Numbers 35:6-15 - Coke's Commentary on the Holy Bible

And among the cities which ye shall give unto the Levites, there shall be six cities for refuge, &c.— The cities of the Levites were appointed for this purpose, rather than any other, because they were a kind of sacred places inhabited by sacred persons; and here men might spend their time better than in other places, being among the ministers of religion. These cities of refuge were only for those who killed any person unawares, Numbers 35:11 i.e. unwittingly, or ignorantly, as it is in Deuteronomy 19:4-5 and Joshua 20:3. See also Numbers 35:22 following. The avenger, Numbers 35:12 says Mr. Locke, means the next heir, or next of kin. For the original word is גאל goel, see Leviticus 25:25. Maimonides justly observes, that this was a merciful provision, both for the man-slayer, that he might be preserved; and for the avenger, that his blood might be cooled by the removal of the man-slayer out of his sight. It appears, from the 12th verse, that the city of refuge protected him who fled thither, so as that the right of the judges to bring the matter to a fair trial remained entire; that the man-slayer die not, until he stand before the congregation in judgment. The elders of the city of refuge inquired, whether the man-slayer should be received or not, upon a summary hearing of the cause; Judges 20:4 but they were not the proper judges, neither could they examine witnesses; and therefore he was delivered, upon demand, to the court or senate of that city where the fact was committed, that he might be tried by them whether he was guilty or not of wilful murder. That the passage ought to be thus interpreted, is plain from Numbers 35:24-25 where it is said, if the congregation found him innocent, he should be restored to the city of refuge; which evidently supposes that he was tried in another place. Cities or places of refuge, usually called asyla, were common to the Hebrews, and with almost all the Gentile world; but, as in the foregoing circumstance, so in various other particulars, they were much more wisely regulated among the Hebrews than among the Gentiles: for, 1. Among other nations it was not allowed to bring to trial, against his will, the person who had fled to the place of refuge; but, among the Hebrews, the asylum served only to secure the man-slayer from being punished without a fair hearing: a point of the greatest equity, but by no means such as screened the guilty from the stroke of justice; so far from it, that the wilful murderer might even be taken from God's altar, if he fled thither for sanctuary: Exodus 21:14 or, if he would not stir from thence, he might be put to death upon the spot. 1 Kings 2:28. We may observe the wisdom of the divine legislator in this particular. It would have been unjust to have put the man-slayer upon the same footing with the wilful murderer, and it would have been imprudent to suffer him to have been daily conversant in the sight of the relations of the person slain; for, love to their deceased friend might have provoked them to watch the opportunity of avenging his death. The evil, therefore, was guarded against by sending the man-slayer out of the way to the city of refuge. 3. As the man-slayer could not without injustice be put to death, to neither ought he to pass without some animadversion, in order to put others upon their guard, lest, through negligence, they should be the unhappy instruments of taking away their neighbour's life. Therefore, it was wisely provided, that the man-slayer should live in exile till the death of the high priest. 4. The wisdom of the legislature remarkably appears, in not opening a sanctuary for all homicides without distinction, as was the case among the Gentiles; but only for involuntary manslaughter. The asyla of the Greeks were sanctuaries for all criminals, which could not but be a source of great licentiousness and disorder. Hence it was, that, as Tacitus informs us, lib. 3: cap. 60. Tiberius found it necessary to take away that privilege from most of the Grecian temples. 5. It was with the same wise discernment, that the places of refuge were not appointed at the tabernacle, or in the temple, where the worship of God might have been prophaned by the presence of murderers, or by the violent assaults of the avengers of blood. On the contrary, throughout all the Gentile world, the temples and places of worship were sanctuaries for crimes. So that Euripides had good reason to find fault with the asyla of the Greeks, as he does in his Ion; Δεινον γε θνητοις, &c. that is, "It is surprising that the gods did not institute laws for mortals with more wisdom and equity; for criminals, instead of being protected by the altar, ought to have been driven from it, since it is a profanation for impious hands to touch the things of God; but those sacred places ought to have been a sanctuary for the just, a refuge from injury and oppression. Thus the gods would not have shewn equal favour to the virtuous and the wicked, when they came to the same place." 6. It is worthy of remark, that though the punishment inflicted on the man-slayer by the Jewish legislator be banishment, yet it is not banishment out of the Jewish territory; lest, by residing among idolaters, he should be seduced from the true religion, and become a worshipper of false gods. Whereas, among other nations, particularly the Greeks, not only the wilful murderer, but the involuntary man-slayer, was banished out of the country, whereby the commonwealth was deprived of one of its members. See Samuel Petit de Leg. Att. lib. 7: Titus 1. We are chiefly indebted to Mr. Le Clerc for the foregoing remarks. They who would see more concerning the cities of refuge will find a full account of them in the Univ. Hist. vol. 3: p. 92 and of the asyla of the heathens in Abbe Banier's Mythology, vol. 1: book 3 chap. 8.