But if the slayer shall at any time come without the border of the city of his refuge<\/strong>,…. Which seems to be the three thousand cubits assigned to every city of the Levites, and so to the cities of refuge; and which, according to the Jewish writers, were a refuge, as the city itself; and it is said x,<\/p>\n “he, that kills a man there, is killed for him, but though the border is a refuge, the slayer does not dwell in it, as it is said. Nu 35:25<\/span>, “he shall abide in it”, but not in its borders:”<\/p>\n whither he was fled<\/strong>; on account of manslaughter.<\/p>\n x Maimon. Hilchot Rotzeach, c. 8. sect. 11. Misn. Maccot, c. 2. sect. 7.<\/p>\n If he left the city of refuge before this, and the avenger of blood got hold of him, and slew him outside the borders (precincts) of the city, it was not to be reckoned to him as blood ( , like , Exo 22:1<\/span>). But after the death of the high priest he might return “into the land of his possession,” i.e., his hereditary possession (cf. Lev 27:22<\/span>), sc., without the avenger of blood being allowed to pursue him any longer.<\/p>\n In these regulations “all the rigour of the divine justice is manifested in the most beautiful concord with His compassionate mercy. Through the destruction of life, even when not wilful, human blood had been shed, and demanded expiation. Yet this expiation did not consist in the death of the offender himself, because he had not sinned wilfully.” Hence an asylum was provided for him in the free city, to which he might escape, and where he would lie concealed. This sojourn in the free city was not to be regarded as banishment, although separation from house, home, and family was certainly a punishment; but it was a concealment under “the protection of the mercy of God, which opened places of escape in the cities of refuge from the carnal ardour of the avenger of blood, where the slayer remained concealed until his sin was expiated by the death of the high priest.” For the fact, that the death of the high priest was hereby regarded as expiatory, as many of the Rabbins, fathers, and earlier commentators maintain (see my Comm. on Joshua, p. 448), is unmistakeably evident from the addition of the clause, “who has been anointed with the holy oil,” which would appear unmeaning and superfluous on any other view. This clause points to the inward connection between the return of the slayer and the death of the high priest. “The anointing with the holy oil was a symbol of the communication of the Holy Ghost, by which the high priest was empowered to act as mediator and representative of the nation before God, so that he alone could carry out the yearly and general expiation for the whole nation, on the great day of atonement. But as his life and work acquired a representative signification through this anointing with the Holy Ghost, his death might also be regarded as a death for the sins of the people, by virtue of the Holy Ghost imparted to him, through which the unintentional manslayer received the benefits of the propitiation for his sin before God, so that he could return cleansed to his native town, without further exposure to the vengeance of the avenger of blood” (Comm. on Joshua, p. 448). But inasmuch as, according to this view, the death of the high priest had the same result in a certain sense, in relation to his time of office, as his function on the day of atonement had had every year, “the death of the earthly high priest became thereby a type of that of the heavenly One, who, through the eternal (holy) Spirit, offered Himself without spot to God, that we might be redeemed from our transgressions, and receive the promised eternal inheritance (Heb 9:14-15<\/span>). Just as the blood of Christ wrought out eternal redemption, only because through the eternal Spirit He offered Himself without spot to God, so the death of the high priest of the Old Testament secured the complete deliverance of the manslayer form his sin, only because he had been anointed with the holy oil, the symbol of the Holy Ghost.”<\/p>\n (26) But if the slayer shall at any time come without the border of the city . . . <\/strong>As the bodily safety of the Israelite who had slain a man depended upon his strict observance of the law which required him to remain within the city of refuge until the death of the high priest, so in the same way the spiritual safety of the believer depends upon his exclusive reliance upon the merits and efficacy of the atoning death and righteousness of Christ, seeing that there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we may be saved; neither is there salvation in any other (Act. 4:12<\/span>).<\/p>\n 26, 27<\/strong>. <\/strong> If the slayer at any time come without <\/strong> He could not leave the asylum to bury his dead, to worship in the great feasts, nor to testify in the courts. He was constructively dead while his life was hidden in the city of refuge. Col 3:3<\/span>, note. No mere lapse of time can satisfy the claims of justice, as many vainly imagine who dream that sin will eventually disappear, even in the case of those who have deliberately thrust aside the cover of the atoning blood of Jesus Christ and count it as a common thing. If these verses have any spiritual significance, it is that a saved soul may fall away from salvation and be finally lost.<\/p>\n Num 35:26-27<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>If the slayercome without the border, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> The reason of this law seems to be; because thus the man-slayer was, in some sort, accessary to his own death: for he might have been safe if he had pleased, though, at the same time, Moses in this seems to have indulged the Jews in the hardness of their hearts; for it is what the milder genius of the Gospel will undoubtedly condemn. See Mat 5:44<\/span>; Mat 5:48<\/span>. And though, in this case, such a slayer was free from the punishment of the law, yet he might be obnoxious to the judgment of God, as having killed an innocent person; see Barbeyrac’s Notes on Grotius, de B. & P. lib. 1 cap. 1 sect. 17 n. 4. <\/p>\n After the manslayer had been received into the city of refuge, the avenger of blood could only act as prosecutor; and the magistrates, in the presence of the people, were appointed to decide the cause according to the rules here laid down. Probably the accused person was tried at or near the place where the deceased had been slain, and where evidence could most easily be brought, and in case he was acquitted by the decision of the judges, and with the approbation of the people, he was conveyed back to the city of refuge, where he was protected as a kind of prisoner at large, till the death of the high priest; when the public loss, and the grief occasioned by it, might be supposed to swallow up all personal regrets and resentments, and then he was permitted to return to his house and estate. But if, in the mean while, he ventured to leave the city, and the avenger met him and slew him, he was supposed to merit his doom by thus neglecting the appointment of God for his preservation, and the avenger must not be punished. This shews that in other cases, if the avenger slew an innocent man on surmise, he was liable to the punishment of a murderer; but if, by the testimony of two credible witnesses, the man who had fled to the city of refuge was adjudged guilty, he must without fail be put to death. <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Jos 2:19 – whosoever<\/p>\n But if the slayer shall at any time come without the border of the city of his refuge, whither he was fled; But if the slayer shall at any time come without the border of the city of his refuge,…. Which seems to be the three thousand cubits assigned to every city of the Levites, … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Numbers 35:26”<\/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-4880","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4880","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=4880"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4880\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4880"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4880"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4880"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}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: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"