Deeper Commentary
Num 35:1 Yahweh spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan
at Jericho, saying-
The Levites had no land inheritance, only cities. Or better, towns.
As explained on Lev. 25:29,30, God's intention therefore was that Israel lived in
small settlements and not walled cities. Ideally, the only cities were to
be those of the Levites. This detailed potential intention was never
realized by Israel; just as the extensive and intricate commands
about the restoration of the temple in Ez. 40-48 never were. One of the
greatest tragedies for God must be all the wasted potentials He sets up in
countless lives. And His joy is when we at least begin to realize them.
Num 35:2 Command the children of Israel that they give to the Levites from
the inheritance of their possession some cities to dwell in, and you shall
give suburbs for the cities around them to the Levites-
This meant that the Levites were divided amongst the 12 tribes of
Israel, enabling them to teach God’s ways to the whole nation (Lev. 10:11;
Dt. 33:9,10). In this way, the curse upon Levi that his children would be
scattered in Israel (Gen. 49:7) turned into a blessing for all- and God so
loves to work in this way, using the consequences of sin to bring about
His work, purpose and glory.
Num 35:3 The cities shall they have to dwell in and their suburbs shall be
for their livestock, and for their substance, and for all their animals-
Eve was "the mother of all living" (Gen. 3:20), in its primary
application explaining to the Israelites in the wilderness where they
ultimately originated from. Israel were to trace their first origins and
parents back not merely to Abraham, but to Adam and Eve. Num. 35:3 [Heb.]
uses the term to describe the "all living" ["livestock"] of the
congregation of Israel; indeed, that Hebrew word translated "living" is
translated "congregation", with reference to the congregation of Israel
(Ps. 68:10; 74:19). Note how the Hebrew idea of 'all living' repeatedly
occurs in the account of the flood (Gen. 6:19; 8:1,17 etc.)- which I
suggest was a flood local to the area which the Israelites knew and which
had been ultimately promised to Abraham.
Num 35:4 The suburbs of the cities which you shall give to the Levites
shall be from the wall of the city and outward two thousand cubits around
it-
The measurements of the "suburbs" or agricultural land around the
Levitical towns was in a square with the measurements taken from the city
wall. This implies that their towns were to be built as perfect squares
within a town wall. The tabernacle was rectangular, not square. So they
were not being asked to imitate the tabernacle but rather the altar, which
is repeatedly described as foursquare (Ex. 27:1; 38:1; 30:2 cp. Rev.
21:16). The Levites were to have towns which were effectively the local
altar for the people.
Num 35:5 You shall measure outside of the city for the east side two
thousand cubits, and for the south side two thousand cubits, and for the
west side two thousand cubits, and for the north side two thousand cubits,
the city being in the midst. This shall be to them for the suburbs of the
cities-
This grant of agricultural land to the Levites was really an
indication of God's tacit acceptance that the whole system was not going
to work as He ideally intended. If Israel were obedient to the covenant,
they would be blessed with bumper harvests, of which they would tithe 10%
to the Levites, and additionally the Levites received various tithes from
the offerings, and also the freewill offerings. They would have no need to
work the land but could dedicate themselves completely to studying and
teaching God's law to the people, which would confirm them in their
obedience to the covenant and continued receipt of blessing. But God
foresaw this situation would break down, and so He gave them land on which
to grow their own food. His law continually reflects His gracious
awareness of likely human failure.
Num 35:6 The cities which you shall give to the Levites shall be the six
cities of refuge, which you shall give for the manslayer to flee to: and
besides them you shall give forty-two cities-
The number 42 recalls the 42 stopping places of Israel in the
wilderness, just listed in Num. 33. The idea was that the priestly cities
were places of teaching which would be stages towards Israel's eternal
inheritance of the Kingdom of God in its full sense. We think likewise of
the 42 generations to the Lord Jesus which are listed in Matthew'
genealogy of the Lord. The Levites were to teach the people and lead them
towards Christ, for the law they taught was a schoolmaster which led to
Christ (Gal. 3:24).
Num 35:7 All the cities which you shall give to the Levites shall be
forty-eight cities together with their suburbs-
"Suburbs" is translated by some as "cattle drives". Josh. 21:41 adds:
"All the cities of the Levites in the midst of the possession of the
children of Israel were forty-eight cities with their suburbs". The idea
was that the Levites would live "in the midst" of the people, teaching
them God's way. But Israel's apostacy is often blamed upon the failure of
the priesthood; and yet that in turn was partly due to Israel not
providing for the Levites.
Num 35:8 Concerning the cities which you shall give of the possession of
the children of Israel, from the many you shall take many; and from the
few you shall take few. Everyone according to his inheritance which he
inherits shall give of his cities to the Levites-
But the reality was that many of the cities the Israelites gave the
Levites were in marginal areas or areas still under Canaanite domination.
Thus Kedemoth was given to the Levites (Josh. 21:37) but was in fact a
town which had not been captured from the local population (Josh. 13:18).
They failed to learn the principle of 2 Sam. 24:24, that we are not to
apparently sacrifice to God that which cost us nothing.
Num 35:9 Yahweh spoke to Moses saying-
This legislation assumes that the revenger of blood was free to
operate.
Num 35:10 Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them, ‘When you pass
over the Jordan into the land of Canaan-
This could imply that establishing the cities of refuge, of which we
will now read, was to be immediately attended to. But there is no evidence
Israel did this. They were satisfied with a bit of farmland, and showed no
real interest in the development of a system of blessing and salvation as
God had potentially enabled.
Num 35:11 then you shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for
you, that the manslayer who kills any person unknowingly may flee there-
But as noted several times in Josh. 19, some of these cities they had
not even taken from enemy hands. "Appoint" is the usual word for "give". The tribes were to give these
cities. But several of them they had not even bothered to take from the
local inhabitants. Their disobedience to these commandments made their
personal salvation so much more difficult. And so we again see the upward
spiral, the self reinforcing nature, of God's commandments. They were not
a burden, a chain that binds, but rather an opportunity to prosper
spiritually.
Num 35:12 The cities shall be to you for refuge from the avenger, that the
manslayer not die until he stands before the congregation for judgment-
The word go'el
translated "avenger" is also that translated "redeemer" or 'ransomer'. The
cities of refuge are therefore understood in Heb. 6:18 as looking ahead to
refuge in the Lord Jesus: "Who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the
hope set before us". The allusion is to how the person who found
they had committed a sin worthy of death, yet without as it were wishing
to have done so, could flee to a city of refuge and be saved there by the
death of the high priest. The curse upon Levi was that the members of this
tribe were to be scattered in Israel (Gen. 49:7). However, this resulted
in the cities of the Levites being scattered throughout the land, thus
providing accessible cities of refuge to all who wished to escape the
consequences of sin. Those cities were evidently symbolic of the refuge we
have in Christ. Again and again, the curses and consequences of human sin
are used by the Father to mediate blessing. It is the sure hope before us
which is our refuge. "Hope", elpis, is a confident knowledge of a
future reality, rather than a hoping for the best. We should be confident
in our salvation. The 'guilty' person was made free totally through the
death of the High Priest, clearly looking forward to the significance of
the death of the Lord Jesus.
Num 35:13 The cities which you shall give shall be for you six cities of
refuge-
Dt. 19:7 adds that they were to do so "for yourselves", or here "for
you". The emphasis was very much upon them making the cities of
refuge, and defining the paths which led to them from all settlements in
the land (Dt. 19:3): "I command you, saying, You must set apart three
cities for yourselves" (Dt. 19:7). Yet the record in Joshua 18-20 shows
that Israel didn't do this, because they didn't even capture all the
cities which were to be cities of refuge. All God's laws are and were for
the spiritual benefit of His people, rather than simple tests of
obedience. Disobedience therefore harms us more than anyone.
Num 35:14 You shall give three cities beyond the Jordan and you shall give
three cities in the land of Canaan. They shall be cities of refuge-
Dt. 19:8,9 make it clear that more cities would be added if Israel
were obedient and their land borders were enlarged. Those cities of refuge could have been increased in number, thereby
making salvation that much 'easier' or accessible; but there is no
evidence Israel availed themselves of this. Israel would be provided with
more cities of refuge if they were obedient; the way of escape from sin
would become easier, as it does for us the more we are obedient to God’s
principles.
Num 35:15 For the children of Israel and for the stranger and for the
foreigner living among them, these six cities shall be for refuge; that
everyone who kills any person unintentionally may flee there-
We are all in the position of the person who unintentionally killed
another person and is therefore liable to death. We have all sinned, and
yet as it were in the spirit of how Paul describes our sin in Romans 7-
committed against our better intentions. Heb. 6:18 speaks of us fleeing
for refuge into Christ- suggesting we are the one who flees after
committing manslaughter, and becoming “in Christ” by baptism is our entry
into Him as our city of refuge. But we must abide in Him- for if we leave
Him then we are liable to death (:26). And our final salvation from the
effects of sin is guaranteed by the death of the High Priest, the Lord
Jesus (:25).
Num 35:16 But if he struck him with an instrument of iron, so that he
died, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death
Dt. 19:13 expresses this as "you must put away the innocent blood
from Israel".
We would rather expect that guilty blood must be put away. AV has
"the guilt of innocent blood", LXX "so shalt thou purge innocent blood".
The idea was that the guilt for innocent blood must be purged by blood.
The Lord's blood was the ultimate innocent blood, and so Israel were being
prepared to accept that blood was to be shed for His blood. And thus it
happened (Mt. 27:25; Acts 5:28).
Num 35:17 If he struck him with a stone in the hand, by which a man may
die, and he died, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to
death-
The purpose of the system of cities of refuge was (Dt. 19:10) "so
that innocent blood will not be shed in your land which Yahweh your God
gives you for an inheritance, and so guilt for blood be upon you".
Innocent blood would not be shed because there was a system of judging and
punishing those who shed it (Dt. 19:12).
If Israel were indifferent to preparing the way for others’
salvation, then innocent blood would be shed and they would be responsible
for it (Dt. 19:10). This is powerful stuff. Indifference to providing
others with a way of escape from their sin and death means we are actually
guilty of their lack of salvation. And yet we tend to think that committed
sin is all we have to worry about / avoid. The lesson here, however, bites
far more caustically and insistently into our comfort zone. If we are
indifferent to marking out the way of escape for others, their blood will
be upon our heads. Our chief excuses for not witnessing enthusiastically
basically amount to laziness, indifference, not getting our act together
because we don’t see we have to… when actually, there is an intense
urgency about our task.
Num 35:18 Or if he struck him with a weapon of wood in the hand, by which
a man may die, and he died, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be
put to death-
The slayer of innocent blood was to be slain without pity: "you shall
put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with
you" (Dt. 19:13). But David seems to have stepped up to a higher level
when he told the woman of Tekoah that he would protect her son from
revenge murder, after he had slain another man (2 Sam. 14:8-10). The woman
pointed out that if her son was slain, the inheritance would be lost in
her husband's name. Here was a case where two principles seemed to be at
variance: the need to slay the guilty, and the need to preserve the
inheritance. The higher level was to forgive the slayer of innocent blood,
even though the Law categorically stated that he should be slain.
Num 35:19 The avenger of blood shall himself put the murderer to death.
When he meets him, he shall put him to death-
The idea of blood vendettas, whereby a family member of the murdered
has a legal right to hunt and kill the murderer, is widespread in
primitive societies. Yet the Law of Moses seems to make provision for it.
Seeing that God is presented as the ultimate avenger (see on Num. 31:2),
this may seem strange. Instead of grace and forgiveness being inculcated,
revenge seems allowed. Yet the desire to repay murder with murder is so
great within primitive society that it seems God made a concession to this
weakness, and allowed it, whilst seeking to control it from being applied
in any wrongful or doubtful context. The fact God makes concessions to
human weakness doesn’t mean we should eagerly make use of them; the spirit
of all God’s revelation to us in His word is that we should forgive and
leave vengeance to Him.
Num 35:20 If he thrust him from hatred, or hurled at him, lying in wait,
so that he died-
Dt. 19:6 defines this in more detail. The person was innocent of
intentional murder "was not worthy of death because he didn’t hate him in
time past". We note that hatred of a neighbour was to be the reason for death.
John appears to have this in mind when he reasons that hatred of our
brother is effectively a living death sentence (1 Jn. 2:11; 4:20). It was
to be that "whoever hates his brother is a murderer", not a manslaughterer
(1 Jn. 3:15). And that hatred can be in someone's heart, even if they have
not killed the object of their hatred. This is the principle which is
taught here.
Num 35:21 or in enmity struck him with his hand, so that he died; he who
struck him shall surely be put to death; he is a murderer. The avenger of
blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him-
As Hosea ‘redeemed’ Gomer in His attempt to force through His fantasy
for her (Hos. 3:1), so Yahweh is repeatedly described in Isaiah as
Israel’s go’el , redeemer (Is. 41:14; Is. 43:14; Is. 44:6,24; Is.
47:4; Is. 48:17; Is. 49:7,26; Is. 54:5,8). The redeemer could redeem a
close relative from slavery or repurchase property lost during hard times
(Lev. 25:25,26, 47-55; Ruth 2:20; Ruth 3:9,12). The redeemer was also the
avenger of blood (Num. 35:9-28; Josh. 20:3,9). All these ideas were
relevant to Yahweh’s relationship to Judah in captivity. But the promised
freedom didn’t come- even under Nehemiah, Judah was still a province
within the Persian empire. And those who returned complained: “We are
slaves this day in the land you gave…” (Neh. 9:36). The wonderful
prophecies of freedom and redemption from slavery weren’t realized in
practice, because of the selfishness of the more wealthy Jews. And how
often is it that the freedom potentially enabled for those redeemed in
Christ is in practice denied them by their autocratic and abusive
brethren?
Num 35:22 But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or hurled on him
anything without lying in wait-
As discussed on :20, the essential difference between manslaughter
and murder was
whether or not there was "enmity" or hatred in the heart. Time and
again, God's law judges matters of the heart, in a way which no human,
secular law ever could.
Num 35:23 or with any stone, by which a man may die, not seeing him, and
cast it on him, so that he died, and he was not his enemy, neither sought
his harm-
Secular law would go into questions as to whether the man had taken
due reasonable precautions, and judge him accordingly. But that aspect
isn't considered under Divine law. The simple division was over the
question of whether or not the person had intentionally harmed another,
and whether he had previously had hatred in his heart for the person
(:22). Questions of 'But did you take precautions? Were you careful
enough?' were totally made irrelevant by the immense value God gives to
the question of the state of heart.
Num 35:24 then the congregation shall judge between the striker and the
avenger of blood according to these ordinances-
But Israel were not to avenge (Lev. 19:18). But they
could avenge, and provisions were made for their human desire to
do so in some cases (see too Num. 35:12). These provisions must also be
seen as a modification of the command not to murder. The highest level was
not to avenge; but for the harshness of men's hearts, a
concession was made in some cases, and on God's
prerogative. We have no right to assume that prerogative. Rather
than continually make use of God’s many concessions to human weakness, we
should seek to live on a higher level.
Num 35:25 and the congregation shall deliver the manslayer out of the hand
of the avenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to his
city of refuge, where he was fled. He shall dwell therein until the death
of the high priest, who was anointed with the holy oil-
The death of the High Priest enabled the ‘guilty’ person to be
totally freed because the principle that death was required to atone for
death had been thus fulfilled (:33)- as if in his death, the High Priest
was taking upon himself the guilt of the sin of murder, as a total
representative of the sinner. In this we see foreshadowed the
representative nature of Christ’s death for us.
The command "You shall not kill" in Ex. 20:13 must be understood in the context of a situation where the same Law also commanded certain sinners to be put to death within the community, and at times Israel were Divinely commanded and enabled to kill others outside of the community. We have to look, therefore, for a more specific meaning for this commandment- and it seems it is speaking specifically of blood revenge, killing the person who murdered one of your relatives. According to Num. 35:25-28, if the murder was unintentional, i.e. manslaughter rather than murder, then the person could flee to a city of refuge lest he be slain by the avenger of blood. There is no guidance for the avenger of blood in these 'cities of refuge' passages; rather is there the assumption that he might well attempt to take revenge even for manslaughter, and in this case the unintentional murderer should flee from him into a city of refuge. But clearly enough, this was not God's will- for "You shall not kill". But such is God's grace that He built into His law a recognition that His people would fail. This isn't what we would expect of a 2+2=4 God, where broken commandments are to be punished and period. In this case, we see here a tacit recognition even within the Mosaic Law that the commandments- in this case "You shall not kill"- wouldn't always be obeyed, and therefore extra legislating was added to enable this situation to be coped with. This isn't only an example of God's sensitivity to human sin and weakness of hot blood [although it is that]. It's an insight into how the very structure of His law is such that He understands human weakness, and is eager to ensure that it hurts others as little as possible. No more human 'god' would have dreamed this up. This grace has the stamp of the ultimately Divine, and any attempt to understand it within the frames of literalistic, legalistic analysis are doomed to failure.
Num 35:26 But if the manslayer shall at any time go beyond the border of
his city of refuge where he flees-
These borders are defined in :4 as 2000 cubits from the foursquare
city wall of the Levitical city; and the cities of refuge were Levitical
cities. The Levitical towns were representations of the altar, which is
repeatedly described as foursquare (Ex. 27:1; 38:1; 30:2 cp. Rev. 21:16).
The Levites were to have towns which were effectively the local altar for
the people. Hence the manslayer could flee to those towns as if fleeing to
an altar. And that city of refuge represents finally the Lord Jesus (Heb.
6:18). Going out from it is therefore rather like leaving Him.
Num 35:27 and the avenger of blood find him outside of the border of his
city of refuge, and the avenger of blood kill the manslayer; he shall not
be guilty of blood-
This ruling was in order to point up the importance of the cities of
refuge, and the need to take manslaughter seriously. Even if in fact the
avenger of blood was acting in a morally deficient way. For slaying a
morally innocent man out of personal anger and blood lust, not in order to
cleanse the land of innocent blood, was surely far below ideal behaviour.
Num 35:28 because he should have remained in his city of refuge until the
death of the high priest; but after the death of the high priest the
manslayer shall return into the land of his possession-
One day, the manslayer who wandered outside the city of refuge could
be slain; but the next he couldn't be, because the High Priest had died.
This was to point up the huge significance of the death of the High
Priest. This was clearly presented as a kind of atonement through death,
and served no practical purpose apart from to point ahead to the atoning
death of the great High Priest to come, the Lord Jesus.
Num 35:29 These things shall be for a statute and ordinance to you
throughout your generations in all your dwellings-
"Throughout your generations" is a kind of way of saying 'for ever',
but "in your dwellings" may suggest we are to interpret it as meaning 'for
as long as you live in the land'. The significance of Israel being
deported from their land was therefore that effectively the law of Moses
had thereby been ended. And the destruction of the temple, tabernacle
furnishings, the loss of the ark and Biblical priesthood, all meant that
it was obvious that the law could no longer function. It effectively ended
well before the death of the Lord Jesus, so the
Israelite wanting relationship with God had to return to the promises to
Abraham for that basis of relationship. And those promises were the
essence of the new covenant. It was the Lord's death which confirmed the
new covenant.
Num 35:30 Whoever kills any person, the murderer shall be slain at the
mouth of witnesses; but one witness shall not testify against any person
that he die-
Insisting on more than one witness before accepting
the truth of an allegation meant that gossip and slander were limited; and
Jesus applies this principle to dealing with disputes within His church
(Mt. 18:16). Although His teaching about not condemning our brethren meant
that He didn't advocate as it were 'putting to death', but rather stern
rebuke and damage limitation. Those who served other gods had to die on the testimony of
two or three witnesses. This idea is twice alluded to in the New Testament
in the context of making the decision to cease fellowship with someone
(Mt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1). The implication is that death under the Old
Covenant pointed forward to first century church discipline under the New
Covenant. But we must note that the reason for this was serving other gods
and wilful departing from covenant relationship with the Lord- not minor
reasons.
Num 35:31 Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who
is guilty of death; but he shall surely be put to death-
"Ransom" is the word for atonement or covering, kapher.
There is a position where there is no atonement possible. And yet David
was at this point- there was no sacrifice or fine to get him out of his
guilt over the sin with Uriah. But the 'sureness' of the command here was
by grace not carried out, just as the 'sure' promise of death in the day
Adam ate the fruit was not carried out. Possibly God factored in the way
that David had not hated Uriah in his heart in the past; see on :20,23.
Num 35:32 You shall take no ransom for him who is fled to his city of
refuge, that he may come again to dwell in the land, until the death of
the priest-
We died and rose with Christ, if we truly believe in His
representation of us and our connection with Him, then His freedom from
sin and sense of conquest will be ours; as the man guilty of blood was to
see in the death of the High Priest a representation of his own necessary
death, and thereafter was freed from the limitations of the city of refuge
(Num. 35:32,33).
Num 35:33 So you shall not pollute the land in which you are: for blood,
it pollutes the land; and no expiation can be made for the land for the
blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him who shed it-
Yet see on :31. Note how blood is a symbol of both life and also death (Gen. 37:26;
Num. 35:19,33; Lev. 20:9). Both the Lord's death and His life form a covenant /
testament / will for us to obey- in both baptism and then in living out the
death and life in our daily experience. We cannot be passive to it.
Num 35:34 You shall not defile the land which you inhabit, in the midst of
which I dwell; for I, Yahweh, dwell in the midst of the children of
Israel’-
The implication is that if Israel were morally defiled, then Yahweh
would be unable to dwell in the midst of them. Seeing they lived in the
land of Canaan, this would mean that He would have to depart from that
land. And that is the significance of Ezekiel's visions of the shekinah
glory of Yahweh departing from the sanctuary and forsaking the land. The
idea is not that the land of Israel was defiled in some metaphysical
sense. The defilement was clearly related to the moral defilement of
the people within the land. Hence Lev. 18:24,25 Don’t defile yourselves in any of these things; for in all these
the nations which I am casting out before you were defiled.
The land was defiled; therefore I punished its iniquity, and the land
vomited out her inhabitants". But there was no ritual of cleansing the
physical land; rather was the land intended to bring forth great harvests
in reflection of Israel's obedience to the covenant.
Previous Chapter
