Join Us

“Your Refuge from the avenger of blood” (Josh. 20: 3)
 
Under the law of retribution in ancient Israel, the wilful murderer was to be put to death: “He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death” (Ex. 21: 12).  But for one who killed a man “unawares and unwittingly”(Josh. 20: 3), the Mosaic law graciously appointed places of refuge from the avenger of blood till the cause be fully heard by the magistrates: “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” (Num. 35: 12).  These magistrates had authority to deliver the slayer up to the avenger of blood, if found guilty.

Joshua 20: 1-6 reiterate the regulations for the cities of refuge.  “Upon reaching the city, the manslayer was to be received by the elders and his case heard.   If this was satisfactory, they gave him asylum until a regular trial could be carried out. They took him, apparently, to the city or district from which he had fled, and there, among those who knew him, witnesses were examined.  If it were proved that he was not a wilful slayer, that he had no grudge against the person killed, and had shown no sign of purpose to injure him, then he was declared innocent and conducted back to the city in which he had taken refuge…” – American Tract Society Dictionary.
 
These regulations for the protection of manslayers reflect divine justice and compassion.  While it is true that in the taking away of a life, even when not deliberate, human blood had been shed, and demanded expiation.  Yet this expiation should not cost the offender his life because he had killed “his neighbour ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past” (Deut. 19: 4).
 
“Hence an asylum was provided for him in the free city, to which he might escape, and where he would lie concealed. This sojourn in the free city was not to be regarded as banishment, although separation from house, home, and family was certainly a punishment; but it was a concealment under the protection of the mercy of God, which opened places of escape in the cities of refuge from the carnal ardour of the avenger of blood …” – Keil & Delitzsch.
 
Though the city of refuge provided a safe haven for the manslayer, he had to face considerable hardships – loneliness and years of separation from friends and families.  “By the banishment of the manslayer from his own city, and his confinement to the city of refuge, where he was in a manner a prisoner, God would teach us to conceive a dread and horror of the guilt of blood, and to be very careful of life, and always afraid lest by oversight or negligence we occasion the death of any” – Matthew Henry.
 
Should an offender neglect to surrender himself, it was at his peril; if the avenger of blood met him elsewhere, or overtook him loitering in his way to the city of refuge, and slew him, his blood was upon his own head, because he did not make use of the security which God had provided for him.
 
As long as the offender remained in the city of refuge, he was safe from the avenger of blood.  If he strayed beyond the city boundaries, the avenger of blood might slay him without blame: “But if the slayer shall at any time come without the border of the city of his refuge, whither he was fled;  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”  (Num. 35: 26-27).
 
On the other hand, if he were found guilty of deliberate murder, there was no more protection for him.   He would be handed over to the avenger of blood who would, with his own hand, take the murderer's life.  
 
The unintentional slayer was to remain in the city until the death of the high priest:  “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” (Num. 35: 28).  Interestingly, the Mishnah states that the high priest’s mother would traditionally supply clothing and food to those claiming asylum in the cities of refuge, so that these individuals would not wish for the death of her son.
 
Conclusion
Thank God for the institution of the cities of refuge.  Reciprocal slayings, revenge killings and blood feuds were all averted.  The guilty murderer was never spared, but summarily executed –  “life for life,” “eye for eye” (Ex. 21: 23-24).  However, the unintentional killer was spared, and provisions made so that he could live out his life in a safe haven.
 
Upon the death of the high priest, the manslayer, having served out his term of asylum, was graciously freed to return to his own home.  Here, in the institution of the cities of refuge, we see the wisdom, mercy and grace of God.   Praise His Holy Name!