Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Joshua 20:1

The LORD also spoke unto Joshua, saying,

Ch. Jos 20:1-6. The Divine Command respecting the Cities of Refuge

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

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Jos 20:1-9

Cities of refuge

The cities of refuge

1.

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

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

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

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

The cities of refuge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. That we may more fully perceive the appositeness of the illustration which the cities of refuge furnish of the person and work of the Redeemer, let us notice their position in the country–in the midst, not in the borders, or in the corners of the land (Deu 19:2).

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

9. The cities of refuge were not open to native Israelites only, but the stranger and the sojourner–in fact, every one among them was accepted (Num 35:15). Thus none is accounted an alien who, owning himself a sinner, flies to Christ.

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

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

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

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

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

It suggests–

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

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

The cities of refuge

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

II. The reasons for the appointment of these cities.

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

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

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

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

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

Christ our city of refuge

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

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

The cities of refuge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cities of refuge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) Capacity enough to secure all.

(2) Within reach of all.

(3) Pointed out to all.

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

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

(1) Individual effort.

(2) Immediate effort.

(3) Strenuous effort.

(4) Persevering effort. (Homilist.)

The cities of refuge

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refuge

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

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

In varying cadence, soft or strong,

He swept the sounding chords along
The present scene, the future lot,
His toils, his wants were all forgot.
Cold diffidence and ages frost,

In the full tide of song were lost.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Christians cities of refuge

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

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

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

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

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

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

The number of the cities of refuge

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

The situation of the cities of refuge

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

The cities of refuge illustrative of Christs redeeming work

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

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

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

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

.

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

CHAPTER XX

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

The purpose of their institution, 34.

Three cities are appointed in the promised land, 7;

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

NOTES ON CHAP. XX

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

1-3. The Lord spake unto Joshua . .. Appoint out for you cities of refuge(See Num 35:9-28;Deu 19:1-13). The commandhere recorded was given on their going to occupy their allottedsettlements. The sanctuaries were not temples or altars, as in othercountries, but inhabited cities; and the design was not to screencriminals, but only to afford the homicide protection from thevengeance of the deceased’s relatives until it should have beenascertained whether the death had resulted from accident andmomentary passion, or from premeditated malice. The institution ofthe cities of refuge, together with the rules prescribed for theguidance of those who sought an asylum within their walls, was animportant provision, tending to secure the ends of justice as well asof mercy.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

The Lord also spake unto Joshua,…. Out of the tabernacle, at the door of which he with the high priest and princes were; the Lord had spoken to him before concerning dividing the land among the tribes,

Jos 13:1; and this being done he speaks to him again:

saying: as follows.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

After the distribution of the land by lot among the tribes of Israel, six towns were set apart, in accordance with the Mosaic instructions in Num 35, as places of refuge for unintentional manslayers. Before describing the appointment and setting apart of these towns, the writer repeats in Jos 20:1-6 the main points of the Mosaic law contained in Num 35:9-29 and Deu 19:1-13, with reference to the reception of the manslayers into these towns. , “ give to you,” i.e., appoint for yourselves, “ cities of refuge,” etc. In Jos 20:6, the two regulations, “ until he stand before the congregation for judgment,” and “ until the death of the high priest,” are to be understood, in accordance with the clear explanation given in Num 35:24-25, as meaning that the manslayer was to live in the town till the congregation had pronounced judgment upon the matter, and either given him up to the avenger of blood as a wilful murderer, or taken him back to the city of refuge as an unintentional manslayer, in which case he was to remain there till the death of the existing high priest. For further particulars, see at Num 35.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

The Cities of Refuge.

B. C. 1444.

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

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

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Joshua – Chapter 20

Law of Cities of Refuge, vs. 1-6

The first intimation that the Lord would appoint cities of refuge is in Exo 21:13. The first specifically stated law of the cities of refuge is at Num 35:6-34, with another statement also in Deu 19:1 -13.

All of this was anticipatory of the time to which the Israelites had now come. It was now time to put the law into practice. The law is briefly stated again.

In general the purpose of the cities of refuge was to protect one who had killed accidentally, or in self-defense, from the avenger of blood. This would have been some near kinsman of the one slain, bent on getting revenge for the death of his relative.

The killer could flee to one of these cities and apply for protection. The elders of the city were compelled to take him in and offer him protection from the avenger, unless it should be determined that he had misrepresented his part in the death.

The law provided that the killer must remain in this city until the death of the high priest, after which he was free to return to his own city. This provision serves as an analogy of Christ the believer’s High Priest, in whom there is safety from the avenger, and whose death frees him from any further guilt in the matter, (Heb 7:26).

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

1. The Lord also spoke unto Joshua, etc In the fact of its not having occurred to their own minds, to designate the cities of refuge, till they were again reminded of it, their sluggishness appears to be indirectly censured. The divine command to that effect had been given beyond the Jordan. When the reason for it remained always equally valid, why do they wait? Why do they not give full effect to that which they had rightly begun? We may add, how important it was that there should be places of refuge for the innocent, in order that the land might not be polluted with blood. For if that remedy had not been provided, the kindred of those who had been killed would have doubled the evil, by proceeding without discrimination to avenge their death. It certainly did not become the people to be idle in guarding the land from stain and taint. (172) Hence we perceive how tardy men are, not only to perform their duty, but to provide for their own safety, unless the Lord frequently urge them, and prick them forward by the stimulus of exhortation. But that they sinned only from thoughtlessness, is apparent from this, that they are forthwith ready to obey, neither procrastinating nor creating obstacles or delays to a necessary matter, by disputing the propriety of it.

The nature of the asylum afforded by the cities of refuge has been already explained. It gave no impunity to voluntary murder, but if any one, by mistake, had slain a man, with whom he was not at enmity, he found a safe refuge by fleeing to one of these cities destined for that purpose. Thus God assisted the unfortunate, and prevented their suffering the punishment of an atrocious deed, when they had not been guilty of it. Meanwhile respect was so far paid to the feelings of the brethren and kindred of the deceased, that their sorrow was not increased by the constant presence of the persons who had caused their bereavement. Lastly, the people were accustomed to detest murder, since homicide, even when not culpable, was followed by exile from country and home, till the death of the high priest. For that temporary exile clearly showed how precious human blood is in the sight of God. Thus the law was just, equitable, and useful, as well in a public as in a private point of view. (173) But it is to be briefly observed, that everything is not here mentioned in order. For one who had accidentally killed a man might have remained in safety, by sisting himself before the court to plead his cause, and obtaining an acquittal, after due and thorough investigation, as we explained more fully in the books of Moses, when treating of this matter.

(172) Calvin is somewhat singular in holding that the message communicated to Joshua was an indirect censure of the Israelites, for not having previously of their own accord appointed cities of refuge. Other expositors think that till now the proper time of appointing them had not arrived, as it could not well precede, but rather behooved to be subsequent to the allocation of cities to the Levites, inasmuch as the nature of the case required that every city of refuge should be Levitical. — Ed.

(173) It may be observed in passing, how strikingly the humanity and wisdom conspicuous in the appointment of the Mosaic cities of refuge contrast with the manifold abuses and abominations to which the numerous asylums and sanctuaries of Popish countries have led. — Ed.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

THE WEST SIDE

Chapters 14 to 21.

The apportionment was in fulfillment of prophecy. If one doubts that prophecy is the mold of history, let him read the forty-ninth chapter of Genesis and follow it with chapters fourteen to twenty-one of Joshua, and he will discover that these tribes were finally located, as Jacob, the father of twelve, declared when dying.

Who will say that life is a lottery, that affairs are mere accidents? Who will doubt that the end is known to God from the beginning, or say that He operates without a plan? Who will claim that a blind force, known as Energy, or Nature, is weaving the web of human history? Certainly not the man who has intelligently studied his Bible.

The apportionment expressed the estimate of the tribe. These tribes do not fare alike. Apparently no effort whatever is made to put them on an equal basis. Back in Num 26:54-55, it was written concerning this very distribution of the land,

To many thou shalt give the more inheritance, and to few thou shalt give the less inheritance: to every one shall his inheritance be given according to those that were numbered of him.

Notwithstanding the Land shall be divided by lot: according to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit.

There is a difference, then, between the lot of men-shuffling, and the lot that God employs. The first is a mere chance, and by it the noblest may be cheated. The last is an absolute science and expresses a perfect judgment. Gods lots work no injustice. The principle employed in the distribution of these lands to the nine and one-half tribes, or, for that matter, to the twelve tribes, is the principle of the New Testament parable of the talents, where to one the absent Lord gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability (Mat 25:15).

Thats the basis, doubtless, of the apportionment to the tribes. God knew what ones of them would conquer a mountain; what ones of them would clear a forest; what ones of them would cultivate a plain; what ones of them would make to blossom a desert, and distributed them accordingly.

The occupancy of America illustrates the fact that God does not cease to give men opportunity according to their several abilities, nor quit locating them according to character and custom. Who will doubt that the Mississippi region and almost our entire southern border was intelligently occupied by the Spanish; that the northeast states flourish the better in the possession of English, Irish and Scotch; that the central west was adapted to the German; the northwest to the Scandinavian? A little careful study will illustrate the fact that these occupations were not mere accidents, but in each and every instance the people possessing were adapted to the climatic and industrial conditions of the particular section settled.

The Levite occupied the entire land. He had no territory that he could claim, but he was given a place in certain cities and distributed among all the tribes. There was a double reason for that fact. First, every tribe needed both the service and ensample of the Levite. Any people who propose to occupy a land, and have among them no ministers, will eventually demonstrate that irreligion cannot create a successful state, and never in history has built a strong nation.

Again, distributed through the nations, they could have their living by the nations. Every community, in self-interest, should sustain a priest unto Goda minister of the Divine will, and if the law of God is regarded, every ten families in the world could maintain a minister and let him live on an absolute equality with them, for that is the law of the tithe. And when one has his living and the conscious presence of the Lord, what greater riches are needed? Let David sing of such, The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot. The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places; yea, I have a goodly heritage (Psa 16:5-6).

POINTS OF DISPUTATION

The reading of these nine chapters brings us face to face with the fact that humanity is the same in all ages. It would not be expected that so intricate a service as the location of so many people could be accomplished without dispute. In some instances, that dispute would be short-lived, and for the most part, a cordial discussion; and in others, it would border on battle itself. To three of these, let us call brief attention. First,

Caleb presented an unselfish and righteous claim to the mountain. The record of this is found in the fourteenth chapter, Jos 14:6-15. In this record, Caleb reminds Joshua of Moses promise to him. It must then have been understood that Moses was Gods man and that his word was regarded of God. It is a great thing to so live that men will look on our word as Gods Word, and even after we are buried, will appeal to what we have spoken as truth too sacred to be forgotten and disregarded. Caleb claims that Moses sware on that day, saying, Surely the land whereon thy feet have trodden shall be thine inheritance, and thy childrens for ever, because thou hast wholly followed the Lord my God (Jos 14:9).

Again, there is a bit of an old mans boast in Calebs words, I am this day fourscore and five years old. As yet I am as strong this day as I was in the day that Moses sent me. We are not condemning Caleb for making it; we are admiring him, rather. It is a fine thing for an old man to feel his strength and to believe that, no matter how many years have passed over his head, he is still equal to war, still ready to meet giants and drive them out. We have a few such old men friends! They are a joy, an encouragement, an inspirationgreat men who renew their strength in God and who, to their last breath, do valiant battle.

Caleb was the one man that joined Joshua in making a report on the land of Canaan, and in that report he admitted that there were giants in the mountains, but declared, We are well able to overcome it.

Forty-five years have swept by, and the indomitable spirit still lives, and Caleb, even now, illustrates the truth of the words spoken when he was yet a young man. He conquered because he hath wholly followed the Lord God.

The fifteenth chapter records

Achsahs request for springs of water. Caleb was of the tribe of Judah, and when he went forth to conquer, and found Kirjath-sepher a stronghold difficult to take, he proposed to give his daughter in marriage to the man who should conquer it, and Othniel, his brother, accepted the challenge and effected the conquest.

Evidently Achsah was a woman of spirit and craved more than had fallen to her lot, and consequently, when her timid husband would not ask, she requested of Caleb a blessing, and an addition to her southland springs of water, and he gave her the upper springs, and the nether springs. This, also, is suggestive. Who is content to dwell in an arid land when the Father has springs in His control, and who will doubt that these springs have their symbolic meaning, their spiritual suggestion?

Do we not recall that marvelous chapter in Johns Gospel when Christ met the woman at the well and asked her to give Him to drink, and she answered,

How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of Me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.

Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of Him, and He would have given thee living water.

The woman saith unto Him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?

Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?

Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:

But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life (Joh 4:9-14).

Let us not hesitate to ask our Father for water, Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation (Isa 12:3).

Finally, the schismatic altar of Reuben and Gad. The record of this is in the twenty-second chapter. This was a dispute that approached the fatal. The altar erected by Reuben and Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh over against the land of Canaan, in the borders of Jordan, was misjudged by the congregation of the Children of Israel. They looked upon it as a departure from the Lord and they proposed to abolish it, and, if need be, destroy their brethren rather than suffer such an altar to live. Was their spirit wrong? Yes and No. They were not wrong in deciding that no false altar should live; they were not wrong in determining that rather than permit its existence, they would indulge in a civil war. War is horrible, and of all wars, a war between brethren is the most to be deplored. But there are some things worse than war, and idolatry is one of them, and sin is one of them. They had already seen what the sin of Achan had wrought. They had witnessed thousands of their brethren perish because Gods Word had been disregarded, and they did not propose to pass through a kindred experience and be silent on the subject. In that they were righta thousand times right.

The church that supposes itself to be Christian because its officials and members are so good-natured that they will not quarrel with the false teacher in their midst, is a church guilty of the grossest folly. The time will come when that very teaching will divide and disrupt the body, and, in all probability, destroy it altogether. History has illustrations in hundreds of cases of this identical result. Far better to call a brother to account for his false altars and false philosophy and false religion than to keep the peace.

But, on the other hand, the nine and one-half tribes were mistaken in supposing this was a false altar, and mistaken in their judgment of the motive that erected it. We want to be sure that men who are not worshiping in our particular house are thereby men who have departed from God before we fight against them. The old denominational controversies that raged white-hot were, for the most part, unjustifiable. The refusal to fellowship a man, and the proposal to fight a man because he approaches God in other ceremonials than we employ, or other sanctuaries than we have erected, is far from Christian. The great question is, Does he worship God and acknowledge the Lordship of His Son Jesus Christ, and the guidance of His Holy Spirit? If so, he is our brother, and with his conduct we should be pleased, and the altar of true worship should be a witness between us that the Lord is God.

Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF REFUGE CITIES

Jos 20:1-9.

THE establishment of refuge cities is an event of such historical and also spiritual import as not to be passed over in silence.

This twentieth chapter contains at once a complete record of their appointment, and the perfect fulfillment of the Moses plan. By referring to Num 35:1-6, we learn that the establishment of such cities is no novel decision. To the Levites were to be given a large number of cities, together with their suburbs, for their cattle and all their beasts, and out of these, six were to be chosen as cities of refuge. Here we have the execution of that Divine command, and the six cities selected to this lot were, on the east of Jordan, three: Bezer, in the lot of Reuben, Ramoth-Gilead in the lot of Gad, and Golan in the territory of Manasseh; on the west side of Jordan, they were: Hebron in Judah, Shechem in mount Ephraim, Kedesh in Naphtali.

They were appointed as a refuge from mob law. They were not intended for the employment of the wilful murderer. They were not to become the rendezvous of bloody criminals. The language of Scripture is clear as to their intent, The slayer that killeth any person unawares and unwittingly may flee thither. They were to the man-slayer of that time what the modern jail is to the man-slayer of this time. Many people forget that a jail has a twofold function. They think of it as a place of judgment only, and feel that incarceration behind iron bars as an execution of social vengeance, but in every instance of certain forms of crime, particularly the crimes, brutal beating, rape and manslaughter, the prison bars become a protection, and, in fact, are the friends of the accused, and assure him of a fair and legal trial before final condemnation is passed. That was the exact objective of the city of refuge. The custom of the Orient in this Joshua period was for the nearest relative to avenge blood, and the refuge city was intended to provide protection against that relative until the measure and character of the guilt could be determined. If the killing were unwitting and accidental, the protection was made permanent, but if proven to be with malice aforethought, the elders of the city delivered up the subject to the avengers will.

This Divinely established law has its spiritual suggestions. The judge of all the earth will do right. He will not have the innocent condemned and killed, nor will He let the guilty go free. If He permitted the first, it would discredit His compassion; if He privileged the second, it would disparage His justice. It is enheartening to know that God never pronounces judgment Himself until all the ameliorating circumstances are considered. He knoweth our frame; He remembereth that we are dust. He takes into consideration the conditions of the moment that distinguish clearly between the lust of the members and the law of the mind. He is more considerate of us than we are of ourselves. If our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

The social codes of society are seldom conformable to the plain teachings of Scripture, and even the laws of the state are often far removed from the law of God. It is not unusual for the righteous to suffer an unjust public judgment, nor for the innocent to be condemned by the judges of state; but neither of these blunders will ever be made by God. He doeth all things well; He doeth all things justly and right.

This days mail brought us a letter viciously condemning the ninth article of the Fundamentalist doctrinal statement, The everlasting felicity of the saved, and the everlasting conscious suffering of the lost. The writer insisted that such a God would be worse than any Moloch ever known to the human mind. Just what the language of Scripture concerning the eternal future of man may mean will be forever a matter of debate as between interpreters. There is one thing upon which all true believers may depend, and that is that the God of heaven will never do wrong, and will never execute any act of judgment that is not tempered with mercy.

These cities of refuge were easily accessible. Their gates, like the twelve gates of the Eternal City, were open in every direction, and even better, there was a strip two thousand cubits in length, known as a suburb, and when the man-slayer had crossed that, the avenger of blood was forbidden to follow.

This, also, has its spiritual import. Christ has closed the way of salvation against no man. He Himself is the Way, and His Word is, Him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out. There is no time, day or night, when the provisions of salvation are impotent, and there is no crime so crimson as to render Christ repellent. The thief on the cross confessed that his judgment was just, and his crucifixion was the legal consequence of his crime, and yet, when he turned to Christ, Christ turned him not away. The woman taken in adultery and brought to Jesus for condemnation was not justified, but heard from His lips a word of pardon and an earnest plea that she cease from her sins and live. In essential senses these refuge cities were symbols of our Saviour. When we have transgressed, He is our hope, and when our sins threaten us with slaughter, He is our salvation.

Again, these cities provided a sufficient shelter. Once received into them and justified by their elders, they became not only a home of the saved, but his full defense for all the days of the high priests life. This also is a symbol. Once the sinner is received by Christ, our refuge, his security is assured while Christ, our High Priest, lives. It was this to which the Apostle referred when in his Epistle to the Heb 6:18-20, he said,

That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the vail;

Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an High Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Men write on the eternal security of the saints. The Scriptures justify what they say. Van Alstyne had occasion to sing:

Safe in the arms of Jesus,

Safe on His gentle breast,

There by His love oershaded,

Sweetly my soul shall rest.

Hark! tis the voice of angels,

Borne in a song to me,

Over the fields of glory,

Over the jasper sea.

Safe in the arms of Jesus,

Safe from corroding care,

Safe from the worlds temptations,

Sin cannot harm me there.

Free from the blight of sorrow,

Free from my doubts and fears;

Only a few more trials,

Only a few more tears.

Jesus, my hearts dear refuge,

Jesus has died for me;

Firm on the Rock of Ages

Ever my trust shall be.

Here let me wait with patience;

Wait till the night is oer;

Wait till I see the morning

Break on the golden shore.

Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley

THE CITIES OF REFUGE

CRITICAL NOTES.

Jos. 20:2. Appoint out for you cities of refuge] Heb. Appoint, or Give for you the cities of refuge. The article, which is omitted in A.V., points to the fact that God had already commanded these cities to be set apart, as the verse itself proceeds to state. Since the intimation in Exo. 21:13, and the instructions in Numbers 35, these cities were a well-recognised part of the constitution. The word rendered refuge is from the root klat, to contract, to draw together; hence to receive a fugitive to oneself. [Gesen.]

Jos. 20:3. Unawares and unwittingly] i.e., in ignorance by mistake; inadvertently, by accident, without intention; perhaps, also, suddenly impulsively, and thus without the knowledge which would have come had time been taken for thought. The repeated notion in the Hebrew words is very emphatic, coming to much the same thing as the negative of our English form, with malice aforethought. This idea is fully expressed in Deu. 4:42, and hated him not in times past (cf. Deu. 19:4; Deu. 19:6, marg.). A man might be slain by mere accident, by carelessness, by the mistake of an avenger pursuing the wrong person, and thus committing murder in ignorance; or death might ensue from a sudden assault, in passion, when there was no intention to slay. For all, who might so take life, these cities were to be a refuge. But they were to afford no permanent refuge for the wilful murderer; he was to be taken even from the altar of sanctuary, and put to death (Exo. 21:14; 1Ki. 2:28-34; 2Ki. 11:15).

Jos. 20:4. Shall stand at the entering of the gate, etc.] This is not to be understood, as it is by Michaelis, as implying that the man was to stand outside the city gate, and there relate his cause to the elders, and that he was not to enter the city till they had declared him not guilty of premeditated murder; but the gate of the city means the forum, the public place of judgment in the city, where the elders were to hear and examine his statement. [Keil.] The open space at the gate of Eastern cities was like the Greek agora and the Roman forum, the usual place of public resort; hence the well-known phrase judges within thy gates [Groser].

Jos. 20:6. Until the death of the high priest] It is added in Num. 35:25, which was anointed with the holy oil. Thus, as Keil points out, the liberation was made to be dependent on the death of the anointed mediator and representative of the people in the presence of God. The stress laid on the official position of the high priest by this reference to the anointing oil seems clearly intended to prefigure the corresponding deliverance of the captives, which is effected by the death of the anointed Saviour.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Jos. 20:1-6

THE CUSTOM OF BLOOD-REVENGE

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

Arguing from the ancient and widely spread character of this practice of establishing cities of refuge, many theological writers have assumed that Moses found the custom already existing among surrounding nations, and that, because it was so deeply rooted in society, God instructed Moses to regulate it rather than to suddenly attempt its abolition. Thus it is frequently regarded as something which God found existing and tolerated, rather than something solemnly chosen and deliberately enforced. It has even been placed on a level with polygamy, which God long suffered, but never approved. Such a view strangely overlooks the real origin of blood-revenge. Instead of viewing it as a custom which the Jews adopted from barbarous nations around them, it is rather to be regarded as a practice which barbarous nations adopted from the Jews, and presently perverted. The real origin of the custom is as far back as in Gen. 9:5-6; and, rightly contemplated, is a solemn vindication of the sacredness of human life. It is by no means a cultivation of the spirit of a heathenish vengeance. Given, that Gods law said, Whoso sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed, how was that law to be carried out? At the time when it was given, there were no set places of judgment, and no selected judges; for men were not grouped in nations. There was no central authority around which the ever-dispersing tribes of Noahs house could gather. Then, the family was the nation, and the head of the family the ruler. The patriarchs were their own family priests, and their own family judges. If this law were to be carried out at all, it must be carried out by the family itself. An aged and infirm man would not be fit for the task of pursuing and doing justice on a murderer; hence the solemn task fell, in more general terms, on some one suitable among the next of kin. The internal evidence of Scripture itself is altogether opposed to the superficial view of Divine toleration. Both among the Romans and Arabs the practice of ransoming even a wilful murderer was common. In the Koran special provision is made for thus settling such blood-feuds with the price of blood. So far from tolerating the avenging of blood, God expressly enjoined by Moses that the wilful murderer was on no account to be suffered to escape. He was to be taken even from Gods altar to be slain (Exo. 21:14), and ransom was strictly forbidden (Num. 35:31; Num. 35:33). The remark made on this passage in the Speakers Commentary justly estimates the superior morality of the Mosaic regulations: The permission to make compensation for murders undoubtedly mitigates, in practice, the system of private retaliation; but it does so by sacrificing the principle which is the basis of that retaliation itself. Resting ultimately upon the law of God, that Whosoever shed leth mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed, it bids men rest content with a convenient evasion of that law, and converts the authority given to men to act as Gods ministers, in taking life for life, into a warrant for enabling the kinsman of a murdered man to make gain out of his murder. Rightly interpreted, this custom of thus vindicating the blood of men wilfully slain was the expression of Gods justice, and no less an expression of the mercy which, using the best social machinery of the time, thus hastened to prevent the guilt of many would-be murderers, and to spare the lives of those who would have become their victims.

THE SACREDNESS OF HUMAN LIFE

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

1. It is life fashioned in the likeness of God. He has made it in His own image. The life of man stands alone in the earth. There is nothing near to it. There is nothing which approaches it. In communion with myriads of its kind, human life is a bearable and thus a grand solitude; isolate it from such communion, and though it might be surrounded by a very ark of other lifetwo of every kindthe solitude would be awful. Science, so called, may prattle as it will about development; it is enough that in his heart no man believes the small poetical story. Given that man is banished from his fellows, there is no next-of-kin whom he can take into his confidence. Darwin himself would pine away and die. In all terrestrial creation there is not a soul outside his own family to whom a man can talk, unless it be in some, such imaginary intercourse as that in which a child holds fellowship with its doll. Put a man out from his own kind, and let him surround himself with what other life he may, he has to be talker and listener too. There is no other earthly life to which he can tell his secrets, or from which, in his keenest sorrows, he can beg a single tear of sympathy. But man can have fellowship with God. Every generation of men has found some men putting this to practical proof. Let scepticism sneer at prayer as it will, prayer has supported its millions. Men have turned to the great likeness of themselves above, and in their deepest sufferings they have endured as seeing Him who is invisible. Man is made in the image of God: man feels it is so; God says it is so. What wonder can it be that God guards such a life so sacredly? To slay life such as this, is to insult it in its Divine representative above. To take the life of a man is to offer scorn to that life in God (Gen. 9:6). Even the man-slaying beast was to be put to death when it thus, though unknowingly, did violence to life fashioned in the likeness of lifes infinite Author (Gen. 9:5; Exo. 21:28-29). This was not a blind vengeance on the poor beast, but a lesson of such significance and worth for man, that, properly learned, it alone was of more value than the life of the heedless brute which had offended.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. The command given by the Lord, that the wilful murderer should be put to death. There was to be no place of refuge for those found thus guilty. These cities of refuge supply an effective answer to the occasional demand made by some for the abolition of capital punishment. The passage in Genesis, though sufficiently plain to most people, has been thought by some open to argument. Thus Dr. Kalisch, after assuming that Gen. 9:5-6, is a prehistoric invention of Moses rather than a command of God, and after representing Moses as unquestionably and strongly averse to the barbarous custom of revenge of blood (an aversion of which he does not even attempt to supply any evidence), proceeds to question whether the Mosaic law is decisive for or against capital punishment. On philological grounds, though he leaves the translation substantially unaltered, he says of the fifth verse: Therefore the words, I shall demand the soul of man from the brother of every one, do not allude to the custom of revenge of blood, according to which the nearest relative was bound to pursue the murderer, but to the legal punishment inflicted by the ordinary authorities. That is simply saying that this law, thus formally promulgated so soon after the deluge, alludes to the law, or, in other words, to itself; and as Dr. Kalisch does not tell us who the ordinary authorities for the execution of the murderer were, he at least leaves room for the conclusion that they may have been the avengers, or redeemers of blood, themselves. With one family alive on the earth when this legal punishment was commanded to Noah, who else could these ordinary authorities have been? But these laboured exegetical efforts in the discussion of two verses in Genesis leave the cities of refuge still untouched. In those six cities we see God commanding that shelter shall be deliberately prepared for the unintentional manslayer; we see also that the wilful murderer, after being pronounced to be such, was just as deliberately excluded from any shelter whatever. He was beyond the reach of ransom. No price was allowed to be taken for the blood of his victim. Thus, whatever discussion may be raised on the meaning of a few words in a verse, these six cities calmly and sadly deny that exegesis of the heart which is offered by an unthoughtful mercy. The wisdom of mercy has so much regard for the multitude, that, though it gladly gives in the delay required for judgment an opportunity for the repentance of the one, it cannot spare him. It is just that he should die; it would be an injustice to living men, and unmerciful to them, if he did not die. The Scripture answer and the moral answer made to the demand for the abolition of capital punishment is very like that of the modern Italian statesman, Let the assassins begin.

V. The instruction of the Lord that the refuge afforded to the manslayer should be a refuge in the name of the Lord. The manslayer was undoubtedly held to have been guilty, though acquitted of murder. Even carelessness might be so culpable as to be judged worthy of punishment by death (Exo. 21:29). It is a mistake to suppose that the stay in those cities was not deemed ignominious, but the effect of an inscrutable Divine decree. Even the man who had taken life unwittingly had sinned more or less grievously, as each case itself would determine. For that sin the manslayer was for a short time exposed to death. Rescuing him from such exposure, God Himself would be the sanctuary. The Israelites should find safety alone in Jehovah. It was religion that was seen stretching forth her hands to protect the endangered life. This was the case before these cities were appointed. The manslayer fled for refuge to the altar of God (Exo. 21:13-14). So these cities of refuge are all Levitical cities. They were chosen without exception from the cities given as places of residence to the consecrated tribe. It was only in the mercy of Jehovah that there should be found a covert from human sin. Already the Lord was teaching His children the song: God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. The name of the Lord was the strong tower into which the righteous and the sinner must alike run for safety.

OUTLINES AND COMMENTS ON THE VERSES

Jos. 20:1-3.GOD A REFUGE FOR MAN, AND FOR ALL THE MAN.

I. The cities of refuge as a manifestation of Gods care for our physical life.

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

III. The cities of refuge as a symbol of Gods provision for our spiritual salvation.

Jos. 20:3.THE AVENGER OF BLOOD. The blood of a human being cries for revenge to heaven (Gen. 4:10; Heb. 12:24).

The soul of the slain raises its voice (Job. 24:12; Rev. 6:9).

The blood of the innocent victims hangs at the skirts of the murderers garments (Jer. 2:34).

The blood is identical with the life of the individual (Psa. 94:21; Mat. 23:35).

This latter view was not unfamiliar to other ancient nations; for, in the Egyptian hieroglyphics, the hawk, which was believed to feed upon blood alone, represents the human soul (Horapollo i. 7); Aristotle considered the blood as the seat of the soul (De Anim. i. 2); whilst Empedocles limited it to the blood of the heart; Virgil speaks of an effusion of the purple soul (n. ix. 349); it was the doctrine of Critias that blood is the soul; and of Pythagoras, that the soul is nourished by the blood. The vital principle, or the soul (nephesh), lies in an unsubstantial breath; it is invisible, and removes the organism after laws which will eternally remain a secret, known to the Creator alone: but as its visible representative the blood was considered, in which the physical power is concentrated; for a diminution of blood is attended with a decrease of the vital powers, and at last with dissolution and death. The breath is purely spiritual, and comes from God; the blood is a physical element, of earthly material; the former is indestructible, and escapes when the latter is shed; but as it has once been the medium through which the vigour of the soul manifested itself, it is an object of sacredness, and is, not inappropriately, itself called the soul (Lev. 17:11). But it is remarkable that the Bible never attributes to the blood a higher mental power, nor does it ever identify the blood with the spirit (ruach), but invariably represents it as the principle of physical life (nephesh). Blood would defile the earth, if it remained unpunished.[M. M. Kalisch.]

Jos. 20:2-4. PREPARATION FOR MERCY AND JUDGMENT.

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

1. Divine outlook.

2. Divine preparation.

3. Divine patience.

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

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

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

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

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

Jos. 20:6.LIBERTY THROUGH THE DEATH OF THE HIGH PRIEST.

I. Condemnation coming through offence against Gods law. The condemnation was

(1) for an actual and great offence;
(2) it was after deliberate investigation and judgment;
(3) and it remained in force till release came after the manner of Divine appointment.

II. Pardon given through the death of Gods anointed High Priest.

1. Release came only through the death of the peoples anointed mediator. No other death would suffice. The death of the high priest was held to be efficacious, because he had been anointed with the holy oil (Num. 35:25).

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

III. Liberty that follows Gods pardon, and as such, liberty as full and complete as that enjoyed before the offence. Each offender would be as free to return, and as free in his home and in the city where it was situated, as if he had never transgressed. Thus does God look forward and prepare a way by which He may pass over our offences. He never passes over our better deeds. The service rendered by Nebuchadrezzar was not forgotten (Eze. 29:18-20). Even the cup of cold water is not to lose its reward. God concerns Himself to remember our services, but to blot out our sins. As in the ancient festival of the exodus, as in this liberation of these captives on the death of the high priest, and as in the glorious work of Calvary, the passovers of God never have to do with our services, often have to do with our sins, and always with our deliverance from Buffering and danger.

THE CITIES OF REFUGE AS AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE WORK OF CHRIST.
I. There were several cities of refuge, and they were so appointed in several parts of the country, that the manslayer, wherever he dwelt in the land of Israel, might, in half a day, reach one or other of them; so, though there is but one Christ appointed for our refuge, yet, wherever we are, He is a refuge at hand, a very present help; for the word is nigh us, and Christ in the word.
II. The manslayer was safe in any of these cities; so in Christ, believers that flee to Him, and rest in Him, are protected from the wrath of God and the curse of the law. There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.
III. They were all Levites cities. It was kindness to the poor prisoner, that, though he might not go up to the place where the ark was, yet he was in the midst of Levites who would teach him the good knowledge of the Lord. So it is the work of ministers of the gospel to bid sinners welcome to Christ, and to assist and counsel those who, through Christ, are in Him.
IV. Even strangers and sojourners, though they were not native Israelites, might take the benefit of these cities of refuge. So in Christ Jesus no difference is made between Greek and Jew. Even the sons of the stranger that by faith flee to Christ shall be safe in Him.
V. Even the suburbs or borders of the city were a sufficient security to the offender. So there is virtue even in the hem of Christs garment for the healing and saving of poor sinners. If we cannot reach to a full assurance, we may comfort ourselves in a good hope through grace.
VI. The protection which the manslayer found in the city of refuge was not owing to the strength of its walls, or gates, or bars, but purely to the Divine appointment. So it is the word of the gospel that gives souls safety in Christ; for Him hath God the Father sealed.
VII. If the offender were ever caught straggling without the borders of his city of refuge, or stealing home to his own house again, he lost the benefit of his protection, and lay exposed to the avenger of blood. So those that are in Christ must abide in Christ; for it is at their peril if they forsake Him and wander from Him. Drawing back is to perdition.[Matt., Henry.]

THE MORAL INFLUENCE OF ACCEPTING PECUNIARY RANSOM FOR A MURDERER
The punishment of murder by a pecuniary fine, which is admitted by the Mohammedan law, would not only be revolting to all feelings of justice, but it would be extremely dangerous for the safety of society; it would destroy the equality of the rich and the poor before the law, and would necessarily lead to a fatal deterioration of public morality.[Kalisch.]

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

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

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

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

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Gods Instructions to Jos. 20:1-6

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

1. How did God speak to ?Jos. 20:1

When Moses was told to select Joshua as a successor, he instructed him to set Joshua before Eleazar, the priest. God said Joshua would stand regularly before Eleazar, the priest, who would ask counsel for him after the judgment of Urim before the Lord (Num. 27:21). The Urim and Thummim were a part of the high priests garments and were instruments by which the Lord made known His will (Exo. 28:30). Joshua normally must have asked Eleazar to inquire for him concerning the Lords will, and it is probable that at the time of the appointing of the cities of refuge, Gods will was revealed in this way,

2.

What instructions had God given to Moses? Jos. 20:1 b

Before the children of Israel left Sinai, God had revealed how He would appoint a place for anyone who killed another man accidentally (Exo. 21:13). Later, God had revealed how He would select cities from among those assigned to the Levites as their inheritance (Num. 35:6; Num. 35:11; Num. 35:14). The Levites were to receive a total of forty-eight cities, and six of these were to be designated as cities of refuge. Still later, God revealed how the children of Israel were to prepare a road to lead to these cities. They were to divide their borders into three equal parts on each side of the Jordan so that no Israelites would be at any great distance from a city of refuge (Deu. 19:2; Deu. 19:9). These facts were all well known to the Israelites, and now it was Joshuas task to implement the designation of these cities.

3.

What purpose did these cities serve? Jos. 20:3

The cities of refuge were selected for the protection of those who killed someone but did not actually commit murder (see Num. 35:9-34). The roads leading to the cities were always kept in thorough repair and according to tradition were required to be at least thirty-two cubits broad. All obstructions were removed. Nothing was to be allowed to stay the fugitives foot or hinder his speed. No hill was left ungraded and no river was unbridged. At every turning were posts erected bearing the word refuge to guide the unhappy man in flight. When the manslayer was settled in such a city, he was given a suitable habitation; and the citizens were to teach him some trade by which he might support himself.

4.

Who was the avenger of blood? Jos. 20:5

From the time of Noah, God had said the blood of a murderer would be required. He said that it would be required at the hand of every mans brother (Gen. 9:5). Normally, the brother of a man who was slain would set out to punish the man who had killed his brother. Joab thus attempted to avenge the killing of his brother, Asahel (2Sa. 2:18-24; cf. 2Sa. 3:27; see also [1Sa. 14:4-7). If the slain mans immediate brother was dead, the nearest relative then became the avenger of blood.

5.

How could they tell the difference between a manslayer and a murderer? Jos. 20:5

Certain guidelines were laid down in the law for distinguishing between a man who had committed manslaughter and a man who had committed murder. If a man struck another man following premeditation, the killing was judged to be murder, If he smote him with an instrument of iron or with a stone in his hand, he was guilty of murder. The same was true if he struck a man with a weapon of wood. On the other hand, if the head flew off his ax and struck another man, the congregation would have judged him guilty only of manslaughter (Deu. 19:5; cf. Num. 35:1-34). When a man was guilty of murder, he was delivered up to the avenger of blood; and the murderer was slain.

6.

How long was a fugitive allowed to stay in a city of refuge? Jos. 20:6

If a man was judged innocent of murder, he was allowed to take up residence in the city of refuge. If he went out of the city of refuge, he went at his own risk. Of course, if the avenger of blood found him out of the city and killed him, the avenger of blood himself would have been guilty of committing murder. He, in turn, would have been tried and judgment passed on his acts. The man who lived in the city of refuge was to stay there until the death of the high priest. At that time, he was free to go. Such an arrangement seems rather arbitrary to us, but it would make provision for the emptying of these cities of the fugitives from time to time.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

THE SIX CITIES OF REFUGE, Jos 20:1-9.

The sentiment of justice impels uncultivated men to the immediate infliction of punishment upon those who give offence to that sentiment by a wrong act, especially the act of taking human life. But a man may accidentally and innocently slay his fellow-man. The safeguard of law is therefore needed that vengeance may not hastily wreak itself on the guiltless. In ordinary cases in highly civilized lands there is such a respect for law that the manslayer is screened from summary punishment, and is entrusted to the courts for trial. But where the veneration for law is not strong, (especially as was the case among the Hebrews, who had so recently been in the house of bondage,) where might and not right is the law, the slayer of a brother man would not be safe in the hands of his outraged and excited neighbours. Hence cities of refuge at convenient distances were appointed. In the wilderness, and up to this time in Canaan, the tabernacle of the Lord seems, from Exo 21:14, to have answered for a place of refuge for the man guilty of homicide; but in the time of Moses commandment was given by God to appoint such cities of refuge in the Land of Canaan. See notes on Num 35:9-34.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Chapter 20 The Cities of Refuge Appointed.

This chapter tells of the renewal of the command to appoint cities of refuge so that they would be available for those who committed manslaughter ‘unwittingly’ to flee to. There they would find refuge from the avenger of blood. The orders are then carried out and cities appointed. To appreciate the importance of this we need to recognise the stress laid in those days, in all societies in the area, on the fact that it was the responsibility of the family to revenge the blood of a member of the family. It was felt that they should not rest until the family member was avenged. This had been so from earliest times (Gen 4:14).

Jos 20:1-3

‘ And YHWH spoke to Joshua, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘Assign for yourselves the cities of refuge of which I spoke to you by the hand of Moses, so that the manslayer who kills a person unwittingly and unawares may flee there. And they shall be to you for a refuge from the avenger of blood.’ ” ’

How God spoke to Joshua we are not told. It may be that it occurred in the Tent of Meeting where God communed with Joshua in some mystic way, for like Moses Joshua appears to have had special access into the presence of YHWH (Exo 33:11). Or it may have been as he meditated on the Book of the Law (see Num 35:9-15; Deu 19:1-13). While the people were in the wilderness the right of sanctuary was obtainable at the altar (Exo 21:14), a right later exercised by Adonijah and Joab (1Ki 1:50-52; 1Ki 2:28), although finally to no avail for they were found guilty. But once the people were spread through the land the altar was far away and it was necessary that closer sanctuary be provided to prevent blood vengeance on innocent men.

Thus YHWH had provide for the establishment of cities of refuge so that once a man reached such a city he was safe from family vengeance until the case had been heard before a proper court, at which point if he was found innocent he would be able to return to or remain in the city of refuge and be safe (Num 35:9-15; Deu 19:1-13). The refuge was for those who had killed accidentally, not for deliberate murder. To take blood vengeance on a man in a city of refuge was a heinous crime and made the perpetrator himself a murderer, whereas seemingly blood vengeance elsewhere did not. But the blood relative had the right to demand that there should be a trial.

“The avenger of blood” is literally ‘redeemer of blood’. The Hebrew is ‘goel had-dam’. A ‘goel’ is one who acts as next of kin, whether by marrying a kinsman’s widow (Rth 3:12 on); by exacting a payment due to the deceased (Num 5:8); by buying a kinsman out of slavery; by buying back a field which had been sold through poverty (Lev 25:48; Lev 25:25) or by buying back an estate into the family (Jer 32:7 on). As redeemer of blood he exacts recompense on behalf of the dead man. It was thus not seen as murder but as justice, a life for a life. Indeed to fail to do so would bring the family into disrepute.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Cities of Refuge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

THE CITIES OF REFUGE.

Jos 20:1

Cities of refuge. The original is more definite, the cities of refuge. So LXX. Whereof I spake to you. In Exo 21:13; Num 35:9; Deu 19:2. Here, again, Joshua is represented as aware of the existence of the Pentateuch. It must, therefore, have existed in something like its present shape when the Book of Joshua was written. The words are partly quoted from Numbers and partly from Deuteronomy; another proof that these books were regarded as constituting one law, from the “hand of Moses,” when Joshua was written.

Jos 20:3

Unawares and unwittingly. Literally, in error, in not knowing. Num 35:16-18 and Deu 19:5, give a clear explanation of what is here meant. Knobel notices that the first of these expressions is found in Le Deu 4:2, and the second in Deu 4:42. The latter is “superfluous,” and therefore a “filling up of the Deuteronomist.” The “Deuteronomist” must have been very active in his “filling up.” If he were really so lynx-eyed in a matter of style, it is a wonder that he was so careless, as we are told he is, in matters of fact. To more ordinary minds it would seem as if the author, familiar with the books of Moses, was quoting Deuteronomy for the precept, and Leviticus for the nature of the offence. The avenger of blood. The Hebrew word is worthy of notice. It is Goel; that is, literally, redeemer, one who buys back at the appointed price what has fallen into other hands, as a farm, a field, a slave, or anything consecrated to God. Hence, since the duly of such redemption, on the death of the owner, devolved upon the nearest relative, it came to mean “blood relation.” Thus Boaz (Rth 4:1, Rth 4:6, Rth 4:8) is called the Goel of Elimelech and his widow. In the present passage, the phrase “the redeemer (LXX. next of kin) of the blood” signifies the exactor of the only penalty which can satisfy justice, namely, the death of the murderer. So we are taught in Gen 9:6; Exo 21:12, Exo 21:14; Le Exo 24:17, 21. This duty, which in civilised society belongs to the government, in uncivilised tribes is usually left to the relatives of the murdered man. Hence the terrible blood feuds which have raged between families for generations, and which are not only to be found among savage nations, but even in countries which lay claim to civilisation. In Ireland, for instance, it is not so long ago since one of these blood feuds in the county Tipperary had acquired such formidable proportions that the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church there were compelled to resort to a mission in order to put an end to it. A man had been killed nearly a century before in an affray which commenced about the age of a colt. His relatives felt bound to avenge the murder, and their vengeance was again deemed to require fresh vengeance, until faction fights between the “Three-Year-Olds” and the “Four-Year-Olds” had grown almost into petty wars. A thrilling story written by the late Prosper Mrime turns upon the Corsican vendetta, and so true is this story to life that in the very year in which these words were written an occurrence precisely similar, save in its termination, was reported in the daily journals to have taken place in that island. The only way in which the feud could be terminated was by summoning the representatives of the two families before the authorities and exacting an oath from them that they would cease their strife. It is no small corroboration of the Divine origin of the Mosaic law that we find here a provision for mitigating the evils of this rude code, and for at least delivering the accidental homicide from the penalty of this law of retaliation. Yet for the offence of wilful murder the penalties enjoined by the Jewish law were terribly severe. A deliberate violation of the sanctity of human life was an offence for which no palliation could be pleaded. No right of sanctuary was to be granted to him who had wantonly slain a fellow creature. “No satisfaction” was to be taken for his life (Num 35:31). “The land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, save by the blood of him that shed it” (verse 33). Such provisions might be expected of a lawgiver who had laid down as the fundamental principle of humanity that man was created “in the image of God,” after His likeness; that God had “breathed the breath of life” into him, and man had thus “become a living soul” (Gen 1:27; Gen 2:7). Such inward harmony is there between Moses’ inspired revelations concerning God’s purpose in creation, and the precepts he was commanded to deliver to the children of Israel.

Jos 20:4

And when he that doth flee unto one of those cities. This passage is in accordance with the instructions given in Num 35:1-34, but is not a quotation from it. The passage may be translated, “and he shall flee … and shall stand.” Shall declare his cause. Literally, shall speak. This was to be clone at the “gate of the city,” the place where all legal business was transacted (see Rth 4:1; 2Sa 15:2).

Jos 20:5

And if. Or, “and when.” Deliver. Literally, cause to shut up (, LXX), implying the completeness of the deliverance, from which no escape was possible. And hated him not before time. Daun, cited in Keil’s Commentary here, remarks on the difference between the Jewish law of sanctuary and that of the Greeks and Romans. The former was not designed to save the criminal from the penalty he had deserved, but only the victim of an accident from consequences far exceeding the offence. The Greeks and Romans, on the contrary, provided the real criminal with a mode of escape from a punishment which he had justly merited.

Jos 20:6

Until he stand before the congregation. That is, until he had had a fair trial. It was no object of the Jewish law to make a man a victim to passion. Until the death of the high priest. The further to protect the unwitting homicide from the consequences of an unjust revenge, he was, if innocent, to return to the city of refuge, and to dwell there until there was reasonable ground to suppose that the anger of the relatives of the slain man should have abated. This is clear from Num 35:24, Num 35:25. Why the period of the death of the high priest should have been fixed upon is not easy to explain. Keil thinks it is because the death of the high priest was typical of the death of Christ, and refers to Heb 9:14, Heb 9:15. But the reference is not to the point. The high priest’s death was in no sense typical of the death of Christ. His yearly entrance into the holy place once a year, on the Day of Atonement, was so typical. It might have been supposed that this yearly atonement would have been regarded as a propitiation for all the sins committed during the year. Certainly the fact that the high priest died the common death of all men, and the inauguration of his successor to fill his place could in no way be regarded as an atonement for sin. There is more force in Bahr’s suggestion in his ‘Symbolik’ (2.52). The high priest, on this view, is the head of the theocracy, the representative of the covenant. He concentrates in his person (so Bahr puts it in another placesee vol. 2.13) the whole people of Israel in their religious aspect. His death, therefore, stands in a connection with the life of Israel which that of no other man could do. “It is,” says Maimonides (‘Moreh Nevochim,’ 3.40), “the death of the most honoured and beloved man in all Israel. His death plunges the whole community into such distress that private sorrow is lost in the general affliction.” Thus the covenant in a way recommences with the inauguration of the new high priest. Bahr complains that Philo has carried this view to an extravagant and fanciful extent. Hengstenberg takes the same view as Maimonides, that the high priest’s death was “a great calamity,” affecting the whole nation.

Jos 20:7

And they appointed. The original, which, strange to say, the LXX. and Vulgate, as well as our version, have neglected to render, is sanctified (heiligten, Luther). The selection is itself a proof that our author knew well what he was writing about. It is not likely that in the later times of Jewish history, when the law had been forgotten (2Ki 22:8) and its precepts had long been in abeyance, that the institution of the city of refuge remained in full force. But we find three cities selected on each side of Jordan. Those on the west were in the tribe of Naphtali on the north, of Ephraim in the centre, and of Judah in the south. The same is the case with those on the other side Jordan. Thus every little detail of the narrative, when closely scrutinised, does but show more entirely how free this narrative is from the reproach so hastily cast upon it of being a loose and inaccurate compilation, attempted by a man who had not the slightest literary fitness for the task he had undertaken. A corroboration of this view may be found in the fact that all these cities were Levitical cities. Thus, as the crime of homicide was looked upon under the Mosaic law as a crime apart from all other crimes, inasmuch as it was an offence against the life which was God’s gift, and man, who was God’s image, so the offender who pleaded extenuating circumstances for his offence was placed, until his trial could be held, under the special protection of the Divine law. For “the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and men should seek the law at his mouth.” It was the special privilege of the tribe of Levi to possess the “key of knowledge.” It was to them that the duty of ascertaining the wilt of God by Urim and Thummim was assigned (Num 27:21). Thus a special acquaintance with the law (Deu 33:8), and a special fitness for deciding the difficult questions sometimes arising out of it, would naturally be found in the elders of those cities which had been set apart as cities of refuge. In Galilee. Hebrew, Hag-Galil, the circle. Here we have the masculine, as in Jos 13:2; Jos 17:17; Jos 22:10, Jos 22:11, the feminine form. This is the first place in Scripture in which the word Galil, or Galilee, is applied to this region. Gesenius regards it as having been originally a district of twenty towns round Kedesh in Naphtali. Such a region of twenty towns is mentioned in 1Ki 9:11 (see also Isa 8:1-22 :23; or, Isa 9:1 in our version). Kedesh has already been noticed (see also Jos 21:32).

Jos 20:8

By Jericho eastward. Or, eastward of Jericho. This, of course, only refers to Bezer. The plain. The Mishor, or table land (see Jos 3:16, Jos 9:1, and notes). Our version, by its renderings, obscures the beautiful precision with which our historian never fails to hit off the physical geography of the country. Thus, the plain of Bashan, Gilead, and Reuben is always the Mishor; the strip of land between the mountains and the Mediterranean is always the Shephelah; the depression of the Jordan Valley and the country south of the Dead Sea is invariably the Arabah; wide plains shut in between ranges of hills or situated on their slopes are distinguished by the title of Emek; while narrow waterless ravines are known by the name of Ge. We may quote here the emphatic words with which Canon Tristram concludes his ‘Land of Israel,’ “While on matters of science the inspired writers speak in the ordinary language of their times (the only language which could have been understood), I can bear testimony to the minute truth of innumerable incidental allusions in Holy Writ to the facts of nature, of climate, of geographical positioncorroborations of Scripture which, though trifling in themselves, reach to minute details that prove the writers to have lived when and where they are asserted to have lived; which attest their scrupulous accuracy in recording what they saw and observed around them; and which, therefore, must increase our confidence in their veracity, where we cannot have the like means of testing it. I can find no discrepancies between their geographical or physical statements and the evidence of present facts. I can find no standpoint here for the keenest advocate against the full inspiration of the scriptural record. The Holy Land not only elucidates but bears witness to the truth of the Holy Book.” Ramoth in Gilead. See Jos 13:26, where it is called Ramoth Mizpeh; also Jos 21:38. All these cities of refuge were Levitical cities. It is famous as the headquarters of Jehu’s rebellion, in which he clearly had the support of the priestly party (2Ki 9:1-37). The key to his subsequent conduct is found in this fact. His “zeal for the Lord,” displayed so ostentatiously to Jonadab, who we may suppose, as being of the “family of the scribes,” to have become identified with the Levites (cf. 1Ch 2:55 with Jdg 1:16, and 1Ch 27:32 with Ezr 7:12, Jer 8:8), was simply a stroke of policy, to bind to his interest the sacerdotal party, to whom,with the army, he owed his throne. Just such a policy commended itself to the worldly wisdom of our own Lancastrian princes, and led to the enactment of the infamous statute de heretico comburendo in the fifteenth century. Jehu, we find, was contented with the one vast sacrifice of idolaters, for whom he cared nothing, and gave himself no further trouble to secure purity of worship for his people. The one great value of the geographical and political details in the book of Joshua is that when carefully studied they supply us with the key to many a mystery in the after history of Israel, which, but for their aid, we should scarcely have unravelled.

Jos 20:9

Appointed. Or, of refuge or resort. Our version has followed the LXX. and Vulgate here. Greek, unawares; Hebrew, in error or inadvertently, as above. Matthew Henry’s note on the cities of refuge is worthy of remark. He says, “I delight not in quibbling on names, yet am willing to take notice of these.” Thus Kedesh, he reminds us, is holy. Shechem, a shoulder, reminding us of Him upon whose shoulder the government was to be. Hebron is fellowship, recalling the fellowship we have in Christ. Bezer is a fortification, reminding us of God our stronghold (later criticism, however, gives another derivation to this unusual word, which in Job 22:24, Job 22:25, means the ore of a precious metal), Ramoth is height or exaltation, and to such exaltation we are called in Jesus Christ. Lastly, Golan is exultation, so says Matthew Henry, deriving it from or . But Gesenius derives it with equal probability from “to make bare,” hence to lead into captivity.

HOMILETICS

Jos 20:1-9

The cities of refuge.

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

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

II. VENGEANCE MUST BE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE LAW. The rule for Christians as individuals is, never to take vengeance at all, but to submit to the most grievous wrongs in silence. But there are times when a Christian is bound to regard himself as a member of a community, and in the interests of that community to punish wrong doers. We learn a useful lesson from the chapter before us. We may not take the law into our own hands. We are not the best judges in our own cause. The punishment we inflict is likely to be disproportionate to the offence. We are bidden, if our neighbour will not listen to us (Mat 18:15-17) to take others with us to support us in our complaint, and if that be in vain, to bring the matter before the assembly of the faithful, who take the place in the Christian dispensation of the elders of Israel. But in all cases the decision must not rest with ourselves. It would be well if every one, before bringing an action or prosecution at law against another, would submit the matter to some perfectly disinterested persons before doing so. It would be well if the Christian congregations exercised more frequently the power of arbitration, which was clearly committed to them by Christ. It should be the city of refuge to which the offender should betake himself, and he should be free from all penalties until the “elders of that city” declare that he has deserved them.

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

HOMILIES BY R. GLOVER

Jos 20:1

Cities of refuge.

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

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

II. JUSTICE IS SUBSTITUTED FOR REVENGE. The six cities of refuge were simply six cities of assize, where an authoritative verdict could be found as to whether the death was wilfully or unintentionally inflicted. The man who had taken a life claimed of the elders of the city (Jos 20:4) protection, and received it until his case was adjudicated on. He was tried before the congregation, the assembly of the adult citizens. As these were all Levites (the six cities of refuge being all of them Levitical cities) they were familiar with law, and had, probably, a little more moral culture than their non-Levitical brethren. A calm unbiassed “judgment by their peers” was thus provided forevery accused persona tribunal too large to be moved by animus or corrupted by bribes. If on explicit evidence of two or three witnesses it proved to be a case of wilful murder, further asylum was denied him, and he was delivered to death. If it proved a case of either accident or manslaughter, the asylum was lengthened, and beneath the protection of God he was safe, as long as he kept within the precincts of the city and its suburbs. How admirable such an arrangement! A better court of judgment in such cases, than such a jury of two or three hundred honest men, could not be devised. It was costless; it was simple; it involved no delay. It restrained a universally recognised right, but did it so wisely and fairly none could complain. A provision of unconditional asylum, as it developed later in connection with religious buildings, has proved an unmitigated evil even in Christian lands, an encouragement to all crimes, promoting not morality, but only the cunning which committed them within easy reach of such sanctuary. This gave Israel, for the most important of all cases, a court of justice that protected innocence, that soothed revenge, that prevented blood feuds settling and growing to large dimensions. It is a lesson for us, as individuals, always to guard against our being carried away by passion, and to import into every quarrel it may be our unhappiness to fall into, the calm and unbiassed judgment of others. It may be our duty to others to prosecute or punish a criminal. But revenge is an unholy passion which has no sanction from on high. Lastly observe:

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

HOMILIES BY J. WAITE

Jos 20:1-6

The manslayer and his refuge.

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

I. THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE. The institution bore striking witness to this. This was its root principle. It was intended as a check on that form of ferocity for which Oriental tribes have ever been remarkablethe thirst for vengeance in the shedding of blood. It threw a shield over an endangered life. This at once commends it to a radical instinct of our nature. God has implanted in our breasts an intuitive sense of the value of life. Not only the instinct of self preservation (“skin for skin,” etc; Job 2:4), but something also that prompts to respect for the life of another. The most barbarous conditions of humanity are not altogether destitute of the traces of this. The natural effect of religion and civilisation is to develop it. Mainly on this instinct rests the admiration we feel for any marvellous triumph of surgical skill, for the rescue of imprisoned miners, or of a shipwrecked crew, or of a wounded comrade from the battlefield. It is not merely satisfaction in beholding consummate skill, resolute endurance, deeds of daring and self sacrificebut in the fact that life is saved. The “vital spark,” so mysterious in itself, and so mysteriously kindled, is kept from being extinguished. The humane spirit, the spirit in sympathy with humanity as such, feels just the same however feeble or apparently worthless and despicable the life may be. We don’t stay to consider either its actual conditions or its latent possibilities; we only know that it is good to save it. There is no higher mark of Christian civilisation than the diffusion of a nobler sentiment as to the inherent value of human life. “The Son of Man came not to destroy men’s lives, but to save them” (Luk 9:56). This fact has its manifest, though indirect, bearings on the question of man’s immortality. If physical life is surrounded by such sanctions and safeguards, does it not at least suggest the indestructibility of the essential being of the man?

“That not one life shall be destroyed,
Or cast as rubbish on the void,

When God shall make the pile complete.”

II. FORFEITURE OF LIFE. This principle of sanctity bears on the slain as well as on the slayer. If it shields the one, not less does it avenge the other. The right of asylum was based on the foregoing right of the Goel, the blood avenger (see Num 35:19, et seq; Deu 19:11-13). This was the outgrowth of the ancient law given to Noah, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Gen 9:6). And, again, to Moses at Sinai, “Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,” etc. (Exo 21:23, Exo 21:24). So severely was this rule to be applied, that no kind or measure of “satisfaction” could be taken for the forfeited life of the murderer (Num 35:31). Such was the Mosaic law. The gentler spirit of Christianity inculcates a different rule. As that softened and restrained the natural savagery of the olden times, so this brings in the reign of still nobler principles of moral and social life (Mat 5:38, 89; Rom 12:19). It is questionable whether the teaching of Christ and his Apostles does not throw such an air of sanctity over the being of every man, and make restorative love rather than retributive justice the universal law, as completely to annul the old order of “life for life.” At the same time the principle of retribution is in no way obliteratedless literal, less circumstantial, entrusted less to the hands of man, but not less real. The avenger still tracks the steps of the transgressor. He cannot escape “the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds” (Rom 2:5, Rom 2:6). Vengeance may suffer even “the murderer to live,” but he bears the penalty and the curse within. “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth,” etc. (Gal 6:7, Gal 6:8).

III. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SPIRIT ABOVE THE FORM OF EVERY DEED. The city of refuge was a provision for the protection of the manslayer from lawless and indiscriminate violence, that he might be subject to judicial inquiry as to the real meaning and intent of what he had done. He must be brought before tribunal of the people. The “congregation” must judge between the slayer and the avenger, and if it is shown that he was not the enemy of the man slain, nor “sought his harm,” he shall be delivered (Num 35:22-25). Here was a striking witness to the principle that it is the spirit, the purpose, that determines the real quality of every deed. God is the “Searcher of hearts,” and He would have man, according to the measure of his insight, estimate everything by what gives birth to it there. The “Sermon on the Mount” is a Divine lesson on the importance of the spirit above the form (Mat 5:21, et seq). The law of Christ is a “discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” It is the motive that determines the merit or demerit of every deed. God has given us no power infallibly to trace or weigh the motives of men, but as far as they are disclosed so let us judge.

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

V. AN ANALOGY IS OFTEN INSTITUTED BETWEEN THE CITY OF REFUGE AND THE GOSPEL WAY OF SALVATION. There is an essential mark of difference between the two; the one was for the protection of the innocent, the other is God’s provision for the redemption of the guilty. But they are alike in this, that they tell of shelter from the fatal stroke of the avenger. We are reminded how

“All the lives that are were forfeit once,
And He who might the vantage best have took
Found out the remedy.”

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

HOMILIES BY W.F. ADENEY

Jos 20:2

Cities of refuge.

I. THE APPOINTMENT OF CITIES OF REFUGE EXEMPLIFIES UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE. We do not need such cities because we can attain the end they were set apart to accomplish by simpler means, but we are called to observe the principles they were instituted to maintain.

(1) The justice which brings retribution on offenders is natural and right. But this must be distinguished from vengeance. Justice seeks the honour of law and the maintenance of the public good. Vengeance aims only at the infliction of harm on the offender. The latter is unchristian and wicked.

(2) We should not be hasty in passing judgment. The city of refuge afforded time for evidence to be collected and a mature judgment to be formed. First impressions are often deceptive. Anger blinds judgment.

(3) It is well to refer our quarrels to the decision of others. The avenger of blood was required to refer his case to the congregation. Interested persons can rarely form impartial opinions. It is well to resort to Christian arbitration when differences cannot be settled amicably in private (Mat 18:15-17).

(4) It is difficult to judge of the conduct of others, because of our uncertainty as to their motives. The man slayer may be a murderer or he may be innocently concerned in a pure accident. Thus he may be guiltless, while the person who inflicts no harm on another may be a murderer at heart. “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer” (1Jn 3:15). Guilt attaches to motives, not to outward acts. Therefore

(a) do not judge others needlessly (Mat 7:1);

(b) when it is necessary to judge do not be deceived by outward appearance, but consider differences of motive (Joh 7:24).

II. THE APPOINTMENT OF CITIES OF REFUGE IS AN ILLUSTRATION OF GOD‘S GRACE OF REDEMPTION.

(1) God provides a city of refuge in Christ. He is a refuge from the dangers that beset us, from the consequences of our own acts, from the indwelling power of sin.

(2) This refuge is for the most guilty. The Levitical cities were for the innocent; Christ is a refuge for the guilty. Men fled to them for justice; they flee to Christ for mercy (Mat 9:12, Mat 9:13).

(3) This refuge is in our midst. The six cities of refuge were situated in convenient central positions at different points of the land, so that every Israelite might be within reach of one. Yet even this arrangement could not secure safety in all cases. Christ is in our midst. We have not to bring Him from heaven; He dwells among us. He is near and ready to receive us at any moment, None need perish on the road to Christ.

(4) This refuge must be entered to secure safety. It was vain for the fugitive Israelite merely to ran in the direction of the city, or even to be within sight of it, if he did not enter its precincts. It is useless for a man only to have inclinations towards Christianity, to know the truth of it, to begin to turn Christward. He must seek Christ and come to Him in trust and submission. As the fugitive must enter the city to be safe, so the sinner must be “in Christ” (Rom 8:1).

(5) It is dangerous to delay entering this refuge. While the fugitive stayed, the avenger of blood was upon him, “Now” is the appointed time. The opportunity may soon pass.W.F.A.

HOMILIES BY S.R. ALDRIDGE

Jos 20:2, Jos 20:3

Danger and safety.

The Book of Joshua supplements the Pentateuch. It tells Us of the execution of the behests contained in the law. Hence it preaches a continual lesson of obedience. How far do our lives exhibit a conformity of practice to gospel precepts? Surely God says to us, as to Joshua, “Be mindful of the commandment given by the hand of My servant.”

I. A PREVALENT CUSTOM MODIFIED. The rights of kinsmen were various and strongly insisted on. The exaction of vengeance for the death of a relative was deemed among the most important of these rights. The nearest kinsman became the “avenger.” To abrogate such an institution might have been impossible; at any rate, it was wisely ordained that particular rules should regulate its operation and soften its character. Legislation must ever have regard to the prevalent opinion, must not be too far in advance of the age. This principle of directing popular thoughts to more wholesome channels was recognised by the Church of the early centuries, when it sought to lead men away from orgies and revelries to joyous Christian festivals, and missionaries of modern days have adopted this plan with success. We may alter the ship’s course even if we cannot absolutely check her progress. The modification of Goelism introduced

(1) Acknowledged the sanctity of human life.

(2) Distinguished between the quality and the matter of actionsa vital distinction in ethics, which regards the intention as well as the consequence of behaviour, before it can be censured or approved of. To slay a man unwittingly was not murder. On the other hand, Jesus Christ afterwards showed that the indulgence of an angry thought towards a brother is an infraction of the sixth commandment. So also 1Jn 3:15.

(3) Placed this department of equity under the special supervision of the religious authorities. The places of refuge were chosen from the Levitical cities, whose rulers might be trusted to carry out the law in respect both of justice and of mercy. The unintentional man slayer was considered as the prisoner of the high priest, and on the death of the latter was released. Religion never looks more beautiful than when she wears her benign garb of mercy, protecting the helpless and friendless. It is part of her office to prevent injustice and oppression. The laws of God are deposited with the Church as a sacred trust for the benefit of mankind. How she perverts her functions when she employs her strength in bitter enmity and persecution!

II. POINTS OF RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN THE CITIES OF REFUGE AND THE SALVATION OFFERED IN THE GOSPEL, That the ordinances of the Israelites were a figure for the time to come, is in many places of the New Testament expressly affirmed (see 1Co 10:6, 1Co 10:11; Heb 9:9; Heb 10:1). And with great likelihood the words of Heb 11:18 have been supposed to refer to the very institution now under discussion.

(1) Easiness of access. The cities were so selected as to be scattered throughout the land at equal distances, no part of the country being remote from one of these centres. And Jesus Christ is nigh unto every one of us, a very present help in trouble. It need not take even half a day to reach Him, the heart may be surrendered to Him at once and find rest.

(2) The way readily known. The road to the nearest city of refuge was plainly indicated by the words “Refuge! Refuge!” written at each turning, and the way was always kept clear of obstacles (see Deu 19:8). “He that runneth can read” and understand the plan of salvation. Redemption freely offered in Christ, who died for sinners. Prophets and apostles point to Him, saying, “Behold the Lamb of God.”

(3) Available for every inhabitant. Equally for the stranger or sojourner and one born in the land (Heb 11:9). God is no respecter of persons. He gave His Son, that “whosoever believeth in Him should not perish.” “Whosoever, will let him take the water of life freely.”

(4) The gates always open. We learn this from Maimonides, as also that the rulers of the city furnished the refugee with shelter and food so long as he remained with them. Jesus “ever liveth to make intercession for those who come unto God by Him.” No sinner need fear lest the door of mercy should be shut against him. There are no specially appointed days for obtaining relief. It is always, “now is the accepted time.” God will not allow one of His little ones to perish. “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all other things shall be added unto you.” Several other particulars might be mentioned, such as that even the suburbs of the city were a refuge (Num 35:26, Num 35:27), like as to touch the hem of Christ’s garment heals the sick; and the cities saved by virtue of God’s appointment, not so much by reason of their natural strength, even as God hath set forth Christ to be a propitiation through faith in His blood. But let us note

III. THE SUPERIORITY OF THE GOSPEL SALVATION.

(1) Accessible even to the guilty. In fact, there are no innocent ones, “all have sinned.” The Apostle called attention to the mercy and longsuffering of Jesus Christ, who “came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief” (1Ti 1:15). “The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin.” Ho! ye despairing ones, there is hope for you. And ye who are polluted with stains of deepest dye, you may be “clothed in white robes,” and to you there shall be “therefore now no condemnation.”

(2) The refuge no confinement, but rather enlargement of liberty. The man-slayer was unable to follow his ordinary avocation or to resume his wonted place until the death of the high priest. Our Saviour has been already slain as the victim, and is entered as High Priest into the holiest of all; hence there is no period of waiting for us, but instant pardon and deliverance from thraldom. The busy man goes to business with lighter heart, and the mother, troubled with domestic cares, has obtained ease and rest by casting her burden upon the Lord.

CONCLUSION. Flee to this refuge! Delay, and the footstep of the avenger shall be heard close behind you, and fear shall paralyse your flight. “Satan hath desired to have you;” but haste to the Saviour, let His strong arms protect you, and sheltered ‘neath His smile your panting heart shall cease tumultuously to beat. And if you have won Christ and are “found in Him,” not having your own righteousness, how secure and peaceful you may be. What rejoicing should be yours! To be tormented with doubt while you are in such a stronghold is foolish, and impairs the glory of the salvation Christ hath wrought. “Neither shall any man pluck them out of My hand.”A.

HOMILIES BY E. DE PRESSENSE

Jos 20:2

The cities of refuge.

We know how strictly the law of Moses applied the avenging law. He who had killed was himself to be killed. The nearest relation of the victim had the right, and it was his duty, to pursue the offender. He was the avenger of blood. The law, under its original form, made no distinction between a murder committed purposely and of premeditation, and an unintentional murder. It may well be said that in this respect it was the inexorable law of the letter which killeth.

I. The establishment of cities of refuge, intended to serve as a sanctuary to the murderer who had killed some one by accident, IS LIKE THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS THE NEW LEGISLATION WHICH DEALS RATHER WITH THE INTENTION THAN WITH THE ACT, and is aimed primarily at the heart. The last commandment of the Decalogue, which prohibits covetousness, carries the Divine law into the inner region of the moral life, showing that its scope is far wider than the sphere of outward action or speech. The man who has unintentionally committed murder, finds in the city of refuge a means of escaping the vengeance of the pursuer. This provision is in itself a protest against the Pharisaic spirit which based its judgment upon the outward act alone. The new covenant gives yet riffler application to the same moral principle, when it declares that hatred in the heart involves the moral guilt of murder, as lust does of adultery.

II. The establishment of cities of refuge is AN ADMIRABLE EMBLEM OF THE CHURCH. The Church is the city set upon a hill, whose gates stand open day and night to those whom the law condemns. Only those to whom it offers shelter are not exclusively persons who have transgressed unwittingly, as was the case with the Israelitish cities; all who have broken the law of God, even with open eyes, may there find shelter, on the one condition that they enter by the door. “I am the door,” says Jesus Christ, “no man cometh unto the Father but by me” (Joh 10:7). This is a strait gateso strait that none can pass through it except on bended knees and laying aside every weight. By repentance and faith everything that is of self and sin must be abjured. But so soon as these conditions are fulfilled, the door is opened. No one is too great a sinner to enter there. Publicans and harlots, all the sorrowful and sinful, let them hasten, arise and enter in. The city of refuge is open for all. The Church of the middle ages restored in a literal sense the Jewish custom of having cities of refuge. It opened its sanctuaries to murderers and spread over them the shield of its protection. This was called the privilege of sanctuary; but it became a grave abuse. Let us cleave to the one great privilege of finding refuge in the true Church built upon the great Cornerstone. The old cities of refuge promised safety from the avenging arm of the inflexible law. We have a further pledge of our safety in the blood that was shed for our sins, in the redeeming sacrifice by which our debt was paid. Sheltered beneath this outspread wing of everlasting love, we are safe from the condemnation of the righteous law which we have broken.E. DE P.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Ver. 1-6. The Lord also spake unto Joshua, saying, &c. The great work of distributing the lands being now finished, God orders Joshua to put the last hand to the settlement of the cities of refuge, upon the footing which he had specified to Moses. See on Numbers 35 and Deuteronomy 19. The slayer was to stand at the gate of the city, ver. 4 as being the place where the courts of justice were held.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

4. Appointment of the Cities of Refuge

Joshua 20

a. The Command of God to Joshua

Jos 20:1-6

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

b. Fulfillment of this Command

Jos 20:7-9

7And they appointed [consecrated] Kedesh in Galilee in mount Naphtali, and Shechem in mount Ephraim, and Kirjath-arba, (which is Hebron) in the mountain of Judah. 8And on the other side [of the] Jordan by Jericho eastward, they assigned [appointed Jos 20:2 ] Bezer in the wilderness upon the plain [the table land] out of the tribe of Reuben, and Ramoth in Gilead out of the tribe of Gad, and Golan in Bashan out of the tribe of Manasseh. 9These were the cities appointed [prop. of appointment] for all the children of Israel, and for the stranger [sojourner] that sojourneth among them, that whosoever killeth [smiteth] any person at unawares [by mistake] might flee thither, and not die by the hand of the avenger of blood, until he stood before the congregation.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Ch. 20 contains the designation of the free cities for homicides as Moses had already (Num 35:9-34; Deu 19:1-13) ordained. There were to be six of them (Num 35:6; Num 35:13; Deu 19:3-9) and they were taken from the number of the Levitical cities (Num 35:6). The way to them must be prepared (Deu 19:3), that the fugitive might as quickly as possible reach his asylum.

a. Jos 20:1-6. Gods Command to Joshua, Jos 20:1-2. Recollection of the ordinance established by God through Moses (Num 35:9 ff; Deu 19:5 ff., with which Gen 9:5 ff., and Exo 21:12-14 may be further compared). The cities are called . The root signifies (1.) to draw together, to contract ones self, (2.) to draw in, hence to receive (a fugitive), as in the Chal. (Gesen.) [The meaning of the noun comes near to asylum].

Jos 20:3. In these cities the man-slayer (, from , prop. to break or crush in pieces) might flee, yet only the one who smote () a soul by mistake (, from , to go astray, to err, for which in Num 35:22, [in a twinkling] stands). Knobel remarks on , on Lev 4:2 : This expression, as well as and , occurs in reference to transgressions of the divine law which are committed without consciousness of their being unlawful, and which are only afterwards recognized as sins (Joshua 20:13, 22, 27; 5:18; Jos 22:14), e.g., of sins of the congregation without their knowledge (Num 15:24 ff.), or even of unlawful conduct which has resulted from some weakness, carelessness (Jos 5:15), or which was occasioned by some unfortunate accident (Num 35:11; Num 35:15; Num 35:22 f.; Jos 20:3; Jos 20:9). Hence it stands in general for unpremeditated sins in opposition to , i.e., violent intentional sins, which must be punished with death (Num 15:27-31), and could not be expiated with sacrifices. Thus it is added here also, unwittingly (, without his knowing it). Now for those who had slain any person by mistake, without intending it, these cities should be for a refuge from the avenger of blood. He is , LXX. (, whence , is the nearest of kin, according to Ammonius the one entitled to the heirship, different from , who have no such right, and from , related by marriage, Herod, 10:80. The word occurs frequently in the LXX. still also in Isus, Orat. Att. ii. 11, and in Eurip. Trach. 243). Vulg.: ultor sanguinis. signifies properly to demand back, reclaim what belongs to one, hence, in connection with , to require, revenge the blood which has been stolen by the murderer. As such a reclamation in reference to real estate belonged to the family (Lev 25:35; Rth 4:4-6), so that they alone had a right to repurchase it; so also the reclamation for the blood of a member of a family was a duty of the family, and they alone had a right in regard to it. Precisely so was it with the duty of marrying a brothers widow (Deu 25:5; Mat 22:23 ff.; Mar 12:19; Luk 20:28) which is expressed Rth 3:13 by . On the custom itself of vengeance for blood [the vendetta], see the Theological and Ethical.

Jos 20:4. More particular directions, not given in the passages of the Pentateuch, how the man-slayer should proceed on his arrival at the free city. He must remain standing at the entering of the gate of the city, i.e. ante portam (Vulg.), and state his case before the ears of the elders of that city. Then they shall gather him () into the city, and shall give him a place, that he may dwell among them, i.e. assign to him a habitation.

Jos 20:5-6. He might not be delivered to the avenger of blood, but might, according to Jos 20:6, to the congregation, that is, as appears from Num 35:24 ff., to the congregation of his own city, who should hold judgment upon him, and either, if they found him guilty, give him up to the avenger of blood, or, if they esteemed him innocent, send him back to the city of refuge, where he must remain until the death of the anointed high-priest (Num 35:25), that is, of the ruling high-priest. After the death of the latter there follows, somewhat as upon the death of an anointed prince, an amnesty and the man-slayer is at liberty to return to his home. If, however, he presumptuously leaves his asylum sooner, he is exposed to the anger of the avenger. (Num 35:26; Num 35:28).

b. Jos 20:7-9. Fulfillment of this Command, Jos 20:7. They consecrated to this use six cities. , as Keil rightly notices, is not merely to set apart, but to set apart something to a holy destination from the remaining mass of things. The free cities as Ranke says (Untersuch. ber den Pentateuch, ii. 316, apud Keil, pp. 363), are intended to keep the people and land of Jehovah pure from blood guiltiness. They exist as a monument of Jehovahs love for his chosen. Hence not cities at random but Levitical cities were chosen (Num 35:6).

Kedesh in Galilee. Jos 12:22; Jos 19:37. , from , signifies a ring, Est 1:6; Son 5:14, then circle, section of land, like . In particular it is a circuit of twenty cities (1Ki 9:11) in the tribe of Naphtali, , within whose borders many heathen still dwelt, and hence called, Isa 8:13, (comp. Mat 4:15, ). From it the name Galilee, which occurs in the translation here and in Jos 21:32, has been formed. Shechem, Jos 17:7. Kirjatharba, Jos 15:13. The three cities of refuge west of the Jordan thus lay so distributed that one (Kedesh) was found in the north, one (Shechem) in the centre, and one (Kirjath-arba = Hebron) in the southern part of the land.

Jos 20:8. East of the Jordan there are likewise three which Moses had already (Deu 4:41-43) established.

Bezer, perhaps identical with Bozra (Jer 48:24), but not to be identified more particularly, although we may, as Knobel remarks on Num 32:33, compare the place of ruins Burazin, some way east of Heshbon in the plain (Robinson, App. p. 170), or Berza (Robinson, ibid.).

Ramoth in Gilead, the same city which is called, Jos 13:26, Ramath-Mizpeh,1 now, as was shown at the place cited (comp. also Knobel on Num 32:42, p. 183), es-Salt, and therefore not to be placed so far northward as on Menkes Map iii.; comp. Gen 31:49.

Golan in the country of Gaulanitis (Jaulan) not yet discovered by modern travellers, but in the time of Eusebius and Jerome called a and villa prgrandis. Since Ramoth in Gilead lay in the middle of the land, Bezer probably in the south, and Golan in the north, there seems to have been a similarly fit distribution of the cities to that which we have noticed in West Palestine. But while they were enumerated there from north to south, these are mentioned, as in Deu 4:43, in the opposite order.

Jos 20:9. These were the cities appointed, , the Vulgate, rightly: civitates constitut, cities of appointment (from , to appoint), i.e., which were appointed in order that every one. might flee thither; Kimchi, inaccurately; urbes congregationis (with reference to the signification of , in Niph.); Gesen., not precisely: urbes asyli, for in that view they are called, Jos 20:3, . Luther [and Eng. Vers.] translated quite rightly: these were the cities appointed for all the children of Israel, etc.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

So long as no organized commonwealth exists among a people, a common consciousness of right develops itself first in that sphere of society which is immediately given by the divine order of naturethe family. It will therefore interpose when the right of one of the members is violated, whether in the loss of material goods through robbery, or by injury to body and life. So we find vengeance for blood, not only among the Hebrews, Arabs, Persians, but also among the Greeks, with the Germanic and Slavic peoples, in the infancy of their development, as now among savage nations. The theocratic legislation found the custom existing, and sought, without attempting to abolish, to restrain it. This purpose was served by the free cities, as also by the other restricting appointments in the passages of the law quoted above, as well as in this passage. It deserves to be carefully considered also, that according to the view of the O. T., in a case of manslaughter, not merely the family to which the slain man belonged was injured, but God himself in whose image man was created (Gen 9:6). On this account the real avenger of blood, as is said just before, is God himself (Gen 9:5; Psa 9:13; 2Ch 24:22). He avenges the murdered man even on brutes (Gen 9:5; Exo 21:28-29). Since God is wronged in intentional murder, even the altar itself affords no protection to the slayer (Exo 21:14), ransom is not allowed (Num 35:31), the land even is defiled and cannot be purified from the blood which has been shed in it, without the blood of him who has spilled it (Num 35:33). The legislation of the O. T. is, therefore, on this side, much stricter than the Greek, Roman, or German idea of right. These allowed ransom, and regarded consecrated places as places of asylum even for the intentional murderer (comp. Winer, Realw., art. Freistatt). On the other hand, it appears much more humane and equitable in regarding God himself as the proper avenger (see Gen 9:5 ff., and comp. Lange on the passage), in distinguishing between premeditated and unintentional homicide, and in requiring punishment of the perpetrator only, not at all of his relations. Comp. on this subject the art. Blutrcher by Oehler in Herzogs Realencyk. 2:260 ff, also Winer, art. Blutrcher, Keil, Com. on Josh. in loc., [and Smiths Dict. of the Bible, arts. Blood, Avenger of, and Cities of Refuge.Tr.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The chapter is suitable to be treated as a Bible lesson, to show, with reference to the passages Gen 9:5 ff; Exo 21:12-14; Num 35:9 ff; Deu 19:1 ff, how solemnly and strictly, and at the same time how justly and mildly, the O. T. legislation spoke concerning violence to human life; how it in part clung still to the patriarchal institutions, but in part prepared for a better order; in particular, how this arrangement for free cities put a check on family revenge, and endless, bloody quarrels. For the practical application, the following comments of Starke give hints: The name of the Lord is a strong tower and safe refuge; the righteous flee thereto and are protected, Pro 18:19; Psa 18:2-3.The blood of a man is highly esteemed before God; he who sheds it has Gods wrath upon him, Gen 4:10; Gen 9:6; Gal 5:21; Rev 22:15.God has no pleasure in sin, Psa 5:5, nor delight in the death of the sinner, Eze 18:23-24.

Footnotes:

[1][Osborns large map makes them distinct places.Tr.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS

This chapter is but short, but the contents of it are interesting. The Lord appoints, and the children of Israel set apart, six cities for refuge. And as those cities were evidently a shadow of good things to come, the relation of them is made the more particularly.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

I cannot enter upon the subject of this chapter, without again and again calling upon the Reader to attend to the very precious doctrine veiled under the appointment of this city of refuge. Its importance cannot be more strongly implied, than in the frequent notice of it made by Moses. So particular was the man of God in following up the Lord’s commands concerning it, that we find it in many places. Exo 21:13 ; Num 35:6 ; Deu 19:1-3Deu 19:1-3 . And yet it must not be overlooked in the book of Joshua. How delightful a thing it is to see such provision in the gracious mercy of God! But this is not the principal point in the subject I wish the Reader to notice. Had the merciful provision made by the Lord for unintentional blood-shedding, been the only thing intended from the appointment of those cities of refuge, surely a court of enquiry among the elders of Israel, would have answered every purpose, in acquitting innocent persons upon those occasions. Doth it not strike the mind therefore with full conviction, that the whole of this was typical of some greater thing? And what so likely as that of representing the great shelter and deliverance to sinners from the blood-shedding of our poor souls, when by unbelief and sin we unintentionally destroy ourselves. Dearest Jesus! how strikingly art thou pointed out herein, as the refuge of thy people, and what a strong consolation have we all to flee unto, in the shelter of thy blood and righteousness? Heb 6:18-19 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

After Rest

Joshua 20-24

THE twentieth chapter deals with the Cities of Refuge. A very beautiful expression is that “City of Refuge.” Very suggestive, too. But there is a great black shadow in the middle of it: for why should men want refuge? The term is noble in itself, but what is it in its suggestion? Surely it means that there is a pursuing storm. We have heard travellers say that by making haste they will just be in time to escape the impending tempest; so they quicken their steps, and when they gain the threshold of the sanctuary they were aiming at, they breathe a sigh of relief and thankfulness. The sanctuary is doubly dear to them. Home is always sweet, or ought to be; but how sweeter than the honeycomb when it is reached under circumstances which try the spirit, exasperate the sensibilities, and weigh heavily on the soul! In this case there is a pursuing storm, but not of weather a social storm. The man who is running has killed a man, and the one who is following him is “the avenger of blood.” Who will be first in the city? God will help the first runner, if it be but by one step he will be in before the pursuer can lay hold of him. There is a wondrous ministry of helpfulness operating in the world. We are helped in a thousand ways, not always in the one way in which we want to be helped, but in some other way; yet the help always comes. Was the refuge then for the murderer? No; there was no refuge for the murderer. But is it not said that the man who is fleeing to the city of refuge has killed some person? Yes, it is so said; but a definition is given which clears up all the moral side of the mystery:

“The slayer that killeth any person unawares and unwittingly may flee thither” ( Jos 20:3 ).

“And they appointed Kedesh in Galilee in mount Naphtali, and Shechem in mount Ephraim, and Kirjath-arba, which is Hebron, in the mountain of Judah. And on the other side Jordan by Jericho eastward, they assigned Bezer in the wilderness upon the plain out of the tribe of Reuben, and Ramoth in Gilead out of the tribe of Gad, and Golan in Bashan out of the tribe of Manasseh. These were the cities appointed for all the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them, that whosoever killeth any person at unawares might flee thither, and not die by the hand of the avenger of blood, until he stood before the congregation.” ( Jos 20:7-9 )

Now Joshua proceeds with his valedictory speech. Here and there he records a sentence which belongs to all time. The twenty-first chapter has little or nothing to say except to the people to whom it specially related; but in summing up the twenty-first chapter Joshua says,

“There failed not ought of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel” ( Jos 21:45 ).

A noble testimony this, too, borne by the old man. It is not youth that anticipates, it is age that reviews. Old men never become infidels. We say sometimes that seldom is an old man converted to Christianity. How far that may be true we cannot tell; but did ever an old pilgrim who had once seen heaven opened, turn round and say, in his wrinkled old age, that he was going to the city of Negation, or to the wilderness of Atheism? Old men ought to be heard upon these subjects; they have lived a lifetime; they have fought upon a thousand battlefields; they know all the darkness of the night, all the sharpness of winter, all the heat of summer, and they have a right to be heard upon his question; and their testimony on the side of the Bible is united, distinct, emphatic, and unanswerable.

Another point is found in chapter Jos 22:5 :

“But take diligent heed to do the commandment and the law, which Moses the servant of the Lord charged you, to love the Lord your God, and to walk in all his ways, and to keep his commandments, and to cleave unto him, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul.” ( Jos 20:5 )

“Return ye, and get you unto your tents, and unto the land of your possession…. But take diligent heed to do the commandment and the law” ( Jos 22:4-5 ).

It would seem as if some interviews in life could not be satisfactorily closed but with the language of benediction. An ordinary word would be wholly out of place. There is a fitness of things in human communication as in all other affairs and concerns of life. It is fitting, too, that the benediction should be spoken by the old man. Joshua was “old and stricken in years,” and he concluded the audience fitly by blessing the children of Israel:

“So Joshua blessed them, and sent them away; and they went unto their tents” ( Jos 22:6 ).

Now the children of Israel go to their tents: They are to be at peace. Ceasing war they are to be students of war. We shall hear no more of controversy; every man having received the blessing is a good man, and there is an end of a tumult which at one time threatened never to cease. So we should imagine, but our imagining is wrong:

“Now to the one half of the tribe of Manasseh Moses had given possession in Bashan: but unto the other half thereof gave Joshua among their brethren on this side Jordan westward. And when Joshua sent them away also unto their tents, then he blessed them. And he spake unto them, saying, Return with much riches unto your tents, and with very much cattle, with silver, and with gold, and with brass, and with iron, and with very much raiment: divide the spoil of your enemies with your brethren. And the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh returned, and departed from the children of Israel out of Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan, to go unto the country of Gilead, to the land of their possession, whereof they were possessed, according to the word of the Lord by the hand of Moses” ( Jos 22:7-9 ).

“And the children of Israel sent unto the children of Reuben, and to the children of Gad, and to the half tribe of Manasseh, into the land of Gilead, Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, and with him ten princes, of each chief house a prince throughout all the tribes of Israel; and each one was an head of the house of their fathers among the thousands of Israel” ( Jos 22:13-14 ).

“Let us now prepare to build us an altar, not for burnt offering, nor for sacrifice: but that it may be a witness” ( Jos 22:26-27 ).

This being settled, a very tender scene occurs. Joshua gathers all the tribes of Israel to Shechem, calls for the children of Israel, and for their heads, and for their judges, and for their officers, and talks to them historically and grandly. He called the people themselves to witness what God had done for them:

“And ye have seen all that the Lord your God hath done unto all these nations because of you” ( Jos 23:3 ).

Not only so, but he uses a very searching expression:

“And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the Lord your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof” ( Jos 23:14 ).

“Be ye therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom to the right hand or to the left;… But cleave unto the Lord your God, as ye have done unto this day” ( Jos 23:6-8 ).

What is the call of these verses? It is a call to moral courage. The people were soldiers; when they saw that an altar had been reared to heaven which they did not like, and which they misunderstood, instantly they sped from their tents and challenged the builders to battle. That is the rudest courage; there is nothing in it. Many men can fight who cannot suffer; many are brave in activity who are cowards in waiting. Joshua calls the people now to thought, study, quiet and consistent and continuous obedience namely, “Cleave unto the Lord.” Without this, growth would be impossible. Men cannot grow in the midst of continual or unbroken excitement. We grow when we are at rest; we grow not a little when we are in the shade; we advance when the burden is crushing us, and we are not uttering one complaining word because of its fatal weight. When the history of the land is written as it ought to be written, many a battle which now fills pages and chapters will be dismissed with a contemptuous sentence; and sufferings at home, quiet endurances, Christian manifestations of patience, will be magnified as indicative of the real dauntlessness, the heavenly bravery, the lasting courage. Let every man examine himself herein. To say “No” to a tempting offer is to win a battle: to receive a blow from an enemy and not return it, is to reach the point of coronation in Christ’s great kingdom; to hear a rough speech and make a gentle reply is to evince what is meant by growing in grace. So the history rolls on, from battle to battle, from mistake to mistake, from point to point, until at last the moral displaces the material, questions of the soul put into their right place questions of rank; and moral courage simple, loving, unquestioning obedience is set at the head of all the virtues; and the quiet, meek, submissive, patient soul is crowned and throned, and stablished amid the hierarchy of heaven. We cannot dazzle the world by our greatness, but we can please God by our goodness; we cannot harness the winds and make them bear our names far and wide, but we can so live, so suffer, so speak, as to constrain the enemy to say, Verily, this man is a prophet; verily, this man has been with Jesus and learned of him; verily, there is in this supposed weakness a wonderful and enduring strength.

We cannot but be struck by the equality of the divine way as it is marked by the venerable leader. The fifteenth verse is very expressive upon this point:

“Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the Lord your God promised you; so shall the Lord bring upon you all evil things, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the Lord your God hath given you” ( Jos 23:15 ).

“When ye have transgressed the covenant of the Lord your God, which he commanded you, and have gone and served other gods, and bowed yourselves to them; then shall the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and ye shall perish quickly from off the good land which he hath given unto you” ( Jos 23:16 ).

Joshua having gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem, called for the elders of Israel, and for their heads, and for their judges, and for their officers, and delivered unto them his final speech. Again we are thrown upon the grand truth that men must bring all their history into one view at certain periods, that thereby they may renew their covenant and revive their best hope. The work of the Lord is not of yesterday; it goes back through all the generations; and he is the wise scribe, well instructed in holy things, who brings into one view all the course of the divine education of the world. This is what Joshua did in brief in the twenty-fourth chapter. Having given the historical outline, the old man began to exhort the people, saying:

“Now, therefore, fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth” ( Jos 24:14 ).

” but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” ( Jos 24:15 ).

“God forbid that we should forsake the Lord, to serve other gods’ ( Jos 24:16 ).

Then they review and repeat the solemn history and say that all Joshua has said is true in fact. Then Joshua says unto the people “What you have now said amounts to little more than mere words; you forget that God is a holy God and a jealous God, and you are speaking from impulse rather than from settled conviction.” Then the people reply that Joshua himself is mistaken, and they have really made up their minds once for all to serve the Lord. So be it, then, said Joshua “Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the Lord, to serve him.” The people answered That is even so; “We are witnesses.” Then said Joshua, There is one final word to be spoken. If you have made up your minds to this course, you must put away the strange gods which are among you; no taint of idolatry must remain behind; not the very smallest image must be taken with you one day longer or one inch further; the expurgation must be immediate, complete, and final. The people answered unanimously: “The Lord our God will we serve, and his voice will we obey.” It was indeed a solemn day; a day of covenant, a day of memorial, a day which condensed into its throbbing hours generations of history and strong and ardent pulsings of devotion and prophetic service. A covenant was made, and a statute and an ordinance were set in Shechem. To make, if possible, the matter inviolably permanent, “Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak, that was by the sanctuary of the Lord” ( Jos 24:26 ). Then a very solemn scene occurs:

“And Joshua said unto all the people, Behold, this stone shall be a witness unto us; for it hath heard all the words of the Lord which he spake unto us: it shall be therefore a witness unto you, lest ye deny your God” ( Jos 24:27 ).

Then the assembly broke up. It broke up never to meet again under the same wise and valiant leadership. All pathetic occasions should be treasured in the memory; the last interview, the last sermon, the last prayer, the last fond lingering look; all these things may be frivolously treated as sentimental, but he who treats them so is a fool in his heart: whatever can subdue the spirit, chasten the sensibilities, and enlarge the charity of the soul should be encouraged as a ministry from God. Now Joshua dies, at the age of one hundred and ten. He was buried in the border of his inheritance in Timnath-serah, which is in Mount Ephraim, on the north side of the hill of Gaash.

“And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the Lord, that he had done for Israel” ( Jos 24:31 ).

Now the history is done. The bones of Joseph, which the children of Israel brought up out of Egypt, were buried in Shechem, in a parcel of ground which Jacob bought of the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem. Then men died quickly:

“And Eleazar the son of Aaron died; and they buried him in a hill that pertained to Phinehas his son, which was given him in mount Ephraim” ( Jos 24:33 ).

Death, death, death! The great man dies, and yet the work goes on. The minister ceases, but the ministry proceeds. The individual sermon closes, but the everlasting gospel never ceases its sweet and redeeming proclamations. Book after book is finished, but literature itself is hardly begun. Amidst all mutation there remains one everlasting quantity: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.” All the new generations acknowledge it. They come up in great pride and strength, as if they themselves were to outlive God, and behold in a few years their pith is exhausted, their hope dies, and they know themselves to be no better than their fathers. When we are touched by the death of those whom we have known best, and wonder how light can ever shine again upon the circle in which we move, we should give the mind free scope to range over all the noble and marvellous history of the world, so shall we see that how great soever have been the men who have led us, the world could do without them; God knew how to supply their places, and amidst all change and fear and dismay the purpose of Heaven went steadily forward in all the grandeur of its strength and all the tenderness of its beneficence.

In coming thus far in our Bible studies let us pause a moment to consider how many illustrious men with whom we have companied have passed away. Truly the dead are quickly becoming the majority. Adam died, but, though his years were many, how few are the deeds which are recorded of him! He stands in history as the very Gate of Death. “By one man came death.” We feel as if we might say “But for thee, O Adam, all men would now have been alive; no grave would ever have been dug; no farewell would ever have been breathed.” That is an overwhelming reflection. Consider the possibility of Adam himself now entertaining it, or following it out in all its infinite melancholy! Think of him saying “By my sin I ruined God’s fair earth; to me ascribe all iniquity, all shame, all heartbreak; by my presumption and disobedience I did it all: I slew the Son of God; but for me there would have been no Bethlehem, no Gethsemane, no Calvary, no Cross: lay the blame at the right door, O ages of time, ye burdened and groaning centuries, curse my name in all your woe.” On such thoughts we may not dwell, for the mind reels in moral amazement, and the heart cannot quench the passion of scepticism. Enough is known to make us solemn. Count the graves until arithmetic gives up the reckoning in despair. Abel, Enoch, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, all gone! Just as we had come to know them in the breaking of bread they vanished out of our sight. It was as if rocks had been uprooted, or as if planets had ceased to shine: nay more, for we have not only lost strength and majesty, we have lost guidance, stimulus, friendship, and the subtle ministry of eloquent example. Can history repeat such men? Does our story now lie all down-hill, from steep to steep until we reach the valley of commonplace or the plain of mediocrity? Jesus Christ has taught us how to regard great men, saying “Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” Here we have at once recognition of greatness and hope of greater history. What if we may know more than Adam, see farther than Enoch, embark in greater adventures than Abram, offer greater sacrifices than the priests, and see a deeper law than was ever revealed to Moses? In Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom, yea riches unsearchable, promises exceeding great and precious. My soul, bestir thyself, go out in the early morning, remain in the field until the stars come out, for every hour brings its own spoil, every moment its own vision. O my Lord, Father in heaven, Blessed One, made known to me in the Cross of salvation, inspire me, lift me up, and make me gladly accept thy yoke and do all thy bidding; give me the aspiration that is untainted by vanity, and the consecration that is undefiled by selfishness, then shall I be willing to be baptised for the dead, and to stand steadfastly where princes and veterans have fallen by the hand of Time.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

XXII

CONQUEST OF THE NORTHERN TRIBES; ALLOTMENT OF TERRITORY; ESTABLISHMENT OF A CENTRAL PLACE OF WORSHIP.

Joshua 11-21

This section commences with Joshua II and closes with Jos 21 . That is to say, we must cover in this discussion eleven chapters,, and the matter is of such a nature that one cannot make an oration on it, nor can one give a very interesting discussion on it. It would be perfect folly for me to take up the chapters verse by verse, when all you have to do is to look on your map in the Biblical Atlas and glance at any commentary and get the meaning and locality of each town mentioned. All of the matters that require comment will be commented on in these eleven chapters.

The first theme is the conquest of the tribes in the northern part of the Holy Land, just as the preceding chapter considered the central and southern part of the land. You know I told you that Joshua, by entering the country at Jericho and then capturing Ai, occupied a strategical position, the mountains on the right hand and the left hand and they forced a passway by which he could go in any direction. We found that all the southern part of the country, after the capture at Jericho and Ai, was practically brought about by one decisive battle, the battle of Beth-horon, where the Almighty thundered and sent his hailstones and where the sun stood still. Now, the northern conquest was brought about by one decisive battle, all of the details that it is necessary for me to give are these: When the northern tribes learned of the subjugation of the southern tribes they saw that it was a life and death matter.

From this viewpoint they would be conquered in detail. As Benjamin Franklin said in a speech at the Continental Congress, “Gentlemen, we cannot evade this issue; we must either hang together or hang separately, every one of us if we don’t unite will be hanged.” Now, that was in the minds of those northern kings. We have had the account of Adonizedek, the king of Jebus. Hazor was a well-known place in the history of the countries. We will have it up again in the book of Judges. It was not very far from Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his great confession in the time of our Lord.

I will not enumerate the tribes and the names of the several kings that were brought into this second league It not only included the central and northern tribes, but they sent an invitation to the remnant of the tribes that had been conquered. The place of rendezvous, or assemblage, for all of these armies of these several kings was Lake Merom. You will recall that in describing the Jordan, rising in the mountains, after running a while, it spreads out into Lake Merom, and lower down it spreads into the Sea of Galilee. Well, now around that Merom Lake the ground is level, very favorable for calvary and war chariots. For the first time the war chariot was introduced. The war chariot was more, in general, the shape of a dray than anything else two wheels, steps behind that one could go down, and one chieftain and two or three captains stood up and drove two or three horses, and they always drove the horses abreast, no matter how many. The men who drove were very skillful but unless they were very lucky they would fall to the ground. In the time of Cyrus the Great, he built one with blades that went out from the sides, so that it not only crippled those he ran over but the scythes on each side would mow them down.

Joshua learned of this combination of tribes and, under the direction of the Almighty, he smote them before they could organize. He was a Stonewall Jackson kind of a man and struck quick and hard. He pressed and pursued them and led his army up the valley of the Jordan by swift marches and instantly attacked the enemy when he got upon the ground and before they were prepared. Their defeat was the most overwhelming in history. All of the leaders were captured and slain; they dispersed in three directions specified in the text, and he pursued them in all three directions. He gave them no time to rally, and when they had been thoroughly discomfited, he took the towns. That battle was practically the end of the war of conquest. We may say the whole thing was decided in this battle; there were some details of conquest later, but this is Joshua’s part of it. I must call attention specifically to this fact, overlooked by many commentaries, that the general statement of the conquest is given in the book of Joshua and the details of some of these general statements are given more elaborately, indeed the last great item, the migration of Dan, in the book of Judges. All that happened before Joshua died. Therefore the book of Judges and the book of Joshua overlap as to time. And for this reason, that as soon as Joshua got through with his conquest, and the distribution of territory, he retired from leadership, living years afterward. The instant the war was over, Joshua surrendered the general leadership.

Just here I wish to answer another question. While the record notes that Joshua conquered all the land that Jehovah had originally promised to those people, yet the book of Joshua also states that there remained certain portions of the land that had not been conquered. The backbone of the opposition was broken by these two battles and by the cities that he captured after these battles, but the enemy would come back and occupy their old position and some of the walled towns were not taken.

I once heard the question asked a Sunday school, Why did God permit the remnants that you will find described later on in this section, the parts not subjugated, to remain? Nobody in the Sunday school could answer. Now, you will find the answer to the question in Num 33:55 ; Jos 23:13 ; Jdg 2:3 . Moses says, “If you do not utterly destroy these people leaving none, then God will permit those remnants that you spare to become thorns in your side, and whenever you are weak they will rise against you; whenever you are disobedient to God they will triumph over you.” It is stated here that the number of the kings of the separate tribes overcome by Joshua was thirty-one Part of this section says that Joshua waged war a long time with these kings. While this battle was fought and became decisive of the general results, the going out and capturing the different towns, completing the different details, required a long time.

Now we come to the next theme of our lesson, viz.: The distribution of the land, or allotment of specific parts of the territory to the tribes. We have already found in the books of Moses just how the eastern side of the Jordan was conquered and the allotment made to Reuben just above Moab, and to Gad just above Reuben and to the half-tribe of Manasseh way up in Gilead. This is on the east side of the Jordan, and the Biblical Atlas will show you at the first glance where they are. So that is the first distribution: Reuben, Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh.

The next distribution takes place under the commandment of God. Joshua is old, well stricken in years and wants the land divided while he lives because he knows it will be divided right, and this, too, is the land allotted to Judah and the land allotted to Joseph, or Ephraim, and the half tribe of Manasseh. So we have two and one-half tribes receiving their portion on the west side of the Jordan. That leaves seven tribes who have not yet received their land. In giving Judah his part three interesting events occurred, all of which were in connection with Caleb. Caleb is one of the original twelve men sent out by Moses to spy out the land, and because of his fidelity God promised that he should have Hebron, Abraham’s old home, which is not far from the Dead Sea. It has always been a noted place and is yet. Before this division took place, Caleb presented himself and asked for the fulfilment of the promise by Moses, that his particular part should be Hebron and when that was done, Caleb’s daughter, Achsah, steps forward and asks of her father springs of water, and he gave her the upper and nether springs.

The third fact is related at length in Judges, but it occurs at this time. Caleb having the certain portion, Kiriathsepher, the enemy of Hebron, he said that whoever should go over into that city first and capture it, he should have his daughter for a wife, and a very brave fellow, a nephew of Caleb, determined to try it and he took that city and got the girl. Now, that was a deed of daring, and like it was in the Middle Ages where a knight went forth and sought adventures that would entitle him to be his lady’s husband. All young fellows feel that they would surmount any difficulty to win a girl. I have felt that way. I felt that way when I was seven years old and about a certain young lady. There isn’t anything too dangerous or too great a sacrifice for a man to make in a case of that kind.

I told you when Judah received his part that Joseph’s tribe received theirs. Now we come to an interesting episode; the tribe of Joseph, and particularly the tribe of Ephraim, was always a tough proposition. You will find that all the way through the Old Testament and even when you come to the New Testament. Ephraim came up and when the allotment was made he said, “We are not satisfied.” Did you ever hear of people who were not satisfied about a division of land? Joshua said, “What is the trouble?” “Well, they said, “we are a big tribe, many men of war, and we are cooped up too much. We cannot go far west for there are the mountains, and then all around are woods.” Now, what did Joshua say to them? He said, “Well, you are indeed a big tribe and you have many men of war; now go up and cut down those woods and expand'” He determined to rest some responsibility upon the tribes after the allotment had been made. It is a fine piece of sarcasm. So Ephraim had to take to the woods.

Now before any other division takes place a very notable event occurred affecting the future history of the nation, and that was the establishment of a central place of worship, finding a home for the tabernacle. The tabernacle was established at Shiloh, and this brings us to another general question. How long did that tabernacle stay at Shiloh? How long did the ark stay, and when it left there, where did it go, and where was the ark finally brought? Trace the history of the ark from Shiloh to where it was set up in the tent, and then I want you to tell what became of the tent and tell how long it stayed there and what became of it. What became of the tabernacle? Some of the most interesting things in history and song are found in the answer to those questions.

I here propound another question. Which tribe had no inheritance, no section of the country allotted to it, and why? This tribe that had no particular section allotted to it was scattered over the whole nation and that leads to the next question that you are to answer. Where do you find the prophecy in the Pentateuch, in which book, and where, that this tribe and another one, Simeon, should be scattered over Israel? Where does Moses prophesy just what comes to pass? If not Moses, then somebody else, and you are to find out who did and when and where. The next general remark that I have to make is that this section tells us that Dan was shut up in a pretty tight place. Three strong tribes, Judah, Benjamin and Ephraim held them on one side and the Philistines on the other side, but Dan didn’t come to Joshua. Perhaps he thought it but took the question into his own hands. I suppose that he was afraid that as Joshua told Ephraim to go to the woods, he would tell Dan to capture those Philistine cities, and so Dan sent out some spies and found a good place to settle, and the story of the emigration of Dan is told at great length in the book of Judges. Some of it is told in the book of Joshua; that he took Laish and called it Dan and that became its name. So we say, “from Dan to Beersheba.” We will see all about how Dan improved it when we get to the book of Judges. I am showing you that it occurred, but when you get to the book of Judges you will have a detailed account of it.

The next thought in these eleven chapters is that Joshua, having ended his wars, obeyed God with singular fidelity. (I don’t believe I explained that after they came to Shiloh where he set the ark, the other tribes received their portion by lots. Now your map will show you where Shiloh was and Ephraim and Dan and the half-tribe of Manasseh, and all the others. All you have to do is to look on your map and see their location.) He, having finished the wars, asked a small inheritance for himself, a little bit of a place. How that does shine in comparison with the other great conquerors! When they come to the division, they take the lion’s share. Joshua took a very modest little place in his own tribe. His retiring from public life devolved the work upon the tribes themselves, and to their own judgment. He remained in seclusion until he comes out to be considered in the next section.

This leaves for consideration only two other thoughts in the distribution of the territory, and I shall embody these thoughts in questions for you to answer. Look at the six cities of refuge established, three east of the Jordan and three west of the Jordan. You can find them on a good map, and as you look at them on the map, you are struck with the wisdom of their locality when you consider the purpose of these cities of refuge. And now what was the intent of these cities of refuge? A thousand preachers have preached sermons on the cities of refuge Spurgeon has one remarkable sermon. The allusions to them are very frequent, so that every one of you ought to have in your heart and on your brain a clear conception of what is meant by the cities of refuge. I am going to give you a brief answer, but you can work this answer out and make it bigger.

Under the Mosaic law there was no sheriff in cases of homicide, the killing of a man. In our cities the police go after the murderer, and the sheriff in the country, but under the Mosaic law the next of kin was made the “avenger of blood.” If I, living at that day, had been slain, without raising a question as to how it was done, my brother, J. M. Carroll, or my son, B. H. Carroll, Jr., under the law would be the sheriff, and his injunction would be to start as soon as he heard of the killing and to kill the killer on sight. Well, for us in that kind of a sheriff-law this difficulty would arise: Suppose in the assumed case Just now that, while I had been killed, it had been accidental; that we were all out hunting and a man with me accidentally discharged his gun and it killed me. Or suppose that, as Moses described it, two men were chopping and one went to make a big lick with an axe and the axe flew off and hit the other one and killed him, yet that law says that life was a sacred thing. Now, as there are several cases of manslaughter, of innocent men with no purpose to kill them, so there must be a distinction made between accidental homicide and willful murder.

The object of the cities of refuge, distributed as you see over the country, was to provide a place where one who had killed another, not intending to commit murder, might find a place of shelter until the matter could be investigated, and so, just as soon as a man killed another, he turned and commenced running. The avenger of blood, as soon as he heard of it, went after him and it was a race for life and death, to see which could get there first. Therefore the roads were kept in splendid condition, no rocks were left that the man fleeing for his life should stumble and be slain. The rabbis say they would not allow a straw to be left on the road lest they should stumble and fall.

Now, I close with just this question. I told you that one tribe had no inheritance, no lot of land all together and they had to go somewhere. So for that tribe certain cities with their suburbs were set apart. Now, on your map look for the cities of this tribe that had no inheritance.

QUESTIONS

1. Describe the strategical position of Jericho and Ai.

2. By what battle was the south country practically conquered?

3. What decisive battle brought about the northern conquest? Describe it. With whom is Joshua as a general compared?

4. What the connection between the book of Joshua and the book of Judges?

5. How do you harmonize the statements that Joshua conquered all the land that Jehovah had promised them and that there remained certain portions of the land that had not been conquered?

6. Why did God permit the remnants not subjugated to remain in the land? Where in the Pentateuch do you find the answer?

7. Explain the expression, “Joshua waged war a long time with these kings.”

8. Locate the tribes on the east of the Jordan.

9. What the second distribution, and to whom?

10. What 3 interesting events in connection with giving Judah his portion?

11. What complaint was made by Ephraim, and Joshua’s reply?

12. Where was the central place of worship located? How long did the ark stay there? When it left where did it go? Where finally brought? How long did the tent, or tabernacle, stay there? What finally became of it?

13. What tribe had no inheritance & why? Where do you find the prophecy in the Pentateuch that this tribe & Simeon should be scattered over Israel?

14. How does Joshua’s spirit compare with the spirit of the other great conquerors?

15. How did Dan get out of his straits?

16. Name and locate the cities of refuge. What the intent of these cities?

17. Locate the cities of the tribe that had no inheritance.

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

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

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

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Joshua

THE CITIES OF REFUGE

Jos 20:1 – Jos 20:9 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

NASB (UPDATED TEXT): Jos 20:1-6

1Then the LORD spoke to Joshua, saying, 2Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘Designate the cities of refuge, of which I spoke to you through Moses, 3that the manslayer who kills any person unintentionally, without premeditation, may flee there, and they shall become your refuge from the avenger of blood. 4He shall flee to one of these cities, and shall stand at the entrance of the gate of the city and state his case in the hearing of the elders of that city; and they shall take him into the city to them and give him a place, so that he may dwell among them. 5Now if the avenger of blood pursues him, then they shall not deliver the manslayer into his hand, because he struck his neighbor without premeditation and did not hate him beforehand. 6He shall dwell in that city until he stands before the congregation for judgment, until the death of the one who is high priest in those days. Then the manslayer shall return to his own city and to his own house, to the city from which he fled.’

Jos 20:2 This verse has two commands from YHWH to Joshua.

1. speak, BDB 180, KB 210, Piel IMPERATIVE

2. designate, BDB 678, KB 733, Qal IMPERATIVE

These commands relate to previous revelation about these special cities of asylum and mercy.

1. Exo 21:12-14

2. Num 35:10-28

3. Deu 19:1-13

No other culture in the ancient Near East has cities like these. They uniquely reflect the mercy of YHWH toward those who act without malice or forethought.

cities of refuge Originally those who were fleeing from hasty justice could grab the horns of the altar for safety (cf. Exo 21:14; 1Ki 1:50-53; 1Ki 2:28-31). However, this system was replaced by having set cities within the Promised Land. Moses had already designated three cities in the trans-Jordan area (cf. Deu 4:41 ff). There are several discussions in the Pentateuch related to the cities of refuge (cf. Exo 21:12-14; Num 35:10-28; Deu 19:1-13). If a person killed a fellow Israelite by accident, he could flee to one of these six cities. There, a trial would be held (cf. Jos 20:4). If innocent of premeditated murder, he still had to remain in the city until the death of the High Priest. If guilty of murder, he was turned over to the blood avenger of the family he violated for the immediate punishment of death (cf. Jos 20:9).

Jos 20:3 who kills any person unintentionally, without premeditation The entire sacrificial system was geared toward those who sinned in ignorance or passion. NIDOTTE, vol. 2, states, the concept of ‘unintentionally’ or ‘inadvertently’ (Lev 4:2) is both strategic and problematic (cf. Lev 4:13; Lev 4:22; Lev 4:27; Lev 5:15; Lev 5:18; Jos 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 Milgrom, 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; Jos 20:3; Jos 20:9), this is not necessarily the case (see 1Sa 26:21; Ecc 5:6) (p. 94).

There was no sacrifice for high-handed, defiant, premeditated, or known sin (e.g., Psa 51:17). This concept of intentionality (BDB 993) is referred to in Lev 4:2; Lev 4:22; Lev 4:27; Lev 5:15; Lev 22:14; Num 4:42; Num 15:27-31; and Num 19:4.

This is a good place to point out that the commandment You shall not murder (cf. Exo 20:13; Deu 5:17) does not mean kill (KJV), but do not commit non-legal, premeditated murder (BDB 953, cf. Exo 21:12-14). There was legal premeditated killing.

1. blood avenger

2. holy war

3. judicial sentences

refuge This term (BDB 886) means asylum. It has no cognates, which means it was unique to Israel’s judicial system. It is used about twenty times and always in connection with the cities of refuge. This new legal concept reveals the fairness and justice of YHWH. Motives make a difference! However, there are consequences to every act!

the avenger of blood This is the Hebrew term (BDB 145 I), which denoted a near relative who rendered aid to the family and avenged the family in a case of injury (cf. Num 35:19; Num 35:21; Num 35:24-25; Num 35:27; Deu 19:6; Deu 19:12). The concept first appears in Gen 4:14; Gen 9:5-6. The positive side can be seen in Rth 3:13. It is also mentioned in Lev 25:25; Num 5:8 and Jer 32:7.

Jos 20:4 he shall stand at the entrance of the gate of the city and state his case in the hearing of the elders of that city Because of Jos 20:4, these cities of refuge were not entirely inhabited by Levites or else there would have been no elders. Hebron, mentioned in Jos. 20:11, was a Levitical city and was also given to Caleb (cf. Jos 14:13-15). The city gate was the place where the elders sat and administered justice. The elders of the city initially tried the man to see if he was worthy of being protected. From Jos 20:6 he also had to go to trial before the entire congregation (cf. Num 35:12).

Jos 20:5 he struck his neighbor without premeditation and did not hate him beforehand The concept of neighbor in the OT refers primarily to one’s covenant partner. The OT talks a lot about one’s responsibility in this area.

1. positively

a. love your neighbor – Lev 19:18 (Jesus’ second most important command, Mat 19:19; Mar 12:31; Luk 10:27)

b. Jesus adds, as yourself – Mat 22:39-40; Rom 13:9

2. negatively (Ten Commandments)

a. do not slander

b. do not give false witness

c. do not covet his property

d. do not steal from him

e. do not take his life

f. do not cheat financially – Deu 15:2; Deu 24:10

g. do not forsake a friend – Proverbs 27; Proverbs 10

h. do not hate – Lev 19:17

Jos 20:6 until the death of the one who was High Priest in those days Even though the man was protected there still was a price to be paid for his actions: he was separated from his own tribal allocation and home (but not his immediate family) until the death of the High Priest (cf. Num 35:25). Part of the penalty was also the fact that the person had to live with the Levites and, therefore, would be trained in the way of the Law for these many years.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

The LORD. Hebrew. Jehovah. App-4.

spoke. See note on Jos 1:1.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Chapter 20

Now in the twentieth chapter you remember that when they came into the land, they were to establish cities of refuge so that anybody who had killed someone accidentally, who had not had a foremalice or hatred towards the person, but killed them accidentally, they could flee to the city of refuge from the avenger of death.

Now we talked to you about the culture of revenge killing. It was quite a deeply ingrained cultural practice. It is still practiced today in New Guinea, and in some of the more primitive areas, revenge killing. It doesn’t matter if they killed your son by accident. If they killed a member of your family, then you were duty bound to kill them or if you couldn’t catch them, to kill a member of their family.

So, in these days because there were cases where a person would accidentally kill someone else, they didn’t have any hatred or malice against them, but it was just purely an accident. In order to be fair, in order to be just, God had them establish six cities that they called the cities of refuge where you could flee and be safe from the avenger of blood, three on either side of the Jordan River. They were so located in the land that you were never more than a half day’s run from one of these cities. You would be running to be sure.

So, as we look at the cities of refuge that were appointed within the land, we find the first one was in the Galilee region, the upper part of the land in Kadesh, which was up in the Galilee region. The second one was right in the southern part of the land in Hebron, which is down in the southern most section. Then the third was at Shechem, which was right in the heart of the land. So really in sort of the middle area of the south in Hebron, in the heart of the land in Shechem, and then up in the Galilee region in Kadesh, the three cities of refuge were established that a person guilty of killing someone accidentally could flee and be protected until he had at least a fair trial. “

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

Having come into possession of the land, the cities of refuge were provided according to arrangements already made. Three were fixed on the west of the Jordan and three on the east. They wire so placed as to cover the whole area. Moreover, they were Levitical cities.

Maclear says, “Jewish interpreters tell us how in later times, the roads leading to the cities of refuge were always kept in thorough repair-all obstructions were removed that might stay the flyer’s feet or hinder his speed. No hillock was left, no river was allowed over which there was no bridge, and at every turning there were posts erected bearing the word ‘Refuge.’ “

In this method of dealing with the most heinous of all sins as between man and man, certain interesting principles are manifest. First, God does make a distinction in degrees of guilt. Premeditated murder was to find no sanctuary even in the city of refuge. Second, man must not punish man save after the fullest inquiry. Third, all deliverance was closely connected with the priesthood, which forever stands for sacrificial mediation.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

Cities of Refuge

Jos 20:1-9

These arrangements carried out Num 35:9-34. Remember the distinction between deliberate murder and unintentional homicide. Only those who had committed the latter were eligible for refuge.

The fugitive told his story at the gate and was admitted provisionally, Jos 20:4. His case was afterward investigated by the citizens or their delegates; and if his story were found correct, he might stay till the death of the high priest. This functionary was a type of our Lord; and thus the death of each high priest pre-signified that death by which captive souls are freed and the remembrance of sin made to cease.

The cities were placed so as to be within easy access from all parts of the country. See Pro 18:10; Heb 6:18. It is an urgent question for us all, Are we within the city, the walls and bulwarks of which are salvation?

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

It is very evident that God has hidden some special lessons for us in the types of the City of Refuge, of which we now read in chapter 20, as otherwise we would find ourselves wondering why they are mentioned so frequently. In four previous passages the Spirit of God drew the attention of Israel to the importance of these cities and the expression of His grace toward the unwitting or unintentional manslayer in Israel. First, we have the brief intimation in Exo 21:13, telling Israel that when they reached the land, God would provide such a refuge: And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee. Then we have much fuller information in Numbers 35: verses 6 and 9-28:

And among the cities which ye shall give unto the Levites there shall be six cities for refuge, which ye shall appoint for the manslayer, that he may flee thither: and to them ye shall add forty and two cities.

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come over Jordan into the land of Canaan; then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you; that the slayer may flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares. And they shall be unto you cities of refuge from the avenger: that the manslayer die not, until he stand before the congregation in judgment. And of these cities which ye shall give six cities shall ye have for refuge. Ye shall give three cities on this side Jordan, and three cities shall ye give in the land of Canaan, which shall be cities of refuge. These six cities shall be a refuge, both for the children of Israel, and for the stranger, and for the sojourner among them: that every one that killeth any person unawares may flee thither. And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. Or if he smite him with an hand weapon of wood, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him. But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait, that he die; Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him. But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait, Or with any stone, wherewith a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it upon him, that he die, and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm: Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the revenger of blood according to these judgments: And the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled: and he shall abide in it unto the death of the high priest, which was anointed with the holy oil. But if the slayer shall at any time come without the border of the city of his refuge, whither he was fled; And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood: Because he should have remained in the city of his refuge until the death of the high priest: but after the death of the high priest the slayer shall return into the land of his possession.

It is perhaps hardly necessary for our purpose to quote the remaining passages, both of which are found in the book of Deuteronomy, namely, 4:41-43 and 19:1-10. With these Scriptures our present chapter is in perfect harmony. It gives us the complete fulfillment of Gods command concerning these cities of refuge, of which there were six in all: three on the east of Jordan and three on the west. Clear, open roads were to be kept leading from all parts of the land to one or other of these cities, with definite signs indicating the nearest one, so that the man who had slain another in Israel without hating him in his heart or intending to kill him, might flee at once to the city of refuge and so be protected from the avenger of blood.

It is important to observe that there was no refuge offered to the one who was guilty of deliberate and wilful murder. God had declared, Ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer: but for the manslayer there was ever the open gate in order that he might be secure from the vengeance of the relatives of the one he had killed. When we come over to the New Testament we read in Heb 6:19 of those who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before them. The reference is to those who, though conscious of their own sinfulness have availed themselves of the salvation procured for them by our Lord Jesus Christ upon the Cross. All who find a refuge in Him are safe forever from the judgment of a Holy God. But if He be rejected after the gospel has been clearly proclaimed, and men deliberately crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, putting Him to an open shame, there is for them no hope of deliverance. Christ rejected means eternal judgment.

The whole world, Jew and Gentile, stands guilty before God as having participated in that which brought about the death of His son, but inasmuch as Christ came to give Himself a ransom for all, His sacrifice on the Cross has opened up, as it were, a city of refuge for all who put their trust in Him.

Of old, the manslayer was to remain in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest. Christ is not only the Man slain and the city of refuge Himself, but He too is the High Priest, and as such He will never die again. His is an everlasting priesthood; so those who find refuge in Him are eternally saved.

Once in Christ, in Christ forever,

Thus the eternal Covenant stands.

He settled the sin question on the Cross and He put all mankind on the ground of manslaughter instead of murder when He prayed for those who had been so active in rejecting Him, and even in nailing Him to the Cross, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. In other words, the Father might consider them guilty of the sin of ignorance or unintentional manslaughter rather than the wilful murder of the Son of God.

The Apostle Peter in addressing the Jews shortly after Pentecost, said: And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. But those things which God before had showed by the mouth of all His prophets, that Christ should suffer, He hath so fulfilled. And in view of this Peter called upon them to repent, saying: Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.

The Apostle Paul emphasizes the same thing when in 1Co 2:6-8, he says: Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wis- dom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

According to these passages God looks upon the whole world as guilty of the sin of manslaughter in connection with the death of Christ, but has opened up a new and living way into the place of refuge for all who go to Him, confessing their sins and thus availing themselves of His grace. What folly, then, for men to turn a deaf ear to the call of God and to persist in the rejection of the salvation He offers them!

We have an outstanding example in the Old Testament of a man who was slain just outside the wall of a city of refuge, who would have been safe inside. I refer to Abner, of whom David lamented, crying, Died Abner as a fool dieth? With no malice aforethought on his part, Abner had slain Asahel, the brother of Joab. Abiding in the city of refuge, he would have been secure from the avenger of blood, but Joab found him outside the city and put him to death in retaliation for the killing of Asahel.

What fools men are who now deliberately refuse the security that God offers in Christ Himself, and so by spurning Him become guilty before God of the murder of His Son.

It would seem as though the names of the six cities of refuge have suggestive meaning: at least, they may well bring to our minds some of the privileges that are ours in Christ. The three cities on the western side of the Jordan were: Kedesh in Galilee, Shechem in Mt. Ephraim, and Hebron in the mountains of Judah. On the other side of Jordan the three selected were: Bezer in the tribe of Reuben, Ramoth in Gilead, and Golan in Bashan.

Kedesh is the sanctuary and it is in Christ Himself that the troubled soul finds sanctuary in the midst of a world of strife and sin. Shechem means a shoulder, when our blessed Lord is said to carry the government of the world on His shoulder (Isaiah 9) and the Good Shepherd places the sheep that was lost upon His shoulders. And so all believers are sustained by Him, who is our strength and who undertakes to carry us safely through all the trials of life. Hebron means communion and suggests that precious fellowship with Christ into which believers are brought through Christ.

The names of the cities on the east of Jordan would seem to be definitely significant, although the meaning of some of them is a little uncertain. Bezer is said to come from a root meaning munitions or fortress, and may speak to us of Christ Himself, who is for all who believe a strong tower and fort of security. Ramoth is generally understood as meaning the heights, and may be an intimation of the precious truth that God has raised us up together and seated us together in the heavenlies in Christ. Golan is perhaps the most uncertain of all, but one meaning given to it is their rejoicing, which may remind us that the joy of the Lord is our strength.

In obedience to the Word of God, given so long before, Joshua set aside these cities of refuge, each one of them a Levitical city and each one with an open door to receive the poor, distressed soul who is fleeing from the avenger of blood. Looked at individually or corporately, they all tell us of Him who is our refuge and strength, our Saviour from judgment.

In the refuge God provided,

Though the worlds destruction lowers,

We are safe to Christ confided;

Everlasting life is ours.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

7. The Cities of Refuge

CHAPTER 20

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

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

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

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

spake: Jos 5:14, Jos 6:2, Jos 7:10, Jos 13:1-7

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

The Six Cities of Refuge

Jos 20:1-9

INTRODUCTORY WORDS

Our study is about the six cities of refuge. We will open the study by considering the statements set forth in our Daily Bible Readings:

1. Christ a Hiding Place (Isa 32:1-4). Here is a verse of Scripture that shows us that a Man shall be a Hiding Place from the wind, a Covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in the weary land. How wonderful are God’s similes. He delights to draw lessons from nature.

The story before us is the story of Christ, as King. During the past twenty centuries the Children of Israel in many parts of the world have become accustomed to flee when no man pursued. They live in constant fear of enemies lurking in their pathway. They are startled at the falling of a twig. How wonderful it will be when Christ the King shall reign in righteousness, and His people shall no longer be afraid.

2. Christ a Covert (Isa 16:1-5). This time we find that Christ has established the throne of Israel in mercy, and He is sitting upon that throne in truth. It is then that these words will be fulfilled which are written to the outcasts of Israel: “Be Thou a covert to them from the face of the spoiler.”

Just before the fulfillment of this gracious word, Israel will be under the throes of the antichrist who is the “spoiler” of this Scripture. Never has Israel in all of her checkered history suffered as she will suffer in the day of her coming tribulation. How blessed, therefore, is the promise of the Lord Jesus, as her covert from the one who has spoiled her.

3. Christ a Shadow (Isa 4:5-6). In the day of Israel’s restoration and peace, once again the Lord will create “upon every dwelling place of mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night.” How graphic is the description, and how wonderful the outlook, “And there shall be a Tabernacle for a shadow in the daytime from the heat, and for a place of refuge, and for a covert from storm and from rain.”

4. Christ a Shelter (Psa 61:2-6). Here is a personal experience of David. We all love the words; “Lead me to the Rock that is higher than I. For Thou hast been a Shelter for me, and a Strong Tower from the enemy.” Here is a promise that may be ours, in every trying circumstance.

5. Christ a Fortress (Psa 71:1-5). David is speaking a prayer for safety. He says, “Be Thou my Strong Habitation, whereunto I may continually resort.” Then he adds, “For Thou art my Rock and my Fortress.”

What assurance is this. Truly there is no temptation that will be able to overwhelm us, for our God has at hand, a Way to escape.

6. Christ our Pavilion (Psa 27:3-7). Here is a confidence that satisfies. “Though an host should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear: though war should rise against me, in this will I be confident.” Where is the secret of the Psalmist’s security? Even this: “For in the time of trouble He shall hide me in His pavilion: in the secret of His Tabernacle shall He hide me; He shall set me up upon a rock.”

Let us take courage both to do and to dare for God. He will be our Stay, and under His wings we may trust. There is for us a Refuge.

“O safe to the Rock that is higher than I,

My soul in its conflicts and sorrows would fly;

So sinful, so weary, Thine, Thine, would I be,

Thou blest ‘Rock of Ages,’ I’m hiding in Thee.”

I. THE NEED OF THE CITIES OF REFUGE (Jos 20:1-2)

1. Satan goeth about seeking whom he may devour. It is still true. Satan may use a different method in one age than in another, however, he is still going about seeking to slay or to entangle the children of God.

It is said that on one occasion Martin Luther seemed to see the devil standing by his bed, as he rested. The enemy had come in displaying a large scroll which held a record of Luther’s sins. Sarcastically he seemed to cry, “There is no hope in God for a sinner like you.” Luther for a moment only, was staggered by the assault, and then he cried out, “The Blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.” Quickly Satan fled from view.

In one way or another the wicked one pursues us, with sword drawn. He is ever on the alert, plying his slanders against saints.

2. The place of our deliverance. Our key verses speak of the cities of refuge, of the refuge from the avenger of blood. Have we a place to which we may fly? Our leader dwelt on this. He did not by any means cover it all.

Here is a Scripture he did not use. “Thou shalt hide them in the secret of Thy Presence.” Here is another one, “Lord, lift Thou up the light of Thy countenance upon us.” Could there be a better place in which to hide, than in the light of His countenance? Remember that when our Lord comes again, it is the light of His countenance, forth-shining, that shall destroy the man of sin, even the antichrist.

Who can withstand the brightness of His glory! When His face appears even the king’s of the earth and the great men, and the rich men, and the mighty men, and the chief captains, and every bondman will hide their faces, and cry unto the rocks and to the mountains to fall upon them, and hide them-for, who will be able to stand?

The Lamb will be the Light of the New Jerusalem. Let us hide in Him.

II. SINNING UNWITTINGLY (Jos 20:3)

1. The times of this ignorance God winked at. There are some men who sin unwittingly, that is they do what they would not have done, and meant not to do. Even so this slaying of another was accidental, and not intended.

To be sure the unwitting deed brought death with all of its horrors upon another, yet the slayer knew not what he did.

It is easy for men to sin because they have sin in their nature, and they are environed about with sinners. They know not what they do.

The men who nailed the Lord to the Cross, the men who wagged their heads against him, may have thought that they were doing God service.

Saul of Tarsus acknowledged that what he did, in arresting the saints and in carrying them bound to Jerusalem, he did in an ignorance born of unbelief. We can easily see the venom in Saul’s heart. We can rightly feel that the hardest heart that e’er arose to hate Christ and His saints dwelt in the bosom of a self-righteous, pharisaical disciple of Gamaliel. However, for this cause he obtained mercy because he wrought in ignorance of the villainy of his heart.

2. Take heed to thyself. We have a special provision of God against our sins of ignorance, even as the Israelites had cities of refuge to which they might fly. However, we should not use this provision of grace, as an excuse for sinning. With the years of increased knowledge, comes increased responsibility. Now God “commandeth all men every where to repent.” The plea, “I did not know,” cannot long be valid. We do know, at least we should know.

Each of us should weigh our deeds and our creeds under the God-given light of this twentieth century. On every city street there are warnings to autoists. Passing red lights and warning signs heedlessly, does not mean that they are ignorantly passed. If passed in ignorance, it is because we were not awake to plain facts.

III. A PLACE OF SECURITY FROM THE AVENGER (Jos 20:4)

1. Standing before the elders. The plea of the unwitting slayer had to be publicly made before the elders of the city of refuge. It was not enough to claim that the deed was done unwittingly, proof had to be furnished. There is always a tendency among sinners to excuse their sins.

Saul the king of Israel sought to cover his sin by claiming that he had saved the best of the cattle for a sacrifice unto the Lord. The Prophet was not slow to state that “to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.”

Achan sought to excuse his sin, by saying that he saw, he coveted, he took, he hid. He seemed to think that a plea of the weakness of his human nature might excuse his sin.

2. Even the unwitting sinner needed to seek the city of refuge. Thus, whether one has sinned in ignorance or in full knowledge he must pay the penalty of his sin, unless he conies to Christ.

Even he who knew not his master’s will, had to be beaten, although he was beaten with few stripes. The only hope of safety is in the Rock of Ages. Think not, that because thou art a heathen that thou art therefore safe. Think not because thou art ignorant, that, therefore, thy sin shall not discover thee. If thou hast sinned ignorantly, thou still needest a sacrifice. Thou needest a Saviour, a hiding place.

“Beneath the Cross of Jesus

I fain would take my stand,

The shadow of a mighty Rock

Within a weary land;

A home within the wilderness,

A rest upon the way,

From th’ burning of the noontide heat,

And the burden of the day.”

IV. SIN LIES IN THE HEART (Jos 20:5)

1. Is thy heart right with God? That is a tremendous statement-He “hated him not before time.” Here is the proof of an unintended and an unwitting murder. Had the slayer held enmity against the one he claimed he unwittingly slew, his plea of innocency in. slaying had been seriously crippled.

He had to establish that he had no heart-prompting to his deed. How vital it is that we live with good will toward all men. A heart filled with envy, or jealousy, or malice, is a fit ground on which to grow and mature any crime.

If the heart is right, the life which flows from the heart will be right. If the heart is evil, the whole life will be filled with sin.

2. How oft shall we forgive our brother? Here is a fitting place to seriously ponder in our minds the attitude which we all, as believers, should sustain toward those who despitefully use and persecute us.

Christ said of the unforgiving servant who had been forgiven so great a debt, and then had refused to forgive a fellow servant of so small a debt; that his Lord when he heard thereof, put him into the prison until he should pay all that was due. Then came these significant words, “So likewise shall My Heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.”

3. God looks at the heart. Men may look on the outer appearances, God looks deeper in. He goes back of every thought and deed to the heart that lies behind it.

Sometimes what we are, speaks so loudly that our words fall as vacant, meaningless statements. Thus the chief consideration is this: “Is thy heart right with God?” We cannot live during the week with hatred in our hearts, and spend six days squeezing our brethren, and then come to God on Sunday with long prayers, and an outward religious show.

V. THE ABIDING LIFE (Jos 20:6)

1. He shall dwell in that city. Think you that it became a tiresome seclusion for the unwitting slayer to dwell housed, year in and year out in the city of refuge? Did he tire of the walls that held him in?

Hearken to the words of our Lord, “Abide in Me.” Certainly there is no safer place to abide; this all of us will grant. However, is our Place of Safety a place without joy and peace? Is the heart of Christ an uninhabited wilderness, a flowerless desert? Not so.

Hearken to the fullness of the words of our Lord. After He had said, “Abide in Me,” He added, “these things have I spoken unto you, that My joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.”

Our city of refuge is filled with love and joy and peace. “In [His] presence is fulness of joy; at [His] right hand there are pleasures for evermore.”

2. The other city of God where the Bride shall dwell. There is a City, whose Builder and Maker is God. That City will come down from God out of Heaven. It is a City prepared for the Heavenly Bride. It comes replete in glory and all clothed with light-a wealth of unfathomable riches and beauty.

It is our final “City of Refuge.” There we will delight to abide. We shall no more care to go out to other scenes, and other paths. “So shall we ever be with the Lord.”

In that City we shall be safe as well as saved. There shall enter in thereat nothing that worketh an abomination or a lie. The former things will have passed away. No more shall pain pursue us, or sorrow haunt us.

3. In token of the future abiding, let us now abide. This is a present-hour privilege, as well as a far-flung pledge. We may now abide in Christ, and walk with Him along our way. Let us live up to our privileges.

VI. SAFE DURING THE LIFE OF THE HIGH PRIEST (Jos 20:6, l.c.)

1. Because I live ye shall live also. The safety of the unwitting slayer lay in the life of the high priest. Our safety lies in Christ’s life. Christ not only safeguards our lives with His own, but He vouches His life, as the safety of our own.

Even now we can hear Him say, “Neither shall any man pluck them out of My hand.” Then He adds, “And no man is able to pluck them out of My Father’s hand.”

2. He ever liveth to manage our affairs. Certainly we have a Great High Priest who has ascended into the Heavens. He is there for us. He lives for us, and as long as He lives, He undertakes for us. He is our Surety. Everything that concerns not alone our safety from the avenger, but that concerns our welfare, He is managing.

He will manage my affairs,

For He loves me and He cares,

As He dwells with the Father for me:

Grace He’ll give in time of need,

For He is a Friend indeed,

Great High Priest who lives in Heaven for me.

3. He lives as the Conquerer of death and hell. Satan made onslaught against Him, but He overcame him, and made an open show of Him. Bless God we have nothing to fear. The one who seeks our souls to devour has already been met by the Master in the way, and is now a conquered foe. That One, our Lord Jesus Christ, leads us in the train of His triumph. His victory is ours. In Him we are secure.

Alone, we could never meet sin, or Satan, or death, or hell. Our only hope lies in our Great High Priest, who is our Saviour, our Lord, our coming King. Thus as long as our Great High Priest lives, and we are in Him, we are safe.

VII. THE MAN WHO WENT OUTSIDE THE CITY OF REFUGE (2Sa 3:33-34, with Jos 20:7)

1. Hebron was a city of refuge. In the 7th verse of our study we read that Hebron, in the mountains of Judah, was named as one of the cities of refuge. It was in that city that Abner had gone, when Joab found him. Had Abner stayed within the city, Joab could not have touched him, to slay him. Joab, however, took him aside in the gate, supposedly, to speak with him quietly, and there he smote him under the fifth rib until he died.

2. David’s bewailing words. When David heard that Joab had slain Abner he cried out: “Died Abner as a fool dieth? Thy hands were not bound, nor thy feet put into fetters: as a man faileth before wicked men, so fellest thou.”

(1) The lesson portrays the folly of the sinner who dies outside of Christ. He dies as a fool dieth, because he dies unnecessarily. He dies as a fool dieth because he willfully neglects the Divinely provided place of safety and security. Satan cannot harm the one, to slay him, who is safely sheltered in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ said that Satan could slay the body, but he cannot kill the soul. The man who sees the tornado breaking and stands hard by the storm pit refusing withal to enter in has no one to blame but himself if he is slain in the fury of the wind. Flee to Christ for safety.

(2) The lesson portrays the folly of the sinner who neglects God’s publicly announced provision for his welfare. All Israel knew of the cities of refuge, and the one who did not enter in was a willful rejecter. Every preparation has been made for the salvation of the lost. The Law has been satisfied. Its majesty has been sustained, and every legal obstacle removed out of the sinner’s way. God can, by the death of Christ, be just and yet the Justifier of those who believe. A favorite couplet of Charles H. Spurgeon’s was this:

“None are excluded thence, but those

Who do themselves exclude;

Welcome the learned and polite,

The ignorant and rude.”

AN ILLUSTRATION

THE CROSS IS OUR COVERT FROM SIN

“Dr. J. E. Conant tells, in his book on, Is Atonement by Substitution Reasonable? of Bronson Alcott’s School. He says, ‘One of the roughest boys in the school had broken an important rule of the school government. The teacher called the boy up in front, and with the whole school looking on, put the ruler into his hand and extended his own and told the boy to strike. The whole school burst into tears. The moment the command to strike was given, a struggle began in that boy that reached to the depths of his being. He hesitated, finally struck the teacher’s hand once, and then burst into tears himself. From that moment that boy’s character was so transformed that he became one of the most docile scholars in the school.’

“The penalty for the wrongdoing must fall on some one. The scholar deserved to have it fall upon himself. But the teacher out of his love for the boy and the school let the penalty fall upon himself.

“Here we have a striking illustration of the death of Christ. ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed.’ This is a manifestation of the Grace of God.”

Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water

SPECIAL CITIES; ALTAR OF WITNESS

THE CITIES OF REFUGE (Joshua 20)

The decree concerning the cities of refuge was considered in its place. It will be well, however, again to notice that they were not instituted to shield criminals but innocent murderers. Whether innocent or guilty though, the murdered had an asylum until his case could be heard by the authorities (Jos 20:6). If innocent he was permitted to remain in the city, immune from the legal avenger, until the death of the high priest. When this occurred he was free to return to his home town, and the rights of the avenger ceased (Jos 20:6).

Observe the symbolical character of the high priest in this particular. How the man-slayer, desirous of his liberty, must have calculated the probabilities of his death, and wondered whether, after all, it would antedate his own? But what a type it is of the Mediator of the new covenant who by means of death has secured redemption and deliverance for all that believe on Him (Heb 9:15-17).

THE CITIES OF THE LEVITES (Joshua 21)

In the distribution of these there is nothing more remarkable than the allotment of the priests (Jos 21:9-19), in which all the cities falling to them were located within the territories of Judah and Benjamin. Simeon indeed is named (Jos 21:9), but an earlier chapter showed that this tribe had received part of the territory of Judah which had proven too large for them.

Behold, the providence of God! At a later period there is a revolt among the tribes (1 Kings 12), and they separate themselves on the north to form the kingdom of Israel, while two on the south remain loyal to the Davidic and Messianic line, retaining the temple worship and Aaronic priesthood intact, and these two are Judah and Benjamin!

THE ALTAR OF WITNESS (Joshua 22)

Notice the commendation Joshua is enabled to give the men of war of the two and a half tribes, who for a probable period of seven years, had separated themselves from their families and flocks in fulfillment of their pledge, to assist in the conquest of the land and the settlement of the tribes on the other side of the Jordan (Jos 22:1-4).

Note the warning and benediction he bestows upon them (Jos 22:5-6), and the share of the spoil they carry back, and the purpose of it (Jos 22:8).

But soon a misunderstanding arises. Note its cause (Jos 22:10); the commotion it occasioned among the tribes on the west (Jos 22:11-12); the wise counsels that prevailed (Jos 22:13-14); the conference with the supposed offenders (Jos 22:15-20); the explanation (Jos 22:21-29), and the satisfaction experienced (Jos 22:30-34).

QUESTIONS

1. In what parts of the Pentateuch are the cities of refuge referred to?

2. What type of Christ, not heretofore mentioned in these lessons, is found in the record concerning them?

3. What providence is seen in the lot of the priests?

4. Can you give the history of the altar of witness?

5. What name was given it, and why?

Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary

God gave Moses direction concerning the cities of refuge in Num 35:9-33 ; Deu 4:41-43 ; Deu 19:1-21 . In Jos 20:1-9 , God tells Joshua to appoint those cities as he had instructed Moses. These cities were not built to harbor criminals but those who accidentally killed someone. Further, the avenger of blood could go to that city for a trial to prove the death was not accidental. If proven, the guilty man was delivered from the city to be executed. God has never approved of criminal activity. However, as long as the man who accidentally killed remained within the city walls, he was safe from harm. Clearly, these cities foreshadowed the safety we can have in Christ as the Hebrews writer indicates in 6:18-19.

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

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

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Jos 20:2. Cities of refuge, all of which were inhabited by the levites. See on Numbers 35. Some heathen temples, and after them christian churches, were places of refuge. In the laws of king Ina, who reigned in the west of England, we have a scale of different fines imposed on those Saxon offenders, who took refuge in the churches.

Jos 20:6. Till the death of the highpriest, who was prince of the sanctuary; and it was usual to liberate prisoners when a new prince ascended the throne. The rabbins by the multitude of their opinions declare, in fact, that they were ignorant of the spiritual import of this law, which all christians refer to the deliverance obtained for sinners by the death of Christ, our eternal Highpriest at the right hand of God.

REFLECTIONS.

The cities of refuge have already been considered, and reflections on their object and design may be found in Numbers 35. But it is here remarked, that they stood on hills. So the sinner will find salvation and deliverance in mount Zion.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Joshua 20. The Cities of Refuge.The cities of refuge (p. 113) were not appointed till after the Deuteronomic reform under Josiah in Jos 6:21. In early times the asylum or refuge for the manslayer was the altar at the local sanctuary. This is seen from the Book of the Covenant (Exo 21:14): If a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour to slay him with guile, thou shalt take him from my altar that he may die. See also 1Ki 1:50, where Adonijah, in fear of his life, flees to the altar for safety. When the law of the single sanctuary was promulgated in Dt., other provision had to be made for asylum; hence the institution of the cities of refuge. As Dt. says that Moses commanded the institution of these cities, a later writer, ignorant of the exact standpoint of the Deuteronomic school, naturally concluded that Joshua carried out that command; he accordingly stated that what he thought must or ought to have occurred, did, as a fact, actually occur. The standpoint of Dt. was that the cities of refuge were to be appointed after the Temple of Solomon had been built and the law of the single sanctuary had thus become possible. This being so, there was no need for Joshua to appoint these cities. See further Numbers 35*, Deu 19:1-13*.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

SIX CITIES OF REFUGE

(vs.1-9)

God had before directed that He would appoint six cities of refuge in Israel (Num 35:9-15), and now that Israel is settled in the land these cities are to be designated. They were to be places of safety for anyone who had accidentally or unintentionally killed another person (v.3). For a near relative of the victim might desire to avenge this wrong by killing the guilty party, but if the person fled to a city of refuge he would be safe from the avenger.

In the gate of the city (the place of judgment) he could declare his case before the elders, and if it was established that he was not guilty of murder, he was to be welcomed into the city, where the avenger of blood was not permitted to touch him (v.4). Num 35:16-19 makes it clear, however, that he must be given no refuge in that city if his case was one of actual murder, and the avenger of blood could put him to death.

Above all, the person killed reminds us of the Lord Jesus. Was His death a premeditated case of deliberate murder? On the part of some, yes, for religious leaders were absolutely hateful toward Him and plotted beforehand to kill Him (Luk 6:11; Joh 11:53). But there were those who did not understand the horror of this rejection of the Son of God, as we learn from the Lord’s words from the cross, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do” (Luk 23:34). Peter also, in speaking to the common people of Israel in Act 3:17 tells them, “Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers.” So there were even some rulers who had opportunity to virtually flee to a city of refuge. Many responded to Peter’s words and found refuge by receiving the Lord Jesus as Savior. All mankind is responsible for the death of the Lord Jesus, and all who receive Him now will find that His death is actually the means of their salvation. But those who maintain a hateful attitude of refusing Him will find not refuge, but only a fearful expectation of judgment.

The man-slayer must remain in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest, when he was allowed to return to his own city and house (v.6). It seems that this may refer to the ending of the Lord’s work in Heaven as High Priest, and Israel’s restoration to blessing at the end of the Tribulation period, when Israel as a nation will be publicly exonerated from their guilt of centuries in having rejected and crucified their Messiah.

The six cities chosen are listed below:

(West of Jordan) (East of Jordan)

1. Kadesh meaning “Sanctuary 6. Golan, meaning “immigration

Speaking of Safety Inferring our Prospect

2. Shechem, meaning “Shoulder” 5. Ramoh, meaning “high places”

Indicating Certainty Believers’ heavenly position

3. Hebron (meaning “communion”) 4. Bezer, meaning “precious”

Emphasizing Enjoyment The Person of Christ.

All the meanings of these cities are wonderfully consistent with the perfect refuge that is provided for confessed sinners saved through the blood of Jesus. The sanctuary (Kadesh) is the presence of God, a place of perfect safety. Then Shechem (shoulder) reminds us of the Lord Jesus carrying the sheep that was lost on His shoulders, the place of strength, of certainty, or security. Hebron then (communion) gives the added sweetness of fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ (1Jn 1:3).

When these three truths are experienced, this brings us to Bezer, “precious,” to realize the living joy of seeing all beauty and all blessing in the person of Christ Himself, — not only to appreciate what He gives, but to appreciate Him. Then from Bezer in the south we go northward to Ramah, “high places,” to learn that not only is Christ precious to God, but “in Christ” believers too are so precious as to be accepted in the Beloved and “blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places” in Him (Eph 1:3-6). Lastly, Golan, “immigration” reminds us that we are to very soon immigrate to “a better country, that is, a heavenly country” (Heb 11:16), for though our position now is heavenly, we still Wait to be actually taken to heaven at the coming of the Lord. Wonderful prospect!

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

D. The special cities chs. 20:1-21:42

God also set aside special cities for special purposes within the Promised Land.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

1. The cities of refuge ch. 20

At this time, the tribal leaders formally designated the six cities of refuge, about which Moses had received instructions (Numbers 35). Three stood west of the Jordan: Kadesh in Naphtali, Shechem in Manasseh, and Hebron in Judah (Jos 20:7). Three more were east of the Jordan: Bezer in Reuben, Ramoth in Gad, and Golan in Manasseh (Jos 20:8). Their placement meant that no Israelite would have to travel far to reach one of them. [Note: See my notes on Numbers 35:9-34 for further explanation of the cities of refuge.]

"The Christian community must take seriously its responsibility to examine penal institutions and practices and seek to find the ways God would lead us to reform such practices. The innocent man should not suffer unduly and the guilty man should be given sufficient protection and hope for new opportunities as well as sufficient punishment." [Note: Butler, p. 218.]

"The cities of refuge . . . seem to typify Christ to whom sinners, pursued by the avenging Law which decrees judgment and death, may flee for refuge." [Note: Campbell, "Joshua," p. 363.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

CHAPTER XXVII.

THE CITIES OF REFUGE.

Jos 20:1-9.

CITIES of refuge had a very prominent place assigned to them in the records of the Mosaic legislation. First, in that which all allow to be the earliest legislation (Exod. Chs. 20-23) intimation is given of God’s intention to institute such cities (Exo 21:13); then in Numbers (Num 35:9-34) the plan of these places is given in full, and all the regulations applicable to them; again in Deuteronomy (Deu 19:1-13) the law on the subject is rehearsed; and finally, in this chapter, we read how the cities were actually instituted, three on either side of Jordan. This frequent introduction of the subject shows that it was regarded as one of great importance, and leads us to expect that we shall find principles underlying it of great value in their bearing even on modern life*.

*These frequent references do not prevent modern critics from affirming that the cities of refuge were no part of the Mosaic legislation. They found this view upon the absence throughout the history of all reference to them as being in actual use. They were not instituted, it is said, till after the Exile. But the very test that rejects them from the early legislation fails here. There is no reference to them as actually occupied in the post-exilian books, amounting, as these are said to do, to half the Old Testament. Their occupation, it is said, with the other Levitical cities, was postponed to the time of Messiah. The shifts to which the critics are put in connection with this institution do not merely indicate a weak point in their theory; they show also how precarious is the position that when you do not hear of an institution as in actual operation you may conclude that it was of later date.

Little needs to be said on the particular cities selected, except that they were conveniently dispersed over the country. Kedesh in Galilee in the northern part, Shechem in the central, and Hebron in the south, were all accessible to the people in these regions respectively; as were also, on the other side the river, Bezer in the tribes of Reuben, Ramoth in Gilead, and Golan in Bashan. Those who are fond of detecting the types of spiritual things in material, and who take a hint from Heb 6:18, connecting these cities with the sinner’s refuge in Christ, naturally think in this connection of the nearness of the Saviour to all who seek Him, and the certainty of protection and deliverance when they put their trust in Him.

1. The first thought that naturally occurs to us when we read of these cities concerns the sanctity of human life; or, if we take the material symbol, the preciousness of human blood. God wished to impress on His people that to put an end to a man’s life under any circumstances, was a serious thing. Man was something higher than the beasts that perish. To end a human career, to efface by one dread act all the joys of a man’s life, all his dreams and hopes of coming good; to snap all the threads that bound him to his fellows, perhaps to bring want into the homes and desolation into the hearts of all who loved him or leant on him – this, even if done unintentionally, was a very serious thing. To mark this in a very emphatic way was the purpose of these cities of refuge. Though in certain respects (as we shall see) the practice of avenging blood by the next-of-kin indicated a relic of barbarism, yet, as a testimony to the sacredness of human life, it was characteristic of civilization. It is natural for us to have a feeling, when through carelessness but quite unintentionally one has killed another; when a young man, for example, believing a gun to be unloaded, has discharged its contents into the heart of his sister or his mother, and when the author of this deed gets off scot-free, – we may have a feeling that something is wanting to vindicate the sanctity of human life, and bear witness to the terribleness of the act that extinguished it. And yet it cannot be denied that in our day life is invested with pre-eminent sanctity. Never, probably, was its value higher, or the act of destroying it wilfully, or even carelessly, treated as more serious. Perhaps, too, as things are with us, it is better in cases of unintentional killing to leave the unhappy perpetrator to the punishment of his own feelings, rather than subject him to any legal process, which, while ending with a declaration of his innocence, might needlessly aggravate a most excruciating pain.

It is not a very pleasing feature of the Hebrew economy that this regard to the sanctity of human life was limited to members of the Hebrew nation. All outside the Hebrew circle were treated as little better than the beasts that perish. For Canaanites there was nothing but indiscriminate slaughter. Even in the times of King David we find a barbarity in the treatment of enemies that seems to shut out all sense of brotherhood, and to smother all claim to compassion. We have here a point in which even the Hebrew race were still far behind. They had not come under the influence of that blessed Teacher who taught us to love our enemies. They had no sense of the obligation arising from the great truth that “God hath made of one blood all the nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” This is one of the points at which we are enabled to see the vast change that was effected by the spirit of Jesus Christ. The very psalms in some places reflect the old spirit, for the writers had not learned to pray as He did – “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”

2. Even as apportioned to the Hebrew people, there was still an uncivilized element in the arrangements connected with these cities of refuge. This lay in the practice of making the go-el, or nearest of kin, the avenger of blood. The moment a man’s blood was shed, the nearest relative became responsible for avenging it. He felt himself possessed by a spirit of retribution, which demanded, with irrepressible urgency, the blood of the man who had killed his relation. It was an unreasoning, restless spirit, making no allowance for the circumstances in which the blood was shed, seeing nothing and knowing nothing save that his relative had been slain, and that it was his duty, at the earliest possible moment, to have blood for blood. Had the law been perfect, it would have simply handed over the killer to the magistrate, whose duty would have been calmly to investigate the case, and either punish or acquit, according as he should find that the man had committed a crime or had caused a misfortune. But, as we have seen, it was characteristic of the Hebrew legislation that it adapted itself to the condition of things which it found, and not to an ideal perfection which the people were not capable of at once realizing. In the office of the go-el there was much that was of wholesome tendency. The feeling was deeply rooted in the Hebrew mind that the nearest of kin was the guardian of his brother’s life, and for this reason he was bound to avenge his death; and instead of crossing this feeling, or seeking wholly to uproot it, the object of Moses was to place it under salutary checks, which should prevent it from inflicting gross injustice where no crime had really been committed. There was something both sacred and salutary in the relation of the go-el to his nearest of kin. When poverty obliged a man to dispose of his property, it was the go-el that was bound to intervene and “redeem” the property. The law served as a check to the cold spirit that is so ready to ask, in reference to one broken down, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” It maintained a friendly relation between members of families that might otherwise have been entirely severed from each other. The avenging of blood was regarded as one of the duties resulting from this relation, and had this part of the duty been rudely or summarily superseded, the whole relationship, with all the friendly offices which it involved, might have suffered shipwreck.

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

4. As it was, the involuntary manslayer had thus to undergo a considerable penalty. Having to reside in the city of refuge, he could no longer cultivate his farm or follow his ordinary avocations; he must have found the means of living in some new employment as best he could. His friendships, his whole associations in life, were changed; perhaps he was even separated from his family. To us all this appears a harder line than justice would have prescribed. But, on the one hand, it was a necessary testimony to the strong, though somewhat unreasonable feeling respecting the awfulness, through whatever cause, of shedding innocent blood. A man had to accept of this quietly, just as many a man has to accept the consequences – the social outlawry, it may be, and other penalties – of having had a father of bad character, or of having been present in the company of wicked men when some evil deed was done by them. Then, on the other hand, the fact that the involuntary destruction of life was sure, even at the best, to be followed by such consequences, was fitted to make men very careful. They would naturally endeavour to the utmost to guard against an act that might land them in such a situation; and thus the ordinary operations of daily life would be rendered more secure. And perhaps it was in this way that the whole appointment secured its end. Some laws are never broken. And here may be the explanation of the fact that the cities of refuge were not much used. In all Bible history we do not meet with a single instance; but this might indicate, not the non-existence of the institution, but the indirect success of the provision, which, though framed to cure, operated by preventing. It made men careful, and thus in silence checked the evil more effectually than if it had often been put in execution.

The desire for vengeance is a very strong feeling of human nature. Nor is it a feeling that soon dies out; it has been known to live, and to live keenly and earnestly, even for centuries. We talk of ancient barbarism; but even in comparatively modern times the story of its deeds is appalling. Witness its operation in the island of Corsica. The historian Filippini says that in thirty years of his own time 28,000 Corsicans had been murdered out of revenge. Another historian calculates that the number of the victims of the Vendetta from 1359 to 1729 was 330,000*. If an equal number be allowed for the wounded, we have 666,000 Corsicans victims of revenge. And Corsica was but one part of Italy where the same passion raged. In former ages Florence, Bologna, Verona, Padua, and Milan were conspicuous for the same wild spirit. And, however raised, even by trifling causes, the spirit of vengeance is uncontrollable. The causes, indeed, are often in ludicrous disproportion to the effects. “In Ireland, for instance, it is not so long since one of these blood-feuds in the county of Tipperary had acquired such formidable proportions that the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church there were compelled to resort to a mission in order to put an end to it. A man had been killed nearly a century before in an affray which commenced about the age of a colt. His relatives felt bound to avenge the murder, and their vengeance was again deemed to require fresh vengeance, until faction fights between the ‘Three Year Olds ‘ and the ‘Four Year Olds’ had grown almost into petty wars.”** When we find the spirit of revenge so blindly fierce even in comparatively modern times, we can the better appreciate the necessity of such a check on its exercise as the cities of refuge supplied. The mere fact that blood had been shed was enough to rouse the legal avenger to the pitch of frenzy; in his blind passion he could think of nothing but blood for blood; and if, in the first excitement of the news, the involuntary manslayer had crossed his path, nothing could have restrained him from falling on him and crimsoning the ground with his blood.

*Gregorovjus, “Wanderings in Corsica.”

**”Pulpit Comment,” in loco.

In New Testament times the practice that committed the avenging of blood to the nearest of kin seems to have fallen into abeyance. No such keen desire for revenge was prevalent then. Such cases as those now provided for were doubtless dealt with by the ordinary magistrate. And thus our Lord could grapple directly with the spirit of revenge and retaliation in all its manifestations. “Ye have heard that it was said of old time, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; but I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil; but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” (R.V.). The old practice was hurtful, because, even in cases where punishment was deserved, it made vengeance or retribution so much a matter of personal feeling. It stimulated to the utmost pitch what was fiercest in human temper. It is a far better system that commits the dealing with crime to the hands of magistrates, who ought to be, and who are presumed to be, exempt from all personal feeling in the matter. And now, for those whose personal feelings are roused, whether in a case of premeditated or of unintended manslaughter, or of any lesser injury done to themselves, the Christian rule is that those personal feelings are to be overcome; the law of love is to be called into exercise, and retribution is to be left in the hands of the great Judge: – “Vengeance is Mine; I will recompense, saith the Lord.”

The attempt to find in the cities of refuge a typical representation of the great salvation fails at every point but one. The safety that was found in the refuge corresponds to the safety that is found in Christ. But even in this point of view the city of refuge rather affords an illustration than constitutes a type. The benefit of the refuge was only for unintentional offences; the salvation of Christ is for all. What Christ saves from is not our misfortune but our guilt. The protection of the city was needed only till the death of the high priest; the protection of Christ is needed till the great public acquittal. All that the manslayer received in the city was safety; but from Christ there is a constant flow of higher and holier blessings. His name is called Jesus because He saves His people from their sins. Not merely from the penalty, but from the sins themselves. It is His high office not only to atone for sin, but to destroy it. ”If the Son makes you free, ye shall be free indeed.” The virtue that goes out of Him comes into contact with the lust itself and transforms it. The final benefit of Christ is the blessing of transformation. It is the acquisition of the Christ-like spirit. “Moreover whom He did foreknow, them He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn of many brethren.”

In turning an incident like this to account, as bearing on our modern life, we are led to think how much harm we are liable to do to others without intending harm, and how deeply we ought to be affected by this consideration, when we discover what we have really done. We may be helped here by thinking of the case of St. Paul. What harm he did in the unconverted period of his life, without intending to do harm, cannot be calculated. But when he came to the light, nothing could have exceeded the depth of his contrition, and, to his last hour, he could not think of the past without horror. It was his great joy to know that his Lord had pardoned him, and that he had been able to find one good use of the very enormity of his conduct – to show the exceeding riches of His pardoning love. But, all his life long, the Apostle was animated by an overwhelming desire to neutralise, as far as he could, the mischief of his early life, and very much of the self-denial and contempt of ease that continued to characterise him was due to this vehement feeling. For though Paul felt that he had done harm in ignorance, and for this cause had obtained mercy, he did not consider that his ignorance excused him altogether. It was an ignorance that proceeded from culpable causes, and that involved effects from which a rightly ordered heart could not but recoil.

In the case of His own murderers our blessed Lord, in His beautiful prayer, recognised a double condition, – they were ignorant, yet they were guilty, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” They were ignorant of what they were doing, and yet they were doing what needed forgiveness, because it involved guilt. And what we admire in Paul is, that he did not make his ignorance a self-justifying plea, but in the deepest humility owned the inexcusableness of his conduct. To have done harm to our fellow-creatures under any circumstances is a distressing thing, even when we meant the best; but to have done harm to their moral life owing to something wrong in our own, is not only distressing, but humiliating. It is something which we dare not lightly dismiss from our minds, under the plea that we meant the best, but unfortunately we were mistaken. Had we been more careful, had our eye been more single, we should have been full of light, and we should have known that we were not taking the right way to do the best. Errors in moral life always resolve themselves into disorder of our moral nature, and, if traced to their source, will bring to light some fault of indolence, or selfishness, or pride, or carelessness, which was the real cause of our mistaken act.

And where is the man – parent, teacher, pastor, or friend – that does not become conscious, at some time or other, of having influenced for harm those committed to his care? We taught them, perhaps, to despise some good man whose true worth we have afterwards been led to see. We repressed their zeal when we thought it misdirected, with a force which chilled their enthusiasm and carnalised their hearts. We failed to stimulate them to decision for Christ, and allowed the golden opportunity to pass which might have settled their relation to God all the rest of their life. The great realities of the spiritual life were not brought home to them with the earnestness, the fidelity, the affection that was fitting. ”Who can understand his errors?” Who among us but, as he turns some new corner in the path of life, as he reaches some new view-point, as he sees a new flash from heaven reflected on the past, – who among us but feels profoundly that all his life has been marred by unsuspected flaws, and almost wishes that he had never been born? Is there no city of refuge for us to fly to, and to escape the condemnation of our hearts?

It is here that the blessed Lord presents Himself to us in a most blessed light. “Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Do we not labour indeed, are we not in truth very heavy laden, when we feel the burden of unintentional evil, when we feel that unconsciously we have been doing hurt to others, and incurring the curse of him who causeth the blind to stumble? Are we not heavy laden indeed when we cannot be sure that even yet we are thoroughly on the right track – when we feel that peradventure we are still unconsciously continuing the mischief in some other form? Yet is not the promise true? – “I will give you rest.” I will give you pardon for the past, and guidance for the future. I will deliver you from the feeling that you have been all your life sowing seeds of mischief, sure to spring up and pervert those whom you love most dearly. I will give you comfort in the thought that as I have guided you, I will guide them, and you shall have a vision of the future, that may no doubt include some of the terrible features of the shipwreck of St. Paul, but of which the end will be the same – “and so it came to pass that they escaped all safe to land.”

And let us learn a lesson of charity. Let us learn to be very considerate of mischief done by others either unintentionally or in ignorance. What more inexcusable than the excitement of parents over their children or of masters over their servants, when, most undesignedly and not through sheer carelessness, an article of some value is broken or damaged? Have you never done such a thing yourself? And if a like torrent fell on you then from your parent or master, did you not feel bitterly that it was unjust? And do you not even now have the same feeling when your temper cools? How bitter the thought of having done injustice to those dependent on you, and of having created in their bosoms a sullen sense of wrong! Let them have their city of refuge for undesigned offences, and never again pursue them or fall on them in the excited spirit of the avenger of blood!

So also with regard to opinions. Many who differ from us in religious opinion differ through ignorance. They have inherited their opinions from their parents or their other ancestors. Their views are shared by nearly all whom they love and with whom they associate; they are contained in their familiar books; they are woven into the web of their daily life. If they were better instructed, if their minds were more free from prejudice, they might agree with us more. Let us make for them the allowance of ignorance, and let us make it not bitterly but respectfully. They are doing much mischief, it may be. They are retarding the progress of beneficent truth; they are thwarting your endeavours to spread Divine fight. But they are doing it ignorantly. If you are not called to provide for them a city of refuge, cover them at least with the mantle of charity. Believe that their intentions are better than their acts. Live in the hope of a day “when perfect light shall pour its rays” when all the mists of prejudice shall be scattered, and you shall perhaps find that in all that is vital in Christian truth and for the Christian life, you and your brethren were not so far separate after all.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary