Grace Journal 1.2 (Fall,
1960) 7-22.
[Copyright © 1960
Grace Theological Seminary; cited with permission;
digitally prepared for use at Gordon College]
THE RELEASE OF HOMICIDES FROM THE CITIES
OF REFUGE
A Critical Monograph on Numbers 35:25
Abridged by the Author
Assistant Professor
"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" (Num. 35:25).
Why were the homicides who were
detained in the cities of refuge released upon
the
death of the high priest? The reason why this event of religious interest in
should be
the terminus of the slayer's confinement, as indicated in Numbers 35:25,
has
elicited a variety of explanations. First, however, the ancient customs
regarding
kinsmen and
the procedure in cases of homicide must be ascertained.
In some ancient eastern
civilizations if a man were slain by another man, the duty
of
avenging him lay as a sacred obligation upon his nearest relative. In the
Biblical record
the next
of kin is called a go'el, the active
participle of ga'al meaning "to
deliver," "to
redeem,"
"to buyback." Oehler describes the go'el
as "that particular relative whose
special duty
it was to restore the violated family integrity, who had to redeem not only
landed
property that had been alienated from the family (Lev. 25:25fF), or a member of
the
family that had fallen into slavery (Lev. 25:47ff), but also the blood that had
been
taken away
from the family by murder."1 The in the last named capacity is
almost
inevitably
known as go'el haddam,
"the redeemer of blood." The Authorized Version
translates this
duty as "the avenger of blood," but
the go'el haddam under
the Old Testament law was not vengeance but equity. He was
not an
avenger, but a restorer, a redeemer, a balancer.2
Genesis 9:6 expresses generally the
precept that he who sheddeth man's blood, by
man
shall his blood be shed. The first indication of the redemption of blood is to
be found
in
Genesis 27:45. The words of Rebekah,
"Why should I be deprived also of you both in
one day?
'I mean that if Jacob were slain by the hand of Esau, then Esau would be slain
by the
redeemer of blood. We cannot be certain how long blood-redemption existed
among the
people, but it is clear from II Samuel 14:6-11 that it was still in existence
and
in full
force in David's time. The performance of the duty itself was probably
regulated
by the
closeness of the relationship and corresponded to the duty of the redeeming
from
bondage
(Lev. 25:49) and to the right of inheritance (Num. 27:8).
The order in which the nearest
relative was considered is given in Leviticus
25:48-9; first a brother, then an uncle or an uncle's son, and
after them any other relative.
While God
Himself would avenge the blood that was shed (Gen. 9:5), He withdrew its
execution from
subjective caprice and restricted it to cases of premeditated homicide or
murder. But
to whom or where was the unintentional homicide to flee? The cities of
refuge were
instigated for this express purpose.
7
8 GRACE JOURNAL
The
directions for the institution of the cities of refuge are to be found in
Numbers 35:9-
34. These are the fulfillment of the original
promise God had given in Exodus
He would
appoint a place for a man who should unintentionally slay his neighbor to
which he
might flee from the "redeemer of blood." These cities were available
to both the
children of
(Num.
35:15). Levitical or priests' towns were selected for
all these free cities. Jamieson
explains:
This was partly because
it was to the priests and levites that the people
would
all look for an administration of justice and partly because these
cities were the
property of Jehovah. It was no doubt felt that
they would be the most suitable and
impartial judges and that their presence and
counsel would calm and restrain the
stormy passions of the blood avenger.3
The number of cities was fixed at six; three were to be "on
this side Jordan," and
three
"in the
were
selected by Moses himself; they were Golan in the
gilead in the tribe of Gad, and Bezer in the lot of Reuben (Deut.
in
tribes;
they were Kedesh in Naphtali,
Shechem in
Deuteronomy
19:1-13 with a special exhortation that they be
carried out.
In Numbers 35:24-5 and Joshua 20:4 we find the procedure incumbent
upon the
manslayer who
had fled to a sanctuary city. He was first of all to state his cause before
the elders,
no doubt at the gate.
The elders were those who, by common
consent, were granted a superior
position because of their descent, age or ability.
They formed a local authority for
the transaction of judicial or other business.4
The
preliminary decision of the elders had to be given in the manslayer's favor
before he
could be
admitted. If the avenger of blood appeared they were not to deliver up the
person whom
they had received, but they were to hand him over on the charge of the
redeemer of
blood to the congregation to which he belonged.
The trial then commenced. The manslayer could only be convicted of
murder by
the
evidence of at least two witnesses. One witness could not only be more easily
mistaken than
several, but he would be more likely to be partial than several persons who
were
unanimous in bearing witness to one and the same thing. Also, the judiciary was
not
ecclesiastical in this instance, but the people themselves were in charge. The
intentions of
the
manslayer had next to be determined; the criterion regarding the determination
whether the
homicide was guilty or not will be dealt with at length later on. If the
manslayer was
declared a murderer, the elders of his city were to have him turned over to
the
avenger of blood (Deut.
be
escorted to the nearest city of refuge to which he had fled and remain within
the
confines of
that city until the death of the high priest. If he decided to leave the city
of
refuge
before that time, the redeemer of blood could take hold of him and slay him
outside the
borders of the city, and "he would not be guilty of blood." (Num.
35:27)
However,
THE RELEASE OF HOMICIDES FROM THE CITIES OF REFUGE 9
after the
death of the high priest he might return "into the land of his
possession," that is,
his
hereditary possession (Num. 35:28) without the redeemer of blood being allowed
to
pursue him
any longer.
The problem, then, is: Why were the homicides who were detained in
the cities of
refuge
released upon the death of the high priest?
VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS WITH EVALUATION
The Expiatory View
This view is held by those who would explain the release of the
manslayers at the
time of
the death of the high priest by assigning expiatory or atoning value to this
significant
event. They point out that human blood has been shed, though inadvertently,
and
demands expiation (cf. Gen. 9:5, 6; Num. 35:33). God in His mercy made
provision
for
cities of refuge so that the offender could flee the wrath of the redeemer of
blood.
The blood of
the homicide was not required to be shed because he had not sinned
willfully.
Inasmuch as the release of the homicides was "coincident with the high
priest's
death,
great value is placed upon the death of the high priest himself. Keil states:
The death of the high
priest had the same result in a certain sense, in relation to
his time of office, as his function on the day of atonement
had had every year.5
Great emphasis is placed upon the appositional clause in Numbers
35:25 which
refers to
the high priest "who has been anointed with the holy oil." Keil holds that this
definitive
clause makes this viewpoint "unmistakably evident," and "it
would appear
unmeaning and
superfluous on any other view."6 He further elaborates this
point by
saying:
This clause points to
the inward connection between the return of the slayer
and the death of the high priest. The anointing with the holy oil was
a symbol of
the communication of the Holy Ghost, by which the high priest was
empowered
to act as mediator and representative of the nation before God, so
that he alone
could carry out the yearly and general expiation for the whole nation,
on the great
day of atonement. But as his life and work acquired a representative
signification
through this anointing with the Holy Ghost, his
death might also be regarded as a
death for the sins of the people, by virtue of the Holy Ghost imparted
to him,
through which the unintentional manslayer
received the benefits of the
propitiation for his sin before God, so that he could
return to his native town,
without further exposure to the vengeance of the
avenger of blood.7
The strength of this view is supposed to be enhanced by the fact
that its tradition
goes back
to the earliest days of church history. Keil points
out that many of the Rabbins,
fathers, and
earlier commentators maintain that the death of the high priest was regarded
as
expiatory. Both the Talmud and Mekelta agree with
Philo in holding this view, and
they are
followed in general by Jewish commentators. Some modern commentators who
would
concur with this view are Barth, Gossman,
Lange and Williams.
10 GRACE
JOURNAL
The word kipper whose primary meaning is "to
cover" is usually found in the piel
and constructed
with be'ad, le, and 'al meaning
"to expiate an offense" or "to make
atonement for
an offender." The word "atone," then, is a translator's attempt
at
interpreting the meaning of kipper. This word, however, has been seized
upon and used
in a
theological sense to express the entire work of Christ upon the cross, and it
is used to
represent the
work of the lamb of God taking away the sin of the world. The Standard
Dictionary
defines the meaning of expiation thusly: "The active means of expiating,
or of
making
reparation or satisfaction, as for offense, or sin; the removal of guilt by
suffering
punishment;
atonement, or an atonement."8 In its Old Testament usage,
atonement is
thought of
as a covering for sin while expiation deals with reparation or satisfaction for
wrong
done, although both have to do with removal of guilt for sin. Although
"expiation"
is not
to be found in the Authorized Version, it is used as a translation of kipper
in
Numbers
35:33 (ASV) in the sense indicated above. Commentators use
"atonement" and
"expiation" as synonymous so the writer will regard them
as such and view them in their
Old Testament sense.
Although several commentators hold the Expiatory View, Keil clearly is the chief
representative with the others merely following his lead. He goes back to
Genesis 9:5
which
asserts generally the precept that he who sheddeth
man's blood, by man shall his
blood be
shed. This fundamental truth is based upon the idea of man's being created in
the
image of God, and murder being primarily a transgression against the Creator
and
Lord of
human life (Gen. 9:6). The shedding of blood pollutes the land and to allow the
blood of
man to go unexpiated amounts to defiling the land
(cf. Num. 35:33-4). The
explanation that
appeals to those holding this view is that the high priest, who has
received a
representative significance due to his anointing, satisfies the demands of the
law
himself when he dies. The similarity between this function of the high priest
and the
"heavenly One, who through the eternal (Holy) Spirit offered
Himself without spot to
God, that we
might be redeemed from our transgressions, and receive the promised
eternal
inheritance" is often pointed out. 9
Numbers 35 clearly delineates between two kinds of killing in
reference to which
the
avenging of blood is commanded; verses 16-21 describe willful murder while in
verses 22-3
accidental homicide is discussed. In verses 16-21 two kinds of activities are
described as
murder. Verse 16-18 is a case where one strikes another in such a way that
death may
be seen as the probable consequence; that is, if an iron instrument were used,
such as
an ax, hatchet, or hammer; or a stone "which filled the hand" meaning
no doubt a
stone
large enough to kill someone; or a wooden instrument, a thick club or a strong
wooden
instrument, the suspected person was to be declared a murderer. "The
suspicion
would rest
upon anyone who had used an instrument that endangered life and therefore
was not
generally used in striking."10 Verses 20-21 give a case where one has hit another
in
hatred or threw at him lying in wait, or struck him with the hand in enmity, so
that he
died. In
this case the means by which the actual murder is effected
is immaterial. He is
declared a
murderer in both instances; and if he flees to a city of refuge, the elders of
the
city are
to have him thrown out and delivered over to the avenger of blood (cf. Deut.
19:
11, 12). In
this instance even the altar couldn't protect (cf. Exod.
21:14). Clearly, such a
premeditated act is a sin committed "with a high hand," i.e.
defiantly and deliberately; the
law
provides no opportunity for a sacrifice (cf. Exod.
21:12, 14; Num. 15:30-31).
THE RELEASE OF HOMICIDES FROM THE CITIES OF REFUGE 11
On the other hand, the law provided for six cities of refuge in
order to shelter the
one who
had slain a man not out of enmity from his heart. Numbers 35:22 and Exodus
21:13 cover
the case in which hurt was not intentional, while Deuteronomy 19:4 deals
with
inadvertent or unintentional manslaughter. An example of the last mentioned
case is
given in
Deuteronomy 19:5 where a man accidentally kills his neighbor in the forest
while
chopping wood when the head of the ax being used slips off and strikes his
neighbor so
that he dies. The action on the part of the man-slayer in this case would be
the same
for anyone who sinned "unwittingly." He was to bring a she-goat one
year old,
without
blemish, and the animal was to be made a sin-offering for the sin which had
been
committed.
After the atonement had been made, the offender was promised that he would
be
forgiven (cf. Lev. 4:27-31; Num. 15:27-28). That accidental homicide is classed
and
treated as
sinning "unwittingly" or "through error" and is definitely
stated as such in
Numbers 35:11 and Joshua 20:3, 9.
An example of an atonement to be provided for an untraced murder
is to be found
in
Deuteronomy 21:1-9. If a man be found murdered in the open country, and there
be no
indication who
the murderer is, the elders of the city who are nearest to the spot where
the
corpse was found are to procure a heifer which has never been used for any
work.
They are to
take it to a running stream, and having there slain it in the presence of the
priests, to
wash their hands over it. At the same time they solemnly avow before God that
their city
is guiltless of the murder and entreat Him to forgive His people for the crime
that has
been committed in its midst. "Blood innocently shed defiles a land or
people
until some
recognized atonement be offered for it."11
The writer concludes that the homicide who is admitted into a city
of refuge
would have
made atonement for the blood which he had shed inadvertently and which
had
defiled the
the law
as stated above. This would, of course, render the Expiatory View as
unnecessary.
Lange's contention that "the great event of the death of the high priest
covers with
respect to God a mass of sins which have risen from ignorance or
mistakes"12 is
nullified and completely out of order. The errors of the Expia-
tory View need now to be exposed and answered.
As already noted, Keil asserts that the
death of the high priest was regarded as
expiatory
unmistakably from the addition of the qualifying clause, "who has been
anointed with
the holy oil." The instructions for the preparation of the holy oil are to
be
found in
Exodus 30:22-38. The specifications for the ingredients that are to make up
this
oil are
in verses 23-25; the tent of meeting, the articles that are included in the
tent, and
finally
Aaron and his sons are instructed to be anointed with this preparation. Verse
31
says,
"and thou shalt speak unto the children of
anointing oil
unto me throughout your generations."
Similar qualifying words or clauses relating to the high priest
are to be found
interspersed throughout the Pentateuch. For the phrase "the anointed
priest" see Leviticus
4:3, 5, 16;
6:22. See Leviticus
anointed"
and "upon whose head the anointing oil is poured" etc. Gray states,
"Occasionally
and chiefly, as here (Num. 35:25) when no reference has been made by
name to
the person intended, more distinctive terms or descriptions are used; these
most
frequently
refer to the distinctive anointing of Aaron and his successors"13
(cf. also Exod.
29:7, 29;
Lev. 8:12). Weinel considers such passages to be
additions, while Gray calls
them
"redundant definitions." It seems to the writer that the addition of
12 GRACE
JOURNAL
qualifying
words, phrases or clauses is used by the writers of the Old Testament to point
out that
which is distinctive and most significant concerning the man or his office.
Compare
Jeroboam I, for example. "Jeroboam, the son of Nebat,
who made
is
repeated over and over again. Later wicked kings were described often as
"walking in
the sins
of Jeroboam" or "following the sins of Jeroboam" or
"departing not from the sins
of
Jeroboam." That for which Jeroboam was chiefly remembered was his
defection from
Jehovah
worship and the leading of subsequent kings in an idolatrous direction. Such a
literary
custom would explain the presence of such a phrase in Numbers 35:25.
Unquestionably the significance of the phrase under discussion is
that the
anointing of
the high priest set him aside in a special way to carry out the functions
incumbent upon
his office. This is clearly evident in Exodus 30:30 where we read, "and
thou shalt anoint Aaron and his sons, and sanctify them, that
they may minister unto me
in the
priest's office." Keil gives an excellent
statement of this fact:
The anointing with the
holy oil was a symbol of the communication of the
Holy Ghost, by which the high priest was empowered to act as
mediator and
representative of the nation before God, so that he
alone could carry out the yearly
and general expiation for the whole nation, on the great day of
atonement.14
Unger broadens the anointing to cover prophet, priest, and king;
and he gives
references to
show that the coming of the Spirit in connection with the office and the
anointing are
closely related.
Kings, priests, and
prophets were anointed with oil or ointment. . . oil
was a fit-
ting symbol of the Spirit, or spiritual principle of life, by virtue
of its power to
sustain and fortify the vital energy; and the
anointing oil, which was prepared
according to divine instructions, was therefore a
symbol of the Spirit of God, as
the principle of spiritual life which proceeds from God and fills the
natural being
of the creature with powers of divine life. The anointing with oil,
therefore, was a
symbol of endowment with the Spirit of God for
the duties of the office to which
a person was consecrated. (Lev.
The addition
of the clause "who was anointed with the holy oil," therefore, has to
do with
the
setting aside of the high priest for his priestly functions, being a symbol of
the
endowment of
the Spirit of God. Of course, the death of the high priest was hardly a duty
of the
office to which he was consecrated, and the above interpretation of this clause
would
exclude the Expiatory View.
The proposition of a man other than the God-man, Christ Jesus,
being offered in
any
sense as an atonement for sin presents a startling innovation, to say the
least. As
Watson puts
it, "Although many of the Rabbins and fathers
held this view as to the
expiatory
nature of the high priest's death, there is absolutely nothing in scripture or
reason to
support it."16 The
high priest himself could not become an acceptable
atonement for
the sins of anybody, including himself. Although he was to be one who
had no
physical blemish (Lev.
sinful
nature. We find provision for a sin-offering to be made for Aaron and his sons
when they
were consecrated to the priesthood (Exod. 29:10ff),
and on the yearly day
THE RELEASE
OF HOMICIDES FROM THE CITIES OF REFUGE 13
of
atonement the high priest was to "make atonement for himself and the
people"
(Lev.
16:24). This utterly refutes the
contention of Philo that "the high priest was
immaculate and
sinless."17 Of course, it is impossible to speak of an atonement without
the shedding
of the blood as he value of the sacrifice was due to the life of the victim
being
shed. Needless to say, the high priest was not offered up as a sacrifice when
he
expired. His
only hope was the substitutionary sacrifices which
were made on the yearly
day of
atonement for himself and the people which looked forward to that day when the
Lord Jesus
Christ, the lamb of God, who would with one offering
perfect for ever them
that are
sanctified (Heb.
the
penalty binding upon all mankind, lithe soul that sinneth,
it shall die."
Keil, in attempting to bolster his position, maintains that many of
the Rabbins,
fathers, and
earlier commentators regarded the death of the high priest as expiatory. The
writer has
been unable to find any comment whatsoever from the Anti-Nicene or Post-
Nicene
fathers and has traced the modern commentators who hold this view as far back