent, he should be restored to the city of refuge; which evidently supposes that he was tried in another place. Cities or places of refuge, usually called asyla, were common to the Hebrews, and with almost all the Gentile world; but, as in the foregoing circumstance, so in various other particulars, they were much more wisely regulated among the Hebrews than among the Gentiles: for, 1. Among other nations it was not allowed to bring to trial, against his will, the person who had fled to the place of refuge; but, among the Hebrews, the asylum served only to secure the man-slayer from being punished without a fair hearing: a point of the greatest equity, but by no means such as screened the guilty from the stroke of justice; so far from it, that the wilful murderer might even be taken from God's altar, if he fled thither for sanctuary: Exo 21:14 or, if he would not stir from thence, he might be put to death upon the spot. 1Ki 2:28. We may observe the wisdom of the divine legislator in this particular. It would have been unjust to have put the man-slayer upon the same footing with the wilful murderer, and it would have been imprudent to suffer him to have been daily conversant in the sight of the relations of the person slain; for, love to their deceased friend might have provoked them to watch the opportunity of avenging his death. The evil, therefore, was guarded against by sending the man-slayer out of the way to the city of refuge. 3. As the man-slayer could not without injustice be put to death, to neither ought he to pass without some animadversion, in order to put others upon their guard, lest, through negligence, they should be the unhappy instruments of taking away their neighbour's life. Therefore, it was wisely provided, that the man-slayer should live in exile till the death of the high priest. 4. The wisdom of the legislature remarkably appears, in not opening a sanctuary for all homicides without distinction, as was the case among the Gentiles; but only for involuntary manslaughter. The asyla of the Greeks were sanctuaries for all criminals, which could not but be a source of great licentiousness and disorder. Hence it was, that, as Tacitus informs us, lib. 3: cap. 60. Tiberius found it necessary to take away that privilege from most of the Grecian temples. 5. It was with the same wise discernment, that the places of refuge were not appointed at the tabernacle, or in the temple, where the worship of God might have been prophaned by the presence of murderers, or by the violent assaults of the avengers of blood. On the contrary, throughout all the Gentile world, the temples and places of worship were sanctuaries for crimes. So that Euripides had good reason to find fault with the asyla of the Greeks, as he does in his Ion; Δεινον γε θνητοις, &c. that is, "It is surprising that the gods did not institute laws for mortals with more wisdom and equity; for criminals, instead of being protected by the altar, ought to have been driven from it, since it is a profanation for impious hands to touch the things of God; but those sacred places ought to have been a sanctuary for the just, a refuge from injury and oppression. Thus the gods would not have shewn equal favour to the virtuous and the wicked, when they came to the same place." 6. It is worthy of remark, that though the punishment inflicted on the man-slayer by the Jewish legislator be banishment, yet it is not banishment out of the Jewish territory; lest, by residing among idolaters, he should be seduced from the true religion, and become a worshipper of false gods. Whereas, among other nations, particularly the Greeks, not only the wilful murderer, but the involuntary man-slayer, was banished out of the country, whereby the commonwealth was deprived of one of its members. See Samuel Petit de Leg. Att. lib. 7: Titus 1. We are chiefly indebted to Mr. Le Clerc for the foregoing remarks. They who would see more concerning the cities of refuge will find a full account of them in the Univ. Hist. vol. 3: p. 92 and of the asyla of the heathens in Abbe Banier's Mythology, vol. 1: book 3 chap. 8.
Num 35:14. Three cities on this side Jordan, and three cities-in the land of Canaan- This appears not to be an equal partition, the land of Canaan being much larger than the territory beyond Jordan; for it contained about three parts in four of the tribes of Israel: but it is to be considered, that the country beyond Jordan was as long as the land of Canaan, though not so broad; besides, God commanded those in Canaan, if he enlarged their coasts to add three cities more besides these; Deu 19:8-9.
See commentary on Num 35:6
Num 35:16-18. If he smite him with an instrument of iron, &c.- It appears from these verses, that it made no difference with what kind of weapon the man was killed; if he was killed wittingly and knowingly, this was adjudged murder, and the guilty person was to die for it. For though, perhaps, he had no formed intention to kill the person; yet he ought to have moderated his passion, and could not be ignorant that such an instrument was capable of inflicting a deadly wound.
Num 35:19. The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer- The Jews understand this as an absolute order for the avenger of blood to kill the murderer; but others suppose, that it is only a permission to the avenger, and after actual and legal condemnation of the murderer: an opinion which seems much confirmed by Deu 19:12-13. Le Clerc translates it, eum interficere licebit; it shall be lawful for him to kill him.
Num 35:20-21. But if, &c.- Here the case of malice prepense is provided for. Houbigant renders it, in like manner, if any one strike a man through hatred. See Deu 19:11. Le Clerc thinks, that the words when he meeteth him, (Num 35:19; Num 35:21.) shew, that Moses here speaks of one who took guilt to himself by flying, and refused to stand his trial; the avenger of blood might be allowed to kill such a one, either in consequence of the sentence of the judges, who, upon hearing the witnesses, might try and condemn the party, though absent, or upon account of his secreting himself from justice, whereby he appeared to be self-condemned.
Num 35:25. The congregation shall deliver the slayer-unto the death of the high priest- By this punishment inflicted on the man-slayer, others were taught to be very watchful over themselves, lest by negligence they should chance to kill any body, and so be forced into banishment. It would be endless to relate the different conjectures of the learned concerning the return of the homicide upon the death of the high priest. Many of the Jews affirm, that the death of so eminent a person, being lamented with the greatest concern by the whole nation, was one of the best means possible to put an end to all private resentments, and to unite men in friendship and affection: but the greater part of Christians consider this circumstance as a type of our deliverance through the death of Jesus Christ, by which mankind obtained entire and spiritual freedom, and a privilege of returning to their own country; namely, heaven. There were some footsteps of this custom among the Gentiles; for Servius, upon the 6th AEneid, ver. 143 has observed, that, upon the death of the high priest at Aricinum, those who had taken refuge in that temple were at liberty to return. We find in Philostratus a law of the citizens of Memphis: that, in the case of manslaughter, the party was obliged to fly, and put himself into the hands of the Gymnosophists, or Indian divines, who were to absolve him by water of lustration, and then he became, as we say, rectus in curia, or, an acquitted man, after he had first offered a sacrifice of inconsiderable value at the grave of the person whom he had unfortunately killed. De Vita Apollon. lib. vi. sect. 2. c. 5.
Num 35:26-27. If the slayer-come without the border, &c.- The reason of this law seems to be; because thus the man-slayer was, in some sort, accessary to his own death: for he might have been safe if he had pleased, though, at the same time, Moses in this seems to have indulged the Jews in the hardness of their hearts; for it is what the milder genius of the Gospel will undoubtedly condemn. See Mat 5:44; Mat 5:48. And though, in this case, such a slayer was free from the punishment of the law, yet he might be obnoxious to the judgment of God, as having killed an innocent person; see Barbeyrac's Notes on Grotius, de B. & P. lib. 1 cap. 1 sect. 17 n. 4.
Num 35:30. One witness shall not testify against any person- This is a wise precaution to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. The Jews tell us, that where there was but one witness, though he who was accused of the murder could not be put to death, yet he was thrown into a very strait prison, and there fed with bread and water.
Num 35:31. Ye shall take no satisfaction, &c.- See Gen 9:6 and Lev 24:20. Lord Clarendon, upon this and the 33rd verse, observes, that there is no established government in Christendom where the pardon of murder is not against the law.
We may conclude our exposition of Numbers with this chapter, as the final one contains no difficulties not dealt with in previous lessons, or that are not explained in the text itself.
THE CITIES OF THE LEVITES (Num 35:1-5)
As the Levites were to have no domain like the other tribes, they were to be distributed throughout the land in certain cities appropriated to their use; and these cities were to be surrounded by extensive suburbs.
There is an apparent discrepancy between Num 35:4-5 with regard to the extent of these suburbs; but the statements refer to different things the one to the extent of the suburbs from the walls of the city, the other to the space of 2,000 cubits from their extremity.
In point of fact, there was an extent of ground, amounting to 3,000 cubits, measured from the wall of the city. One thousand were probably occupied with out-houses for the accommodation of shepherds and other servants, with gardens, or olive yards. And these, which were portioned out to different families (1Ch 6:60), might be sold by one Levite to another, but not to any individual of another tribe (Jet. 32:7). The other two thousand cubits remained a common for the pasturing of cattle (Lev 25:34).
THE CITIES OF REFUGE (Num 35:6-29)
The practice of Goelism i.e., of the nearest relation of an individual who was killed being bound to demand satisfaction from the author of his death - existed from a remote antiquity (Gen 4:14; Gen 27:45).
It seems to have been an established usage in the age of Moses; and, although in a rude state of society it is a natural principle of criminal jurisprudence, it is liable to great abuses. The chief of the evils inseparable from it are that the kinsman, who is bound to execute justice, will often be precipitate, little disposed in the heat of passion to discriminate between the premeditated purpose of the assassin and the misfortune of the unintentional homicide.
Moreover, it had a tendency not only to foster a vindictive spirit, but, in case of the Goel being unsuccessful in finding his victim, to transmit animosities and feuds against his descendants from one generation to another. This is exemplified among the Arabs in the present day.
This practice of Goelism obtained among the Hebrews to such an extent that it was not expedient to abolish it; and Moses, while sanctioning its continuance, was directed to make special regulations, which tended to prevent the consequences of personal vengeance, and, at the same time, to afford an accused person time and means of proving his innocence.
This was the humane end contemplated in the institution of cities of refuge. There were to be six, three on the east of Jordan, both because the territory
there was equal in length, though not in breadth, to Canaan, and because it might be more convenient for some to take refuge across the border. They were appointed for the benefit, not of the Israelites only, but of all resident strangers.
ANALYSIS OF THE TEXT
How many of these cities were there (Num 35:6)? For whom appointed? From among what other cities? What important qualification is made in Num 35:11? And what further one in Num 35:12? How were these cities arranged with reference to the Jordan (Num 35:14)? “On this side Jordan” should be rendered beyond Jordan, and the idea is that three were especially for those tribes which so recently had elected to stay on the east side of the river. Was this refuge limited to the Israelites (Num 35:15)?
THE AVENGER OF BLOOD
What three cases of premeditated murder are mentioned (Num 35:16-18)? What three in Num 35:20-21. What name is given him whose duty it was to slay the murderer (Num 35:19)? The word “revenger” or avenger (see Num 35:12), is the translation of the Hebrew word Gaal from which comes Goelism. It means a kinsman, the nearest of kin. It was he, only, who could perform this office.
In the case of premeditated murder was there any escape for the guilty? But in the case of unpremeditated murder what protection did these cities provide (Num 35:22-24)? What was the method of operation (Num 35:24-25)? What condition was necessary for the man-slayer to observe (Num 35:26-28)? Once having reached the nearest city, for one or other of them was within a day’s journey of all parts of the land, he was secure. But he had to “abide in it.” His confinement was a wise rule, designed to show the sanctity of human blood in God’s sight, as well as to protect the man-slayer himself, whose presence in society might have provoked the passions of the deceased’s relatives. But the period of his release from confinement was not until the death of the high priest. That was a season of public affliction, when private sorrows were overlooked under a sense of the national calamity, and when the death of so eminent a servant of God naturally led all to serious consideration about their own mortality.
We meet this subject again in Deuteronomy 19 and Joshua 20, all of the passages put together furnishing rich material for a Bible reading or a sermon on the cities of refuge as a type of Christ. They are a type in the following ways; that is, in their:
1. origin, since they were divinely ordained
2. necessity, for without them there was no hope for the pursued
3. accessibility, for being on both sides of the Jordan, and within a day’s journey of all parts of the land, they might be easily reached
4. security, for the manslayer once received within their walls could not be assailed
5. applicability, for they were designed for all, Jew and Gentile, friend and alien, without distinction
Any able to use such an outline will not need to be reminded of the New Testament Scriptures which parallel the different divisions. In working out the details it might be well to show that like our salvation in Christ, the value of these cities of refuge was limited to those that remained in them. Also, point the contrast, that whereas they were restricted to the innocent man-slayer, Christ receives the guilty. The man-slayer had to be judged first, we believers are already judged, condemned, and yet free in Christ.
It is proper to say also that the “avenger of blood” or the kinsman redeemer is a beautiful type of Christ, some think more fitting than the cities of refuge themselves, but of this we shall speak in the next lesson.
QUESTIONS
1. How is the supposed discrepancy between verses 4 and 5 explained?
2. What is meant by the word “Goelism?”
3. Of what is Gaal or Goel the translation?
4. What is the meaning of the word?
5. To what abuses was Goelism liable?
6. In what ways was the Mosaic legislation intended to restrain them?
7. Where were the cities of refuge located with reference to the Jordan, and why?
8. How comprehensive were their benefits?
9. Why should the manslayer be confined in them?
10. In how many ways may they be considered typical of Christ?
THE KINSMAN REDEEMER
In fulfillment of the promise in the last lesson there is here a consideration of the kinsman redeemer as a type of Christ, being an abridgment from the Rev. Henry Melvill, D.D., an eloquent English University preacher of an earlier generation. Our object is not only to open up the subject to those who have never considered it, but also to furnish material for a Gospel sermon to those who have opportunities in that direction.
Great Truths Taught by Common Things
Melvill begins by speaking of the close connection between the Jewish and Christian dispensations as we have discovered in our study of the Pentateuch. We have seen this especially in regard to redemption, the redeemer under the law being the type of the Redeemer under the Gospel. There may be no distinct allusions to Christ, but whenever you meet with a transaction of redemption, either of land or of a person, the matter is so ordered as to be typical of the person and work of Christ. Thus the Jews were taught even through the common dealings of life the great spiritual deliverance that was wrought out in the fullness of time.
There are three conditions marked in the Old Testament as requiring the interposition of a redeemer: (1) if there had been a forfeiture of an inheritance, (2) if there had been a loss of personal liberty, or (3) if there had been the shedding of blood.
In each it was enjoined that the Goel or redeemer should interfere on behalf of the distressed individual. Moreover, the occasions which necessitated the interference of the Goel, and the manner in which it was conducted, bear so close a likeness to the Gospel redeemer that we can scarcely doubt it to have been the purpose of the Holy Spirit to keep the scheme of human redemption always before Israel.
The Forfeiture of an Inheritance
To begin with the forfeiture of an inheritance alluded to in the twenty-fifth chapter of Leviticus. If an Israelite had become poor, and sold some of his possessions, the Goel was directed, if possible, to redeem the land. In that
case it became the property of the Goel until the year of Jubilee, when it returned to the original proprietor. The forfeited possession might be redeemed by the latter at any time were he able to pay the price of it; but were he not, then only the Goel could redeem it for him, and if he did or could not do so, no stranger might interfere, the possession must remain unredeemed.
We see the typical character of this transaction indicated first in the fact that only a kinsman could fill the office of Goel. Some other individual might be ready to render aid, but had he the rights of the closest kinman- ship? If not, the law refused to allow his interposition. In laying down this principle, God taught that He who should arise as the Goel or Redeemer of a lost world, must be bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh. No angel could redeem us (Hebrews 10-18).
In the next place, if you wish to describe man’s natural condition and the change effected in it by the work of Christ, where can you obtain a better illustration than from the directions of this law in regard to a forfeited inheritance? Who is the Israelite that has grown poor and alienated himself from the possession of his fathers if it be not the sinner originally made in the image of God, and who has destroyed that image by an act of rebellion? An eternity of happiness was our possession, but we threw it away, bringing upon ourselves the curse of death of body and soul. We became poor, and who shall measure our spiritual poverty? Have we a solitary fraction of our own to pay for our redemption? Therefore, the inheritance must be forfeited forever, unless a kinsman redeemer shall arise. God has provided this redeemer in a man, and yet infinitely more than a man, the God-man Christ Jesus.
But furthermore, as in the case of the impoverished Israelite, what Christ had redeemed He has not instantly restored. The year of jubilee has not yet come for us, but with a mightier trumpet peal than could be heard upon the mountains of Israel shall that jubilee year be introduced. The resurrection and glorifying of our bodies will be their completion for entrance on the fullness of the purchased possession.
The Loss of Personal Liberty
To pass now to the second instance of redemption where there has been a loss of personal liberty, and where all that has been spoken of in regard to the forfeiture of an inheritance applies with only a light change. The same chapter shows that for the discharge of a debt or the procurement of subsistence an Israelite might sell himself either to another Israelite or a stranger. Should he become the servant of an Israelite, there was no right of redemption, but he must remain in the house of his master till the jubilee. But should he become the servant of a stranger and cause arise for the interposition of the Goel the law ran: “After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him.’ If he were able to redeem himself he might do so but were the ability lacking then his kinsman must interpose, no stranger could discharge the office.
Observe that the Goel had no right to interfere unless the Israelite had sold himself to a stranger. The reason is that if his master was an Israelite like himself, then he had not become separated from God’s people and the exigency had not arisen for his redemption in the same sense. It were only when the master were a stranger that the servicing became typical of man’s bondage to Satan. It was in such a case only that we find the illustration of the New Testament, saying that the servant of sin has been “made captive by Satan at his will.’
Thank God in such a case the sinner need not languish forever in bondage. The chain need not be eternal, for there advances his kinsman, made of a woman, made under the law, and in the likeness of sinful flesh, to pay down the price of redemption and to bid the prisoner come forth into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
The Shedding of Blood
The third case of redemption, where there had been the shedding of blood, differs from the two already examined.
This is referred to in Numbers 35, and in connection with the appointment of the cities of refuge.
The King James translation speaks only of the “avenger of blood,” but the original is Goel or the kinsman redeemer. You will recall that the latter must pursue the murderer and take vengeance if he overtake him before reaching the city of refuge. But if the Goel were not at hand to follow him no stranger had the right to do so. This feature of the Goel therefore stands out as prominently here as in the other instances.
It is the common idea that the cites of refuge were typical of Christ and the murderer was the human race pursued by the justice of God. There is some fidelity in this figure, and under certain limitations it may be considered as a type, but the standing type of Christ under the Mosaic law was the Goel, or kinsman redeemer. It is for this reason we seek the figure of Christ, not in the cities of refuge, but in the avenger of blood.
For example, those who were really guilty fled in vain to the city and must be delivered up to the punishment due their crime. Who can find in this any emblem of the flying of sinners for refuge to Christ?
On the other hand, observe that the human race, created deathless, was slain by Satan when he moved our first parents to the act prohibited in the words “in the day that thou doest it, thou shalt surely die.” It was with reference to this slaughter of mankind that Christ said of him: “He was a murderer from the beginning.” It was through Satan that death, whether of body or soul, gained footing in this creation, and we count it therefore proper to describe him as the great manslayer.
Our Nearest of Kin
But who pursued the murderer? Who took on him the vengeance which drew the wonder of the universe and “through death destroyed him that had the power of death?” Who but the kinsman redeemer? Who but that “seed of the woman” predicted to bruise the serpent’s head? Though Satan for a while may be permitted to roam over this creation, there has been gained a mastery over him which has reduced him to the bond-slave of our kinsman. And He is only reserving the full taking of vengeance until the year of jubilee arrives, when the enemy will be hurled into the lake of fire forever and ever.
Finally, we should not suppose that in pleading for the typical character of the Goel we plead for the existence of a figure hidden from the men of the old dispensation. When Job exclaims, “I know that my redeemer liveth,” what he really says is, “I know that my Goel, my kinsman, liveth.” And if the saints among the Jews could describe Christ as the Goel, would they not naturally turn to the offices of the Goel that they might ascertain the offices of Christ?
Who is there that is not the kinsman of Christ, since that kinsmanship resulted in His taking human nature upon Him? It is enough to be a man to know oneself Christ’s kinsman. He tasted death for every man. He redeemed every man’s inheritance. He regained every man’s liberty. He avenged every man’s blood. Will anyone put from him through unbelief the benefits of His interposition? “If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.”
This is the glorious Gospel of the Son of God, and nothing but belief can exclude the poorest, the meanest, the wickedest among men from a full and free share in the perfect redemption.
QUESTIONS
1. What great truth were the Jews taught even in the common duties of life?
2. What three conditions in the Old Testament required the interposition of a redeemer?
3. What relation must this redeemer bear to the distressed person?
4. Could any other person act in this capacity?
5. What great principle of our redemption is illustrated in this case?
6. How long might the Goel retain a redeemed possession, and what does this illustrate?
7. Why, in the second case, might not the Goel interpose unless an Israelite had sold himself to a stranger?
