Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Deuteronomy 4:41
Then Moses severed three cities on this side Jordan toward the sunrising;
41. Then Moses separated ] Rather, set apart. In Deu 10:8 the verb is used of God’s solemn separation of Levi to bear the ark, etc., and in Deu 29:21 (20) of the idolater to evil. The form of the verb here has the force of began, or proceeded, to set apart.
three cities ] On the number, and its contradiction of Deu 19:1 ff., see above, note introductory to this fragment.
beyond Jordan ] As in Deu 1:1 the writer writes in W. Palestine. This is put past doubt by the additional clause, toward the sunrising, cf. Deu 4:47. P omits sun and writes towards the rising, Deu 4:49 and Num 32:19; Num 34:15.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
41 43. Historical Note
Then, i.e. at the time of the preceding discourse in Moab, Moses set apart three cities E. of Jordan as asylums for men, who unwittingly and without previous hatred had slain their fellows: Beer, on the Plateau, Ramoth in Gilead, and Golan in Bashan. The style of this fragment is deuteronomic (see notes below). But had it belonged to the previous historical discourse it would surely have appeared somewhere in Deu 3:18-29 (before the subsequent exhortations); and have been expressed in the 1st instead of the 3rd pers. sing. Nor is it alluded to, nor presupposed by, D’s law on the Cities of Refuge, Deu 19:1 ff.; indeed, it cannot have been known to the author of this law which directs Israel to set apart three cities in the midst of the land which God is going to give them, i.e. the whole land both E. and W. of Jordan 1 [116] (with the proviso that if God shall enlarge the land they may add three more). The fragment cannot have belonged, therefore, to the original D. P, in Num 35:9-34, records a law, as given to Moses in Moab, on the same subject; but states it (1) far mole elaborately, (2) in a different vocabulary, and (3) with some differences of substance (see for details, Intr. to Pent. 121 f.). The cities are to be six, three on either side Jordan, and to be appointed after the people have passed over Jordan. In another P passage, Jos 20:1 f., this is said (again with some difference of terms) to have been done by Joshua; and the three E. cities named by him are the same as here. From all these data the most reasonable inference is that this fragment is the work of a deuteronomic editor either employing a tradition unknown to P; or (more probably) with P before him 1 [117] and making from it the natural inference that Moses had himself named the three cities E. of Jordan. If this be correct the fragment is an interesting illustration of the tendency (in many nations) to develop historical narrative out of law. In the earlier legislation (E, Exo 21:12-14; see Driver’s Ex. 215 f.) asylum is granted at every altar to him who has slain a man accidentally (but not to the wilful murderer). When all the altars were abolished by the deuteronomic legislation, except that of the Single Sanctuary, it became necessary to sanction asyla at a certain number of other places. This is done by D (Deu 19:1 ff.). The places were chosen partly (as is evident from the towns named W. of Jordan, edesh, Shechem, and ebron) because they contained ancient sanctuaries and partly because of their convenience (evident equally from the towns chosen E. and W. of Jordan). From this arose the tradition 2 [118] that the selection had been made in the earliest times; but one form of the tradition assigns the naming of the three towns E. of Jordan to Moses; the other assigns the naming of all six to Joshua. Why the deuteronomic editor should have put the former just here it is impossible to determine.
[116] This is the only fair interpretation; if the law Deu 19:1 ff. had meant three cities in W. Palestine in addition to the three already set apart by Moses on the E. of Jordan, it would surely have alluded to the latter. The law was obviously made in consequence of the institution of the single sanctuary and without regard to any historical tradition of what Moses or Joshua had done.
[117] The editor who compiled P with JED.
[118] The above data shew that the tradition (1) could not have been earlier than the deuteronomic legislation, for every altar before that provided an asylum; and (2) that it was later than the deuteronomic legislation.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
These verses are inserted between two distinct and complete discourses for the reason to which they themselves call attention (Then Moses severed three cities, etc.); i. e., the fact narrated took place historically after Moses spoke the one discourse and before he delivered the other. In thus severing the three cities of refuge Moses carried out a previous command of God (see the marginal references); and so followed up his exhortations to obedience by setting a punctual example of it, as far as opportunity was given him.
Deu 4:43
In the plain country – literally, in the land of the Mishor. The word means a level tract of land; but when used (Deu 3:10; Jos 13:9, etc.) with the article, seems to be the proper name for the smooth downs of Moab, which reach from the Jordan eastward of Jericho far into the Desert of Arabia, and which form a striking contrast alike to the rugged country west of the river, and to the higher and remarkable districts belonging to Bashan northward.
Bezer is, with little certainty, identified with Bostra, or (1 Macc. 5:36) Bosor. Golan gave the name of Gaulonitis to a district of some extent east of the sea of Galilee and north of the Hieromax; but the exact site of the city if uncertain.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Deu 4:41-42
Then Moses severed three cities on this side Jordan, that the slayer might flee thither.
The cities of refuge
The cities here mentioned were called the cities of refuge. They were appointed by the command of God Himself; and, after the Israelites had crossed the river Jordan and entered the land of Canaan, three more were set apart on the other side of the river for the same purpose.
I. What there was remarkable in their institution, in the circumstances that distinguished them. They were then so well chosen, with such attention to the design proposed, that no part of the country was more than half a days journey from some one of them.
II. Behold in these cities of refuge an emblem of the redemption provided in the Gospel. See in the fugitive a fitting likeness of those who flee for refuge to the hope set before them in Christ Jesus. The ancient city of refuge stood on high, easy to be seen of all, holding out safety to those who needed it. Even so hath Jesus Christ been lifted up on the Cross, that the eye of faith may be turned to Him, and the hope of salvation arise in the heart of the penitent believer. The road that led to the cities of refuge was broad, plain, and straight; there was nothing to hinder the feet of him who fled along it. And is the highway of Gods salvation less plain, less open, less direct? On the roads that led to the cities of refuge way marks were set up to guide the feet of the fugitive. Even so are the ministers of Jesus now commissioned to guide the ignorant, and warn the wandering, and to cry aloud to all, This is the way, walk ye in it. The gates of the city of refuge stood open day and night. And so do the gates of the city of our God, the New Jerusalem. Christ ever stands ready to embrace in the arms of His mercy the soul that seeketh Him. The city of refuge was bound to support those who fled to it for protection. And in the house of the living God there is bread enough and to spare. The city of refuge was for all, as well for the stranger as for one born in the land. And in Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female.
III. The conditions on which he who fled to one of the cities of refuge was entitled to the privileges thereof. First, leaving all behind, be must flee for his life, nor ever stop till sheltered within the appointed walls. Again, when once received within the city, he must not leave it, no, not for a moment, lest the avenger of blood fall upon him, and he die. Have you fled to Christ? Abide, then, in Him: forsake not the safe shelter of His fold: go not from under the shadow of His wing. (C. Blencowe, M. A.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 41. Then Moses severed three cities] See the law relative to the cities of refuge explained, See Clarke on Nu 35:11, &c.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
As God had commanded him Num 35:6,14
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
41-43. Then Moses severed threecities on this side Jordan(See on Jos20:7).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then Moses severed three cities,…. To be cities of refuge, according to the command of God, Nu 35:14 this he did when he had conquered the two kingdoms of the Amorites, that God had given them for an inheritance to the tribes of Reuben and Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh, De 4:38 though Jarchi says, and so other Jewish writers, that persons were not received into them until the three cities appointed in the land of Canaan were separated for the like use;
[See comments on Nu 35:14] and these were,
on this side Jordan, toward the rising sun; on that side of the river on which the plains of Moab lay, and the kingdoms of the Amorites, and to the east of Jordan: so Jarchi remarks,
“on that side which is on the east of Jordan;”
see Jos 20:8.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Selection of Three Cities of Refuge for Unintentional Manslayers on the East of the Jordan. – The account of this appointment of the cities of refuge in the conquered land on the east of the Jordan is inserted between the first and second addresses of Moses, in all probability for no other reason than because Moses set apart the cities at that time according to the command of God in Num 35:6, Num 35:14, not only to give the land on that side its full consecration, and thoroughly confirm the possession of the two Amoritish kingdoms on the other side of the Jordan, but also to give the people in this punctual observance of the duty devolving upon it an example for their imitation in the conscientious observance of the commandments of the Lord, which he was now about to lay before the nation. The assertion that this section neither stood after Num, nor really belongs there, has a little foundation as the statement that its contents are at variance with the precepts in Deut 19. “Toward the sunrising” is introduced as a more precise definition; , like in Num 32:19 and Num 34:15. On the contents of Deu 4:42, comp. Num 35:15. The three towns that were set apart were Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan. “ Bezer in the steppe, (namely) in the land of the level ” (The Amoritish table-land: Deu 3:10). The situation of this Levitical town and city of refuge, which is only mentioned again in Jos 20:8; Jos 21:36, and 1Ch 6:63, has not yet been discovered. Bezer was probably the same as Bosor (1 Macc. 5:36), and is possibly to be seen in the Berza mentioned by Robinson ( Pal. App. p. 170). Ramoth in Gilead, i.e., Ramoth-Mizpeh (comp. Jos 20:8 with Jos 13:26), was situated, according to the Onom., fifteen Roman miles, or six hours, to the west of Philadelphia ( Rabbath-Ammon); probably, therefore, on the site of the modern Salt, which is six hours’ journey from Ammn (cf. v. Raumer, Pal. pp. 265, 266). – Golan, in Bashan, according to Eusebius ( s. v. Gaulon or Golan), was still a very large village in Batanaea even in his day, from which the district generally received the name of Gaulonitis or Joan; but it has not yet been discovered again.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
41 Then Moses severed three cities on this side Jordan toward the sunrising; 42 That the slayer might flee thither, which should kill his neighbour unawares, and hated him not in times past; and that fleeing unto one of these cities he might live: 43 Namely, Bezer in the wilderness, in the plain country, of the Reubenites; and Ramoth in Gilead, of the Gadites; and Golan in Bashan, of the Manassites. 44 And this is the law which Moses set before the children of Israel: 45 These are the testimonies, and the statutes, and the judgments, which Moses spake unto the children of Israel, after they came forth out of Egypt, 46 On this side Jordan, in the valley over against Beth-peor, in the land of Sihon king of the Amorites, who dwelt at Heshbon, whom Moses and the children of Israel smote, after they were come forth out of Egypt: 47 And they possessed his land, and the land of Og king of Bashan, two kings of the Amorites, which were on this side Jordan toward the sunrising; 48 From Aroer, which is by the bank of the river Arnon, even unto mount Sion, which is Hermon, 49 And all the plain on this side Jordan eastward, even unto the sea of the plain, under the springs of Pisgah.
Here is, 1. The nomination of the cities of refuge on that side Jordan where Israel now lay encamped. Three cities were appointed for that purpose, one in the lot of Reuben, another in that of Gad, and another in that of the half tribe of Manasseh, v. 41-43. What Moses could do for that people while he was yet with them he did, to give example to the rulers who were settled that they might observe them the better when he was gone. 2. The introduction to another sermon that Moses preached to Israel, which we have in the following chapters. Probably it was preached the next sabbath day after, when the congregation attended to receive instruction. He had in general exhorted them to obedience in the former chapter; here he comes to repeat the law which they were to observe, for he demands a universal but not an implicit obedience. How can we do our duty if we do not know it? Here therefore he sets the law before them as the rule they were to work by, the way they were to walk in, sets it before them as the glass in which they were to see their natural face, that, looking into this perfect law of liberty, they might continue therein. These are the testimonies, the statutes, and the judgments, the moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws, which had been enacted before, when Israel had newly come out of Egypt, and were now repeated, on this side Jordan, v. 44-46. The place where Moses gave them these laws in charge is here particularly described. (1.) It was over-against Beth-peor, an idol-temple of the Moabites, which perhaps Moses sometimes looked towards, with a particular caution to them against the infection of that and other such like dangerous places. (2.) It was upon their new conquests, in the very land which they had got out of the hands of Sihon and Og, and were now actually in possession of, v. 47. Their present triumphs herein were a powerful argument for obedience.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 41-43:
“Sever,” badal, “to separate.”
This is a notation of the three Cities of Refuge in Israel’s territory on the east of Jordan, in keeping with God’s command in Num 35:9-29, q.v. The three cities were,
(1) Bezer, meaning “strong,” a city in the territory of Reuben, in the plain or table-land formerly of the Amorites. It was inhabited by the Merarites, Jos 20:8; Jos 21:35. The present location is uncertain.
(2) Ramoth in Gilead, probably the same as Ramoth-mizpeh, on the Jabbok, from the tribe of Gad.
(3) Golan in Bashan, from the tribe of Manasseh.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
God had destined, as we have before seen, (221) six cities for refuge, in case any one had killed a man, provided he could prove his innocence before the judges. As to the three which He had appointed on the other side of Jordan, Moses records that he had faithfully performed what God had commanded. Hence it appears that, although he could not immediately comply with God’s command to its full extent, still he did not wait until the three other cities could be added; but that, as far as circumstances permitted, he discharged his duty. Hence let us learn that, even when we cannot at once entirely carry out what God commands us to do, we are still to be by no means idle. For nothing but sheer laziness stands in our way, unless we speedily commence at God’s command what it is His will to finish and accomplish by the hands of others.
(221) See ante, on Num 35:10; vol. 3, pp. 62, et seq.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
APPENDIX: APPOINTMENT OF EASTERN CITIES OF REFUGE (Deu. 4:41-43)
41 Then Moses set apart three cities beyond the Jordan toward the sunrising; 42 that the manslayer might flee thither, that slayeth his neighbor unawares, and hated him not in time past; and that fleeing unto one of these cities he might live: 43 namely, Bezer in the wilderness, in the plain country, for the Reubenites; and Ramoth in Gilead, for the Gadites; and Golan in Bashan, for the Manassites.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 4:4143
93.
Read Num. 35:9-15 and Deu. 19:1-13 and Jos. 20:1-6 to help in understanding these verses.
94.
In what sense are these verses an appendix?
95.
State briefly the reason for the cities of refuge.
96.
Do we have a city of refuge for protection against spiritual death?
AMPLIFIED TRANSLATION 4:4143
41 Then Moses set apart three cities [of refuge] beyond the Jordan to the east,
42 That the manslayer might flee there, who slay his neighbor unintentionally, and had not previously been at enmity with him, that fleeing to one of the cities he might save his life:
43 Bezer in the wilderness on the tableland for the Reubenites, and Ramoth in Gilead for the Gadites, and Golan in Bashan for the Manassites.
COMMENT 4:4143
We have called this section an appendix because of its obvious parenthetical nature. Moses gives instruction concerning all six of the cities of refuge in Chapter 19, and from what is said there it appears that that passage comes before this one chronologically. The phrase Then Moses set apart . . . etc. would then simply be understood to mean at the time Israel was still on the plains of Moab and before their leaders death, the east side refuge-cities were set aside.
As the above verses stand, however, it certainly appears that the phrase Then Moses set apart . . . etc. is where it is for an obvious reasonto specify that at this time (between the first and second discourses) these cities were set apart by Moses.
Many suppose that not only these verses, but Deu. 4:44-49 are the work of a later editor. Clarke states: I SUPPOSE the last nine verses of this chapter to have been added by either Joshua or Ezra. (See the special studies at the conclusion of this volume on the subject of editing.) There is nothing to necessitate, however, the assumption that some other than Moses wrote these lines. The fact that he speaks of himself does not pose as a barrier, for he does this throughout the book (Deu. 4:44, Deu. 5:1, Deu. 27:1; Deu. 27:11, etc.) unless, of course, we consider all such statements editorial additions.
The reason for the appointment of these cities is given in Deu. 19:1-13 and Num. 35:9-15. There were three on each side of the Jordan. They were not designed for the permanent exile of murderer, but as a refuge till he could stand before the congregation for judgment. After the death of the high priest, the man who stayed another unwittingly could return to his own city (Exo. 21:13, Jos. 20:1-6).
The west-side cities are named in Jos. 20:7 : Kedesh in Galilee of Naphtail, Shechem in Ephraim, and Kiriath-Arba (Hebron) in Judah.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
THE APPOINTMENT OF THREE CITIES OF REFUGE.
(41) Then Moses severed.The word then appears to be a note of time. It would seem that the appointment of the three cities of refuge on the eastern side of Jordan actually followed this discourse.
On this side Jordan.Heb., b ber hay-yardn. The expression is here defined by the words that follow, toward the sun-rising, and it need not, therefore, be taken to fix the writers point of view. By itself, the expression would naturally mean, on the other side of Jordan.
(43) Bezer is as yet unidentified.
Ramoth in Gilead, though famous in the history of Israel as the scene of Ahabs death and of the anointing of Jehu (1 Kings 21 and 2 Kings 9), is also as yet unknown.
Golan has given a name to the district of Gaulonitis. But it is as yet also unknown. We may hope that when the survey of Eastern Palestine is concluded, these ancient sites will be recovered.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
CHOICE OF THREE CITIES OF REFUGE ON THE EAST OF JORDAN, Deu 4:41-43.
According to Num 35:14, Moses had been commanded to select three cities on the east of Jordan and three in Canaan. The first three are here selected by Moses. The other three were not selected until the land was apportioned to the tribes in Canaan. See Jos 20:7.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Establishment of the First Cities of Refuge ( Deu 4:41-43 ).
The establishing of these cities of refuge was a deliberate act which was a declaration of Moses’ certainty that they were now here in this land to stay. Their purpose was permanent and an official seal that they were in the land permanently. It was a reminder also that there was now law in the land (compare Deu 1:15-17), for it was a reminder of the penalty for taking blood, and of God’s mercy to be shown to those who only did so accidentally. So it puts the seal on his words and caps them with a physical seal that can be seen by all. In those cities of refuge the kingly rule of God has already begun. If in the future they were ever in doubt they would be able to look at these cities of refuge and be reminded of Moses’ words at the time that they were selected and appointed, and recognise with gratitude that God has given them refuge too, refuge in the promised land.
These verses may be analysed as follows:
Moses set apart three cities in Beyond Jordan toward the sunrising (Deu 4:41).
That the manslayer might flee to them, who kills his neighbour unawares, and hated him not in time past (Deu 4:42 a).
And that fleeing to one of these cities he might live (Deu 4:42 b).
“Namely, Bezer in the wilderness, in the plain country, for the Reubenites; and Ramoth in Gilead, for the Gadites; and Golan in Bashan, for the Manassites (Deu 4:43).
Note that in ‘a” the three cities are to be set apart and in the parallel they are carefully named. And in ‘b’ they are for the innocent manslayer to flee to, and in the parallel those who are innocent and flee to them will live.
Deu 4:41-42
‘ Then Moses set apart three cities in Beyond Jordan toward the sunrising, that the manslayer might flee to them, who kills his neighbour unawares, and hated him not in time past, and that fleeing to one of these cities he might live,’
These three cities were established in ‘Beyond Jordan toward the sunrising’, that part of Beyond Jordan which was east of Jordan, that is in Transjordan in the territory of the two and a half settled tribes.
Their need arose because of the law of blood vengeance. That law stated that when a man was killed his family must avenge his death on the one who had done it. Thus if they slew the killer right was seen as on their side. The cities of refuge provided a place to which men could go who had killed accidentally, or who were innocent but could not prove it in time. Once they were there they were safe from the avengers of blood. But their cases had then to be examined thoroughly, and if it was decided that they had actually killed the dead person deliberately they would be turned out of the city of refuge so that the avengers of blood could exact their punishment.
Deu 4:43
‘ Namely, Bezer in the wilderness, in the plain country, for the Reubenites; and Ramoth in Gilead, for the Gadites; and Golan in Bashan, for the Manassites.’
The names of the cities were given. They were evidence that Israel was now safely settled in at least a part of the land.
Bezer was mentioned on the Moabite stone of King Mesha, but is not specifically identifiable. Ramoth may well be Tell Ramith between the Rivers Yarmuk and Jabbok. Golan is not identifiable with any certainty.
Deu 4:44
‘ And this is the instruction (torah) which Moses set before the children of Israel.’
With these words the first section is completed. This is clearly a colophon (document identifier) as is partly evidenced by it standing alone, although we could parallel it with Deu 1:1.
Conclusion Part 1.
The first mini-covenant within the overall total covenant is now completed by the end of Moses’ first speech. The basis has been laid down for what is to come. The preamble and historical background to the covenant has been laid out.
We may summarise the historical background briefly as follows:
1). Yahweh had built up and established Israel as a nation preparatory to them entering the land, but they had failed to obey Him and were thus expelled from the land (Deu 1:6-46).
2). But He had forgiven the offence of Israel and had then, once the generation that had sinned had died, led the next generation through Edom, Moab and Ammon where they were able to witness nations to whom Yahweh had given their own land and who had been able to defeat the equivalent of the Anakim while possessing it (Deu 2:1-23), proof of what Yahweh could do.
3). He had then defeated the Amorites under Sihon and Og, handing their land and all their possessions over to Israel (Deu 2:24 to Deu 3:17). Again proof of what Yahweh could do.
Thus the two bugbears which had resulted in the original defeat, the Anakim and the Amorites were already demonstrated to be defeatable, and there was here both warning and guarantee of success. This then resulted in the command to the soldiers of the two and a half tribes which had settled on the eastern side of the Jordan to go forward with their brothers to claim the whole land (Deu 3:18-20), and the command to Joshua to go forward without fear, along with the confirmation of Moses’ exclusion from the land for disobedience (Deu 3:21-29).
At this point they were reminded of the great revelation that they had received at Mount Sinai in Horeb and exhorted, with warnings, to obedience to His commandments (Deu 4:1-40), for it was on their response to His covenant that all would depend. Yahweh could not bless a disobedient people.
Then He gave them an earnest of what was to be by the setting up of three cities of refuge, the visible seal of their establishment in that part of the land, and the guarantee of what was to be in the future when the second set of cities of refuge would be set up (Deu 4:41-43).
Thus was all now prepared for the presentation of the great covenant in chapters Deu 4:45 to Deu 29:1.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Conclusion of the First Address
v. 41. Then Moses severed, v. 42. that the slayer might flee thither, which should kill his neighbor unawares, v. 43. namely, Bezer in the wilderness, in the plain country, v. 44. And this is the Law which Moses set before the children of Israel; v. 45. these are the testimonies and the statutes and the judgments which Moses spake unto the children of Israel after they came forth out of Egypt, v. 46. on this side Jordan, in the valley over against Beth-peor, in the land of Sihon, king of the Amorites, who dwelt at Heshbon, whom Moses and the children of Israel smote, v. 47. and they possessed his land and the land of Og, king of Bashan, two kings of the Amorites, which were on this side Jordan toward the sun-rising; v. 48. from Aroer, which is by the bank of the river Arnon, even unto Mount Sion, which is Hermon, v. 49. and all the plain on this side Jordan eastward, even unto the Sea of the Plain,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Ver. 41. Then Moses severed three cities After the foregoing exhortation, the two conquered countries being now ready to be disposed of to the two tribes and a half, according to agreement, Moses set apart the three cities of refuge, which were to be taken out of them. See Num 35:11.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
GOD hath given commandment concerning those cities of refuge: Num 35:9-34 . But of such importance was the thing itself, that Moses in the very opening as it were, of his sermon, breaks off to follow up the LORD’S precept concerning this thing. But is there not a gospel sense in it, and that of a very interesting nature? I think there is. Are not those cities of refuge all typical of JESUS? Is not everyone a manslayer, that slays his own soul by sin? And if the avenger of blood, which is death, overtake the sinner (and death is hourly pursuing him) before the poor soul-murderer hath found refuge in the blood, and righteousness of JESUS; is not his ruin inevitable? Reader! do not overlook the sweet mercy read to us in these verses, in that the city of refuge was open every way. Yes! JESUS is the way for every poor sinner to find refuge in; and he is open to both the Israelite and the stranger, from all parts of the earth: they shall come (our JESUS saith) from the east and from the west, from the north and from the south. Precious salvation!
I do not insist upon the names Moses gave to those cities: yet considered with an eye to JESUS, and as the Man of GOD hath particularized them with names, which in their original acceptation are peculiarly apposite to some of the distinguishing characters of JESUS; I do not think it would be right wholly to pass them by unnoticed. Observe that Bezer, in the original, signifies a strong hold. And is not JESUS a shelter and strong hold from the storm, and a refuge from the tempest? Isa 32:2 . Rameth, signifies what is high or exalted. And to what an height of excellence and of glory, is the LORD JESUS in his redemption work exalted? Phi 2:6-11 . Golan intimates great joy and glory. And is it not said that in JESUS shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory? Isa 45:25 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Deu 4:41-43
41Then Moses set apart three cities across the Jordan to the east, 42that a manslayer might flee there, who unintentionally slew his neighbor without having enmity toward him in time past; and by fleeing to one of these cities he might live: 43Bezer in the wilderness on the plateau for the Reubenites, and Ramoth in Gilead for the Gadites, and Golan in Bashan for the Manassites.
Deu 4:41 three cities across the Jordan to the east These cities are called cities of refuge (cf. Numbers 35; Deuteronomy 19; Joshua 20). There were six of them, three for each side of the Jordan. They were all Levitical cities (cf. Joshua 21), where the Levites, who had not land inheritance, lived. They were part of the eye for eye justice system of Israel. If someone accidently killed a covenant partner then that family had the legal right to kill him (i.e., the blood avenger of Num 35:12; Deu 19:6; Deu 19:12; Jos 20:3; Jos 20:5; Jos 20:9). If the one who accidentally killed another fled to one of these special cities, there was a trial by the elders; if he was found not to be a premeditated murderer, then he could live in the city safely (until the death of the High Priest). Then he could return to his home safely (in a legal sense).
Notice across Jordan is here qualified so as to refer to the eastern bank.
Deu 4:42 unintentionally The negated term (BDB 395) refers to the death of a fellow Israelite accidentally, without premeditation or prejudice. We would call it manslaughter.
The lack of evil motive is the key element. It becomes the theological heart of the sacrificial system. Any sin committed intentionally had no sacrifice available (cf. Exo 21:12-14; Lev 4:2; Lev 4:22; Lev 4:27; Lev 5:15-18; Lev 22:14; Num 15:27; Num 15:30; Deu 17:12-13; Jos 20:1-6). Even the national sacrifice by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16) did not cover premeditated sin (cf. Psa 51:14-17)! Are you not glad we are under the NT sacrifice of Jesus?!
At this point I would like to add a quote from NIDOTTE, vol. 2, discussing the concept of:
‘Unintentionally’ or ‘inadvertently’ (Lev 4:2) is both strategic and problematic (cf. Deu 4:13; Deu 4:22; Deu 4:27; Deu 5:15; Deu 5:18; Deu 22:14; Num 15:22; Num 15:24-29). Because of it some scholars have concluded that the sin offering only treated inadvertent sin, that is, sins that were committed by mistake or sins which were done not knowing that the particular act was sinful (see Melgrom, 1991, 228-29). However, the word ‘unintentionally’ means basically ‘in error’ (the vb. means to commit an error, go astray). Although it can also mean that the error was unintentional or inadvertent (see e.g. Num 35:11; Num 35:15; Num 35:22-23; Josh 20:39), this is not necessarily the case (see 1Sa 26:21; Ecc 5:6) (p. 94).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Then. Emphatic, marking the end of his first address.
Moses. Change to third person, not because it is now editorial, but because the first direct address is ended. See note on Deu 1:1.
severed = separated. Compare Exo 21:13. Num 35:6-29.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
4. The Three Cities of Refuge
CHAPTER 4:41-43
1. The cities set apart (Deu 4:41-42)
2. The cities named (Deu 4:43)
The first address being ended, an action of Moses takes place. To detect here the hand of an editor, who added these verses, as critics claim, cannot be sustained. The cities of refuge were mentioned in Numbers. Here the three on this side of Jordan are given. Then there were three more on the other side of which we read in chapter 19 and in the book of Joshua. As stated in our annotations in Numbers, the cities of refuge are typical of Christ, who is our shelter from the avenger. Scattered through the land for the gracious purpose of sheltering the slayer, they also bear a prophetic testimony. They speak of Israels hope.
These cities of refuge, set at intervals through the land of Israel, are a garrison for it from God, which even still, in ruin, as the land is, watch over it, as ministers of unchanging grace, and prophets of now near-coming glory. This people of God, separated to Him in the wonderful way attested by their annals,–What, after all, has been their condition for many and long centuries of subjection to hostile races? They have been strangers and wanderers, Cain-like, and indestructible as Cain,–a nation surviving even in death, but as if to perpetuate only the memory of the doom under which they lie,–the doom of an awful fratricide. Such is, in fact, their conditions condition hopeless to most yet, though it may be now with a streak of gray dawn widening upon it. But these cities of refuge have all the time been watch-towers set to face eastward, ramparts round prostrate Zion, upon which the watchmen hold not their peace, and give Him no rest, till He establish it again,– yea, till He make it a praise upon earth (Isa 62:6-7).
They are His pledge, in view of what has in fact come to pass, that what He has foreseen cannot thwart His purposes, nor their sin His long-foreshown grace. Preach they may in sackcloth, but it is good tidings that they preach, of a place of security even for homicides,–for those for whom His plea shall yet avail, They know not what they do.–F.W. Grant, Notes on Deuteronomy
The meaning of the three names are of equal interest. Bezer means defence, a fortified place. Such Christ is for all who trust in Him. In Him we have our shelter and blessing as well. Ramoth means heights. Our Lord occupies the exalted, the preeminent place and shelter in Him, we share His place as we read in the second chapter of Ephesians. Golan means joy or their rejoicing. Even so we have in Him, who is our refuge, our joy and He has His joy in us.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Num 35:6, Num 35:14, Num 35:15, Jos 20:2-9
Reciprocal: Exo 21:13 – I will appoint Deu 19:2 – separate three cities 1Ch 6:78 – Bezer
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
III. HISTORICAL INTERLUDE: PREPARATION FOR THE COVENANT TEXT 4:41-49
Having completed his address that reminded the Israelites to look backward and remember God’s faithfulness so they would remain faithful in the future, Moses next turned to a reminder of what God’s will for His chosen people involved. He prefaced this second speech with instruction concerning cities of refuge in the land.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
A. The appointment of cities of refuge in Transjordan 4:41-43
It may seem strange that Moses included the record of his appointment of Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan as the three cities of refuge ("safe towns," CEV) east of the Jordan at this point in Deuteronomy. He probably did so because this important event took place after his first address and before he delivered his second speech. The two and one-half tribes were beginning to settle in Transjordan, and they needed this information.
The inclusion of this historical incident also serves a literary function. It provides a kind of intermission for the reader following the emotional climax at the end of the first address. It allows him or her to recover from its strong impact before the next long address begins.
Deuteronomy, as Leviticus and the other books of Moses, is essentially a narrative document. Moses interspersed much legal material in the narrative of Leviticus, and he interspersed much sermonic material in the narrative of Deuteronomy. In both books there is less narrative material than legal or sermonic material.