12<\/strong>. the avenger<\/em> ] Heb. g’l<\/em>, the nearest representative of the family of the slain man. Perhaps (with LXX. ) we should read ‘the avenger of blood,’ as in Num 35:19<\/em><\/span> ; Num 35:21<\/em><\/span><\/em>. On the g’l<\/em> and his duties see n. on Num 35:8<\/span>.<\/p>\n the congregation<\/em> ] It is not clearly stated that this means the congregation of the manslayer’s city; and the word ‘dah<\/em> elsewhere in P denotes the whole community of Israel. But in Num 35:25<\/em><\/span> (see note there) the words ‘ restore<\/em> him to his city of refuge’ imply that the ‘congregation’ have taken him to some other place for judgement, which would more probably be his own city than any other; and in Deu 19:12<\/span> the judges in the case of murder are ‘the elders of his city.’<\/p>\n The avenger – <\/B>Hebrew <\/span> ga’al<\/I>, a term of which the original import is uncertain. The very obscurity of its etymology testifies to the antiquity of the office which it denotes. That office rested on the principle of Gen 9:6<\/span>, whoso sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed. The unwritten code of the East conceded to the nearest kinsman of a murdered man the right of avenging the blood that had been shed. Such rude justice necessarily involved grave evils. It gave no opportunity to the person charged with crime of establishing is innocence; it recognized no distinction between murder, manslaughter, and accidental homicide; it perpetuated family blood-feuds, the avenger of blood being liable to be treated in his turn as a murderer by the kinsman of the man whom he had slain. These grievances could not be removed as long as there was no central government, but they might be mitigated; and to do this was the object of the institution in the text (compare Exo 21:13<\/span>).<\/P> Among the Arab tribes, who are under the control of no central authority, the practice of blood-revenge subsists in full force to the present day.<\/P> The congregation – <\/B>i. e. local court, consisting of the elders of the city Jos 20:4<\/span>.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 12<\/span>. Until he stand before the congregation in<\/B><\/I> <\/B>judgment.<\/B><\/I>] So one of these cities was not a perpetual asylum; It was only a pro tempore<\/I> refuge, till the case could be fairly examined by the magistrates in the presence of the people, or the elders their representatives; and this was done in the city or place where he had done the murder, Jos 20:4<\/span>; Jos 20:6<\/span>. If he was found worthy of death, they delivered him to the avenger that he might be slain, De 19:12<\/span>; if not, they sent him back to the city of refuge, where he remained till the death of the high priest, Nu 35:25<\/span>. Before the cities of refuge were appointed, the altar<\/I> appears to have been a sanctuary for those who had killed a person unwittingly; see on Ex 21:13<\/span>; Ex 21:14<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n The avenger, <\/B>to wit, of the party slain, or, of blood<\/I>, as it is fully expressed below, Num 35:19<\/span>,25<\/span>; Heb. from the redeemer<\/I>, or, from the next kinsman<\/I>, to whom by the law belonged the right of redemption of the lands of, and vindication of the injury done to the person deceased. <\/P> Die not, <\/B>i.e. be not killed by the avenger meeting him in some other place. <\/P> Before the congregation, <\/B>i.e. before the society or convention of judges or elders, who were appointed in every city for the decision of criminal causes, who were twenty-three, who were to examine the matter, and that publicly before the people, whether the murder was wilful or casual. <\/P> Quest<\/I>. In what city was this cause to be tried? <\/P> Answ<\/I>. Some say in the city of refuge, others say in the city in or near which the fact was committed. It seems to me it was done in both, at first in the city of refuge, as is manifest in Jos 20:4<\/span>; but if that trial and sentence did not satisfy the avenger of blood, it was fully and finally determined in the other city, as is sufficiently evident both by comparing this place with Num 35:25<\/span>; Jos 20:6<\/span>, and from the usual and most reasonable course of justice, which is that facts should be examined, as far as may be, in or near the places where they were committed, and where the witnesses and evidences were at hand. In judgment<\/I>, or, for judgment<\/I>, i. e. to receive sentence there according to the nature of the fact. <\/P> <\/p>\n And they shall be unto you cities of refuge from the avenger<\/strong>,…. Or near kinsman; for as the right of redemption of an estate that was mortgaged belonged to such an one, so of revenging the blood of any one that was killed:<\/p>\n that the manslayer die not<\/strong>; by the hand of the avenger, who in the heat of his passion would, could he come at him, fall upon him, and slay him, to avenge the death of his relation on him:<\/p>\n until he stand before the congregation in judgment<\/strong>; before the court of judicature, to be examined, tried, and judged, whether the murder was committed knowingly and willingly, or whether through mistake and at unawares: this was done either before the court of judicature in the city of refuge, who took cognizance of such cases directly, that they might know whom to harbour and protect, and whom not; or before the court in the place where the act was committed: interpreters are divided about this; and Calmet l is of opinion that he was examined in both courts, first more strictly in the city of refuge, and then more slightly in the place where it was done, which is not improbable; however, this seems manifest from Nu 35:25<\/span>, that the court where it was committed had power to fetch him from the city of refuge, and set him before them, and examine into the case; and, if an innocent person, restored him to the city of refuge, whither he had fled.<\/p>\n l Dictionary, on the word “Refuge”.<\/p>\n These towns were to serve for a refuge from the avenger of blood, that the manslayer might not die before he had taken his trial in the presence of the congregation. The number of cities was fixed at six, three on the other side of the Jordan, and three on this side in the land of Canaan, to which both the children of Israel, and also the foreigners and settlers who were dwelling among them, might flee. In Deu 19:2<\/span>., Moses advises the congregation to prepare ( ) the way to these cities, and to divide the territory of the land which Jehovah would give them into three parts ( ), i.e., to set apart a free city in every third of the land, that every manslayer might flee thither, i.e., might be able to reach the free city without being detained by length of distance or badness of road, lest, as is added in Deu 19:6<\/span>, the avenger of blood pursue the slayer while his heart is hot ( , imperf. Kal<\/em> of ), and overtake him because the way is long, and slay him ( , as in Gen 37:21<\/span>), whereas he was not worthy of death (i.e., there was no just ground for putting him to death), “because he had not done it out of hatred.” The three cities of refuge on the other side were selected by Moses himself (Deu 4:41-43<\/span>); the three in Canaan were not appointed till the land was distributed among the nine tribes and a half (Jos 20:7<\/span>). Levitical or priests’ towns were selected for all six, not only because it was to the priests and Levites that they would first of all look for an administration of justice ( Schultz<\/em> on Deu 19:3<\/span>), but also on the ground that these cities were the property of Jehovah, in a higher sense than the rest of the land, and for this reason answered the idea of cities of refuge, where the manslayer, when once received, was placed under the protection of divine grace, better than any other places possibly could.<\/p>\n The establishment of cities of refuge presupposed the custom and right of revenge. The custom itself goes back to the very earliest times of the human race (Gen 4:15<\/span>, Gen 4:24<\/span>; Gen 27:45<\/span>); it prevailed among the Israelites, as well as the other nations of antiquity, and still continues among the Arabs in unlimited force (cf. Niebuhr<\/em>, Arab. pp. 32ff.; Burckhardt<\/em>, Beduinen, 119, 251ff.). “Revenge of blood prevailed almost everywhere, so long as there was no national life generated, or it was still in the first stages of its development; and consequently the expiation of any personal violation of justice was left to private revenge, and more especially to family zeal” ( Oehler<\/em> in Herzog’s<\/em> B. Cycl., where the proofs may be seen). The warrant for this was the principle of retribution, the jus talionis <\/em>, which lay at the foundation of the divine order of the world in general, and the Mosaic law in particular, and which was sanctioned by God, so far as murder was concerned, even in the time of Noah, by the command, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood,” etc. (Gen 9:5-6<\/span>). This warrant, however, or rather obligation to avenge murder, was subordinated to the essential principle of the theocracy, under the Mosaic law. Whilst God Himself would avenge the blood that was shed, not only upon men, but upon animals also (Gen 9:5<\/span>), and commanded blood-revenge, He withdrew the execution of it from subjective caprice, and restricted it to cases of premeditated slaying or murder, by appointing cities of refuge, which were to protect the manslayer from the avenger, until he took his trial before the congregation. , redeemer, is “ that particular relative whose special duty it was to restore the violated family integrity, who had to redeem not only landed property that had been alienated from the family (Lev 25:25<\/span>.), or a member of the family that had fallen into slavery (Lev 25:47<\/span>.), but also the blood that had been taken away from the family by murder” ( Oehler<\/em>). In the latter respect he was called , (Num 35:19<\/span>, Num 35:21<\/span>, Num 35:24<\/span>.; Deu 19:6<\/span>, Deu 19:12<\/span>). From 2Sa 14:7<\/span>, we may see that it was the duty of the whole family to take care that blood-revenge was carried out. The performance of the duty itself, however, was probably regulated by the closeness of the relationship, and corresponded to the duty of redeeming from bondage (Lev 25:49<\/span>), and to the right of inheritance (Num 27:8<\/span>.). What standing before the congregation was to consist of, is defined more fully in what follows (Num 35:24<\/span>, Num 35:25<\/span>). If we compare with this Jos 20:4<\/span>., the manslayer, who fled from the avenger of blood into a free city, was to stand before the gates of the city, and state his cause before the elders. They were then to receive him into the city, and give him a place that he might dwell among them, and were not to deliver him up to the avenger of blood till he had stood before the congregation for judgment. Consequently, if the slayer of a man presented himself with the request to be received, the elders of the free city had to make a provisional inquiry into his case, to decide whether they should grant him protection in the city; and then if the avenger of blood appeared, they were not to deliver up the person whom they had received, but to hand him over, on the charge of the avenger of blood, to the congregation to whom he belonged, or among whom the act had taken place, that they might investigate the case, and judge whether the deed itself was wilful or accidental.<\/p>\n (12) And they shall be unto you cities for refuge . . . <\/strong>Better, And the cities shall be unto you for refuge <\/em>(or, as a place of refuge<\/em>) from the avenger, that the manslayer may not die until he stand before the congregation for judgment. <\/em>The avenger (Heb., goel<\/em>) <\/em>was the near kinsman whose office it was to redeem the person or inheritance of his kinsman, if that kinsman was reduced by poverty to sell himself into slavery, or to sell his inheritance; and also to avenge his blood in the event of his being slain. (See Lev. 25:25-55<\/span>, and Notes.) The law of the goel, <\/em>as contained in this chapter, served to keep in check the excited passions of the near relations of the man who had been slain, and to secure for him a fair and impartial trial. The duties which devolved upon the congregation are stated in Num. 35:24-25<\/span>. Christ, as our Redeemer (Heb., goel<\/em>), <\/em>ever lives (Job. 19:25<\/span>). He has redeemed the persons and the inheritance of His people by His death; and He will in the last great day, ransom them from the power of the grave, and redeem them from death (Hos. 13:4<\/span>, where the cognate verb to goel <\/em>occurs), and will avenge their blood on them that dwell on the earth (Rev. 6:10<\/span>).<\/p>\n 12<\/strong>. <\/strong> Avenger <\/strong> Joshua adds, “of blood.” See note cited above. The goel, <\/em> redeemer, is “that particular relative whose special duty it was to restore the violated family integrity, who had to redeem not only landed property that had been alienated from the family, or a member of the family who had fallen into servitude, (Lev 25:25-47<\/span>,) but also the blood that had been taken away from the family by murder.” Oehler. <\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n Until he stand before the congregation <\/strong> The refugee, on his arrival at the city of refuge, made his plea to the elders of the city, who protected him till he was sent for. See note on Jos 20:6<\/span>. The cities of refuge were not designed to screen a real murderer from being put to death, but merely to secure a fair judicial investigation.<\/p>\n avenger. Hebrew. Goel, to redeem, to ransom. First occurrence is Gen 48:16; next, Exo 6:6; Exo 15:13. Goel, when used in this connection, means to avenge bloodshed, as here; both were the duties of the next of kin, the kinsman. Our Goel not only redeems us from all evil, but avenges us of all our enemies. Rom 8:31-34. <\/p>\n avenger <\/p>\n Heb. “goel,” Redemp. (Kinsman type). (See Scofield “Isa 59:20”). <\/p>\n from the avenger: Num 35:19, Num 35:25-27, Deu 19:6, Jos 20:3-6, Jos 20:9, 2Sa 14:7 <\/p>\n until he stand: Num 35:24, Deu 19:11, Deu 19:12, Jos 20:4-6 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Num 8:9 – shalt gather the whole Deu 4:42 – General Jos 20:5 – General Jos 20:6 – until 2Ki 7:7 – and fled for their life Mat 5:21 – and<\/p>\n Num 35:12. From the avenger Hebrew, from the redeemer, or, from the next kinsman; to whom, by the law, belonged the right of redemption of the lands of, and vindication of the injury done to, the person deceased. Die not Be not killed by the avenger meeting him in some other place. Before the congregation Before the judges or elders who were appointed in every city for the decision of criminal causes, who were to examine, and that publicly before the people, whether the murder was wilful or casual.<\/p>\n 35:12 And they shall be unto you cities for refuge from the {d} avenger; that the manslayer die not, until he stand before the congregation in judgment.<\/p>\n (d) Meaning, from the next of the kindred, who ought to pursue the cause.<\/p>\n And they shall be unto you cities for refuge from the avenger; that the manslayer die not, until he stand before the congregation in judgment. 12. the avenger ] Heb. g’l, the nearest representative of the family of the slain man. Perhaps (with LXX. ) we should read ‘the avenger of blood,’ as in Num … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Numbers 35:12”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4866","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4866","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4866"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4866\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4866"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4866"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4866"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"