Joshua 20 commentary

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

this feeling, or seeking wholly to uproot it, the object of Moses was to place it under
salutary checks, which should prevent it from inflicting gross injustice where no
crime had really been committed. There was something both sacred and salutary in
the relation of the go-el to his nearest of kin. When poverty obliged a man to dispose
of his property, it was the go-el that was bound to intervene and "redeem" the
property. The law served as a check to the cold spirit that is so ready to ask, in
reference to one broken down, "Am I my brother's keeper?" It maintained a
friendly relation between members of families that might otherwise have been
entirely severed from each other. The avenging of blood was regarded as one of the
duties resulting from this relation, and had this part of the duty been rudely or
summarily superseded, the whole relationship, with all the friendly offices which it
involved, might have suffered shipwreck.
3. The course to be followed by the involuntary manslayer was very minutely
prescribed. He was to hurry with all speed to the nearest city of refuge, and stand at
the entering of the gate till the elders assembled, and then to declare his cause in
their ears. If he failed to establish his innocence, he got no protection; but if he made
out his case he was free from the avenger of blood, so long as he remained within the
city or its precincts. If, however, he wandered out, he was at the mercy of the
avenger. Further, he was to remain in the city till the death of the high priest. Some
have sought a mystical meaning in this last regulation, as if the high priest figured
the Redeemer, and the death of the high priest the completion of redemption by the
death of Christ. But this is too far-fetched to be of weight. The death of the high
priest was probably fixed on as a convenient time for releasing the manslayer, it
being probable that by that time all keen feeling in reference to his deed would have
subsided, and no one would then think that justice had been defrauded when a man
with blood on his hands was allowed to go at large.
4. As it was, the involuntary manslayer had thus to undergo a considerable penalty.
Having to reside in the city of refuge, he could no longer cultivate his farm or follow
his ordinary avocations; he must have found the means of living in some new
employment as best he could. His friendships, his whole associations in life, were
changed; perhaps he was even separated from his family. To us all this appears a
harder line than justice would have prescribed. But, on the one hand, it was a
necessary testimony to the strong, though somewhat unreasonable feeling respecting
the awfulness, through whatever cause, of shedding innocent blood. A man had to
accept of this quietly, just as many a man has to accept the consequences - the social
outlawry, it may be, and other penalties - of having had a father of bad character, or
of having been present in the company of wicked men when some evil deed was done
by them. Then, on the other hand, the fact that the involuntary destruction of life
was sure, even at the best, to be followed by such consequences, was fitted to make
men very careful. They would naturally endeavour to the utmost to guard against
an act that might land them in such a situation; and thus the ordinary operations of
daily life would be rendered more secure. And perhaps it was in this way that the
whole appointment secured its end. Some laws are never broken. And here may be
the explanation of the fact that the cities of refuge were not much used. In all Bible
history we do not meet with a single instance; but this might indicate, not the non-

existence of the institution, but the indirect success of the provision, which, though
framed to cure, operated by preventing. It made men careful, and thus in silence
checked the evil more effectually than if it had often been put in execution.
The desire for vengeance is a very strong feeling of human nature. 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,

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

guilt. And what we admire in Paul is, that he did not make his ignorance a self-
justifying plea, but in the deepest humility owned the inexcusableness of his
conduct. To have done harm to our fellow-creatures under any circumstances is a
distressing thing, even when we meant the best; but to have done harm to their
moral life owing to something wrong in our own, is not only distressing, but
humiliating. It is something which we dare not lightly dismiss from our minds,
under the plea that we meant the best, but unfortunately we were mistaken. Had we
been more careful, had our eye been more single, we should have been full of light,
and we should have known that we were not taking the right way to do the best.
Errors in moral life always resolve themselves into disorder of our moral nature,
and, if traced to their source, will bring to light some fault of indolence, or
selfishness, or pride, or carelessness, which was the real cause of our mistaken act.
And where is the man - parent, teacher, pastor, or friend - that does not become
conscious, at some time or other, of having influenced for harm those committed to
his care? We taught them, perhaps, to despise some good man whose true worth we
have afterwards been led to see. We repressed their zeal when we thought it
misdirected, with a force which chilled their enthusiasm and carnalised their hearts.
We failed to stimulate them to decision for Christ, and allowed the golden
opportunity to pass which might have settled their relation to God all the rest of
their life. The great realities of the spiritual life were not brought home to them with
the earnestness, the fidelity, the affection that was fitting. ''Who can understand his
errors?" Who among us but, as he turns some new corner in the path of life, as he
reaches some new view-point, as he sees a new flash from heaven reflected on the
past, - who among us but feels profoundly that all his life has been marred by
unsuspected flaws, and almost wishes that he had never been born? Is there no city
of refuge for us to fly to, and to escape the condemnation of our hearts?
It is here that the blessed Lord presents Himself to us in a most blessed light. "Come
unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Do we not
labour indeed, are we not in truth very heavy laden, when we feel the burden of
unintentional evil, when we feel that unconsciously we have been doing hurt to
others, and incurring the curse of him who causeth the blind to stumble? Are we not
heavy laden indeed when we cannot be sure that even yet we are thoroughly on the
right track - when we feel that peradventure we are still unconsciously continuing
the mischief in some other form? Yet is not the promise true? - "I will give you
rest." I will give you pardon for the past, and guidance for the future. I will deliver
you from the feeling that you have been all your life sowing seeds of mischief, sure to
spring up and pervert those whom you love most dearly. I will give you comfort in
the thought that as I have guided you, I will guide them, and you shall have a vision
of the future, that may no doubt include some of the terrible features of the
shipwreck of St. Paul, but of which the end will be the same - "and so it came to pass
that they escaped all safe to land."
And let us learn a lesson of charity. Let us learn to be very considerate of mischief
done by others either unintentionally or in ignorance. What more inexcusable than
the excitement of parents over their children or of masters over their servants,

when, most undesignedly and not through sheer carelessness, an article of some
value is broken or damaged? Have you never done such a thing yourself? And if a
like torrent fell on you then from your parent or master, did you not feel bitterly
that it was unjust? And do you not even now have the same feeling when your
temper cools? How bitter the thought of having done injustice to those dependent on
you, and of having created in their bosoms a sullen sense of wrong! Let them have
their city of refuge for undesigned offences, and never again pursue them or fall on
them in the excited spirit of the avenger of blood!
So also with regard to opinions. Many who differ from us in religious opinion differ
through ignorance. They have inherited their opinions from their parents or their
other ancestors. Their views are shared by nearly all whom they love and with
whom they associate; they are contained in their familiar books; they are woven into
the web of their daily life. If they were better instructed, if their minds were more
free from prejudice, they might agree with us more. Let us make for them the
allowance of ignorance, and let us make it not bitterly but respectfully. They are
doing much mischief, it may be. They are retarding the progress of beneficent truth;
they are thwarting your endeavours to spread Divine fight. But they are doing it
ignorantly. If you are not called to provide for them a city of refuge, cover them at
least with the mantle of charity. Believe that their intentions are better than their
acts. Live in the hope of a day "when perfect light shall pour its rays" when all the
mists of prejudice shall be scattered, and you shall perhaps find that in all that is
vital in Christian truth and for the Christian life, you and your brethren were not so
far separate after all.
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.

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

shown but if the weapon used was such as would probably kill; such, for instance, as
‘an instrument of iron,’ or a stone, or a ‘weapon of wood, whereby a man may die.’
If we do what is likely to have a given result, we are responsible for that result,
should it come about, even though we did not consciously seek to bring it. That is
plain common sense. ‘I never thought the house would catch fire’ is no defence from
the guilt of burning it down, if we fired a revolver into a powder barrel. Further, if
the fatal blow was struck in ‘hatred,’ or if the slayer had lain in ambush to catch his
victim, he was not allowed shelter. These careful definitions freed the cities from
becoming nests of desperate criminals, as the ‘sanctuaries’ of the Middle Ages in
Europe became. They were not harbours for the guilty, but asylums for the
innocent.
IV. The procedure by which the fugitive secured protection is described at length in
the passages cited, with which the briefer account here should be compared. It is not
quite free from obscurity, but probably the process was as follows. Suppose the poor
hunted man arrived panting at the limits of the city, perhaps with the avenger’s
sword within half a foot of his neck; he was safe for the time. But before he could
enter the city, a preliminary inquiry was held ‘at the gate’ by the city elders. That
could only be of a rough-and-ready kind; most frequently there would be no
evidence available but the man’s own word. It, however, secured interim protection.
A fuller investigation followed, and, as would appear, was held in another place,-
perhaps at the scene of the accident. ‘The congregation’ was the judge in this second
examination, where the whole facts would be fully gone into, probably in the
presence of the avenger. If the plea of non-intention was sustained, the fugitive was
‘restored to his city of refuge,’ and there remained safely till the death of the high-
priest, when he was at liberty to return to his home, and to stay there without fear.
Attempts have been made to find a spiritual significance in this last provision of the
law, and to make out a lame parallel between the death of the high-priest, which
cancelled the crime of the fugitive, and the death of Christ, which takes away our
sins. But-to say nothing of the fact that the fugitive was where he was just because
he had done no crime-the parallel breaks down at other points. It is more probable
that the death of one high-priest and the accession of another were regarded simply
as closing one epoch and beginning another, just as a king’s accession is often
attended with an amnesty. It was natural to begin a new era with a clean sheet, as it
were.
V. The selection of the cities brings out a difference between the Jewish right of
asylum and the somewhat similar right in heathen and mediaeval times. The temples
or churches were usually the sanctuaries in these. But not the Tabernacle or
Temple, but the priestly cities, were chosen here. Their inhabitants represented God
to Israel, and as such were the fit persons to cast a shield over the fugitives; while
yet their cities were less sacred than the Temple, and in them the innocent man-
slayer could live for long years. The sanctity of the Temple was preserved intact, the
necessary provision for possibly protracted stay was made, evils attendant on the
use of the place of worship as a refuge were avoided.
Another reason-namely, accessibility swiftly from all parts of the land-dictated the
choice of the cities, and also their number and locality. There were three on each
side of Jordan, though the population was scantier on the east than on the west side,
for the extent of country was about the same. They stood, roughly speaking,

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

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

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.

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

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

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.)
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.

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.

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

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.)
I. The appointment and use of these cities. It is very often said by thoughtless and
ignorant persons that the laws of the Old Testament were barbarous and cruel. To this
two answers might be made: First, that they were a great advance upon any other
legislation at the period when they were given, and were full of wise sanitary provisions,
and of tender care for human life and welfare; secondly, that the objection urged does
not lie against Moses, but against the human race at that stage of its history. We are apt
to forget that the laws of Moses were adaptations to an existing and very low order of
society, and were designed to be a great training-school, leading children up into
manhood. The cities of refuge were a merciful provision in times of lawless vengeance,
and the entire legislation in regard to them was founded on an existing and very
imperfect condition of society, while it looked towards a perfect state, towards the
heavenly Jerusalem.
II. The reasons for the appointment of these cities.
1. All men at that early day recognised the right to kill an assassin; all exercised the
right, or refrained from doing so, at their will; but Jehovah gave a positive command
to Israel, without alternative. It should be blood for blood; and it certainly rests with
the opposers of capital punishment to-day to show when and how this original law
was abrogated. How it should be carried out was a matter of secondary consequence;
that it should be observed was the first thing. When the law was given, the blood-
avenger did what we to-day remand to courts of law. It was a step, surely, beyond an
utterly lawless vengeance to appoint one person to carry out the Divine will that life
should be forfeited for life.
2. But while this was the general rule, it was not a merciless and blind one; for the
law distinguished between voluntary and unintentional homicide. It judged an act by
its motives, and thus lifted tile whole question of punishment out of the sphere of
personal revenge and family spite. Here at the very threshold of civilisation how
clearly man is treated as a free moral agent, responsible for his acts, and yet judged
by his motives! The materialism of to-day, which endeavours to sweep away this
primitive morality, has human nature against it.
3. Then, in a system intended to train a nation into habits of self restraint and
righteousness, it was necessary very early to bring in the lessons of mercy. God had

always declared Himself the real avenger of blood. “I will require 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

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.
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

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.

Joshua 20 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to Joshua 20 commentary

Similar to Joshua 20 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Joshua 20 commentary