Numbers 35: 1 – 34
They are not the same
35 And the LORD spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho, saying: 2 “Command the children of Israel that they give the Levites cities to dwell in from the inheritance of their possession, and you shall also give the Levites common-land around the cities. 3 They shall have the cities to dwell in; and their common-land shall be for their cattle, for their herds, and for all their animals. 4 The common-land of the cities which you will give the Levites shall extend from the wall of the city outward a thousand cubits all around. 5 And you shall measure outside the city on the east side two thousand cubits, on the south side two thousand cubits, on the west side two thousand cubits, and on the north side two thousand cubits. The city shall be in the middle. This shall belong to them as common-land for the cities. 6 “Now among the cities which you will give to the Levites you shall appoint six cities of refuge, to which a manslayer may flee. And to these you shall add forty-two cities. 7 So all the cities you will give to the Levites shall be forty-eight; these you shall give with their common-land. 8 And the cities which you will give shall be from the possession of the children of Israel; from the larger tribe you shall give many, from the smaller you shall give few. Each shall give some of its cities to the Levites, in proportion to the inheritance that each receives.” 9 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 10 “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan, 11 then you shall appoint cities to be cities of refuge for you, that the manslayer who kills any person accidentally may flee there. 12 They shall be cities of refuge for you from the avenger, that the manslayer may not die until he stands before the congregation in judgment. 13 And of the cities which you give, you shall have six cities of refuge. 14 You shall appoint three cities on this side of the Jordan, and three cities you shall appoint in the land of Canaan, which will be cities of refuge. 15 These six cities shall be for refuge for the children of Israel, for the stranger, and for the sojourner among them, that anyone who kills a person accidentally may flee there. 16 ‘But if he strikes him with an iron implement, so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. 17 And if he strikes him with a stone in the hand, by which one could die, and he does die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. 18 Or if he strikes him with a wooden hand weapon, by which one could die, and he does die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. 19 The avenger of blood himself shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death. 20 If he pushes him out of hatred or, while lying in wait, hurls something at him so that he dies, 21 or in enmity he strikes him with his hand so that he dies, the one who struck him shall surely be put to death. He is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him. 22 ‘However, if he pushes him suddenly without enmity, or throws anything at him without lying in wait, 23 or uses a stone, by which a man could die, throwing it at him without seeing him, so that he dies, while he was not his enemy or seeking his harm, 24 then the congregation shall judge between the manslayer and the avenger of blood according to these judgments. 25 So the congregation shall deliver the manslayer from the hand of the avenger of blood, and the congregation shall return him to the city of refuge where he had fled, and he shall remain there until the death of the high priest who was anointed with the holy oil. 26 But if the manslayer at any time goes outside the limits of the city of refuge where he fled, 27 and the avenger of blood finds him outside the limits of his city of refuge, and the avenger of blood kills the manslayer, he shall not be guilty of blood, 28 because he should have remained in his city of refuge until the death of the high priest. But after the death of the high priest the manslayer may return to the land of his possession. 29 ‘And these things shall be a statute of judgment to you throughout your generations in all your dwellings. 30 Whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses; but one witness is not sufficient testimony against a person for the death penalty. 31 Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death. 32 And you shall take no ransom for him who has fled to his city of refuge, that he may return to dwell in the land before the death of the priest. 33 So you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it. 34 Therefore do not defile the land which you inhabit, in the midst of which I dwell; for I the LORD dwell among the children of Israel.’ ”
A Sanctuary city refers to municipal jurisdictions, typically in North America and Western Europe that limit their cooperation with the national government's effort to enforce immigration law. Leaders of sanctuary cities want to reduce the fear of deportation and possible family break-up among people who are in the country illegally, so that such people will be more willing to report crimes, utilize health and social services, and enroll their children in school. In the United States, municipal policies include prohibiting police or city employees from questioning people about their immigration status and refusing requests by national immigration authorities to detain people beyond their release date, if they were jailed for breaking local law.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimated in 2018 that more than 500 U.S. jurisdictions, including states and municipalities, had adopted sanctuary policies.
In our sinful fallen world evil deceivers have taken certain biblical truths and twisted them around for their own purpose. A well know statement is that figures lie and liars figure. So now in our countries listing they somehow say that Sanctuary Cities were developed by God. To try to put God into their position while at the same time they have literally kicked God out of our country they state that in Western Civilization, sanctuary cities can be traced back to the Old Testament. The Book of Numbers commands the selection of six cities of refuge in which the perpetrators of accidental manslaughter could claim the right of asylum. Outside of these cities, blood vengeance against such perpetrators was allowed by law. You see that in truth our Holy Jehovah Elyon – The Lord God Most High did make cities of refuge for someone who killed somebody by accident yet Sanctuary Cities are not the same thing nor do their warped policies have anything to do with our Holy God.
Sanctuary cities can be attributed to the Roman emperor Theodosius in AD 392. He set up sanctuaries under church control. The movement that established sanctuary cities in the United States began in the early 1980s.The movement traces its roots to religious philosophy, as well as in histories of resistance movements to perceived state injustices. The sanctuary city movement took place in the 1980s to challenge the US government’s refusal to grant asylum to certain Central American refugees. These asylum seekers were arriving from countries in Central America like El Salvador and Guatemala that were politically unstable. More than 75,000 Salvadoreans and 200,000 Guatemalans were killed by their governments in hopes to suppress the communist movement in those countries at the time Faith based groups in the US Southwest initially drove the movement of the 1980s, with eight churches publicly declaring sanctuary in March 1982.John Fife, a minister and movement leader famously wrote in a letter to Attorney General William Smith, saying that the "South-side United Presbyterian Church will publicly violate the Immigration and Nationality Act" by allowing sanctuary in its church for those from Central America.
A milestone in the U.S. sanctuary city movement occurred in 1985 in San Francisco, which passed the largely symbolic “City of Refuge” resolution. The resolution was followed the same year by an ordinance which prohibited the use of city funds and resources to assist federal immigration enforcement–the defining characteristic of a sanctuary city in the U.S.
Sadly there are many powerful people who are using and playing these needy people for their own plans. Our country should open its doors for the poor and the needy. Yet, within these seekers of freedom and a new life are those who infiltrate our country in order to do harm to American citizens. The naive politicians give murderer a free pass. They commit a crime and because they claim that they are not an American citizen they can just walk out of prison. For example a criminal who has been deported over 20 times was just re-arrested for raping and killing a 60 year old woman. We have lost our minds people.
In addition, the rich string pullers behind the shadow government want to infiltrate new immigrants into predominately Republican held voting districts. Since almost all immigrants vote Democratic doing this move will destroy the United States. Oh, we will still have elections but like the city of Philadelphia displays whoever wins the Democratic nomination is guaranteed to win the final election.
Anyway let’s now focus on why we are here today and take a look at our Lord’s policies toward cities of refuge.
A mark of the width and depth of the land which would be possessed was now revealed in the requirement to provide forty eight cities for the Levites to dwell in. For them to be able to do this large conquests would have to be made. Thus this confirmed the certainty of the success that would be theirs once they entered the land. Talking about something as though it was already possessed was a huge confidence booster, and expressed full belief in the certainty of the fulfillment of the promises of Yahweh.
It also confirmed Yahweh’s provision for their spiritual need. No Israelite would be living far from a Levitical city. There he could seek advice and guidance in respect of the Instruction of Yahweh.
35 And the LORD spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho, saying:
Standing there on the verge of the Jordan ready for entry into the land final instructions were being given. Nothing was more important for their true survival as a covenant people than the presence among them of those whose lives were devoted to looking after the interests of Yahweh. This would enable the land to be kept pure, and was now to be provided for.
2 “Command the children of Israel that they give the Levites cities to dwell in from the inheritance of their possession, and you shall also give the Levites common-land around the cities.
Out of their inheritance that they would soon possess the children of Israel were to give ‘cities to dwell in’ to the Levites. Surrounding land was also to be given to them.
3 They shall have the cities to dwell in; and their common-land shall be for their cattle, for their herds, and for all their animals.
The cities themselves were to be for the Levites to inhabit, and the surrounding land for their cattle and other animals. The Levites were not to be given the whole cities for their own possession but to have sufficient space allotted so that they would be able to build (or restore captured houses) for them to dwell in. They were to receive as many houses as were needed for their requirements and these would become their hereditary possession, which, if sold, could be redeemed, and which reverted to them without compensation in the year of Jubilee, if not redeemed before then (Leviticus 25.32-33). The remainder of each such city was then available for other Israelites to dwell in once they had restored or erected their own houses.
4 The common-land of the cities which you will give the Levites shall extend from the wall of the city outward a thousand cubits all around. 5 And you shall measure outside the city on the east side two thousand cubits, on the south side two thousand cubits, on the west side two thousand cubits, and on the north side two thousand cubits. The city shall be in the middle. This shall belong to them as common-land for the cities.
The size of the surrounding land which was to belong to the Levites was not to be left to chance but was clearly delineated. The land was to stretch 1000 cubits (450 metres, just over a quarter of a mile) in each direction, measuring from the boundaries of the cities, north, south, east and west, thus making an area of somewhat over 2000 square cubits, taking the area of the city into account. Each ‘side’ would have a 2000 cubit border, making a square around the city just over 2000 cubits in length and width. There was, however, no limit to access, except probably to the avenger of blood when it was a city of refuge (verse 19, 26-27). This land was to belong to the Levites in perpetuity. It could not be sold for it was Yahweh’s (Leviticus 25.23).
The ‘cities’ would themselves not be overlarge. The forty eight cities would house the 22/23 Levite clans, although not being limited to them, and would indeed house a good number of ‘innocent manslayers’ for many years. The surrounding land was also not large. It would feed a minimum level of cattle and grow a minimal amount of food, possibly sufficient for survival in bad times. But while the Levites could personally own their houses (taken over or built by their own hands) they would not personally own land. The land was to be group land. Their possessions were communal. They had no individual personal inheritance in land. Yahweh was their inheritance.
6 “Now among the cities which you will give to the Levites you shall appoint six cities of refuge, to which a manslayer may flee. And to these you shall add forty-two cities.
Of the cities given to the Levites six were to be cities of refuge, a concept dealt with in what follows. The number six (3x2) indicated completeness of provision. These were for ‘innocent’ manslayers to flee to. There were to be three each side of the Jordan. The remaining forty two cities were simply for the housing of the Levite families so that by living among the people they could properly carry out their functions of teaching, guiding, and collecting and storing tithes. For any of the people who might desire clarification on a matter to do with the Instruction (Law), help was always available there.
The six cities of refuge actually appointed were Bezer, Ramoth-gilead and Golan in Transjordan and Hebron of Judah, Shechem of Ephraim and Kadesh of Galilee in Canaan proper. It will be noted that these were dispersed throughout both areas. Deuteronomy 19.1-6 describes it in terms of splitting Canaan into three parts and appointing a city in each. The cities had to be reachable from anywhere in Canaan, ‘lest the avenger of blood pursue the (innocent) manslayer while his heart is hot, and overtake him because the way is long, and smite him mortally, whereas he was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he did not hate him (his victim) in time past.’
7 So all the cities you will give to the Levites shall be forty-eight; these you shall give with their common-land.
So the total cities given to the Levites to dwell in, along with their surrounding land for 1000 cubits every way, were forty eight. This was twelve times four. The twelve indicated the twelve tribes whom they would serve. The four stressed the ‘universal’ nature of Yahweh’s provision, just as four rivers went out from Eden to the whole world, the four winds came from every part of heaven, and north, south, east and west stretch out to the four furthest parts (corners) of the earth. The basic idea was that the spiritual needs of Israel were being fully catered for.
8 And the cities which you will give shall be from the possession of the children of Israel; from the larger tribe you shall give many, from the smaller you shall give few. Each shall give some of its cities to the Levites, in proportion to the inheritance that each receives.”
The cities were to be given in accordance with the size of tribal possession. Thus the larger tribes provided more, and the smaller tribes less. But all were to give something from their inheritance to the Levites, a kind of first fruits of land. It was for Yahweh’s possession so that Yahweh’s servants might live among them and ensure the keeping of His Instruction (Torah), and, in the case of the cities of refuge, especially for the prevention of the defilement of the land as a result of the shedding of blood.
According to Joshua 21, the Levites received nine cities in the territory of Judah and Simeon, and four in the territory of each of the other tribes, with the exception of Naphtali, in which there were only three. Thus there were ten in Transjordan, and thirty-eight in Canaan proper. Of these the thirteen given up by Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin were available to the wider families of the priests, while the remaining thirty five were available to the three Levitical families. It will be quite apparent that the priests’ families would be scattered fairly thinly, at least to begin with, but provision was also being made for the future.
Central to maintaining the purity of the land was the need to prevent within it the shedding of innocent blood. If a man deliberately slew another his life was forfeit. Blood would have to be given for blood, however shed (Exodus 21.23; Deuteronomy 19.21). For to slay a man was to take what belonged to God, his very life, the breath of God (Genesis 2.7), and to dispatch his lifeblood into the dust before the time determined by Yahweh (Ecclesiastes 12.7), and thus his own life would be forfeit (Genesis 9.5-6). In that way would the land be cleansed from blood guilt? If the murderer could not be discovered special provisions were made for an atonement ceremony so that the guilt could be purged (Deuteronomy 21.1-9).
But the question arose, what about the accidental shedding of blood? Provision was made for this in the cities of refuge. There the manslayer could be isolated until the death of the High Priest, whose blood would in some way then allow for the manslayer’s release, probably because the High Priest died and his blood was shed as the representative of the whole of Israel before Yahweh. Until then the ‘innocent’ manslayer could not be allowed to roam the land. His life was, as it were, held in suspense, until the death of the High Priest had finally expunged the consequences of shedding blood. By this the sacredness of human life was stressed. It was not a punishment. He was not imprisoned, his movements were not restricted, but he knew that if he moved away from the shelter of the city of refuge the avenger of blood was duty bound to seek him out in order to kill him.
9 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 10 “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan, 11 then you shall appoint cities to be cities of refuge for you, that the manslayer who kills any person accidentally may flee there.
The need for cities of refuge is declared by this requirement for their being ‘appointed’. They were needed in order to prevent the shedding of innocent blood, but also in order to isolate from the land anyone who had shed blood and slain another. The sacredness to God of human life was such that none who had taken such a life could be allowed to roam free in the land unless a parallel death had taken place for thereby the land would be defiled.
12 They shall be cities of refuge for you from the avenger that the manslayer may not die until he stands before the congregation in judgment.
These cities would act as a refuge from ‘the Avenger’ (the goel). The ‘goel’ often signified the ‘next-of-kin’, the kinsman-redeemer (Leviticus 25.25, 49), and the term was used of those seen as responsible in the family for the protection of its name, its integrity, its wholeness and its inheritance from Yahweh. Most would thus see ‘the avenger’ as a member of the family of a slain man who had the right to seek blood vengeance, the idea partly being that murder could be best controlled by allowing swift justice to be carried out by those most affected. Such an avenger could not then be accused of murder because he was judicially avenging the death of a member of his own family, and taking ‘life for life’. He was acting as official executioner. Such a concept was known from the earliest times. Cain feared that his family would kill him on sight (Genesis 4.14).
Please understand that the refuge was only until the manslayer was brought to trial before the people’s representatives. But that would probably only happen if an accusation was brought against him. It then remained his refuge either if he was not accused or if he was found not guilty of deliberate murder. But stress is laid on the fact that for a guilty man there was no permanent refuge.
The description ‘Before the congregation’ generally indicates the whole of Israel. Thus this was probably before the Tent of Meeting, with the justices and elders conducting the trial, with all who would be able to gather to hear the verdict.
Something of the procedure is described in Joshua 20.4. The manslayer would flee from the avenger of blood to a city of refuge, and there he would stand before the gates of the city, and, having been brought within the gate area, would state his case before the elders. They were then to decide whether to receive him into the city, and give him a place in order that he might dwell among them, or whether to reject him because he admitted to deliberate murder. In cases of doubt they were not to deliver him up to the avenger of blood until he had stood ‘before the congregation’ for judgment.
13 And of the cities which you give, you shall have six cities of refuge. 14 You shall appoint three cities on this side of the Jordan, and three cities you shall appoint in the land of Canaan, which will be cities of refuge.
The number of cities was to be six, three on each side of the Jordan. This was so that a city of refuge would be within easy reach from any point in Canaan or Transjordan. It was seen as complete provision for this purpose.
15 These six cities shall be for refuge for the children of Israel, for the stranger, and for the sojourner among them, that anyone who kills a person accidentally may flee there.
They were to be for the children of Israel, for foreigners and for resident aliens. Justice and compassion in Israel was to reach to all in the land, whether home born or strangers. Anyone who unwittingly slew a man could flee there. And once there he would be protected by the Levites and by Yahweh until his case could be examined, and then, if found to be not guilty, he could remain there until the death of the High Priest, at which point he was absolved and his life again became ‘sacred’. From then on his murder by an ‘avenger’ would be punishable by death as an act of sacrilege against Yahweh.
This is now followed by three threefold categorizations of possible incidents. The first two threesomes are seen as proving guilt. The third threesome demonstrates probable innocence.
The deliberate murderer had no refuge. This would partly be determined by the nature of the instrument used. Thus an iron instrument, a large stone, or a wooden weapon would be evidence of intent. It would suggest that the slaying was intentional.
16 ‘But if he strikes him with an iron implement, so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death.
To attack a man with an instrument of iron with sufficient force to kill clearly implied either a premeditated intention to kill or a total disregard for life. In such a case the slayer would have no valid excuse. The instrument used indicated a total disregard for a life given by Yahweh. To send a man’s lifeblood prematurely into the dust, before its time fixed by Yahweh, defiled the land and was a high-handed sin against Yahweh.
17 And if he strikes him with a stone in the hand, by which one could die, and he does die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death.
To take a large stone in hand ‘by which a man may die’ would again show clear intent of murder or total disregard for God-given life. The intent to make unconscious or to injure would have been indicated by the use of a smaller stone.
I assist the Philadelphia Police department since 9/11. Having attended the police academy and experiencing various criminal situations you develop a understanding of what if lethal force compared to non-lethal action. As we have just been taught much of physical attacks are no brainers in the perpetrator’s intent to do harm.
18 Or if he strikes him with a wooden hand weapon, by which one could die, and he does die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. 19 The avenger of blood himself shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death.
Here the instrument is specifically described as a ‘weapon’, a man wrought instrument, a piece of wood with a handle, or deliberately taken in hand (either translation is possible). The purpose of carrying such a weapon would be in order to kill. Why else was he carrying the weapon? Thus again it revealed premeditated intent.
So in all these three cases the Avenger of blood was himself to put the slayer to death. The crime of shedding blood and open rebellion against God by slaying someone in His image was to be punished by those most directly offended against, the family. This ensured that the matter was pursued at a time when there was no police force. Whenever the avenger saw the slayer he was to put him to death.
20 If he pushes him out of hatred or, while lying in wait, hurls something at him so that he dies, 21 or in enmity he strikes him with his hand so that he dies, the one who struck him shall surely be put to death. He is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him.
Here not only premeditated intent as indicated by the instrument used, but also knowledge of the persons involved and the circumstances of the death were taken into account. Was it done through hatred, or by something deliberately and cold-bloodedly hurled, or by someone lying in wait, or in enmity? Then clearly it was deliberate. The slayer was guilty, and the Avenger must slay him when he meets him.
I can just picture the ‘avenger’ sitting in the place of judgment. If the local elders find the man guilty and tell him he has to leave the city there are a lot of possibilities of what happens next. Do they give him a head start or does the convicted man sneak out at dark hoping to get away. Very interesting indeed.
22 ‘However, if he pushes him suddenly without enmity, or throws anything at him without lying in wait, 23 or uses a stone, by which a man could die, throwing it at him without seeing him, so that he dies, while he was not his enemy or seeking his harm,
Now we have the opposite cases, those where the thrust was accidental or instinctive and without a pre-history of enmity (compare Deuteronomy 19.4) or where the hurling of something was not by someone in hiding or lying in wait; or where the stone was not one of such a size that it would be seen as probably intended to produce a fatality; in all cases being where the slayer was known not to be an enemy of the slain man, or as someone who intended his victim harm. Then in those cases the assumption was to be that no such harm was intended. The example in Deuteronomy 19.5 of an insecure head of an axe flying off in an ‘industrial accident’ demonstrates how innocent the man slaying might be. But the death still required to be balanced with a parallel death, demonstrating the sacredness of life. All had to do all in their power to prevent death whether by murder or accident, and were responsible where the death was the result of their actions.
24 then the congregation shall judge between the manslayer and the avenger of blood according to these judgments.
In that case it would be up to the congregation to judge whether the man was guilty or not. They would decide whether the man’s life should be spared, or whether the avenger of blood should be allowed his rights. Deliberate, premeditated murder was seen as an attack on God Himself.
While we would now probably take mitigating circumstances into account, it was considered very important in those days for there to be ‘life for life, blood for blood’. However, the point also being emphasized is that circumstance and motive must be taken into account. What was to be sought was not vengeance but justice. Thus provision was mad for accidental death.
25 So the congregation shall deliver the manslayer from the hand of the avenger of blood, and the congregation shall return him to the city of refuge where he had fled, and he shall remain there until the death of the high priest who was anointed with the holy oil.
If the congregation found the man not guilty of deliberate manslaughter, then it was to deliver the man out of the hand of the avenger of blood and restore him to his city of refuge. He had still shed blood and a compensating death was required, but this death would take place when the High Priest who had been anointed with the holy anointing oil, died. His death would compensate as death for death. And the land would remain clean in the light of the inevitable death one day of the High Priest. In other words the High Priest himself dying was the life for life requirement. (He atoned for sin done aforetime? - compare Romans 3.25).
This delay was thus seen as totally in the hands of Yahweh. It could be long or short, as He determined by His preservation or otherwise of the life of the High Priest.
The High Priest’s death is not actually said to be atoning, and we should not read into this a wider application than to this situation. But it would certainly seem to have reference to the fact that as ‘the anointed Priest’ he represented the whole of Israel. The whole of Israel was therefore seen as bearing the guilt of the accidental death so that the land was not seen as defiled before Yahweh. To this extent it could certainly be seen as atoning, and might therefore indeed have been seen as compensating for all unwitting sin. But if so it was additional to, and did not replace, the Day of Atonement and all the other purification for sin offerings required. It was a reminder both that all died, and that the need for atonement was never ending and never fully satisfactory. The purification for sin offerings had to be supplemented by the Day of Atonement, the Day of Atonement had to be supplemented by the death of the High Priest, and each High Priest in succession had to die. The process was never ending, an indication in fact of its insufficiency.
It was only in the death of our Lord Jesus Christ that such atonement was provided once for all as to make unnecessary any other form of atonement. His death alone was sufficient for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2.2), and in Him we have an undying High Priest (Hebrews 7.24-25). It is the indication that in His death on the cross full atonement has been made. Thank You Precious Holy Lamb of God!
26 But if the manslayer at any time goes outside the limits of the city of refuge where he fled, 27 and the avenger of blood finds him outside the limits of his city of refuge, and the avenger of blood kills the manslayer, he shall not be guilty of blood, 28 because he should have remained in his city of refuge until the death of the high priest. But after the death of the high priest the manslayer may return to the land of his possession.
However the manslayer must remain in the city of refuge until such a death of the High Priest took place. If he leaves it any consequence will be on his own head. The avenger of blood will then have the right to slay him. And if he does he will not be guilty of blood because he is simply obtaining a life for a life. The manslayer should have remained within the city of refuge where he knew he would be safe. However, once the High Priest had died he could then return to the land that he owned, and which belonged to him as an inheritance from Yahweh, and no one had any further right against him. His life was once again fully sacred.
This approach had much in its favor. First of all were made to recognize the sacredness of human life, and that if life was taken then someone had to bear the responsibility even if it was done innocently. It provided a warning against taking death, even accidental death, lightly.
Secondly we find out that this provision allowed the slain man’s relatives the right of revenge, with certain provisions. The ‘detaining’ of the man would help to assuage their feelings of frustration and anger. He would not be walking about openly in front of them which in a way is floundering their arrogance in their faces.
Thirdly it did provide a means by which the innocent could find protection, but only when they were open to being tried before their fellow-countrymen.
Fourthly it made sure that all suspicious deaths were investigated. In fact family feelings ran so high that it is questionable whether someone who had slain another could ever feel absolutely safe from ‘avengers of blood’ outside a city of refuge (where all would protect him), such was the sense of family honor that often held sway, even if revenge had become illegal. But it was more likely that once time had passed, the feeling of vengeance would have died down, especially as the death had been declared to be accidental. But it would pass from one generation to another. Only the death of the High Priest could settle the matter.
29 ‘And these things shall be a statute of judgment to you throughout your generations in all your dwellings.
It is confirmed that these principles laid down were the statute and ordinance in respect of manslaughter which would apply among all the people through every generation.
Various precautions were now described concerning the crime of manslaughter. No man must be found guilty on the testimony of only one person. No ransom could be paid which could redeem a deliberate manslayer. The sentence of death was absolute. Nor could a man be released from a city of refuge on the payment of a ransom. Whether deliberately or accidentally a violent death had taken place and it had to be strictly compensated for by another death. Nothing less would do. Human life was so valuable that there was no compensation which could be adequate.
As a Pastor you have to understand that you can be accused by many people who do not like you. In the book of 1 Timothy chapter 5 verse 19 the apostle Paul gives instruction on this experience where he says, “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.” Fortunately My Holy Father God Yahweh came to defend me when my senior elder threw me under the bus when he listened to only one hateful accuser.
30 Whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses; but one witness is not sufficient testimony against a person for the death penalty.
One way in which innocence or guilt was established was at the hands of witnesses. They were seen as especially important in the case of a murder. But no one should ever be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. This was a safeguard against false accusation.
31 Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death.
Once a man was convicted there was no substitute punishment. No compensation payment or bribe should be allowed to prevent full capital punishment. Murder was so sacrilegious that only the death of the murderer was sufficient to counteract it. There must be blood for blood. Other nations allowed compensation, but in Yahweh’s eyes life was so sacred that its premature taking could only have one consequence, a death for a death. Israel could allow compensation in lesser cases (Exodus 21.29-30) but not in this.
32 And you shall take no ransom for him who has fled to his city of refuge that he may return to dwell in the land before the death of the priest.
The same was even true of accidental death. There was no way by which a man who had sought refuge in a city of refuge could be allowed to ransom himself and be able to go about freely. Were he to walk abroad in the land it would cry out against him because the death had not been compensated for, ‘until the death of the High Priest’.
33 So you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it.
The whole idea behind all this was that man’s life was given to him by God and that the shedding of blood by violence polluted the land. The blood returning prematurely to the dust was evidence of the breaking of Yahweh’s commandment, it revealed that one who was in the image of God had been destroyed, thus Yahweh had a twofold reason for reaction against it. It was so serious that the only way by which its shedding could be atoned for was by the death of the perpetrator. By such an emphasis the sacredness of human life was established.
34 Therefore do not defile the land which you inhabit, in the midst of which I dwell; for I the LORD dwell among the children of Israel.’ ”
This was especially important because our Holy Yahweh God would be dwelling in the land. Thus the defiling of it with human, violently shed blood was inconceivable. It robbed God of what was His. It must not happen. For, He reminded them, He Yahweh would dwell among them as the Preserver of Life, and He would know.
