Cities of Refuge Question

[Open7]

I’m reading Joshua 20, which talks about the cities of refuge for Israel. I’ll just take the assumption that you know what these were and not explain it all.

My question is, why did they need to wait until the death of the high priest for the slayer to be released? I know that it points to Jesus and is a for-shadow of when Jesus died, we would then have refuge in him. But what was the reason for them needing to wait for the high priest to die?

Thanks

[Mr. M]

4 hours ago, Open7 said:

I’m reading Joshua 20, which talks about the cities of refuge for Israel. I’ll just take the assumption that you know what these were and not explain it all.

My question is, why did they need to wait until the death of the high priest for the slayer to be released? I know that it points to Jesus and is a for-shadow of when Jesus died, we would then have refuge in him. But what was the reason for them needing to wait for the high priest to die?

Thanks

The full description for the cities of refuge is found in Numbers 35. The slayer is not remanded into custody in the city of refuge, he can leave at any time, but at the risk of facing the avenger of blood. The high priest is responsible for the sanctity of the land. Therefore, here is the concern.

Numbers 35:33 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.

The lifetime of the high priest represents a "cooling off" period for the avenger of blood. But if at any time the slayer is found outside the city of refuge, he forfeits his protection. This is somewhat complicated, but the point is to avoid the shedding of innocent blood. If the slayer is put to death by the avenger outside the bounds of his protection, his bloodshed is no longer "innocent", as he walked in disobedience to the Law. 

[Mr. M]

5 hours ago, Open7 said:

I’m reading Joshua 20, which talks about the cities of refuge for Israel. I’ll just take the assumption that you know what these were and not explain it all.

My question is, why did they need to wait until the death of the high priest for the slayer to be released? I know that it points to Jesus and is a for-shadow of when Jesus died, we would then have refuge in him. But what was the reason for them needing to wait for the high priest to die?

Thanks

An illustration from the Shimei incident of King David, and his final instructions to Solomon.

1 Kings 2:8 And see, you have with you Shimei the son of Gera, a Benjamite from Bahurim, who cursed me with a malicious curse in the day when I went to Mahanaim. But he came down to meet me at the Jordan, and I swore to him by the Lord, saying, ‘I will not put you to death with the sword.’ 9 Now therefore, do not hold him guiltless, for you are a wise man and know what you ought to do to him; but bring his gray hair down to the grave with blood.

 

36 Then the king sent and called for Shimei, and said to him, “Build yourself a house in Jerusalem and dwell there, and do not go out from there anywhere. 

37 For it shall be, on the day you go out and cross the Brook Kidron, know for certain you shall surely die; your [h]blood shall be on your own head.”

38 And Shimei said to the king, “The saying is good. As my lord the king has said, so your servant will do.” So Shimei dwelt in Jerusalem many days.

39 Now it happened at the end of three years, that two slaves of Shimei ran away to Achish the son of Maachah, king of Gath. And they told Shimei, saying, “Look, your slaves are in Gath!” 

40 So Shimei arose, saddled his donkey, and went to Achish at Gath to seek his slaves. And Shimei went and brought his slaves from Gath. 

41 And Solomon was told that Shimei had gone from Jerusalem to Gath and had come back. 

42 Then the king sent and called for Shimei, and said to him, “Did I not make you swear by the Lord, and warn you, saying, ‘Know for certain that on the day you go out and travel anywhere, you shall surely die’? And you said to me, ‘The word I have heard is good.’ 

43 Why then have you not kept the oath of the Lord and the commandment that I gave you?” 

44 The king said moreover to Shimei, “You know, as your heart acknowledges, all the wickedness that you did to my father David; therefore the Lord will return your wickedness on your own head. 

45 But King Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall be established before the Lord forever.”

46 So the king commanded Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he went out and struck him down, and he died. Thus the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon.

The full narrative of the Shimei incident with King David: 2 Samuel 16:5-14; 2 Samuel 19:18-23

[Open7]

15 hours ago, Mr. M said:

The full description for the cities of refuge is found in Numbers 35. The slayer is not remanded into custody in the city of refuge, he can leave at any time, but at the risk of facing the avenger of blood. The high priest is responsible for the sanctity of the land. Therefore, here is the concern.

Numbers 35:33 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.

The lifetime of the high priest represents a "cooling off" period for the avenger of blood. But if at any time the slayer is found outside the city of refuge, he forfeits his protection. This is somewhat complicated, but the point is to avoid the shedding of innocent blood. If the slayer is put to death by the avenger outside the bounds of his protection, his bloodshed is no longer "innocent", as he walked in disobedience to the Law. 

Thanks @Mr. M I’m not entirely sure what you mean when you say cooking off period. What if the priest happen to die the day after someone accidentally killed someone and was in a city of refugee for just a few hours? They can then leave?

[Deborah_]

1 hour ago, Open7 said:

Thanks @Mr. M I’m not entirely sure what you mean when you say cooking off period. What if the priest happen to die the day after someone accidentally killed someone and was in a city of refugee for just a few hours? They can then leave?

The crime in question is manslaughter.  Murder was punishable by death. What lesser sentence would be appropriate in an age when there were no prisons? The cities of refuge were a form of internal exile. 

However, it wasn't a life sentence (many of these deaths would actually have been "accidental"). But there was no system of numbering years, and no overall government to keep tabs on these people to say when their "time" was up. So the judges couldn't impose a sentence of X number of years. 

The high priest was the one national figure, whose death would be widely publicised and known by everyone. Yes, it was arbitrary (some people would have unduly short sentences, and others over-long ones). But I think the main aim was to restrain the avenger so that the culprit wouldn't have to live in fear of his life. 

And then there is the reason that you mentioned at the beginning. The avenger could understand that a death had occurred, and be (hopefully) satisfied. 

[Open7]

1 hour ago, Deborah_ said:

The crime in question is manslaughter.  Murder was punishable by death. What lesser sentence would be appropriate in an age when there were no prisons? The cities of refuge were a form of internal exile. 

However, it wasn't a life sentence (many of these deaths would actually have been "accidental"). But there was no system of numbering years, and no overall government to keep tabs on these people to say when their "time" was up. So the judges couldn't impose a sentence of X number of years. 

The high priest was the one national figure, whose death would be widely publicised and known by everyone. Yes, it was arbitrary (some people would have unduly short sentences, and others over-long ones). But I think the main aim was to restrain the avenger so that the culprit wouldn't have to live in fear of his life. 

And then there is the reason that you mentioned at the beginning. The avenger could understand that a death had occurred, and be (hopefully) satisfied. 

Hi @Deborah_ thank you for this. This raised a couple of things for me.

It’s my understanding that the person who killed someone, whether accidental or not, would undergo some kind of trial, and this would determine whether or not they would go free, so I still don’t get why the death of a high priest would have any affect on this, again I’ll point out I see the foreshadow of Jesus death in this however.

Also, you mentioned at the end of your post, that the death of the high priest would hopefully satisfy the avenger, but how would this bring any satisfaction to them when one of their family members was killed?

[Deborah_]

5 hours ago, Open7 said:

Hi @Deborah_ thank you for this. This raised a couple of things for me.

It’s my understanding that the person who killed someone, whether accidental or not, would undergo some kind of trial, and this would determine whether or not they would go free, so I still don’t get why the death of a high priest would have any affect on this, again I’ll point out I see the foreshadow of Jesus death in this however.

Also, you mentioned at the end of your post, that the death of the high priest would hopefully satisfy the avenger, but how would this bring any satisfaction to them when one of their family members was killed?

The trial took place when he arrived at the city of refuge and was to determine whether he was guilty of murder, guilty of manslaughter, or innocent. If it was murder, the avenger could execute him on the spot. If it was manslaughter, he had to stay in the city of refuge. If he was innocent, he could go home.  All this had nothing to do with the high priest. 

But the death of the current high priest - maybe many years later - marked the end of his sentence (indeed, it meant that everyone confined to cities of refuge were free to go home). He could always choose to stay there, of course (he might have put roots down, got married, etc).

Now hopefully this would have allowed time for the victim's family to accept the court's verdict that the killing was not intentional. 

[Open7]

18 hours ago, Deborah_ said:

The trial took place when he arrived at the city of refuge and was to determine whether he was guilty of murder, guilty of manslaughter, or innocent. If it was murder, the avenger could execute him on the spot. If it was manslaughter, he had to stay in the city of refuge. If he was innocent, he could go home.  All this had nothing to do with the high priest. 

But the death of the current high priest - maybe many years later - marked the end of his sentence (indeed, it meant that everyone confined to cities of refuge were free to go home). He could always choose to stay there, of course (he might have put roots down, got married, etc). 

Thanks @Deborah_ I’ve done some more research and found more info, was hoping you could check my answer☺️ 

Your second paragraph here, where you said ‘marked the end of his sentence’ - are you referring to the a person guilty of manslaughter?

I assume you mean a person guilty of manslaughter, because out of the 3 potential verdicts 1. murderer (who would be killed) 2. manslaughter (would need to remain in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest) and 3. the innocent (who would walk away free). It’s only the manslaughter person who would need to stay in the city until the death of the high priest right? The other two wouldn’t need to.

And after doing more research, I found a couple of people say why this is. The person who committed manslaughter, which as far as I can see, is an unintentional death, possibly from self defence, would have caused potential desire for retaliation from the killed persons family or loved ones. But the point of waiting until the death of the high priest for the man-slaughterer’s release, is that because “His death plunges the whole community into such distress that private sorrow is lost in the general affliction."

So basically, when the high priest dies, the nation as a whole are so upset, that they put aside their own personal sorrows or desires for revenge, and therefore, this is the time which the man-slaughterer is now safe to go free, hopefully at least.

Does this sound right to you?

[farouk]

1 hour ago, Open7 said:

Thanks @Deborah_ I’ve done some more research and found more info, was hoping you could check my answer☺️ 

Your second paragraph here, where you said ‘marked the end of his sentence’ - are you referring to the a person guilty of manslaughter?

I assume you mean a person guilty of manslaughter, because out of the 3 potential verdicts 1. murderer (who would be killed) 2. manslaughter (would need to remain in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest) and 3. the innocent (who would walk away free). It’s only the manslaughter person who would need to stay in the city until the death of the high priest right? The other two wouldn’t need to.

And after doing more research, I found a couple of people say why this is. The person who committed manslaughter, which as far as I can see, is an unintentional death, possibly from self defence, would have caused potential desire for retaliation from the killed persons family or loved ones. But the point of waiting until the death of the high priest for the man-slaughterer’s release, is that because “His death plunges the whole community into such distress that private sorrow is lost in the general affliction."

So basically, when the high priest dies, the nation as a whole are so upset, that they put aside their own personal sorrows or desires for revenge, and therefore, this is the time which the man-slaughterer is now safe to go free, hopefully at least.

Does this sound right to you?

Hi @Open7 I remember when some Bibles would have maps at the back where the cities of refuge were marked.

As I recall, some were west of the Jordan and some were east (unless I am mistaken).

[Deborah_]

2 hours ago, Open7 said:

And after doing more research, I found a couple of people say why this is. The person who committed manslaughter, which as far as I can see, is an unintentional death, possibly from self defence, would have caused potential desire for retaliation from the killed persons family or loved ones. But the point of waiting until the death of the high priest for the man-slaughterer’s release, is that because “His death plunges the whole community into such distress that private sorrow is lost in the general affliction."

So basically, when the high priest dies, the nation as a whole are so upset, that they put aside their own personal sorrows or desires for revenge, and therefore, this is the time which the man-slaughterer is now safe to go free, hopefully at least.

Does this sound right to you?

It sounds a reasonable explanation.