Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Joshua 20:3

That the slayer that killeth [any] person unawares [and] unwittingly may flee thither: and they shall be your refuge from the avenger of blood.

3. That the slayer that killeth any person unawares ] In accordance with these regulations a wide distinction was made between the man who committed wilful murder, and one who slew another by mistake, in ignorance, and unintentionally. ( a) In the former case the guilty criminal met with no compassion from the Mosaic Code. He was regarded as accursed. The horns of the altar were to be no refuge for him. He was to be dragged from them by force to suffer his doom, nor could rank or wealth exempt him from it (Num 35:31-32). ( b) In the latter case, where life had been taken unawares, a more merciful system of legislation intervened. In contradistinction to the customs of the Greeks and Romans and even of the Middle Ages, which made places of sanctuary available to criminals of every kind, the Jewish Lawgiver reserved them for unintentional acts of murder, and for these alone. The distinguishing marks of such acts are clearly laid down in Num 35:25-34; Deu 19:4-6.

from the avenger of blood ] “that he moue ascaap the wrath of the neiboure, that is wreker of the blood,” Wyclif. The involuntary shedder of blood was permitted to take flight to a city of refuge.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Unawares and unwittingly, Heb. through ignorance, or error, or mistake, and without knowledge; the same thing twice repeated, to cut off all the claims and expectations that wilful murderers might have of protection here; and God having declared that such should be taken even from his altar, that they might be killed, Exo 21:14; and accordingly Joab was by Solomons order killed even at the altar, 1Ki 2:28-31,34. It is the more strange and impudent that any Christians should make their sanctuaries give protection to such persons whom God hath so expressly excepted from it, which the papists do; and their doctors are not ashamed to defend it upon frivolous reasons.

The avenger of blood; the kinsman, who had right or power to demand or take vengeance of the slaughter.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

That the slayer that killeth [any] person unawares, [and] unwittingly, may flee thither,…. Who through mere accident, and without design, killed a person, friend or foe, one of his own kindred, or a stranger, without any malice against him, or intention to take away his life:

and they shall be your refuge from the avenger of blood; from any of the relations of the deceased, who might be stirred up to avenge the blood of his kinsman on the slayer; see Nu 35:12.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

3. Unawares and unwittingly The design of the city of refuge was not to screen criminals, but to afford an opportunity to all accused of so grave a charge to show the absence of a guilty intent. In order to do this the guilty must be temporarily received as well as the innocent.

Avenger of blood The next of kin, or the Goel, as he is styled in the Hebrew, and still called in the East. In Gen 9:5, Jehovah says, “Your blood in return for the lifeblood which you have shed will I require.” He here expresses his estimate of the sacredness of human life. The avenger of blood is his agent for searching out and punishing murder. In the absence of magistrates and tribunals, one man in each family was required to act as a sheriff for the redress of his kindred and the protection of the body politic. In ancient Greece the land was regarded as defiled and accursed of the gods so long as a murderer dwelt therein unpunished.

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

Jos 20:3 That the slayer that killeth [any] person unawares [and] unwittingly may flee thither: and they shall be your refuge from the avenger of blood.

Ver. 3. That killeth any person unawares and unwittingly. ] Not presumptuously, with a high hand, and of forethought malice; but either by chance medley, as they call it, or in his own necessary defence, when he must either kill or be killed, and he cannot avoid it. For that tenet of Soto is false, Defensio cum interfectione est licita, quia fuga est ignominiosa.

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