Numbers 35

Numbers 35:1-8

**D. CITIES RESERVED FOR THE LEVITES (Numbers 35:1-8)

TEXT**

Numbers 35:1. And the Lord spake unto Moses in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho, saying, 2. Command the children of Israel, that they give unto the Levites, of the inheritance of their possession, cities to dwell in; and ye shall give also unto the Levites suburbs for the cities round about them. 3. And the cities shall they have to dwell in; and the suburbs of them shall be for their cattle, and for their goods, and for all their beasts. 4. And the suburbs of the cities, which ye shall give unto the Levites, shall reach from the wall of the city and outward a thousand cubits round about. 5. And ye shall measure from without the city on the east side, two thousand cubits, and on the south side two thousand cubits, and on the west side two thousand cubits, and on the north side two thousand cubits; and the city shall be in the midst: this shall be to them the suburbs of the cities. 6. And among the cities which ye shall give unto the Levites there shall be six cities for refuge, which ye shall appoint for the manslayer, that he may flee thither: and to them ye shall add forty and two cities. 7. So all the cities which ye shall give to the Levites shall be forty and eight cities: them shall ye give with their suburbs. 8. And the cities which ye shall give shall be of the possession of the children of Israel: from them that have few ye shall give few: every one shall give of his cities unto the Levites according to his inheritance which he inheriteth.

PARAPHRASE

Numbers 35:1. And the Lord spake to Moses in the plains of Moab near the Jordan opposite Jericho, saying, 2. Command that the children of Israel give to the Levites, from the inheritance of their possession, cities in which to dwell; and you shall also give the Levites open ground around the cities. 3. And the cities shall be theirs to live in; and the open ground shall be for their livestock, and for their herds and all their animals. 4. And the open ground of the cities which you shall give to the Levites shall extend outward from the city wall one thousand cubits all around. 5. You shall also measure from outside the city on the east two thousand cubits, and on the south side two thousand cubits, and on the west two thousand cubits, and on the north two thousand cubits, with the city in the center: this shall be the open ground of the cities. 6. And the cities you shall give the Levites shall be six cities of refuge, which you shall give for the man-killer to flee unto; in addition to them, you shall give forty-two other cities. 7. All the cities which you shall give to the Levites shall be forty-eight cities, along with their open ground. 8. Regarding the cities which you shall give from the possessions of the children of Israel, you shall take more from the larger, and less from the smaller; but each one shall give some of his cities to the Levites in proportion to his inheritance which he inherits.

COMMENTARY

No single land inheritance was awarded to the Levites, in the fashion of the areas allocated to the other tribes. Instead, forty-eight cities together with their stipulated suburbs were to be designated Levitical cities. This does not mean that only Levites occupied the cities, but that they were to hold as many residences within the towns as necessary; and their pasturage requirements were to be met through use of the land immediately surrounding the city walls. The arrangement accomplishes several good ends. The Levites are removed from total dependence upon the tithes the offerings of the people; in the event of the failure of the other tribes to fulfill their lawful obligations unto the priests, the priests will not be without any sources of livelihood, since they will be able to maintain their own herds and flocks. The plan disperses the priests among the people, where they will be convenient and available for their services to the congregation. They are not to be an isolated, detached and uninvolved group; they will be able to participate in the day-by-day events of their communities, and become one with those they serve. They will have regular duties themselves to perform in caring for their animalsa responsibility not without its practical values. The suburbs awarded the Levites were open grounds for tilling and for pasturing their animals. The measure of the first one thousand cubits (about 1500 feet), may be set up for cultivation and the second thousand cubits for grazing the animals. This is certainly the most simple method of explaining the manner in which the suburbs were established. KD, however, accepts the proposal by Michaelis that the city is to be viewed as a square with pasturage stretching one thousand cubits outward in every direction, so that the length of the extreme border of the environs would be two thousand cubits longer than the dimension of its parallel side. The total area in this latter arrangement would have been considerably smaller; but we cannot be certain which method was actually used.

Six of the Levitical cities were to be appointed as cities of refuge, to which any manslayer should flee until proper disposition might be made of his homicide. The general regulations governing the flight of the manslayer, his confinement to the city of refuge until his trial, and the course to be followed in the event of his being found innocent or guilty are now to be given, enlarging upon the previous suggestion found in Exodus 21:13 ff. With the matter of judgment of the manslayer in the hands of the congregation, (Numbers 35:24), any of the cities of Israel might have been selected theoretically; but it is especially appropriate that the cities should be those in which there was a concentration of Levites. Such a fact should augur well toward a careful administration of justice under the Law.

QUESTIONS AND RESEARCH ITEMS

How many cities were awarded the Levites?

How were these cities distributed among the tribes?

Who lived in the cities?

Describe the manner in which the extent of the suburbs may have been laid out.

To what uses did the Levites put the suburbs?

List the advantages of distributing the Levites in this manner.

What was the purpose of the cities of refuge?

Into whose hands was the judgment of the manslayer delivered?

What favorable results might we have expected from having the Levites living in the cities of refuge?

Numbers 35:9-15

E. REGULATIONS REGARDING THE CITIES OF REFUGE vv. 9-15 TEXT

Numbers 35:9. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 10. Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come over Jordan into the land of Canaan; 11. Then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you; that the slayer may flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares. 12. And they shall be unto you cities for refuge from the avenger; that the manslayer die not, until he stand before the congregation in judgment. 13. And of these cities which ye shall give, six cities shall ye have for refuge. 14. Ye shall give three cities on this side Jordan, and three cities shall ye give in the land of Canaan, which shall be cities of refuge. 15. These six cities shall be a refuge, both for the children of Israel, and for the stranger, and for the sojourner among them: that every one that killeth any person unawares may flee thither.

PARAPHRASE

Numbers 35:9. And the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, 10. Speak unto the children of Israel and tell them, -When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan, 11. you shall select for yourselves cities to be your cities of refuge, in order that the man-killer who has killed any person unintentionally may flee unto them.-’ 12. And the cities shall be as a refuge unto you from the avenger, so that the man-killer may not die until he appears before the congregation in judgment. 13. And the cities which you are to give shall be your six cities of refuge. 14. You shall give three cities across the Jordan and three cities in the land of Canaan: they are to be cities of refuge. 15. These six cities shall be for refuge for the children of Israel, and for the alien and for the traveler among them, so that anyone who kills a person unintentionally may flee unto them.

COMMENTARY

The first thing to be noticed in the appointment of the six cities of refuge is that they were not intended to protect that individual who had committed deliberate, willful murder. Only where some reasonable doubt existed in reference to the circumstances might that man expect to be permitted sanctuary; otherwise, the sentence of the law was clear and emphatic: he must be stoned to death. The perspective of the account is clearly that of Israel’s being yet on the east side of the Jordan: the cities were not even to be selected until they lived in Canaan. At that time, three cities on each side of the river should be appointed. In the event of any homicide in which the killer believed himself not to have been guilty of murder, he was obliged to scurry rapidly to the nearest city of refuge. Hence, the location of the six cities was to be a matter of careful concern. As the manslayer fled to the sanctuary, the avenger of blood, or the male next of kin to the deceased was obliged to make pursuit and, if he overtook the manslayer, he might put him to death without guilt of blood upon his hands. The import of this law has been much discussed. The emerging value of the law is its emphasis upon the value of human lifeeven a careless act which results in the death of another is no light matter, and preventable homicide imposes a punishment upon that one who is careless, negligent or unconcerned about another human being. The law was to be enforced not upon the Israelites only, but upon any strangers, and even sojourners in their land. By this method all people who came within the scope of the law’s force came under the instruction of those who saw its value and the rationale for the law itself. The basic concept was a gigantic stride forward from any law to be found in pagan contemporary society. The inherent value of each individual’s life, and the awesome nature of divine justice are well established.

QUESTIONS AND RESEARCH ITEMS

What were the cities of refuge specifically not designed to do?

Why should any distinction be made among the manners by which homicide was committed?

Describe the conduct expected of the manslayer and of the avenger of blood?

Who was the avenger of blood?

Why would the avenger of blood be permitted to slay the manslayer outside the city of refuge, or before he reached the city?

Show what primary principles were established by this law.

For what reasons were strangers and sojourners included under the law?

How does this law compare with attitudes and laws of other countries relative to treatment of killers?

Numbers 35:16-34

F. LAWS OF HOMICIDE vv. 16-34 TEXT

Numbers 35:16. And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. 17. And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. 18. Or if he smite him with a hand weapon of wood, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. 19. The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him. 20. But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait, then he die; 21. Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him. 22. But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait, 23. Or with any stone, wherewith a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it upon him, that he die, and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm: 24. Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the revenger of blood according to these judgments: 25. And the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled: and he shall abide in it unto the death of the high priest, which was anointed with the holy oil. 26. But if the slayer shall at any time come without the border of the city of his refuge, whither he was fled; 27. And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood: 28. Because he should have remained in the city of his refuge until the death of the high priest: but after the death of the high priest the slayer shall return into the land of his possession. 29. So these things shall be for a statute of judgment unto you throughout your generations in all your dwellings. 30. Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die. 31. Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall surely be put to death. 32. And ye shall take no satisfaction for him that is fled to the city of his refuge, that he should come again to dwell in the land, until the death of the priest. 33. So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it. 34. Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I the Lord dwell among the children of Israel.

PARAPHRASE

Numbers 35:16. But if he struck him down with an iron instrument, so that he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. 17. And if he struck him down with a stone in his hand, so that he might have died, and if he did die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. 18. Or if he struck him down with a wooden instrument in his hand, so that he might have died, and he did 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; he shall be put to death when he meets him. 20. Or if he shoved him in hatred, or threw something at him from ambush so that he died, 21. or if in he struck him down with his hand maliciously so that he died, the one who struck him down shall surely be put to death: he is a murderer; the blood avenger shall put the murderer to death when he meets him. 22. But if he shoved him suddenly and without malice, or threw something at him, not being in ambush, 23. or hit him with a stone object capable of killing him, but without seeing him, and was not hostile toward him, and had not sought to harm him, 24. then the congregation shall judge between the killer and the blood avenger according to these regulations. 25. And the congregation shall deliver the man-killer from the hand of the avenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of refuge to which he had fled; and he shall live in it until the death of the high priest who was anointed with the holy oil. 26. But if the man-killer goes at any time outside the border of the city of his refuge to which he has fled; 27. and if the avenger of blood finds him outside the border of the city of his refuge, the blood avenger may kill the man-killer and not be guilty of his blood: 28. because he should have remained inside his city of refuge until the death of the high priest. However, after the death of the high priest the man-killer shall return to the land of his possession. 29. So these things shall be for a regulatory law to you throughout your generations in all your dwellings. 30. If anyone kills another person, the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses; but the testimony of one witness alone shall not cause him to be put to death. 31. Furthermore, you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death; he shall surely be put to death. 32. And you shall not take a ransom for one who has fled to his city of refuge to permit him to return to live in his land before the death of the high priest. 33. In this way you shall not pollute the land where you are: for blood pollutes the land, and no land can be cleansed of the blood which has been shed upon it excepting by the blood of the one who shed it. 34. And you shall not defile the land which you shall inhabit, in which I dwell: for I am the Lord, dwelling among the Children of Israel.

COMMENTARY

As in other areas of the Law, the provisions defining murder and distinguishing it from accidental homicide; the different tests for determining guilt and innocence; the various punishments determined by the seriousness of the offenseall of these are vast improvements over any other ancient statutes. In essence, there are three differences, as shown in ICC; (1) the Law insists that life is to be forfeited only in case of willful murder, in contrast to primitive measures which did not make such a distinction; (2) the Law tacitly insists that the life of the actual murderer only can become forfeit; in primitive cultures the family often might be compelled to share the punishment of the offense of one of its members; and, (3) the Law forbids the acceptance of a money equivalent for a forfeited life, (p. 471). Additionally, clear points are set forth upon which to form a fair judgment in reference to guilt because of motive. The motivation, if any, behind any homicide was subjected to three areas of inquiry: first, the weapon itself: was it lethal in nature, or not? Implements of iron, large stones, or weapons of wood which were large enough to administer a death blow must first be established as the cause of death, if murder were suspected. Then, had there been enmity between the two? Witnesses would be adduced to confirm or deny this possibility. Feelings strong enough to lead to deliberate murder would be difficult to conceal. Those knowing of such feelings would become prime sources of testimony if murder were suspected. The third factor adduced would be the circumstances of the death: had the murderer plotted the assault? Laying in wait need not necessarily mean an ambush, but rather seeking an opportune time or place for the foul deed. Thrusting in hatred suggests an explosion of temper, but it is to be inferred that the circumstances are more than a mere accident; in such a circumstance, the judgment was in the hands of the congregation. Motive, weapon, and occasion, then, were the prime factors to be reviewed in any charge of murder.

The duty of the revenger of blood was clear: to pursue the manslayer and, if he be overtaken before reaching a city of refuge, to slay him; no guilt of blood would then be upon his hands. Additionally, he was to make certain that the slayer did not leave the city of refuge at all before he had been pronounced guilty or innocent of murder. Obviously, if he were guilty of murder, the punishment was stoning to death by the congregation. If he were innocent of murder, he was yet required to remain in the city of refuge until the death of the current high priest. To go outside the city was to invite death at the hands of the revenger of blood. Even under circumstances of accidental homicide, the guilty man, and the entire nation, were to learn that taking a life was no trivial matter. Courtesy, caution, and preventive measure may be learned from the law: man should do all he possibly can to avoid placing himself in a situation where, even by the remotest accident, he might endanger the life of another. Because a great responsibility lay with the congregation, we should recognize the concept behind the word. Ordinarily, eydah signified the entire nation assembled together. We cannot believe the trial of a murderer would have been the occasion for such an assembly, especially after they were scattered about in the new land; and the law is tailored to that situation. The force of the word may suggest that any individual of the congregation, or of the assembled ones who answered the call to assemble, might bear testimony if he had reason to do so, or that any one might participate in the decision, once having heard the testimony of all witnesses. If the accused were found innocent, he was provided safe escort back to the city of refuge from the scene of the trial. If he were guilty, all participated in his execution by stoning.

That the manslayer was forced to dwell in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest presents some interesting points. Several restrictions automatically accompany such a sentence. The man, and his family as well, would be required to uproot themselves from their previous residence and live within the city. The man himself dare not go outside the walls. Perhaps a radical change in his life style might be necessary, since he would not possibly be able to pursue either an agricultural or shepherding career within the walls of the city. Unless other members of his family visited him, he would be unable to see father, mother, brothers or sisters until the time of his release. Yet, he had escaped the sentence of death, and the inconveniences of his new life were much to be preferred over the sentence of death. The reason for specifying that the innocent manslayer was to be set free when the high priest died is not given. The proper understanding may be that presented in PC: The stress. which is laid upon the fact of his (the high priest’S) decease, cf. Numbers 35:28, and the solemn notice of his having been anointed with the holy oil, seem to point unmistakably to something in his official and consecrated character which made it right that the rigor of the law should die with him. What the Jubile was to the debtor who had lost his property, that the death of the high priest was to the homicide who had lost his liberty, (p. 448).

A most significant factor in the general set of laws regarding manslaughter is the stipulation that more than one witness must be heard in testimony against the killer. It is a most reasonable safeguard, requiring none of our defense. If one were a witness of the assault and another of evidence of enmity, the testimonies might condemn the manslayer by their harmony; but no man could be condemned on the word of one other person alone.

The next provisions are equally grave and reasonable. The murderer could offer nothing whatever in place of his life if he were convicted of his crime. Having disregarded the sanctity and the right of another man to his life, the killer could not offer anything other than his own. No amount of money, no servile pledge, no measure of repentancenone were acceptable. The principle had held since the day of Noah: Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man, (Genesis 9:6).

Again impressing upon the people the gravity of taking another’s life even by accident is the legal provision that the manslayer found innocent of murder may not purchase his freedom by any means. Only the death of the high priest is effectual in procuring his release from the city or refuge. An act with a most serious consequence could only be seen in its true perspective if the consequences were inviolate. One of the continuing marks of human decadence, especially in the abuse of positions of power, is the callous attitude of indifference to shedding the blood of the innocent. To anyone with a memory of the meaning of Buchenvald, Auschewitz, Dachau, or other symbols of Hitler’s blood-purge of the Jews in the time of World War II; or to those familiar with the political purges in Communist Russia or Red China, it is hardly necessary to point out the fact that men have furthered their own political or social philosophies by wholesale murder of the innocent within their lands. Surely the technique was not invented in our twentieth century, but, to our shame, our generation certainly has not eliminated the atrocious practice. The shedding of innocent blood, whether in individual or mass quantities, is a polluting, profaning crime for which an entire people may be defiled. In a most climactic way, the Lord implores Israel not to pollute their land because He Himself wants to live there! The serious child of God knows that the Divine Presence is more than a wish, more than a mythit is a glorious fact.

QUESTIONS AND RESEARCH ITEMS

In what three areas can you note a significant difference between the laws of homicide among the Israelites as compared with those laws from other cultures?

Why is it necessary to establish motivation behind any charge of murder?

Show the importance of the size and substance of the weapon in such a change.

How do the circumstances under which a homicide occurs help to determine whether or not it might be murder?

To what facts might witnesses be brought to testify?

Exactly what does laying in wait mean?

Who was the revenger of blood, and what was his primary obligation?

What was the action of the avenger of blood if the manslayer were found guilty of murder by the congregation?

What were his duties if the manslayer were found innocent of murder?

Define the obligations of the congregation in the accusation and prosecution, as well as execution of a murderer.

Discuss some of the lessons the Israelites, as well as other people who might become familiar with their laws, should have learned from these regulations regarding homicide.

What is the usual meaning of congregation as it is used of the Israelites?

How can it be demonstrated that these homicidal laws were designed for implementation after Israel settled in Canaan?

How long was the manslayer required to remain in the city of refuge if he were found innocent of murder?

What was accomplished by requiring the innocent man to remain away from his home for this period of time?

Suggest some of the inconveniences he and his family might have to undergo.

What significance do you find in the death of the high priest as it related to the manslayer?

Why should the witness of one man alone not be sufficient to establish the guilt of a man accused of murder?

To what various facts might the witnesses bear record?

What significance to you attach to the fact that the manslayer was unable to purchase his exemption from residence in the city of refuge by recompense of any kind?

What lesson attaches to the firm requirement that the murderer could not escape by any method from the sentence of death for his crime?

Does this provision contribute in any way to the concept of the intrinsic value of human life?

For how long had the principle of life-for-life been known among men? What were the circumstances of its beginning?

Have we a real basis for revoking this law of God?

What does history show has happened when human life was held in low esteem?

Why are the innocent most likely to suffer under these circumstances?

Cite historical instances of the debauches of political and social theorists whose power enabled them to enforce their discriminatory philosophies. Cite both contemporary and ancient examples.

For what supreme reason did God ask Israel to refrain from polluting her land?

Might He express the same thought today?