Numbers 35:9

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

35:9-34 To show plainly the abhorrence of murder, and to provide the more effectually for the punishment of the murderer, the nearest relation of the deceased, under the title of avenger of blood, (or the redeemer of blood,) in notorious cases, might pursue, and execute vengeance. A distinction is made, not between sudden anger and malice aforethought, both which are the crime of murder; but between intentionally striking a man with any weapon likely to cause death, and an unintentional blow. In the latter case alone, the city of refuge afforded protection. Murder in all its forms, and under all disguises, pollutes a land. Alas! that so many murders, under the name of duels, prize-fights, &c. should pass unpunished. There were six cities of refuge; one or other might be reached in less than a day's journey from any part of the land. To these, man-slayers might flee for refuge, and be safe, till they had a fair trial. If acquitted from the charge, they were protected from the avenger of blood; yet they must continue within the bounds of the city till the death of the high priest. Thus we are reminded that the death of the great High Priest is the only means whereby sins are pardoned, and sinners set at liberty. These cities are plainly alluded to, both in the Old and New Testament, we cannot doubt the typical character of their appointment. Turn ye to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope, saith the voice of mercy, Zec 9:12, alluding to the city of refuge. St. Paul describes the strong consolation of fleeing for refuge to the hope set before us, in a passage always applied to the gracious appointment of the cities of refuge, Heb 6:18. The rich mercies of salvation, through Christ, prefigured by these cities, demand our regard. 1. Did the ancient city rear its towers of safety on high? See Christ raised up on the cross; and is he not exalted at the right hand of his Father, to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance and remission of sins? 2. Does not the highway of salvation, resemble the smooth and plain path to the city of refuge? Survey the path that leads to the Redeemer. Is there any stumbling-block to be found therein, except that which an evil heart of unbelief supplies for its own fall? 3. Waymarks were set up pointing to the city. And is it not the office of the ministers of the gospel to direct sinners to Him? 4. The gate of the city stood open night and day. Has not Christ declared, Him that cometh unto me I will in nowise cast out? 5. The city of refuge afforded support to every one who entered its walls. Those who have reached the refuge, may live by faith on Him whose flesh is meat indeed, and whose blood is drink indeed. 6. The city was a refuge for all. In the gospel there is no respect of persons. That soul lives not which deserves not Divine wrath; that soul lives not which may not in simple faith hope for salvation and life eternal, through the Son of God.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Nine cities were eventually given to the Levites from the large joint inheritance of Judah and Simeon; three were taken from the territory of Naphtali, and the other tribes gave each four apiece.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

Nu 35:9-34. The Blood Avenger.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

No text from Poole on this verse.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And the Lord spake unto Moses,.... At the same time, or he continued his speech unto him:

saying: as follows.

Geneva Study Bible

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

9–34. The ‘Cities of Refuge,’ and the Law relating to homicide

In Numbers 35:9-15 the appointment of the six cities and their purpose are prescribed; Numbers 35:16-23 contain specimen cases distinguishing deliberate murder from accidental homicide; Numbers 35:24-28 provide the legal procedure; Numbers 35:29-34 form a conclusion.

The section presents the latest development in the O.T. of the Law of Asylum. In early days (Exodus 21:13 f. E ) an appointed place was provided, to which the manslayer might flee, i.e. an altar, which would be within easy reach of every town; cf. 1 Kings 1:50; 1 Kings 2:28. In D (Deuteronomy 19:1-10), when only one altar was permitted, at the national sanctuary at Jerusalem, which would be practically useless for purposes of asylum, special cities were substituted for the local altars. Three cities were specified, and, if Jehovah enlarged the Israelites’ borders, three more were to be added1 [Note: Three have previously been mentioned in Deuteronomy 4:41-43; but it is unlikely that the writer of Deuteronomy 19. understood nine cities to be intended. See Driver, Deut. p. 233.] . If the manslayer be guilty of deliberate murder, the elders of his own city shall send to the city whither he has fled for asylum, and shall deliver him up to the gô’çl or ‘avenger of blood’; but if the homicide was accidental, he may stay in safety in the city whither he has fled. In the present passage (P ) the regulations are fuller. Of the six cities three are to be on each side of the Jordan (the fulfilment of the command, with the name of the cities, is related in Joshua 20). They receive, for the first time, the title ‘cities of refuge’ (see on Numbers 35:11). When a manslayer flees to one of these cities, ‘the congregation’ (see on Numbers 35:12) judges between him and the gô’çl, to discover whether the manslaughter had been deliberate or accidental. If it is proved to be accidental, the man must be taken back to the city of refuge, where he must remain until the death of the high priest. If he ventures out before that time, the gô’çl may kill him. If, on the other hand, he is found guilty of deliberate murder, the gô’çl must kill him.

Gray (Numb. p. 471) points out that this modifies the ancient custom in three respects: (1) Ancient custom made no distinction between accidental and deliberate manslaughter; the gô’çl must see that the loss of life suffered by one family is compensated for. (2) In ancient custom the loss could be compensated for by the death of any member of the manslayer’s family. Here the law tacitly insists that the murderer only is to forfeit his life. (3) The present law forbids the forfeited life of the murderer to be redeemed by a money payment. Such redemption was widely prevalent, but except in certain cases—not wilful murder—(cf. Exodus 21:29 f.) it seems to have been prohibited at an early period in Israel, though the present law contains the earliest explicit prohibition. At the same time, the law had not yet reached its final stage of development, in that it still bade the representative of the family, and not the representative of the whole community, perform the judicial act of killing the murderer.

Numbers 35:9

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

Selection and Appointment of Cities of Refuge for Unpremeditated Manslayers. - Numbers 35:10, Numbers 35:11. When the Israelites had come into the land of Canaan, they were to choose towns conveniently situated as cities of refuge, to which the manslayer, who had slain a person (nephesh) by accident (בּשׁגגה: see at Leviticus 4:2), might flee. הקרה, from קרה, to hit, occurrit, as well as accidit; signifies here to give or make, i.e., to choose something suitable (Dietrich), but not "to build or complete" (Knobel), in the sense of קרה, as the only meaning which this word has is contignare, to join with beams or rafters; and this is obviously unsuitable here. Through these directions, which are repeated and still further expanded in Deuteronomy 19:1-13, God fulfilled the promise which He gave in Exodus 21:13 : that He would appoint a place for the man who should unintentionally slay his neighbour, to which he might flee from the avenger of blood.