Numbers 35

Verses 1-5

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.”

Whilst still on the east side of the river Jordan, before the Israelites began to take over Canaan, God instructed Moses in the division of land for the Levites, who, unlike the other tribes, were not given their own land. Thus, Levites were distributed amongst the other tribes. And they were to have their own cities and ‘suburbs’, miḡrāš. That is, land around the city, common land where flocks could graze and animals could stay.

So as not to encroach on other tribal lands, the extent of the suburb was 1000 cubits outwards, all around (about 1500 feet), where the cattle lived at night. Another 2000 cubits (3000 feet) extended out from the living area for grazing, north, south, east and west. Thus, a total of 4,500 feet in all directions could be used for animals or growing plant foods, and the city was in the middle.

Verses 6-8

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 many ye shall give many; but 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.”

Each tribe was to give a city to Levites, as described. The bigger the tribe the bigger would be the city. Aaron’s family line produced the priests and all other Levites were to serve the priests (and thus God). It seems that the aim was to have God in the midst of every tribe; a further reminder of His glorious presence. These cities would also play a part in the national justice system. In total the Levites would be given 48 cities… all serving God in a variety of capacities. Six cities out of the total would become ‘refuge cities’. These were the miqlāṭ… places of asylum.  (Rome used to have asylum inside its churches, sinfully basing its priestly organisation on these Old Testament examples). The reasons for refuge cities is given in the following verses.

Verses 9-15

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.”

After commanding the provision of cities especially for Levites, and requiring six of the cities to be places of refuge (asylum), God gives more details. He tells Moses why they were needed. Sadly, the reasons are to do with human error and deliberate sin. Note that refuge is to be given for the most extreme of problems – murder and manslaughter. Today, countries give refuge for the most minor of reasons, thus weakening the whole concept of refuge, if not demeaning the biblical terms.

The first reference is to a person (usually male) who inadvertently kills another, in self-defence or by accident. In verse 11 we have the word ‘slayer’, rāṣaḥ, which simply means to kill. The word does not discriminate first degree murder from manslaughter. So, initially all killing of others (except in war) can be either deliberate  (premeditated) or inadvertent/accidental. It can also include assassination. Verse 11 makes it clear that this first reference is to inadvertent killing… “killeth any person at unawares”. “Killeth”, nāḵâ, means to slay/slaughter, wound, implying a confrontation between two men that results in frayed tempers and beating each other, but one dies. (Today, a very common kind of death, especially after a ‘night out’ with alcohol). It can also apply to one man beating another for false reasons, and the other man  being beaten has not reciprocated. The word “unawares”, šᵊḡāḡâ, means to kill in ignorance, unawares, in error, unwittingly. However, it also adds that such a response is sinful. How many people, Christians, have explosive tempers? It is sinful, but few rebuke them for it, or demand (scripturally) that the angry one should repent and change!

Verse 11, then, is self-explanatory: a man (can also apply to a woman, but usually less so) kills another man accidentally, without premeditation. That is, he was forced to defend himself and in doing so causes the death of his fellow, without wishing to kill him. In my work in a psychiatric ‘violent ward’, I had to defend myself daily against great violence, in which a patient would set out to kill me. As a Christian I accepted that in defending myself I might inadvertently kill the violent offender, but that if it happened I would not castigate myself, but would be thankful to be spared. Therefore, the attacker‘s aim was murder, but my defence was self-protection. The difference can sometimes be blurred. God recognised this and gave instructions to the judges.

In verse 12 we read of an “avenger”. The avenger, gā'al, was a member of the dead man’s family and tribe, who chases after the killer (though innocent of intent to kill). It was his task to catch and kill the killer, by taking revenge. The chaser was a ‘kinsman-redeemer’. The same term was used to describe a brother who married his dead brother’s widow for the sake of giving the family a child in the dead man’s name). In this way the avenger would ‘redeem’ or pay for the death of his kin… the price being the death of the killer.

The refuge cities would be places of safety for the “manslayer”, rāṣaḥ. Once he entered through the gates, he could not be touched by the avenger of blood. The avenger could not kill or harm or take-away the killer. During his stay, the city judges (Levites) would gather information and evidences, and would then hold a meeting (as magistrates and judges do today) to discuss the circumstances. The avenger would give evidence, but was not allowed into the city.

Three cities of refuge were east of the Jordan, and three on the west side. It is interesting that the rules of refuge were given to both Israelites AND “strangers”, gār,  and “sojourners”, tôšāḇ. Both were ‘foreigners’ who lived amongst the Israelites, or travellers through the land. When it came to justice, all in the land received equal help.

So, Israelite or foreigner, both could seek help by entering a city of refuge.

Verses 16-18

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 an hand weapon of wood, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.”

Verse 16 implies by its language that if a person deliberately hits another with an implement of iron (knife, hammer, axe, even a cooking pan or utensil), and with intent to kill, then he would be guilty of murder and must be put to death. Of course, ‘iron’ is only one instrument – the weapon could be wood, gold, silver, etc. If anything was used with the express aim of killing another with premeditation, even using a fist, then his guilt was assured and he had to die; mûṯ, be slain, ‘made dead’, executed. The death sentence was, then, a judicial penalty for murder. There were no alternatives – the deliberate killer had to have his life taken from him. The penalty has never been rescinded and is still demanded by God. He offered no ‘death row’ where multiple appeals could be heard, keeping a killer alive for decades! The term “shall surely” is also mûṯ, to die, to be executed. If the witnesses to the death were available then there was no escaping the death penalty, which was swift.

As shown above, the instrument causing death could be anything that kills, from fist, to a stone, to a wooden club, to a weapon of iron or bronze, etc. In modern riots, some throw cans or stones directly at, say, police or a rival group. If that stone kills, it is treated as first degree murder by God, because the purpose was to damage someone to the point of death. There are many today of this type of character.

Verses 19-25

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, that 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.”

If the killer is shown to be a murderer rather than a manslayer (manslaughter) then the avenger who waits outside the city of refuge could kill the murderer himself, as a direct punishment for his crime (v19). However, the avenger could not wait in ambush to kill him, or strike him fatally with his hand (fist), because it made the avenger guilty of murder! He would then himself be executed judicially by the Levites of the city. It was important that if the avenger acts honourably and does not himself resort to secrecy and thuggery, then his hands were clean and he was not guilty. So, if an avenger caught up with the killer of his kinsman, he could drive a sword or spear through him as a penalty, but he was not to beat him up, or gain enjoyment from killing. It is probably why courts and judges are needed (see v24), to act without emotional involvement. However, at that time, a kinsman was within his rights, before God, to kill the killer, if the manslayer was found outside a city of refuge.

If, then, a slayer managed to enter the city of refuge, he could stay so long as the high priest lived (v25). After this the killer had to leave and hope to avoid the avenger.

Verses 26-29

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.”

If the avenger found the killer outside the city of refuge, whilst the high priest was still alive, he was allowed to kill the killer and would not be guilty of blood (v27). This is because the killer ignored the warning to stay within the city. If the killer stayed in the city and then left, following the death of the high priest, he was allowed to return to his home without being attacked by the avenger (v28). This was God’s law for Israelites for all their time. Of course we may assume that the rule was only available to the slayer if he killed inadvertently (manslaughter). During his stay in the city the elders/judges would have heard his case. If they considered there was evidence of deliberate killing, they would have ordered the man to leave, to be dealt with by the avenger. Stoning by the city inhabitants was an alternative.

Verses 30-34

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 be surely 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.

Then comes a proviso: one that ought to be obeyed today. There had to be at least two witnesses to the slaying (v30). If they agree the slaying was inadvertent, then the slayer would be free (so long as he stayed until the high priest died). If the witnesses agreed that the death was deliberately sought, then the slayer would be dealt with accordingly. Today, there are ‘other’ witnesses, such as DNA samples, photographs, street cameras, and so on. We may legitimately add these to the list of ‘witnesses’ (to my mind). Much as we may be offended when a killer is freed though all the circumstances point to him, the demand for witnesses must be maintained, or mistakes can be made, no matter how convinced we are as to guilt. It might be very obvious that someone is indeed guilty – but without witnesses we should not declare guilt. To do otherwise is to ignore God’s demands. However, if all the signs suggest guilt, but there are no witnesses, a jury/judge should be able to order prison.

Note that there should be “no satisfaction” in killing a murderer. This means we may not take a bribe to ensure the death (or not) of a slayer. Money does not equal rightful taking of life. Only guilt or not is the key. How many escape the penalty for murder by use of bribes or some other wicked reason for freedom? This can apply to many other situations… such as the rape cases in England committed by Muslims, covered-over by politicians and judges to gain votes? Or, the murders committed by terrorists in Gaza, or outside? It is very simple – if there are witnesses to the crime, then the verdict is guilty, and swift justice must follow.

God says that we must be strict in this provision, or we pollute the land with blood. We cannot erase the pollution until the killer is put to death (v33). The same guilt is found in all lands that refuse the death penalty (v34), especially Israel, where God dwelt. It would be the same as asking God to set His throne on top of a dung heap! When a nation refuses to apply the death penalty for deliberate murder, it causes the land (and people) to be polluted, and so the land becomes a haven for killers, who make the pollution even worse.

This does not touch upon other forms of pollution, such as removing God’s laws, allowing evil cults to remain or be allowed in (Islam and Romanism for example, but also countless other cults and even biblical sects, such as Mormon, Charismaticism, etc), plus the tearing apart of biblical doctrine by errant local churches and denominations. All these contaminate and corrupt true faith and beliefs.

© 18 January 2025

---oOo---