Joshua 20 commentary discusses the appointment of cities of refuge in Canaan as commanded by God. The commentary provides context on the biblical passages about cities of refuge and explains their purpose in providing protection for those who accidentally killed someone from vengeance. Multiple scholars and commentators are cited discussing details of the cities of refuge and their significance as a type of salvation found in Christ.

1. JOSHUA 20 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
Cities of Refuge
1 Then the Lord said to Joshua:
GILL, "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:
HE RY 1-6, "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 (Jos_20:2), 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, Deu_19:3. 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

2. 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_6:18), and in whom they
are found (Phi_3:9) as in a sanctuary, where they are privileged from arrests, and there
is now no condemnation to them, Rom_8:1. 2. Instructions are given for the using of
these cities. The laws in this matter we had before, Num_35:10, etc., 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 (Jos_20:3), not only whom he
hated not, but whom he truly loved beforetime (Jos_20:5); 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, Jos_20:4-6. 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.”
JAMISO , "Jos_20:1-6. The Lord commands the cities of refuge.
The Lord spake unto Joshua ... Appoint out for you cities of refuge — (See
Num_35:9-28; Deu_19:1-13). The command here recorded was given on their going to
occupy their allotted settlements. The sanctuaries were not temples or altars, as in other
countries, but inhabited cities; and the design was not to screen criminals, but only to
afford the homicide protection from the vengeance of the deceased’s relatives until it
should have been ascertained whether the death had resulted from accident and
momentary passion, or from premeditated malice. The institution of the cities of refuge,
together with the rules prescribed for the guidance of those who sought an asylum
within their walls, was an important provision, tending to secure the ends of justice as
well as of mercy.
K&D, "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. ‫ם‬ ֶ‫כ‬ ָ‫ל‬ ‫נוּ‬ ְ , “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.

3. CALVI , "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.
BE SO , "Verse 1-2
Joshua 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.
WHEDO , "THE SIX CITIES OF REFUGE, Joshua 20:1-9.

4. 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 Exodus 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 umbers 35:9-34.
PETT, "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 (Genesis 4:14).
Joshua 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 (Exodus
33:11). Or it may have been as he meditated on the Book of the Law (see umbers
35:9-15; Deuteronomy 19:1-13). While the people were in the wilderness the right of
sanctuary was obtainable at the altar (Exodus 21:14), a right later exercised by
Adonijah and Joab (1 Kings 1:50-52; 1 Kings 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

5. able to return to or remain in the city of refuge and be safe ( umbers 35:9-15;
Deuteronomy 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 (Ruth 3:12 on); by exacting a payment due to the deceased ( umbers 5:8); by
buying a kinsman out of slavery; by buying back a field which had been sold
through poverty (Leviticus 25:48; Leviticus 25:25) or by buying back an estate into
the family (Jeremiah 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.
COFFMA , "Verse 1
THE CITIES OF REFUGE
The cities of refuge have already been discussed in umbers 35:9-33, in
Deuteronomy 4:41-43, and in Deuteronomy 19. About the only information given in
this chapter is that Joshua did as he was commanded and named the additional
cities west of Jordan, enumerating the names of those and repeating the names given
in Deuteronomy 4:43.
There is hardly anything in the Bible about which there is more misinformation
than is the matter of these six cities of refuge. The basic assumption of critical
scholars is dogmatically stated by Holmes:
"The cities of refuge were not appointed until after the reforms of Josiah in 621 B.C.
In earlier times the refuge for the manslayer was the altar at the local sanctuary
(Exodus 21:14). Deuteronomy says that Moses commanded the institution of these
cities, and a later writer, ignorant of the exact standpoint of the Deuteronomic
school, naturally concluded that Joshua carried out that command. Accordingly, he
stated as fact what he thought should have happened ... The standpoint of
Deuteronomy was that the cities of refuge were to be appointed after the Temple of
Solomon was built! This being so, there was no need for Joshua to appoint these
cities."[1]
Such an impressive bundle of false statements contradicting the Holy Bible in half a
dozen particulars should be received only by those who are willing to deify "the
REVERE D Samuel Holmes" and all others like him, and to accept their
U PROVED ASSERTIO S as "the Word of God," instead of what is written here!
The fiction that these cities of refuge were not appointed until the times of Josiah
(621 B.C.) is, of course, FALSE. Three of the cities were appointed by Moses east of
Jordan; and three were appointed by Joshua west of Jordan, as directed by God
Himself (Joshua 20:1). That these cities were OT in existence until the seventh

6. century is a prime assertion of the critics, as Boling attempted to prove in this
statement:
"There is not a single reference to either one of these institutions (the cities of
refuge, or the Levitical cities) in the historical books of 1,2Samuel, 1,2Kings, and
1,2Chronicles, and nowhere are they clearly presupposed."[2]
Apparently, Boling had never heard of the case of Abner, who following his
unwilling and forced slaughter of Asahel, Joab's brother, fled to Hebron (one of the
cities of refuge), and how Joab followed him there, pretended friendship,
maneuvered Abner just across the city line in the gate, just outside the city of refuge,
and thrust a dagger through his heart. David himself followed the body of Abner
through the streets crying, "Died Abner as a fool dieth"! Upon no other assumption
whatever can it be affirmed that Abner died "as a fool," except upon the
presupposition that he simply allowed himself to be maneuvered to a location just
outside the city of refuge, thus giving Joab the opportunity he wanted! The full
record of all this is in 2 Samuel 2-3.
However, even if there did not exist any record of exactly how certain persons made
use of any of these cities of refuge, that would not deny the existence of the
institution and the appointment of these cities as revealed here. There are a hundred
provisions of the Law of Moses which could be denied on the proposition that the
Bible does not tell how some person, or persons, fulfilled or applied the law in
specific cases. In the historical books, where are the examples of persons cleansed
from leprosy? Where do we find the ashes of the red heifer applied? Who can cite a
house that was purified from leprosy? etc.
"And Jehovah spake unto Joshua, saying, Speak to the children of Israel, saying,
Assign you the cities of refuge, whereof I spake unto you by Moses, that the
manslayer that killeth any person unwittingly and unawares may flee thither: and
they shall be unto you for a refuge from the avenger of blood. And he shall flee unto
one of these cities, and shall stand at the entrance of the gate of the city, and declare
his case in the ears of the elders of that city; and they shall take him into the city
unto them, and give him a place that he may dwell among them. And if the avenger
of blood pursue after him, then they shall not deliver up the manslayer into his
hands; because he smote his neighbor unawares, and hated him not beforetime. And
he shall dwell in that city, until he stand before the congregation for judgment, until
the death of the High Priest that shall be in those days: then shall the manslayer
return, and come unto his own city, and unto his own house, unto the city from
whence he fled."
It is clearly stated here that God spake to Joshua, reminding him of what God had
already commanded Moses, and with the order to appoint the cities of refuge. Sons
of the Devil will have to produce something more than their tumid arrogance and
denial of this as sufficient inducement for believers to forsake what is written here
in the Word of God.
See the passages in Deuteronomy and umbers cited above for full discussion of the

7. institution of the cities of refuge. The purpose of these was totally unlike the
"sanctuary" doctrine of pagan altars and shrines, like that which made the half mile
or so surrounding the city of Ephesus the greatest concentration of lawless and
wicked men ever heard of on the face of the earth. The purpose of these cities was
the protection, not of criminals generally, but of innocent men who had
inadvertently, or accidentally, killed someone. This institution was designed to
eliminate the blood feuds which abounded in antiquity, and which have persisted
into modern times. This writer was present when the notorious ewton-Carlton
feud of Paul's Valley, Oklahoma culminated in the murder of a Deputy Sheriff in
front of the J. C. Penny store just across from the Post Office there in 1926. Some
thirty murders had at that time occurred in that feud. Fortunately, the feud ended
at that time.
The mention of "stand before the congregation" in Joshua 20:6, is a reference to the
judgment exercised by the congregation of the city of refuge. The manslayer could
not leave that city, except to forfeit his life, and, from the way this is introduced
following the theoretical appearance of the avenger of blood, it would appear that
no such congregational judgment took place until the manslayer was accused by the
avenger of blood, and who, in that case, would have had the right to produce
witnesses. Upon the presumption that the manslayer would be acquitted, he then
could live in the city of refuge until the death of the High Priest. If found guilty, he
was, of course, handed over to the avenger of blood who had the right to execute
him.
As in so many instances of O.T. institutions, it is the .T. witness and application of
them that certifies their Divine origin, and eloquently demonstrates the Divine
inspiration that designed and created them. As the writer of Hebrews said, "We
have a strong encouragement who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set
before us, which we have as an anchor of the soul both sure and stedfast and
entering into that which is within the veil" (Hebrews 6:18,19).
The foolish theory that these cities of refuge were connected with the old pagan laws
of "sanctuary at altars," etc., is not, as alleged by Holmes and others, "revealed in
the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 21:14)."[3] A careful reading of that place shows
that God's altar was not a place of protection for the guilty. (See my comment on
this in Vol. 2 of the Pentateuchal series, pp. 307-309.) The habit of fleeing to some
altar on the part of the guilty persisted, and Joab himself was dragged from between
the horns of the altar in Jerusalem and executed for his murder of Abner (1 Kings
2:28-31).
The great typical meaning of the cities of refuge is:
(1) A place of refuge is provided for sinners in Christ.
(2) Safety is in him, not anywhere else; and not out of him.
(3) Safety continues only so long as the saved continue to be in Christ. Person must

8. abide in him to be saved (John 15:6).
(4) The safety continued throughout the life of the High Priest. Safety continues for
repentant sinners throughout the dispensation of the reign of Christ. The connection
of the life of the High Priest with the safety provide here is an emphasis upon the
typical nature of the Jewish High Priest. (See my extensive comments on this in
Exodus (Vol. 2 of the Pentateuchal series, pp. 24:
COKE,"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 umbers 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.
CO STABLE, "Verses 1-9
1. The cities of refuge ch20
At this time, the tribal leaders formally designated the six cities of refuge, about
which Moses had received instructions ( umbers 35). Three stood west of the
Jordan: Kadesh in aphtali, Shechem in Prayer of Manasseh , and Hebron in
Judah ( Joshua 20:7). Three more were east of the Jordan: Bezer in Reuben,
Ramoth in Gad, and Golan in Manasseh ( Joshua 20:8). Their placement meant that
no Israelite would have to travel far to reach one of them. [ ote: See my notes on
umbers 35:9-34for 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." [ ote: Butler, p218.]
"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." [ ote:
Campbell, " Joshua ," p363.]
ELLICOTT, "THE I HERITA CE OF LEVI.
(a) Six cities of refuge (Joshua 20).
(b) Forty-two other cities (Joshua 21).
(a) THE CITIES OF REFUGE.
(2) Appoint out for you cities of refuge.—The law in umbers 35 appointed that the
Levites should have (Joshua 20:6) six cities of refuge, and forty-two others. This
connection is not always observed, but it has an important bearing on the institution
here described. The law of the cities of refuge is given in full in umbers 35 and

9. Deuteronomy 19 (See otes on those passages.)
(6) Until the death of the high priest.—The fact is familiar, and the meaning appears
to be this: Man being the image of God, all offences against the person of man are
offences against his Maker, and the shedding of man’s blood is the greatest of such
offences. “The blood defileth the land, and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood
that is shed therein but by the blood of him who shed it” ( umbers 35:33). If,
however, the man-slayer did not intend to shed the blood of his neighbour, he is not
worthy of death, and the Divine mercy provides a shelter wherein he may still live
without offence to the Divine Majesty. Such a shelter is the city of refuge, a city of
priests or Levites, whose office was to bear the iniquity of the children of Israel, to
shield their brethren from the danger they incurred by the dwelling of Jehovah in
the midst of them, “dwelling among them in the midst of their uncleanness.” Hence
the man-slayer must always remain, as it were, under the shadow of the sin-bearing
priest or Levite, that he might live, and not die for the innocent blood which he had
unintentionally shed. But how could the death of the high priest set him free?
Because the high priest was the representative of the whole nation. What the Levites
were to all Israel, what the priests were to the Levites, that the high priest was to the
priests, and through them to the nation: the individual sin-bearer for all. Into his
hands came year by year “all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their
transgressions in all their sins,” and he presented a sin-offering for all.
While the high priest still lived he would still be legally tainted with this load of sin,
for the law provides no forgiveness for a priest. But “he that is dead is justified from
sin,” and at his death the load which was laid on the high priest might be held to
have passed from him, for he had paid the last debt a man can pay on earth. But the
high priest being justified, the sinners whom he represents are justified also, and
therefore the man-slayers go free. The sentence we have often heard in the
explanation of this fact, “Our High Priest can never die,” is beside the mark, for if
He could never die, we must always remain marked criminals, in a species of
restraint. Rather let us say, He has died, having borne our sins in His own body on
the tree, that we may be free to serve Him, not in guilt and dread and bondage, but
in liberty and life.
PULPIT, "Cities of refuge. The original is more definite, the cities of refuge. So
LXX. Whereof I spake to you. In Exodus 21:13; umbers 35:9; Deuteronomy 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 umbers and partly from
Deuteronomy; another proof that these books were regarded as constituting one
law, from the "hand of Moses," when Joshua was written.
EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE COMME TARY
THE CITIES OF REFUGE.

10. Joshua 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 (Exodus
21:13); then in umbers ( umbers 35:9-34) the plan of these places is given in full,
and all the regulations applicable to them; again in Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy
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
Hebrews 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

11. 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. ever, 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

12. 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-

13. 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. or 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 ew Testament times the practice that committed the avenging of blood to the
nearest of kin seems to have fallen into abeyance. o 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,

14. 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. ot 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

15. 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,

16. 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.
MACLARE , "THE CITIES OF REFUGE
Joshua 20:1 - Joshua 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. either 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.

17. 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.
o 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 ew 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 umbers 35:15 - umbers 35:24, and
Deuteronomy 19:4 - Deuteronomy 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

18. 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,

19. 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.’
PULPIT, "Joshua 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 HUMA 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. othing
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

20. see, what God has given, is surely the highest of crimes.
II. VE GEA CE MUST BE U DER THE DIRECTIO 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 (Matthew 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 CA OT ABOLISH A 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
Joshua 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

21. 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 OT 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 umbers). 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.

22. II. JUSTICE IS SUBSTITUTED FOR REVE GE. 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 (Joshua 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 person—a 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 PROVISIO I 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
of—as an intercessor who had entered within the veil—beneath 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 A OTHER HIGH PRIEST WAS A
E TERI G WITHI THE VEIL, WHICH BE EFITS WITH DIVI E
PROTECTIO ALL WHO TAKE REFUGE I THE DIVI ELY APPOI TED
PLACE. They by innocence got the benefit of his pleading—we by repentance. Are
we all under the shadow of the heavenly Intercessor?—G.
BI 1-9, "Cities of refuge
The cities of refuge

23. 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. 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 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.
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

24. 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 God’s 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 one’s motive is greater than all he does.

25. 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 Lord’s 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.

26. 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 God’s 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 Lord’s
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

27. 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

28. always declared Himself the real avenger of blood. “I will require man’s 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 God’s anger is provoked, and equity demands the execution of

29. 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 Jehovah’s 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
Saviour’s 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

30. 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 Saviour’s 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.

31. (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

32. 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, “God’s 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. Man’s 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: Jehovah’s word was staked to it. Perfect safety. God’s 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 Scott’s “wandering harper, scorned and poor,” under the potent spell
of his own music is repeated a thousand times a day.

33. “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 age’s 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 people’s 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
God’s 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 world’s 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

34. 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 God’s 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 God’s gracious provision in it whatever it is that gives you effectual relief. I don’t
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

35. 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 Nature’s 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 Christian’s 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

36. 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 Christ’s 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 Christ’s 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

37. 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.).
2 “Tell the Israelites to designate the cities of
refuge, as I instructed you through Moses,
CLARKE, "Cities of refuge - An institution of this kind was essentially necessary
wherever the patriarchal law relative to the right of redemption and the avenging of
blood was in force; we have already seen that the nearest of kin to a deceased person had
not only the right of redeeming an inheritance that had been forfeited or alienated, but
had also authority to slay on the spot the person who had slain his relative. Now, as a
man might casually kill another against whom he had no ill-will, and with whom he had
no quarrel, and might have his life taken away by him who was called the avenger of
blood, though he had not forfeited his life to the law; therefore these privileged cities
were appointed, where the person might have protection till the cause had been fully
heard by the magistrates, who certainly had authority to deliver him up to the avenger, if
they found, on examination, that he was not entitled to this protection. On this subject
see the notes on Num_35:11 to the end.
GILL, "Speak to the children of Israel, saying,.... Whom the affair concerned the
Lord spake to Joshua about, they having now the whole land divided among them:

38. appoint out for you cities of refuge; of the name, nature, use, and number of these
cities; see Gill on Num_35:6,
whereof I spake unto you by the hand of Moses: Num_35:1.
TRAPP, "Joshua 20:2 Speak to the children of Israel, saying, Appoint out for you
cities of refuge, whereof I spake unto you by the hand of Moses:
Ver. 2. Speak unto the children of Israel.] They had been spoken to before by Moses
to do thus but made no haste to do it: such is men’s slackness in procuring the good
of others.
Appoint out for you cities of refuge.] Susceptionis aut recollectionis, for the
preservation of man’s precious life, if causelessly sought after: not such sanctuaries
of roguery as Romulus opened about the beginning of his reign to bring more
company about him: nor as the Romanists now-a-days do for wilfnl murderers and
other wicked persons, who should be pulled from the altar to the halter, as Joab
was. See Exodus 21:14. If a malefactor be going to execution, and a cardinal meeting
him put his red hat upon his head, he is thereby free immediately, Proh nefas! The
scripture saith, "A man that doeth violence to the blood of any person shall flee to
the pit; let no man stay him." [Proverbs 28:17] But the Pope professeth to have
power to dispense against the ew Testament and the Old: which made Sir Walter
Raleigh say, that if he were to choose a religion for licentious liberty, he would
become a Papist.
3 so that anyone who kills a person accidentally
and unintentionally may flee there and find
protection from the avenger of blood.
GILL, "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:

39. 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 Num_35:12.
BE SO ,"Joshua 20:3. Unwittingly — Hebrew, Through ignorance, or error, or
mistake, and without knowledge. The same thing is twice repeated, to cut off all
expectations that wilful murderers might have of protection here. God having
declared that such should be taken even from his altar, that they might be killed. It
is strange that any Christians should make their sanctuaries give protection to such
persons whom God hath so expressly excepted from it! Avenger — The nearest
kinsman, who had right or power to demand or take vengeance for the slaughter.
WHEDO ,"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 Genesis 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.
TRAPP, "Verse 3
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.
Ver. 3. That killeth any person unawares and unwittingly.] ot 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.
PULPIT, "Joshua 20:3
Unawares and unwittingly. Literally, in error, in not knowing. umbers 35:16-18
and Deuteronomy 19:5, give a clear explanation of what is here meant. Knobel
notices that the first of these expressions is found in Le Deuteronomy 4:2, and the
second in Deuteronomy 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

40. 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 (Ruth 4:1, Ruth 4:6, Ruth 4:8)
is called the Goel of Elimelech and his widow. In the present passage, the phrase
"the redeemer (LXX. ἀγχιστεύων 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 Genesis 9:6; Exodus 21:12, Exodus 21:14; Le Exodus 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 Mérimée 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. o right of sanctuary
was to be granted to him who had wantonly slain a fellow creature. " o
satisfaction" was to be taken for his life ( umbers 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" (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 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.
PI K, ""The Lord also spake unto Joshua, saying, Speak to the children of Israel,
saying, Appoint out for you cities of refuge, whereof I spake unto you by the hand of
Moses: that the slayer that killeth any person unawares and unwittingly may flee
thither: and they shall be your refuge from the avenger of blood. And when he that

41. 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. 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.
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." (Josh. 20:1-6).
In that passage we are furnished with a condensed account of the statutes with
regard to murder which the Lord gave to Israel for the maintenance of
righteousness in their midst. On the one hand, there must be a strict enforcing of
justice; on the other, the exercising of mercy. The guilty were not to be cleared; the
innocent must not be executed. Due and orderly investigation must be made, and
each case tried on its own merits before a court of law. Where guilt was established,
malice aforethought being proved by witnesses, the death penalty was to be inflicted
upon the murderer. But when a neighbor had been inadvertently killed extreme
measures were not to be taken against the one occasioning his death. or was the
next-of-kin to the one slain permitted to take matters into his own hands and wreak
vengeance upon him who by misadventure had tragically terminated his life.
Instead, there was a sanctuary provided for the innocent, to which he could fly,
shelter afforded for one who had involuntarily committed homicide.
The original statute pertaining to the subject was, "Whoso sheddeth man’s blood,
by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made He man" (Gen. 9:6).
There is nothing whatever "Jewish" about that injunction, for it was given centuries
before the nation of Israel had any existence. It needs emphasizing today that capital
punishment as the penalty for murder was ordained by God Himself long before the
giving of the Mosaic law, and, since it has never been repealed by Him, that precept
is binding until the end of time. It is important to observe that the reason for this
law is not here based upon the well-being of human society, but is grounded upon
the fact that man is made "in the image of God." That expression has a twofold
significance; a natural and a moral—the moral image of God (inherent holiness)
was lost at the fall, but the natural still exists, as is clear from 1 Corinthians 11:7,
and James 3:9. Thus, the primary reason why it is sinful to slay a man is because he
is made in the image of God. "To deface the king’s image is a sort of treason among
men, implying a hatred against him, and that if he himself were within reach, he
would be served in the same manner. How much more heinous, then, must it be to
destroy, curse, oppress, or in any way abuse the image of the King of kings!" (A.
Fuller).
Whereas that original statute of God has never yet been repealed, it has been more
fully explained, amplified, and safeguarded in later passages; and to them we now
turn. The first one having a direct bearing upon our present subject is found in
Exodus 21:12-14: "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to
death." There is the general principle, but it is qualified thus: "And if a man lie not

42. in wait, but God deliver him into his hand, then I will appoint thee a place whither
he shall flee. But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with
guile; thou shalt take him from Mine altar, that he may die." A sharp distinction
was thus drawn between deliberate murder and involuntary manslaughter. In the
former instance, when one smote his fellow intentionally, whether from
premeditated malice or in the heat of sudden passion, so that he expired from the
injury, then the deed must be regarded as murder, and the death penalty be
enforced. But where one unwittingly and unwillingly inflicted an injury upon
another, even though it proved to be a fatal one, he was not to be executed for the
act. Instead, there was a place appointed by God to which he might flee, and where
he could be sheltered from any who sought vengeance upon him.
We have been much impressed by the fact that the above passage is found in the
very next chapter after the one which records the Ten Commandments. Let those
who have such a penchant for drawing invidious and odious comparisons between
that which obtained under the old covenant and that which pertains to the new take
careful note that this gracious provision was made by God under that very economy
which dispensationalists are so fond of terming "a forbidding and unrelieved regime
of stern law." It was nothing of the kind, as any impartial student of the Word is
aware. In all ages God has tempered His justice with mercy and caused His grace to
reign through righteousness. Let it not be overlooked that such declarations as the
following are found in the Old Testament scriptures. "Like as a father pitieth his
children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear Him" (Ps. 103:13). "Great are Thy
tender mercies, O Lord" (Ps. 119:156). The putting forth of His wrath is spoken of
as His "strange work" (Isa. 28:21). "Thou art a God ready to pardon, gracious and
merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness" ( eh. 9:17). "He restraineth not His
anger for ever, because He delighteth in mercy" (Mic. 7:18), and most evidently did
the cities of refuge testify to that fact.
Ere passing on from Exodus 21:13, 14, let us also duly attend to the wording of verse
13. It is not "And if a man lie not in wait, but accidentally slay another," but
instead, "And if a man lie not in wait [having no intention to injure his neighbor],
but God deliver him into his hand." In full accord with the uniform teaching of
Holy Writ concerning the Divine superintendence of all events, such a calamity as is
here supposed is not ascribed to "chance" or "ill fortune" (for there is nothing
fortuitous in a world governed by God), but instead is attributed to an act of God—
i.e., the Lord being pleased to take away in that manner the life which He had given.
"Unto God the Lord belong the issues from death" (Ps. 68:20). The gates of the
grave open unto none except at the command of the Most High, and when He gives
the word none can withstand it. "My times [to be born and to die: Ecclesiastes 3:2]
are in Thy hand" (Ps. 31:15), and not in my own. "Seeing his days are determined,
the number of his months are with Thee, Thou hast appointed his bounds that he
cannot pass" (Job 14:5). ot only is the hour of death Divinely decreed, but the
form in which it comes. "Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him" (John
10:31), but in vain, for God had ordained that He should be crucified. o matter in
what manner death comes, it is the Lord who kills and "bringeth down to the
grave" (1 Sam. 2:6).

43. "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" ( um. 35:9-11). That which is mentioned in
Exodus 21 had reference to God’s merciful provision for Israel during the time they
remained in the wilderness. There was, even then, "a place" appointed by the Lord
to which the manslayer might turn for sanctuary. We are not told where that place
was. Some of the ancient Jewish writers suppose that it was located "outside the
camp," but, since all the cities of refuge were cities which pertained to the Levites,
we consider it more in keeping with the Analogy of Faith to conclude that the
"place" was within that part of the camp assigned to the priests. That temporal
provision wag to give way to a more permanent arrangement after the children of
Israel became settled in their inheritance.
"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" ( um. 35:13, 14). Two and a half of the
tribes, namely the children of Gad, the children of Reuben, and half the tribe of
Manasseh, had been assigned their place and portion on the eastern side of the
Jordan ( um. 32:33), in the fertile valley which had been occupied by Sihon king of
the Amorites and Og king of Bashan, who, refusing Israel’s request to pass through
that country, had been slain in battle and their territory seized by the conquerors
( um. 21:21-31). The remaining three were to be situated in convenient sections in
Palestine, where they would be accessible at short notice unto those who might have
need of the same. or was their use restricted to those who were of the natural seed
of Abraham: "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" (v. 15). Thus, even under the Mosaic economy,
Divine mercy was extended unto those who threw in their lot with the people of
God!
In the verses that follow various cases are described in detail, so that there might be
no miscarriage of justice when the magistrates were adjudicating thereon: "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 [or "and"] 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" (vv. 17-21). Thus those cities of refuge were
not meant to afford shelter for murderers as such. Therein they differed noticeably
from the sacred precincts of the heathen gods, which provided a safe asylum for any
violent or wicked man. The Divine statute insisted on the sanctity of life and the

44. inflexible maintenance of righteousness.
Equally express were the instructions on the other side. "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" (vv. 22-25). Shelter and security were provided only for
one who had brought about the death of another without deliberate design, yea,
with no intention of inflicting any injury upon him. Murder, strictly speaking,
involves more than the overt act: it includes the spirit behind the act, the motive
prompting it. If the act be performed "without enmity" and with no desire to harm
another, then it is a case of involuntary manslaughter and not of murder.
To prevent any guilty one taking advantage of this provision for the innocent, the
accused must "stand before the congregation in judgment" ( um. 35:12): that is, he
was to be brought before a court of justice, where the magistrates were to give him a
fair trial. Full and formal investigation was to be made, so that the accused had
every opportunity to prove his innocence. "Then the congregation shall judge
between the slayer and the revenger of blood according to these judgments." Once
the manslayer had been received into the city of refuge, the avenger of blood could
act only as prosecutor (previously he had the right to be the executioner—v. 19), and
his case had to be determined by the rules God had specified. If it were proved that
death had ensued where no malicious attempt upon life had been made, but, instead,
the injury had been inflicted casually, "unawares," then the death penalty was not
to be visited upon him.
It is highly important in the administration of law that that no innocent person
should be made to suffer, and equally so that the guilty should not be exempted
from the due reward of his iniquities. In the case of murder, the Divine law required
proof of previous malice, a laying in wait to slay the victim, deliberate measures
taken to encompass his death, an assault with some weapon of violence to
accomplish the fell deed. "Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to
death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person
to cause him to die. Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer,
which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death" ( um. 35:30, 31).
Thereby did the Lord manifest His abhorrence of this crime: no atoning sacrifice
was available for it, nor could any ransom be accepted for its perpetrator. Justice
must be administered impartially, the law strictly enforced without fear or favor.
Very solemn and impressive is it to note what follows.
"So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and
the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him
that shed it. Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for

45. I the Lord dwell among the children of Israel" ( um. 35:33, 34). Such shedding of
blood not only defiles the conscience of the murderer, who is thereby proved not to
have eternal life abiding in him (1 John 3:15), but also pollutes the land in which the
crime was committed, being abominable to God and to all good men. or can that
land be cleansed from the blood of murder but by executing condign judgment upon
the murderer himself. Thus we are informed that there was far more involved in the
enforcing of these statutes than the maintenance of righteousness between man and
man. As another has pointed out, "the glory of God, the purity of His land, and the
integrity of His government, had to be duly maintained. If those were touched, there
could be no security for anyone."
The same things are taught, substantially, in the ew Testament, particularly in
Romans 13:1-4. There the civil ruler or magistrate is twice denominated "the
minister of God": first, in protecting the law-abiding; second, in penalizing the law-
defiant. He is Divinely appointed to maintain civic righteousness, for if the restraints
of government be removed, a state of anarchy and bedlam at once ensues. The
"sword" is the symbol of the ultimate power of life and death (Gen. 3:24; Zechariah
13:7), and the "he beareth not the sword in vain" signifies that God has invested
him with the authority to inflict capital punishment—the common method of which
in olden times was by decapitating with the sword. It is an essential part of the
governor’s office to be "a revenger, to execute [God’s] wrath upon him that doeth
evil." othing is said about its being his duty to reform criminals, rather is it his
business to redress wrongs and to instill fear into those who contemplate doing
wrong. Romans 13:1-4, is silent upon any efforts being required to reclaim the
refractory, the emphasis being placed upon his alarming them and imposing the full
penalty of the law: compare 1 Peter 2:14. It is a sure sign of a nation’s moral
degeneracy, and a dishonoring and incurring of God’s displeasure, when capital
punishment is abolished, or magistrates become lax and yield to sentimentality.
Reverting to the case of the one who is not guilty of deliberate murder, there are
four other details which require to be noticed. First, when one unintentionally killed
a neighbor, there must usually have been in such cases a culpable degree of
carelessness, and therefore, though his life was spared, his freedom was curtailed.
Second, accordingly he was required to leave his home and family, and take up
residence in the city of refuge. Third, if he forsook that city, he forfeited legal
protection, and then, should the revenger of blood find him without its borders, he
was entitled to kill him ( um. 35:27). Fourth, it was required that he remain within
the city of refuge until the death of the high priest, and then he was free to return to
his home and reside there unmolested (v. 28). By limiting the time of his banishment
by the high priest’s death, honor was put upon the priesthood—as it had been in
selecting those cities, for they all belonged to the Levites. "The high priest was to be
looked upon as so great a blessing to his country, that when he died their sorrow
upon that occasion should swallow up all other resentments" (Matthew Henry).
Further reference is made to our subject in Deuteronomy 4:41-43, wherein we see
illustrated the law of progressive development. First, bare mention of an unspecified
"place" is referred to (Ex. 21:13). ext, instructions are given for the appointing of

46. six cities of refuge, without stating more than that three of them are to be on the
wilderness side of the Jordan, and three within Canaan ( um. 35:14, 15). Then the
first three are actually named (Deut. 4:43), while in Joshua 20:7, 8, the locations of
all six are given. In Deuteronomy 19, more definite instructions were communicated
as to the precise situations of those cities; the land was to be divided into three parts,
so that one of them would be the more readily accessible for those in any particular
section (vv. 2, 3). A "way" which led to each city was to be prepared (v. 3) so as to
guide the fugitive who was fleeing unto it. Joshua 20:4, supplies the additional
information that when the manslayer arrived at the gate of the city of refuge he
received a preliminary hearing from the elders ere he was admitted, which was
followed by a fuller and more formal investigation of his case in a court of justice (v.
6).
In his comments upon umbers 35, T. Scott well remarked, "This remarkable law,
expressive of the deepest detestation of murder, yet providing most effectually
against the innocent being punished with the guilty, is likewise an instructive typical
representation of the salvation of the Gospel. ‘The wrath of God is revealed from
heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men (Rom. 1:18). If it is
appointed unto men once to die, and after death the judgment, with the eternal
consequences, in the meanwhile a Refuge is provided and revealed in Christ Jesus.
His ministers warn sinners to flee from the wrath to come, and instruct and exhort
them to ‘flee for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before them.’ All things are
prepared for the reception of those who obey this call. By faith they discern both
their danger and refuge. Then fear warns and hope animates. Should death, like the
avenger of blood, find them without, destruction is inevitable." The fact that the
cities of refuge are described at more or less length in no fewer than four of the Old
Testament books—Exodus, umbers, Deuteronomy and Joshua—denotes the
importance of them, as well as adumbrating the delineation which we have of the
antitypical Refuge in the four Gospels.
When we bear in mind how much the Holy Spirit delighted in shadowing forth the
Lord Jesus under the Old Testament, in type and figure, and when we observe how
closely and strikingly the various things said of the cities of refuge point to the
Savior, we must conclude that they were Divinely designed to foreshadow Him. In
seeking to understand and interpret the types, two dangers need to be guarded
against: first, the giving way to an unbridled imagination; second, ultra-caution and
conservatism. On the one hand, we must not indulge in the fanciful allegorizing of
Oregon; on the other, we must eschew the rationalizing of the Higher Critics. In the
past, too many have been chargeable with the first: but today, when the Divine
element is either denied or pushed into the background, the pendulum has swung to
the opposite extreme. To assume that we are unwarranted in regarding anything in
the Old Testament as possessing a spiritual significance unless the ew Testament
expressly says so is as unjustifiable as to insist that there are no prophecies there
except those specifically termed such in the ew Testament—for instance, Genesis
3:15.
Concerning the subject now before us there are, in the judgment of this writer, at

47. least two passages in the Epistles which confirm the view that the cities of refuge are
to be regarded as having a spiritual meaning and reference. The first is in
Philippians 3:9, where the apostle, after announcing and then renouncing all his
natural advantages as a Hebrew, counting them but loss for the excellency of the
knowledge of Christ Jesus his Lord, expresses the desire that he might be "found in
Him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is
through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." There the
proud Pharisee forsook his own righteousness, which was condemned by the law—
as the manslayer fled from the avenger of blood—and he betook himself to the
righteousness of Christ as the homicide did within the city of refuge from the sword
of justice. The second passage is a still more manifest allusion to this Old Testament
figure, for there the heirs of promise are assured that God has provided strong
consolation unto those who have "fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set
before us" (Heb. 6:18), i.e. in the Gospel: reminding us of the prayer of David,
"Deliver me, O Lord, from mine enemies: I flee unto Thee to hide me" (Ps. 143:9)
The manslayer is an apt representation of the sinner, who is a soul-slayer: "thou
hast destroyed thyself" (Hos. 13:9). But more particularly: he sets before us the
awakened sinner. Previously, the man had lived in quietness and comfort, but when
he slew another, though unintentionally, his peace was shattered. Everything was
suddenly changed: there was danger without, and fear within. He now discovered
himself to be in a very evil case. There lies the body of another, dead by his own
carelessness. Who can conceive the distress and dismay which overwhelm his mind?
He knows that the next of kin has the right to take vengeance and slay him. He is no
longer safe in his own home; he is unable to find security in any building of his own
hands; he must perforce flee for his life. Thus it is with the unconverted. In his
natural condition, a false serenity is his, and he finds contentment in the things of
this world and the pleasures of sin. Then, unawares, the Holy Spirit arouses him
from the sleep of spiritual death, convicts him of sin, makes him realize that the
wrath of God is upon hint, and his soul exposed to eternal death. Oh, what
unspeakable anguish is his as he now realizes himself to be a rebel against the Most
High, lost and undone.
Intolerable dread now fills him as the fire of hell is felt in his spirit and the undying
worm gnaws at his conscience. What must I do? How shall I escape? are his urgent
inquiries. Proud reason can furnish no answer. His outlook appears to be hopeless,
his case beyond the reach of mercy. ow it is that the message of the Gospel receives
welcome attention. He has heard it, perhaps, many times before, but without any
personal interest or deep concern. So with the manslayer. Hitherto he gave little or
no thought at all to what he had read or heard about the cities of refuge: having no
need of them, they possessed no special interest for him. But matters are very
different with him now. Having become a homicide, those places become of the
utmost importance in his esteem, and he is greatly relieved by the knowledge that a
merciful provision has been made with God to meet his desperate case, that shelter
is available from the avenger. Thus it is with the sinner. He may be informed about,
God’s way of salvation, but he never sets his heart upon it, labors to understand it
clearly, and appropriate it unto his own deep need, until he is made sensible of his

48. ruined condition.
"Men do not flee for refuge when they are in no distress. The vessel puts not into the
harbor of refuge when winds and waves all favor her. A man does not escape out of
a city, like Lot from Sodom, unless he be persuaded that the city is to be destroyed,
and that he is likely to perish in it. Ah! Indeed, we who are saved confess with
gratitude to Him that has delivered us that we were once in danger. In danger, my
brethren; is the word strong enough? In danger of eternal burnings! It was worse
than that, for we are brands plucked out of the fire; we already burned with that
fire of sin, which is the fire of hell" (Spurgeon). It is one thing to be in deadly
danger—as are all who lie under the condemnation and curse of God’s broken
law—but it is quite another to have a feeling sense of the same in our souls. A man is
satisfied with his condition until he sees his vileness in the light of God’s holiness. He
has a good opinion of his own character and righteousness until his eyes be Divinely
opened to perceive that he is a moral leper. He is self-complacent and self-confident
until he is given a terrifying sense of the wrath of God pursuing him for his sins, and
that there is but a step between him and eternal death.
But mark it well, my reader: it is not sufficient for the manslayer to recognize his
peril, nor to have the knowledge that God has provided relief for him: he must flee
to the city of refuge and personally avail himself of its shelter. ot until he actually
passed within the portals of that sanctuary was he safe from the avenger of blood.
His case was so desperate that it admitted of no delay. If he valued his life he must
flee in haste. A dilatory and trifling spirit would evince that he had no real sense of
his peril. So it is with the sinner. o matter how deep or long-protracted be his
convictions, until he really betakes himself to Christ and closes with His gracious
offer he is a lost soul. He is either under the wrath of God or under the atoning
blood of Christ. There is no middle place between the two. He is this very day
"condemned already" (John 3:18), waiting for execution, or he is absolved, so that
vengeance cannot strike him. As it was something more than a momentary alarm,
which could easily be shaken off, that seized the manslayer—deepening in its
intensity the more he pondered it so something more than a temporary fright that
soon passes away is required to make the sinner come to Christ.
"The manslayer left his house, his wife, his children, everything, to flee away to the
city of refuge. That is just what a man does when he resolves to be saved by grace:
he leaves everything he calls his own, renounces all the rights and privileges which
he thought he possessed by nature; yea, he confesses to having lost his own natural
right to live, and he flees for life to the grace of God in Christ Jesus. The manslayer
had no right to live except that he was in the city of refuge, no right to anything
except that he was God’s guest within those enclosing walls. And so we relinquish,
heartily and thoroughly, once and forever, all ideas arising out of our supposed
merits; we hasten away from self that Christ may be all in all to us. Fleeing for
refuge implies that a man flees from his sin. He sees it and repents of it" (Spurgeon).
There has to be a complete break from the old self-pleasing life. Sin must be made
bitter before Christ will be sweet. Fleeing for refuge implies earnestness, for the
manslayer dared not dawdle or saunter: he ran for his life. It implied unwearied

49. diligence, so that he loitered not till shelter and safety were reached.
It is just at this point that the convicted sinner needs to be most careful. When Satan
cannot prevail with a person to reject wholly the imperative duty of his fleeing to
Christ, his next attempt for the ruination of his soul is to prevail with him at least to
put off the performing of it. Many who have been shaken from their unconcern are
easily persuaded to defer a wholehearted seeking of Christ until they have taken
their fill of the things of this world, until they are warned by serious illness or the
infirmities of old age that soon they must leave it, hoping that a season of repentance
will be given them before they die. But such postponing shows they are unwilling to
repent and believe until they be forced by necessity, and that they prefer the world
to Christ. Thus they unfit themselves more and more for this urgent duty by
continuing in sin and wasting the time which is now theirs. Others persuade
themselves they are not yet sufficiently convicted of sin, and must wait till God
assures them more fully that the Gospel is suited to their case; and thus those who
are wrongly termed "seekers" misspend their day of grace.
It is quite evident from what has been before us that in this type there is an
enforcing of the sinner’s responsibility. A merciful provision had been made to meet
the dire need of the homicide, yet he was required to exert himself in order to
benefit thereby. The city of refuge was graciously available for him, but he must flee
thither and enter it if he would be safe. If under any pretext he failed to do so, and
was slain by the next of kin, his blood was upon his own head. As another has stud,
"It is not at all likely that anyone would be so blind or so infatuated as to fold his
arms in cold indifference and say, If I am fated to escape, I shall escape: my efforts
are not needed; for if I am not fated to escape, I cannot escape, my efforts are of no
use. We cannot fancy a manslayer using such silly language, or being guilty of such
blind fatuity as this. He knows too well that if the avenger could but lay his hand
upon him all such notions would be of small account. There was but one thing to be
done, and that was to escape for his life—to flee from impending judgment, to find
his safe abode within the gates of the city of refuge."
The cities of refuge were a manifest type of Christ as He is presented and offered to
sinners in the Gospel.
1. They were appointed by God Himself. They were not of man’s devising, as the
Gospel is no human invention. They were an expression of the Divine mercy: and
how rich the grace thus evidenced, for it provided not merely one, but no less than
six, of these cities! They anticipated the urgent situation. The Lord did not wait until
an Israelite had unwittingly slain one of his fellows, and then arrange for his
deliverance from the sword of justice. o, He is ever beforehand in supplying what
we lack. Those cities were available ere they were made use of. In like manner,
God’s appointing of Christ to be the Savior of sinners was no afterthought to meet
an unlooked-for emergency: in the Divine purpose and plan Christ was the Lamb
"slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8).
2. Those cities were given to provide shelter from the avenger. That was the

50. outstanding feature in this lovely evangelical picture. Sought by one who was
determined to execute judgment upon him, the manslayer turned unto this haven of
peace. To attempt to brazen things out was futile: equally so is it for the sinner to
imagine he can successfully defy Him whose justice is even now pursuing him. Thus
there was no other alternative but death. In like manner " either is there salvation
in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby
we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). To delay was madness: "he shall flee unto one of
those cities, and live" (Deut. 19:5) was the peremptory requirement. It was
dangerous for Lot to linger in Sodom, lest fire and brimstone destroy him (Gen.
19:17). So God bids us, "Today if ye will hear His voice, harden not your hearts"
(Heb. 3:7, 8).
3. Those cities were placed on an eminence, being built upon hills or mountains, as
several of their names and the locations of others plainly intimate. This made them
the more readily seen and kept in sight by those who were fleeing to the same. As
such they blessedly prefigured Him whom "God exalted with His right hand to be a
Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins" (Acts
5:31). So too when the Gospel is faithfully preached the antitypical Refuge is held
forth, so that it may be said of the hearers, "before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath
been evidently [plainly] set forth" (Gal. 3:1). For the same reason, the ministers of
Christ who lift Him before their congregations are likened to "a city that is set on an
hill" (Matthew 5:14).
4. The road to the city was plainly marked out. "Thou shalt prepare thee a way . . .
that every slayer may flee thither (Deut. 19:3). Jewish writers say it was a law in
Israel that one day in every year there were persons sent to repair the roads leading
to them, to remove all stumbling-stones which might by time have fallen in the way,
and to see also that the signposts which were set up at every corner leading to the
city were carefully preserved, and the name Miklac (that is, refuge) legible upon
them. Whether or not that was the case, certain it is that in the Gospel God has fully
and plainly made known the way of salvation, so that "wayfaring men, though fools,
shall not err therein" (Isa. 35:8). See also Romans 10:6-8.
5. They were easy of access. Those cities were so situated that when a person had
need of such, one was near at hand. Express instructions were given that they were
to be "in the midst of the land" (Deut. 19:2, 3), and not in remote corners which had
been difficult to approach. The land had to be divided "into three parts," one city of
refuge in each, so that it could be reached within a single day’s journey, no matter
where the manslayer resided—what a touching proof of God’s tender mercy!
Everything was done to facilitate the homicide’s escape. The application is obvious:
"The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart" (Ps. 34:18). Unto such He
says, "My righteousness is near" (Isa. 51:5). The way to Christ is short: it is but a
simple renunciation of self and a laying hold of Him to be our all in all.
6. The city of refuge provided protection only for the homicide from the revenger of
blood. The deliberate murderer was excluded, to teach us that there is no salvation
in Christ for presumptuous sinners who still go on deliberately in their trespasses.

51. Those who persist in willful sin, and continue to defy God and trample upon His
law, bar themselves from His mercy. There is no shelter in a holy Christ for those
who are in love with sin, but unto those that flee to Him from their sins there is
"plenteous redemption." In Christ the penitent and believing sinner is secure from
the curse of the broken law and the wrath of God, for the Lord Jesus endured them
in his stead. In Christ he is safe also from the fury of a raging Devil and is delivered
from the accusations of a guilty conscience.
7. evertheless, the one who took refuge in that city had to remain there. If he was
foolish enough at any time to forsake its bounds, the revenger of blood had the right
to slay him ( um. 35:26, 27). As it was his duty to flee into it, so he was obliged to
continue therein. That imports the responsibility of the believer to make use of
Christ not only at the time of his conversion, but all through his life. There is as
much emphasis placed upon our abiding in Christ as there is upon our coming to
Him (John 8:31; Colossians 1:23; Hebrews 3:6, 14; 1 John 2:28).
8. They were available for Gentiles as well as Jews ( um. 35:15). How thankful we
should be that "there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same
Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon Him" (Rom. 10:12).
4 When they flee to one of these cities, they are to
stand in the entrance of the city gate and state
their case before the elders of that city. Then the
elders are to admit the fugitive into their city and
provide a place to live among them.
BAR ES, "As soon as the manslayer presented himself at the city of refuge, the
elders of the city were to hold an inquiry, and receive him provisionally into the city.
Afterward, when the avenger of blood should have tracked his victim to the city, and
appear to claim him, a more formal and thorough investigation Jos_20:6 was to be
made. Consult the marginal references.
GILL, "And when he that doth flee unto one of those cities,.... Any one of them,

52. that was nearest to him:
shall stand at the entering of the gate of the city; for he might not rush in without
leave:
and shall declare his cause in the ears of the elders of that city; lay before them
the whole matter, how that he had killed a person unawares, by what means it came
about, and that it was merely through error, without any malicious design, and was a
mere accident:
they shall take him into the city unto them; directly, lest the avenger of blood
should come and seize on him, and kill him; and they were to take him into the city, not
only to prevent that, but to examine him still more closely about the matter, and get
further satisfaction; and being satisfied, were to continue him in it:
and give him a place, that he might dwell among them; until his death, or the
death of the high priest, if that was first. Kimchi observes from their Rabbins, the he was
not to hire a house all the time of his dwelling there, but was to have one freely, because
it is said, "and give him", &c.
JAMISO , "he that doth flee unto one of those cities shall stand at the
entering of the gate of the city — It was the place of public resort, and on arriving
there he related his tale of distress to the elders, who were bound to give him shelter and
the means of support, until the local authorities (Jos_20:6), having carefully
investigated the case, should have pronounced the decision. If found guilty, the
manslayer was surrendered to the blood-avenger; if extenuating circumstances
appeared, he was to remain in the city of refuge, where he would be safe from the
vindictive feelings of his pursuers; but he forfeited the privilege of immunity the
moment he ventured beyond the walls.
BE SO , "Joshua 20:4. The gate — Where the judges used to sit. His cause —
Shall give them a true relation of the fact, and all its circumstances. They shall take
him — If they are satisfied in the relation he makes concerning the fact, otherwise it
had been a vain thing to examine. Give a place — Which they might well allow him,
because God gave them the city with a reservation for such persons.
WHEDO , "4. Gate of the city — The tribunal of justice, the forum, was at the city
gate. The refugee was not kept out of the city till his innocence was proved, but he
was permitted to enter, and to relate his cause, and to receive the protection of the
city, for this is the meaning of the clause, they shall take him into the city unto them.
He must at the earliest possible moment be recognized as a fugitive, or the purpose
of his flight may be defeated. This recognition he is entitled to have till his case can
be examined by the local authorities. The Rabbins relate how every possible facility
was to be afforded to the refugee. “The roads to these cities were to be kept in good
repair; no hillock was left, no river nor stream was allowed over which there was
not a bridge; the road was to be at least thirty-two cubits broad, (three rods,) and
every kind of obstruction was to be removed that might hurt the foot or hinder the
speed of the fugitive. At every turning or branching of roads posts were erected
bearing the words, REFUGE! REFUGE! to guide the fugitive in his flight; so benign

53. and considerate was the provision made for the benefit of the accidental slayer of his
fellow-man.” — Bush. Infinitely greater pains has God taken to lead guilty souls to
the refuge of the atoning blood of Jesus Christ. He has opened this refuge, built a
highway to it from every human soul, sent his Spirit to enlighten every eye, and his
heralds to cry in every ear, “This is the way; walk ye therein.” This way is not for
the innocent but for the guilty.
PETT, "Verse 4
‘And he shall flee to one of those cities, and shall stand at the entering of the gate of
the city and declare his cause in the ears of the elders of that city, and they shall take
him into the city to them, and give him a place, that he might dwell among them.’
The man seeking refuge would come to the gate of the city. It was in the square just
inside the gate that all official public activity took place for it was the public meeting
place. There the elders of the city would hear his case, and if they were satisfied that
the man appeared innocent of deliberate murder, they would allow him in to take
refuge there, and provide somewhere for him to live. It would appear that houses
were assigned in such cities for such occasions.
The ‘elders of the city’ were the ruling men of the city who were also responsible for
justice. They were usually, although not always, older men. They were always men
of recognised status.
“They shall take him into the city to them.” The verb is used of a wife being taken
into a home (2 Samuel 11:27), and a forsaken child being taken in by God (Psalms
27:10). It contains an element of welcome and protection.
TRAPP, "Joshua 20:4 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.
Ver. 4. And when he that doth flee unto one of these cities.] Which were to be cities
of Levites, who were presumed to be both wise and merciful men, and such as would
not favour wilful offenders. These cities also were to be at a just distance, that the
party might repair thereunto from all parts in due time. And lastly, a way thereunto
was to be paved, and marks of direction set up, as some note from Deuteronomy
19:2-3.
They shall take him into the city unto them.] God’s laws are not as Draco’s, that
punished every peccadillo almost with death; and were, therefore, said to be written
not with black but with blood. Howbeit that saying of King James is memorable,
that if God did allow him to kill a man, though by casualty or beside his intention,
he should think that God did not love him.

54. 5 If the avenger of blood comes in pursuit, the
elders must not surrender the fugitive, because
the fugitive killed their neighbor unintentionally
and without malice aforethought.
GILL, "And if the avenger of blood pursue after him,.... To the city of refuge,
whither he is fled, and demand him:
then they shall not deliver the slayer up into his hands; to be slain by him, but
shall protect him:
because he smote his neighbour unwittingly, and hated him not beforetime;
See Gill on Num_35:22; see Gill on Num_35:23, and See Gill on Deu_19:6.
PETT, "Verse 5
‘And if the avenger of blood pursue after him, then they shall not deliver the
manslayer up into his hand, because he smote his neighbour unwittingly, and did
not hate him beforehand.’
The man who escapes to a city of refuge and claims innocency of intent must be
protected until tried and only handed over to the avenger of blood if found guilty.
TRAPP, "Joshua 20:5 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.
Ver. 5. And if the avenger of blood pursue after him.] Sanguinem pro interfecto
posuit, saith Vatablus. If he in the heat of revenge, without taking leisure to consider
the fault as well as the fact, and the degree of it, &c., for all faults are not equal, as
the Stoics hold, neither are they to be alike punished. If the guilt of an evil
conscience pursue after us, as it will, let us run to Christ our rock of refuge, our
sanctuary of safety, and none shall be able to take us out of his hands: he and the
Father are one. [John 10:30]
PULPIT, "Joshua 20:5
And if. Or, "and when." Deliver. Literally, cause to shut up ( συγκλείσουσι, LXX),
implying the completeness of the deliverance, from which no escape was possible.

55. 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.
6 They are to stay in that city until they have
stood trial before the assembly and until the death
of the high priest who is serving at that time. Then
they may go back to their own home in the town
from which they fled.”
GILL, "And he shall dwell in that city until he shall stand before the
congregation for judgment,.... That is, until his cause was heard in the court of
judicature in his own city, or in any other to which the avenger of blood should appeal:
see Num_35:24; who if they found him guilty of death, they put him to death; but if only
guilty of accidental manslaughter, then they delivered him up to his city of refuge for
safety, where he was to abide
until the death of the high priest that shall be in those days; see Num_35:25,
then shall the slayer return, and come unto his own city, and unto his own
house, unto the city from whence he fled; and live with his family in the
enjoyment of his possessions and estates, honours, and privileges belonging to him, as
before; see Num_35:28.
JAMISO , "until the death of the high priest — His death secured the complete
deliverance of the manslayer from his sin, only because he had been anointed with the
holy oil (Num_35:25), the symbol of the Holy Ghost; and thus the death of the earthly
high priest became a type of that of the heavenly one (Heb_9:14, Heb_9:15).
PETT, "Verse 6
‘And he shall dwell in that city until he stand before the congregation for judgment,
until the death of the high priest that shall be in those days. Then shall the slayer
return, and come to his own city, and to his own house, to the city from where he

56. fled.’
The manslayer must eventually be tried. If found guilty of deliberate murder he is to
be handed over to those who seek blood vengeance. If innocent he is to be allowed to
remain in the city of refuge. But the death of the high priest finally provides for his
release. On the death of the high priest his innocent manslaying is in some way
expiated and blood vengeance must no longer be required. Such blood vengeance
would then itself be looked on as murder. This suggests that the high priest is in
some way seen as representing the whole of the people, and his death is therefore
seen as substitutionary on their behalf in respect of non-deliberate sin.
Stand before the congregation.’ This suggests that their judgment is seen as carried
out before all the people on whose behalf the elders act. Perhaps final ratification of
the verdict was required by all the men of the city in such a case. Or it may even
suggest that a final verdict was obtained at the Tabernacle at the great feasts when
such a man was brought before YHWH for a final verdict.
“High priest.” The priest at the Tabernacle is usually called ‘the Priest’. High priest
occurs in umbers 35:25; umbers 35:28; Leviticus 21:10. It was possibly at this
stage not an official title but indicated the recognised leading priest at the sanctuary.
He was the representative of the people and wore the holy garments. Such an official
was also common in the surrounding nations so that there are no grounds for
denying its authenticity here. His death was clearly seen as a hugely important
event, even a sacrificial event, resulting in a general expiation for non-deliberate sin.
PI K, "9. It was the death of the high priest which secured full and final
deliverance (Josh. 20:6). It is indeed striking to observe how the procuring cause of
the believer’s redemption was prefigured in this many-sided type, though some
expositors experience a self-created difficulty in connection therewith. All the days
that Israel’s high priest lived and the manslayer abode within the city, no
condemnation could come upon him; and since the Christian’s High Priest is "alive
for evermore," they are eternally secure. Still, it was upon the death of Aaron or his
successor that the homicide was made free, as we owe our emancipation to the death
of Christ—thus the double figure of the city (safety) and the high priest’s death
(propitiation) was necessary to set forth both aspects, as were the two goats of
Leviticus 16:7, 8. There may also be a designed dispensational hint here: saints were
saved of old, but not until the death of Christ was the full liberty of son-ship enjoyed
(Gal. 4:1-7).
BE SO , "Joshua 20:6. Stand — Which was the posture of the accused and
accusers. The congregation — The council appointed to judge of these matters, not
the council of the city of refuge, for they had examined him before, (Joshua 20:4,)
but of the city to which he belonged, or in or nigh which the fact was committed, as
appears from umbers 35:25.
WHEDO , "6. Until he stand before the congregation — The local authorities shall
summon him and the Goel to appear before them for a judicial inquest and verdict.
The congregation or jury was to hear both sides, and to decide whether the deed

57. proceeded from malice or was accidental. If he was condemned he was to be
executed; but if he was acquitted he was not set at liberty, but was sent back to live
in the refuge till the death of the High Priest. Here we see the superiority of this
system of protection over the pagan asylum of the altar, in the temple of some god,
which shielded the guilty and the innocent alike.
Until the death of the high priest — This does not mean that the death of the High
Priest takes place at the same time with the summons to trial. The only occasions on
which an innocent manslayer may leave the refuge are, 1st, temporarily, for a trial
where the manslaying occurred; and 2d, permanently, at the death of the High
Priest.
Why should he be released when the High Priest dies? Probably because he was
anointed as the representative and mediator of the people, who alone was able to
offer annual expiation for the whole people. His death, therefore, may be regarded
as an atonement prefiguring the death of our heavenly High Priest, who through the
eternal Spirit offered himself without spot unto God. Hebrews 9:14-15.
TRAPP, "Joshua 20:6 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.
Ver. 6. Until he stand before the congregation for judgment.] Until his cause be
tried, and the truth bolted out, that he may be cleared or doomed by the judges,
with the assent of the people, whose voice should be Currat lex, fiat iustitia, ruat
orbis.
Until the death of the high priest.] So long he shall live; in exile howsoever, because
he should have looked better to it, there having been some heedlessness in the
business. Besides, the high priest was amongst men the chief god upon earth, and so
the offence did chiefly strike against him: lest, therefore, such an offender should
happen to come into his presence, he might not be at liberty till the high priest’s
death. Philo saith that the high priest was not to behold at any time any mournful
object. Similarly among the Romans, Tiberius, counterfeiting grief for the death of
Drusus, had a veil laid betwixt the dead and him at the funeral, that he might not
see the body; because, forsooth, the high priest is a sacred thing, and the devil loveth
to be God’s ape. See on umbers 35:25.
PULPIT, "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
umbers 35:24, umbers 35:25. Why the period of the death of the high priest

58. 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 Hebrews
9:14, Hebrews 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 place—see 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 evochim,'
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.
7 So they set apart Kedesh in Galilee in the hill
country of aphtali, Shechem in the hill country
of Ephraim, and Kiriath Arba (that is, Hebron) in
the hill country of Judah.
CLARKE, "They appointed Kedesh in Galilee - The cities of refuge were
distributed through the land at proper distances from each other that they might be
convenient to every part of the land; and it is said they were situated on eminences, that
they might be easily seen at a distance, the roads leading to them being broad, even, and
always kept in good repair. In the concluding note on Num_35:33 it has been stated that
these cities were a type of our blessed Lord, and that the apostle refers to them as such,
Heb_6:17, Heb_6:18. Hence their names have been considered as descriptive of some
character or office of Christ. I shall give each and its signification, and leave the
application to others.

59. 1. ‫קדש‬ Kedesh, from kadash, to separate or set apart, because it implies the
consecration of a person or thing to the worship or service of God alone; hence to
make or be holy, and hence Kedesh, holiness, the full consecration of a person to
God.
2. ‫שכם‬ Shechem, from shacham, to be ready, forward, and diligent; hence Shechem,
the shoulder, because of its readiness to bear burdens, prop up, sustain, etc., and
from this ideal meaning it has the metaphorical one of Government.
3. ‫חברון‬ chebron; Hebron, from ‫חבר‬ chabar, to associate, join, conjoin, unite as
friends; and hence chebron, fellowship, friendly association, or with the diminutive
nun, the little fellow-ship or association.
4. ‫בצר‬ Bezer, from batsar, to restrain, enclose, shut up, or encompass with a wall; and
hence the goods or treasure thus secured, and hence a fortified place, a fortress.
5. ‫ראמות‬ Ramoth, from ‫ראם‬ raam, to be raised, made high or exalted, and hence
Ramoth, high places, eminences.
6. ‫גולן‬ Golan, from ‫גלה‬ galah, to remove, transmigrate, or pass away; hence Golan, a
transmigration or passage. Some derive it from ‫גל‬ gal, to rejoice, hence Golan,
rejoicing or exultation.
A person of the spirit and turn of Origen could preach the whole Gospel from these
particulars. Kedesh and Hebron were at the two extremities of the promised land; one
was in Galilee, the other in the tribe of Judah, both in mountainous countries; and
Shechem was in the tribe of Ephraim, nearly in the middle, between both. Bezer was on
the east side of Jordan, in the plain, opposite to Jericho. Ramoth was about the midst of
the country occupied by the two tribes and a half, about the middle of the mountains of
Gilead. Golan was the capital of a district called Gaulonitis, in the land of Bashan,
towards the southern extremity of the lot of Manasseh.
GILL, "And they appointed Kedesh in Galilee in Mount Naphtali,.... Of which
see Jos_19:37; the appointment of this and the two cities following was made by the
children of Israel at this time:
and Shechem in Mount Ephraim; called Sichem, Gen_12:6; and Shechem from a
prince of that name that possessed it, Gen_34:2; it fell to the lot of the tribe of Ephraim;
its name in the New Testament is Sychar, Joh_4:5; and it is now called Neapolis, or
Naplouse:
and Kirjatharba, which is Hebron, in the mountain of Judah; it stood in the
hill country of Judea, Luk_1:39; of which see Jos_14:15. There seems to be a difficulty
here, since this city was before given to Caleb, Jos_14:13; and yet afterwards given to the
Levites, and appointed a city of refuge. The Jews reconcile this by observing, that the city
and suburbs were given to the Levites, and fixed for a city of refuge; but the villages and
fields, and country around it, and belonging to it, were given to Caleb, Jos_21:12; and
Abarbinel makes no doubt that the children of Judah gave something else to Caleb in

60. lieu of it. As these cities of refuge were typical of Christ, as has been observed on Num_
35:29; their names are applicable to him. "Kedesh" signifies "holy" or "holiness"; Christ
is holy in both his natures, divine and human; and so abundantly qualified to be the
Mediator, Saviour, and Redeemer; and is the fountain of holiness to his people, and is
made sanctification to them, Psa_16:10 1Co_1:30; and "Shechem" signifies the
"shoulder"; and not only the government of the church and people of God is on the
shoulder of Christ, but all their sins have been laid upon him, and bore by him; and
every particular soul in conversion, every lost sheep, is looked up by him, and taken up
and brought home on his shoulder, Isa_9:6 Luk_15:4. "Hebron" signifies "fellowship";
in the effectual calling, the saints are called into fellowship with Christ, and their
fellowship is with the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ; through him they have access to
God, and communion with him now, and shall have uninterrupted communion with him
to all eternity, 1Co_1:9 Joh_17:24.
HE RY 7-9, "We have here the nomination of the cities of refuge in the land of
Canaan, which was made by the advice and authority of Joshua and the princes (Jos_
19:7); and upon occasion of the mention of this is repeated the nomination of the other
three in the lot of the other two tribes and a half, which was made by Moses (Deu_4:43),
but (as bishop Patrick thinks) they had not the privilege till now. 1. They are said to
sanctify these cities, that is the original word for appointed, Jos_19:7. Not that any
ceremony was used to signify the consecration of them, only they did by a public act of
court solemnly declare them cities of refuge, and as such sacred to the honour of God, as
the protector of exposed innocency. If they were sanctuaries, it was proper to say they
were sanctified. Christ, our refuge, was sanctified by his Father; nay, for our sakes he
sanctified himself, Joh_17:19. 2. These cities (as those also on the other side Jordan)
stood in the three several parts of the country, so conveniently that a man might (they
say) in half a day reach some one of them from any corner of the country. Kedesh was in
Naphtali, the most northern tribe, Hebron in Judah, the most southern, and Shechem in
Ephraim, which lay in the middle, about equally distant from the other two. God is a
refuge at hand. 3. They were all Levites' cities, which put an honour upon God's tribe,
making them judges in those cases wherein divine Providence was so nearly concerned,
and protectors to oppressed innocency. It was also a kindness to the poor refugee, that
when he might not go up to the house of the Lord, nor tread his courts, yet he had the
servants of God's house with him, to instruct him, and pray for him, and help to make up
the want of public ordinances. If he must be confined, it shall be to a Levite-city, where
he may, if he will, improve his time. 4. These cities were upon hills to be seen afar off, for
a city on a hill cannot be hid; and this would both direct and encourage the poor
distressed man that was making that way; and, though therefore his way at last was up-
hill, yet this would comfort him, that he would be in his place of safety quickly, and if he
could but get into the suburbs of the city he was well enough off. 5. Some observe a
significancy in the names of these cities with application to Christ our refuge. I delight
not in quibbling upon names, yet am willing to take notice of these. Kedesh signifies
holy, and our refuge is the holy Jesus. Shechem, a shoulder, and the government is upon
his shoulder. Hebron, fellowship, and believers are called into the fellowship of Christ
Jesus our Lord. Bezer, a fortification, for he is a strong-hold to all those that trust in
him. Ramoth, high or exalted, for him hath God exalted with his own right hand. Golan,
joy or exultation, for in him all the saints are justified, and shall glory. Lastly, Besides all
these, the horns of the altar, wherever it was, were a refuge to those who took hold of
them, if the crime were such as that sanctuary allowed. This is implied in that law (Exo_
21:14), that a wilful murderer shall be taken from God's altar to be put to death. And we
find the altar used for this purpose. 1Ki_1:50; 1Ki_2:28. Christ is our altar, who not only

61. sanctifies the gift, but protects the giver.
JAMISO , "Jos_20:7-9. The Israelites appoint by name the cities of refuge.
they appointed ... cities — There were six; three on the west, and three on the east,
of Jordan. In the first instance, they were a provision of the criminal law of the Hebrews,
necessary in the circumstances of that people (see on Num_35:11; see on Deu_19:2). At
the same time they were designed also typically to point out the sinner’s way to Christ
(Heb_6:18).
K&D, "List of the cites: Levitical cities were chosen, for the reasons explained in the
Commentary on the Pentateuch.
Jos_20:7
In the land on this side (viz., Canaan) they sanctified the following cities. In the north,
Kedesh (see at Jos_12:22), in Galil, on the mountains of Naphtali. Galil (a circle) was a
district in the northern part of the subsequent province of Galilee; it is called ‫ם‬ִ‫ּוי‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫יל‬ ִ‫ל‬ְ,
circle of the heathen, in Isa_9:1, because an unusually large number of heathen or
Gentiles were living there. In the centre of the land, Shechem, upon the mountains of
Ephraim (see at Jos_17:7). And in the south, Kirjath-arba, i.e., Hebron, upon the
mountains of Judah (see at Jos_10:3).
CALVI , "7.And they appointed Kedesh, etc The Hebrew word Kedesh here used,
signifies also to fit and consecrate. Accordingly, I interpret, that cities were selected
according as common use required. (174) Hence it is inferred that matters were well
arranged so as to make private yield to public interest. Moreover, we shall see in the
next chapter, that Ciriath-Arbah, which was afterwards called Hebron, was
transferred to the Levites, though it had formerly been the property of Caleb. Hence
appeared the rare, nay, the incomparable moderation of this aged saint, who readily
gave up to others both the city and suburbs, which he had justly claimed as his
right, the moment the lot showed that this was pleasing to God. It was necessary to
advert briefly to this change, because the Lord was pleased that asylums should be
found only in the Levitical cities, that their innocence might be defended with
greater fidelity and authority.
PETT, "Verse 7
‘And they set apart Kedesh in Galilee in the hill country of aphtali, and Shechem
in the hill country of Ephraim, and Kiriatharba, the same is Hebron, in the hill
country of Judah.’
Three cities were set aside (see Deuteronomy 19:2), a complete number, one in each
part of the land. otice that all were in the hill country, a sign of genuineness and
early date, for this was where at that stage the people were mainly settled. They
were all ancient sanctuaries, Kedesh in the north, Shechem more central and
Hebron in the south, which would more impress hot-headed avengers of blood.
Kedesh is described exactly as there were a number of cities called Kedesh. For
Galilee (meaning ‘region, district’) compare 1 Kings 9:11, ‘the land of Galilee’. This
was an ancient name for an area in northern Israel. ‘The hill country of Ephraim’

62. covered the northern part of the central range including Benjamin, Ephraim and
Manasseh, where Shechem was.
These cities of refuge stressed God’s strong concern for justice. Those who were
innocent should be given a chance to prove it and not be subject to mob law and
family vengeance. They were not strictly a type of Christ for Christ is a refuge for
the penitent guilty whereas these were for the innocent. o man will be expelled
from Christ. But they did stress mercy as well as justice.
Kiriath-arba (Hebron) was a city given to Caleb (see on Joshua 14:14-15), but like
the man he was he was clearly willing for it to become a city of refuge, and indeed a
Levitical city (Joshua 21:11). He believed in giving God the very best. ote again the
prominence of the ancient name indicating early date.
The word for ‘set aside’ is ‘sanctified’ (the same root as Kedesh). The cities were set
apart by God for the purposes of justice and mercy (the name of the city may have
influenced the verb used).
TRAPP, "Joshua 20:7 And they appointed Kedesh in Galilee in mount aphtali,
and Shechem in mount Ephraim, and Kirjatharba, which [is] Hebron, in the
mountain of Judah.
Ver. 7. And they appointed Kedesh.] Heb., They sanctified Kedesh; where there is
an elegancy in the Hebrew that cannot be Anglised. These cities of refuge belonged
all to the Levites, who were best able to judge and to interpose betwixt party and
party, both in respect of authority and advice. The priests’ lips were both to
preserve knowledge, and to present it to the people.
And Shechem in mount Ephraim.] All of them in mountains or on plains, that they
might the sooner be seen and more easily repaired unto: so precious in the sight of
the Lord is the death, not of his saints only, though chiefly, but of his reasonable
creatures. He is the preserver of men, and delighteth to show his philanthropy, or
love to all.
COFFMA , "Verse 7
"And they set apart Kedesh in Galilee in the hill-country of aphtali, and Shechem
in the hill-country of Ephraim, and Kiriath-arba (the same is Hebron) in the hill-
country of Judah. And beyond the Jordan at Jericho eastward, they assigned Bezer
in the wilderness in 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 appointed cities for all the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourned
among them, that whosoever killeth any person unwittingly might flee thither, and
not die by the hand of the avenger of blood, until he stood before the congregation."
What Bible student ever failed to memorize the names of these cities of refuge? That
they occupied an important place in the religious and judicial system of the Hebrews

63. cannot be successfully denied. These cities were among the most important in Israel.
They were centrally located. There were definite rules enforced for keeping the
roads open and in repair for access to these cities, and proper directions were placed
in all needed places and intersections to insure the ability of the manslayer to arrive
safely at the nearest city of refuge.
Many of the older commentators, such as Adam Clarke and Matthew Henry also
pointed out that the very names of these cities significantly pointed to the salvation
of sinners:
KEDESH. This name means sanctified, or holy,[4] that being the original meaning
of the word, which later also came to mean "a sanctuary,"[5] or "sacred place."[6]
It was precisely this word that came to mean the sacred female prostitutes of
paganism, the [~qedeshah] and their male counterparts, the [~qedesh]; only, in their
cases, the word is spelled with a "q." Of course, that constituted the illegal and
shameful usurpation of a HOLY word for U HOLY and IMMORAL purposes.
evertheless, in its true meaning it appropriately typifies the "sanctified in Christ,"
the "holy brethren" of the .T.
HEBRO . Several meanings of this word are: community or alliance,[7] league or
confederacy,[8] or fellowship.[9] It is not difficult to see the application of this term
to the community of believers in Christ. Because of its elevation at a height of 3,040
feet above sea level, the highest location of a city in Palestine, it also was an exalted
place, even as God's church is exalted above all other human endeavors.
SHECHEM. The word means "shoulder,"[10] with the typical meaning of burden-
bearer, or the carrier of great responsibility as in Isaiah, "The government shall be
upon his shoulder" (Isaiah 9:6). The burden and responsibility for all forgiven sins
rests upon the shoulder of our Lord. "He carried my sins with him there."[11]
BEZER. This word means "fortress,"[12] a word repeatedly and consistently
applied to the stronghold of Christianity in all ages. "A Mighty Fortress is Our
God," the great Lutheran hymn being a well-known example.
RAMOTH GILEAD. "Ramoth means `heights'."[13] Actually, this meaning
pertained to all of the cities of refuge. They were situated on significant elevations to
assure their visibility to all who sought them. Appropriately enough, the church
herself was called by the Lord Jesus Christ, "A city set upon a hill that cannot be
hidden" (Matthew 5:14). The double name Ramoth Gilead brings into focus the
area noted for its production of a healing balm, known and used everywhere in
antiquity. The spiritual counterpart of this is apparent in the great spiritual song,
"There is a balm in Gilead, that heals the sin-sick soul."
GOLA . There are two names applied to this place: (1) "It means `to remove' or `to
pass away', hence, a `transmigration' or `passage'."[14] It is not hard to see that the
collective meaning of all these terms is "sanctified" or "set apart." Dozens of
references in the .T. to the sanctification of God's people confirm the typical

64. appropriateness of the name of this city of refuge. (2) The other meaning, also
mentioned by Clarke, was stated by Matthew Henry to be "joy or exultation,"[15]
an exceedingly appropriate type of the joy of the Redeemed, who are described thus
by Isaiah:
"The ransomed of Jehovah shall return and come with singing unto Zion; and
everlasting joy shall be upon their heads: they shall obtain gladness and joy, and
sorrow and sighing shall flee away (Isaiah 35:10)."
We conclude this study of the cities of refuge with the following lines selected from a
homily by E. De Pressense:
"The establishment of the cities of refuge is an admiral emblem of the Church. The
Church is a City set upon a hill whose gates stand open day and night to those
whom the law condemns. Only those to whom the Church is open are not exclusively
those who have transgressed unwittingly, as was the case then. All who have broken
the law of God, even with open eyes, may find shelter there, on the one condition
that they enter by the door, of which Jesus said, `I am the door, and no man cometh
unto the Father but by me' (John 10:7)"[16]
or should it be overlooked that the great necessity for the sinful soul-seeking
redemption is that he most certainly should enter. Enter what? Enter Christ, enter
the Church which is his spiritual body. Enter by the door which is Christ, that is, as
Christ has appointed. And how do persons enter him? Turn and read from the Holy
Text itself: Romans 6:3-5; 1 Corinthians 12:13; and Galatians 3:27. The Holy
Scriptures announce no other means of anyone's entering Christ.
PULPIT, "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 (2 Kings 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 aphtali 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 ( umbers 27:21). Thus a special acquaintance with the law (Deuteronomy

65. 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 Joshua 13:2; Joshua 17:17; Joshua 22:10, Joshua 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 aphtali. Such a region of twenty towns is
mentioned in 1 Kings 9:11 (see also Isaiah 8:1-22 :23; or, Isaiah 9:1 in our version).
Kedesh has already been noticed (see also Joshua 2
PI K, "10. The names of these cities (Josh. 20:7, 8) spoke of what the believer has in
Christ. Kadesh signifies "holy," and Jesus Christ, the Holy One of God, is made
unto the believer sanctification as well as righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30)—how deeply
suggestive that this is the first mentioned, that in the Redeemer we have a sanctuary
of holiness. Shechem means "shoulder," which is ‘the place of strength (Isa. 9:7)
and of safety (Luke 15:5)—under the government of Christ the believer finds
security. Hebron means "fellowship," and through Christ His people are brought
into communion with the Father and with the holy angels. Bezer means "a fortified
place" and "The Lord is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble" ( ah. 1:7);
therefore "I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in Him
will I trust" (Ps. 91:2). Ramoth means "height" or "exaltation": in Christ we are
elevated above the world, made to sit in heavenly places (Eph. 2:6). Golan means
"exultation" or "joy," and "we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ"
(Rom. 5:11).
BE SO ,"Joshua 20:7. And they appointed — Concerning these cities, note, 1st, That
they were all upon mountains, that they might be seen at a great distance, and so direct
those who fled thither. 2d, That they were seated at a convenient distance one from
another, for the benefit of the several tribes; for Kedesh was in the north, Hebron in the
south, and Shechem between them. 3d, That they all belonged to the Levites; partly, that
these causes might be more impartially examined and justly determined by them, who
were presumed best able to understand the law of God, and most obliged to follow it, and
not to be biased by any affection or corrupt interest; and partly, that their reputation with
the people, and their good counsels, might lay a restraint upon revengeful persons, who
might be inclined to follow the manslayer thither, and endeavour to kill him there. It was
likewise an advantage to the poor refugee, that when he might not go up to the house of
the Lord, yet he had the servants of God’s house with him, to instruct him, and pray for
him, and help to make up the want of public ordinances.
WHEDON, "7. Appointed — Hebrews, They sanctified; set apart to a sacred use, so that
all the fugitives were impressed with the thought that when within these cities they were
surrounded by the munitions of Jehovah’s especial mercy. None but Levitical cities were
chosen. Since the object of the refuge was distinctly religious, to preserve the land from
blood-guiltiness, it was not proper that a secular city should be chosen. They were very
carefully distributed throughout the whole land. The two and a half tribes east of the
Jordan had as many as the western tribes, because they were scattered over a territory
nearly as large.

66. Kedesh — See on Joshua 12:22.
Shechem — See on Joshua 17:7.
Hebron — Joshua 10:3, note.
8 East of the Jordan (on the other side from
Jericho) they designated Bezer in the wilderness
on the plateau in the tribe of Reuben, Ramoth in
Gilead in the tribe of Gad, and Golan in Bashan
in the tribe of Manasseh.
GILL, "And on the other side Jordan by Jericho eastward,.... In the country
possessed by the tribes of Reuben and Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh:
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; of these places, and the signification of their names,
and of the application of them to Christ, the antitype of the cities of refuge; see Gill on
Deu_4:43. These last cities were not appointed now, they were appointed in the times of
Moses, and severed by him, Deu_4:41; nor are they here said to be appointed, but to be
assigned or "given" (c); they were now delivered up into the hands of the Levites for
cities of refuge, for they were before severed for that use; they were not, according to the
Jews (d), made use of as such, until the other three were appointed.
K&D, "Jos_20:8-9
The cities in the land on the other side had already been appointed by Moses (Deu_
4:41-43). For the sake of completeness, they are mentioned here again: viz., Bezer,
Ramoth in Gilead, and Golan (see at Deu_4:43). The subject is brought to a close in
Jos_20:9. ‫ה‬ ָ‫ד‬ ָ‫וּע‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫י‬ ֵ‫ר‬ ָ‫ע‬ signifies neither urbes congregationis (Kimchi) nor urbes asyli
(Gesenius), but cities of appointment, - those which received the appointment already
given and repeated again in what follows.

67. BE SO ,"Verse 8-9
Joshua 20:8-9. On the other side Jordan they assigned — Or had assigned, or given;
for these cities were assigned by Moses before he died, Deuteronomy 4:41. They
were not, however, properly speaking, invested with the privilege till now, when
they were applied to the use for which Moses had designed them. The stranger —
ot only proselytes, but others also; because this was a matter of common right, that
a distinction should be made between casual man-slayers and wilful murderers.
WHEDO ,"8. By Jericho — Literally, Beyond Jordan, Jericho eastward. The sense
is, the side of Jordan opposite from Jericho. These eastern cities were appointed by
Moses. See at Deuteronomy 4:41-43. On Ramoth, see Joshua 13:26, note. The sites of
the other two cities are now unknown.
PETT, "Verse 8
‘And beyond the Jordan of Jericho eastward, they assigned Bezer in the wilderness,
in the tableland 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.’
Provision for a further three cities was necessary because of the Transjordan tribes.
These additional cities were also provided for in the Law (Deuteronomy 19:9) and
resulted from the fact that Transjordan was additional to the land of promise. Thus
the emphasis on ‘three’ is emphatic depicting essential completeness of provision. By
the time of umbers 35:6 the number was fixed at six because the occupation of
Transjordan was then known. These latter three cities were in fact initially set apart
by Moses (Deuteronomy 4:41-43). The verb ‘assigned’ = ‘given’ may signify the
secondary nature of their choice as an afterthought, or may simply be an alternative
to prevent repetition.
“The Jordan of Jericho eastward.” An unusual designation. It describes the land
eastward of the Jordan. It indicates a time when the Jordan could be defined in
relationship to Jericho which would be prominent in the minds of the earliest
settlers and confirms an early date for the passage (but see 1 Chronicles 6:78 which,
however, probably had this passage in mind. ote the mention of Bezer).
Bezer was in the territory of Reuben on the tableland in the south of Transjordan.
Ramoth was central and Golan to the north. Bezer (see Joshua 21:38) is possibly
Umm el-Amad‘ and is mentioned on the Moabite Stone. Ramoth in Gilead later
features regularly in the conflicts with Syria. It is possibly Tell Ramith. Golan in
Bashan (see Joshua 21:27) is of uncertain location although Sahm el-Jolan, twenty
seven kilometres (seventeen miles) east of the Sea of Chinnereth had been suggested.
The district of Gaulanitis was named after it many centuries later.
TRAPP, "Joshua 20:8 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.
Ver. 8. They assigned Bezer.] That is, They confirmed and ratified them according

68. as Moses had assigned, and set them apart for such a use.
PULPIT, "By Jericho eastward. Or, eastward of Jericho. This, of course, only refers
to Bezer. The plain. The Mishor, or table land (see Joshua 3:16, Joshua 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 position—
corroborations 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 Joshua 13:26, where
it is called Ramoth Mizpeh; also Joshua 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 (2 Kings 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. 1 Chronicles 2:55 with 1:16,
and 1 Chronicles 27:32 with Ezra 7:12, Jeremiah 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.

69. 9 Any of the Israelites or any foreigner residing
among them who killed someone accidentally
could flee to these designated cities and not be
killed by the avenger of blood prior to standing
trial before the assembly.
CLARKE, "For all the children of Israel, and for the stranger - As these
typified the great provision which God was making for the salvation of both Jews and
Gentiles, hence the stranger as well as the Israelite had the same right to the benefits of
these cities of refuge. Is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the
Gentiles?
Until he stood before the congregation - The judges and elders of the people, in
trying civil and criminal causes, always sat; the persons who came for judgment, or who
were tried, always stood; hence the expressions so frequent in Scripture, Standing before
the Lord, the judges, the elders, etc. It is worthy of remark that the cities of refuge were
given to the Levites; see the following chapter, Joshua 21 (note). The sacrificial system
alone afforded refuge; and while the suspected person was excluded from his family, etc.,
he had the advantage of being with those whose business it was to instruct the ignorant,
and comfort the disconsolate. Thus he had the means constantly at hand, by a careful
use of which he might grow wiser and better; secure the favor of his God, and a lot of
blessedness in a better world. How wise, equal, and beneficent are all the institutions of
God!
GILL, "These were the cities appointed for all the children of Israel,.... For
the common use of them all, and not for that tribe only in which they stood:
and for the stranger that sojourneth among them; not only for the proselytes of
righteousness, but for the proselytes of the gate also, as well as for the natives of Israel;
Christ is a refuge for Jews and Gentiles, for all sinners that flee to him:
that whosoever killeth any person unawares might flee thither; and find
shelter and safety:
and not die by the hand of the avenger of blood; getting thither before he could
overtake him:
until he stood before the congregation: either before the congregation, the elders
of the city, or court of judicature in the city of refuge, or before the court of his own city,
from whence he fled, if summone

70. WHEDO , "9. And for the stranger — A fore-shadowing of the provision for the
salvation of the Gentiles through Christ. And not die by the hand of the avenger of
blood. — There was one important condition which must be constantly fulfilled —
the fugitive must not venture beyond the borders of his refuge ( umbers 35:27)
until the death of the High Priest. Thus must the pardoned sinner by faith abide
beneath the shelter of the atoning blood, or be irretrievably lost. Hebrews 6:6. These
safeguards against interminable and bloody feuds are in striking contrast with the
blood-revenge still existing in the East under Mohammedan law. “Two villages have
disputed about a stray goat; there was first tremendous shouting, especially among
the women, urging on their husbands and brothers to fight; then in a moment of
excitement weapons were used, and blood was shed; and blood calls for blood. Thus
every member of the family to the remotest degree is kept in constant dread. He
stalks about, armed, at all hours and in all places — with his goats on the mountain-
side, with his donkey on the road, with his plough in the field; in seed-time and
harvest, summer and winter, heat and cold. Imagination makes the ‘avenger of
blood’ follow him like a shadow, ever watchful for an unguarded moment to fall
upon him. Many a family has this blood-revenge compelled to flee from house and
home, and seek refuge among strangers; many a village it has left desolate, for none
will live where the sentence of death hangs constantly over them. In the Koran this
fearful law is commended: ‘O true believers, the law of retaliation is ordained to you
for the slain; the free shall die for the free.’” — Dr. Porter’s “Syria and Palestine.”
PETT, "Verse 9
‘These were the cities appointed for all the children of Israel, and for the stranger
who sojourns among them, that whoever kills any person unwittingly might flee
there, and not die by the hand of the avenger of blood until he stood before the
congregation.’
The provision was for the sojourner as well as for true Israelite. A sojourner was a
foreigner who came to live among Israel but did not wish to submit to circumcision
and direct response to the covenant. He did not want directly to become an Israelite
and dedicated worshipper of YHWH. His residence was not permanent, he
‘sojourned’. It was always open to him to become an Israelite if he so wished
(Exodus 12:48-49; umbers 9:14), as the mixed multitude had before him (Exodus
12:38).
The sojourner was expected to conform to local customs (Exodus 20:10), was not to
be taken advantage of (Exodus 22:21; Exodus 23:9; Deuteronomy 1:16) and was
commended to the charity of his neighbours (Deuteronomy 24:19; Deuteronomy
26:13), but his children could be made bondmen (Leviticus 25:45) and he could be
lent money at interest (Deuteronomy 20), unlike true Israelites. The law in general
applied to him, especially the law of like for like (Leviticus 24:22). Like Israelites he
was not to offer offerings or sacrifices except at the door of the Tent of Meeting
(Leviticus 17:9).
The point we should note here is the certainty that the avenger of blood would be
pursuing the manslayer to kill him. It was a sacred duty. Thus was provision made

71. to ensure that the innocent received a fair trial. He was, however, necessarily
punished by being confined to the city of refuge until the death of the High Priest.
‘Before the congregation.’ That is he was in some way judged by the whole of Israel,
probably through their representatives, either the city authorities, the tribal
authorities or the priests at the sanctuary before YHWH.
Chapter 21 The Establishment of the Levites Throughout Israel.
This chapter contains the approach of the Levites to the leaders, to have cities and
suburbs given to them in accordance with the command of God by Moses. Grants
were made by lot out of the different tribes, details of which are given. The chapter
is concludes by observing, that God gave Israel all the land of Canaan, and gave
them rest in it, according to his promise, and that nothing failed of all that God had
promised.
We do not know the time scale for all these events. The first conquests had taken
around five to seven years (based on the age of Caleb which was in round numbers -
Joshua 14:10). The further surveying of the land and its division according to the
size of the tribes must then have taken quite some time, and we must leave time for
advancement and settlement, the cutting down of forests, the establishing of the
people in various parts of the land, the reconquest of cities, and the discovery that
while the conquest had been a success, in that it had enabled this settlement, there
remained yet much to be done.
At what stage Joshua 20 and Joshua 21 occurred we are not told. But it is clear that
the central sanctuary was now set up at Shiloh and was regularly visited by the
tribes. We need not doubt that under Joshua the regular feasts were held and the
covenant constantly renewed, with the regular sacrifices being offered. Israel were
becoming established in the land.
TRAPP, "Joshua 20:9 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.
Ver. 9. And for the stranger that sojourneth.] Who dwelt with them for a time, and
were not of the same religion: or such only as were proselyted.
Until he stood before the congregation.] Till, after the death of the high priest, and
the avenger’s wrath qualified, he be restored and re-established in his own house,
under the security of public protection. (a)
PULPIT, "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

72. 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 ‫ִיל‬‫ג‬ or ‫.גוּל‬ But Gesenius derives
it with equal probability from ‫גלה‬ "to make bare," hence to lead into captivity.
COKE,"Ver. 9. These were the cities appointed, &c.— It is to be observed, that the
six cities of refuge were given as a portion to the Levites. See the following chapter.
So that those who were unhappily forced to retire thither, met with persons there
whose authority could screen them from violence, whose wisdom could direct their
proceedings, and whose piety might be useful to them in a variety of instances,
during the stay they were obliged to make there till the death of the high-priest.
REFLECTIO S.—1. The cities of refuge were a common blessing for every
Israelite, whose unhappy lot it might be to need their protection; and therefore it
was every man's interest to have this provision made as soon as they had settled the
division of the land. ote; The Gospel has provided for sinners, in Christ Jesus, a
surer refuge from the avenging wrath of God; the soul that flies thither shall not
only be freed from fear of death, but be refreshed with the consolations of the divine
favour and love. 2. The three cities on the other side Jordan, Bezer, Ramoth, and
Golan, had been appointed by Moses. These on this side Jordan, were Kedesh in
aphtali, Hebron in Judah, and Shechem in Ephraim; and they were so situated, as
to stand at the most convenient distances, that all the tribes might be near one or
other of them. ote; Salvation is near, and Jesus a very present help to all who call
upon him. These were all Levite cities, where, if the poor banished manslayer was
cut off from his friends and relations, he had the best of company, and peculiar
opportunities of spiritual improvement. ote; It will reconcile us to every
providential change of situation, to think more of the mercies we enjoy than of the
comforts we lose. The names of these cities are very significative; Kedesh, holiness;
Shechem, a shoulder; Hebron, fellowship; Bezer, a fortress; Ramoth, high; and
Golan, joy. Thus, in the perfection of our Redeemer's merits, lies the security of the
sinner's hope; on his shoulder the government is laid, so that no enemy can hurt us;
the sweetest communion is that which can be enjoyed through faith in him; his arms
of love are a strong-hold, and his exaltation is the pledge of our own; for he shall
bring all who have fled to him for refuge, and cleave to him, to Zion, with
everlasting joy upon their heads.