聖書注解書

1–8. The Levitical cities

The Levites are to receive 48 cities with their surrounding land (E.VV. ‘suburbs’), six of which are to be ‘cities of refuge.’ The cities are to be contributed by each tribe in numbers proportionate to its size. Each plot of land is to be a square of 2,000 cubits (c. 1,000 yards). The carrying out of this law is related in fuller detail in Joshua 21, where the allotment is as follows: the Kohathite Levites were given 10 towns in Ephraim, Dan and western Manasseh, the Gershonites 13 in Issachar, Asher, Naphtali and eastern Manasseh, the Merarites 12 in Reuben, Gad and Zebulun, while the priests had 10 in Judah, Simeon and Benjamin.

Two considerations, however, shew that this is a purely ideal arrangement, which could never have been actually brought about: 1st, In a hilly country like Palestine, cut with deep ravines, it would be impossible to find 48 square plots of land of such a size. 2nd, It is at variance with statements in earlier passages, (a) In Deuteronomy the Levites are classed with widows, orphans and strangers, as poor people who are commended to the charity of Israel; cf. Deuteronomy 12:12; Deuteronomy 12:18 f., Numbers 14:27; Numbers 14:29, Numbers 16:11; Numbers 16:14, Numbers 26:11 ff. In a few cases, indeed, priests settled in communities, and appear to have owned property, e.g. at Anathoth (1 Kings 2:26, Jeremiah 32:6 ff.), Nob (1 Samuel 21:1; 1 Samuel 22:19) and Bethel (Amos 7:10); but the two latter towns are not included in the list in Joshua 21. Deuteronomy 18:8 b may imply that some Levitical priests owned private property, but the passage is uncertain. (b) In Numbers 18, which must belong to an earlier stage of P than the present passage, the offerings to be made to the priests are expressly stated to be due to them because they have no landed property. Ezekiel (ch. 48) puts forward another ideal scheme for providing priests and Levites with land.

2. suburbs] ‘pasture lands’ (marg.) rightly represents the true force of the word, which denotes lit. a place for driving cattle (cf. Numbers 35:3). But it came to be used more generally of common land surrounding a town, which all the inhabitants had the right to use. It occurs very frequently in P passages of Josh. and 1 Ch.

9–34. The ‘Cities of Refuge,’ and the Law relating to homicide

In Numbers 35:9-15 the appointment of the six cities and their purpose are prescribed; Numbers 35:16-23 contain specimen cases distinguishing deliberate murder from accidental homicide; Numbers 35:24-28 provide the legal procedure; Numbers 35:29-34 form a conclusion.

The section presents the latest development in the O.T. of the Law of Asylum. In early days (Exodus 21:13 f. E ) an appointed place was provided, to which the manslayer might flee, i.e. an altar, which would be within easy reach of every town; cf. 1 Kings 1:50; 1 Kings 2:28. In D (Deuteronomy 19:1-10), when only one altar was permitted, at the national sanctuary at Jerusalem, which would be practically useless for purposes of asylum, special cities were substituted for the local altars. Three cities were specified, and, if Jehovah enlarged the Israelites’ borders, three more were to be added1 [Note: Three have previously been mentioned in Deuteronomy 4:41-43; but it is unlikely that the writer of Deuteronomy 19. understood nine cities to be intended. See Driver, Deut. p. 233.] . If the manslayer be guilty of deliberate murder, the elders of his own city shall send to the city whither he has fled for asylum, and shall deliver him up to the gô’çl or ‘avenger of blood’; but if the homicide was accidental, he may stay in safety in the city whither he has fled. In the present passage (P ) the regulations are fuller. Of the six cities three are to be on each side of the Jordan (the fulfilment of the command, with the name of the cities, is related in Joshua 20). They receive, for the first time, the title ‘cities of refuge’ (see on Numbers 35:11). When a manslayer flees to one of these cities, ‘the congregation’ (see on Numbers 35:12) judges between him and the gô’çl, to discover whether the manslaughter had been deliberate or accidental. If it is proved to be accidental, the man must be taken back to the city of refuge, where he must remain until the death of the high priest. If he ventures out before that time, the gô’çl may kill him. If, on the other hand, he is found guilty of deliberate murder, the gô’çl must kill him.

Gray (Numb. p. 471) points out that this modifies the ancient custom in three respects: (1) Ancient custom made no distinction between accidental and deliberate manslaughter; the gô’çl must see that the loss of life suffered by one family is compensated for. (2) In ancient custom the loss could be compensated for by the death of any member of the manslayer’s family. Here the law tacitly insists that the murderer only is to forfeit his life. (3) The present law forbids the forfeited life of the murderer to be redeemed by a money payment. Such redemption was widely prevalent, but except in certain cases—not wilful murder—(cf. Exodus 21:29 f.) it seems to have been prohibited at an early period in Israel, though the present law contains the earliest explicit prohibition. At the same time, the law had not yet reached its final stage of development, in that it still bade the representative of the family, and not the representative of the whole community, perform the judicial act of killing the murderer.

11. ye shall appoint] Perhaps better ye shall select. The verb in this sense is not found elsewhere in the O.T.

cities of refuge] Perhaps cities of reception, a term which occurs only in this chapter, and in Joshua 20, 21. (P ), 1 Chronicles 6:57; 1 Chronicles 6:67. The word is used in Rabbinic Heb. of the collection or reception of rainwater.

unwittingly] lit. ‘in error.’ See Numbers 15:24 ff.

12. the avenger] Heb. gô’çl, the nearest representative of the family of the slain man. Perhaps (with LXX. ) we should read ‘the avenger of blood,’ as in Numbers 35:19; Numbers 35:21. On the gô’çl and his duties see n. on Numbers 35:8.

the congregation] It is not clearly stated that this means the congregation of the manslayer’s city; and the word ‘çdah elsewhere in P denotes the whole community of Israel. But in Numbers 35:25 (see note there) the words ‘restore him to his city of refuge’ imply that the ‘congregation’ have taken him to some other place for judgement, which would more probably be his own city than any other; and in Deuteronomy 19:12 the judges in the case of murder are ‘the elders of his city.’

14. In Joshua 20 the cities were selected as follows: on the E . of Jordan, Bezer in the south, Ramoth in Gilead, and Golan in Bashan; on the W. of Jordan, Kiriath-arba (= Hebron) in the south of Judah, Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim, and Kedesh in Naphtali. Thus the south, centre and north on both sides of the river were provided for.

15. The cities may be used by every class of the community, the true born Israelite, the sojourner (gêr) and the stranger (tôshâbh). See on Numbers 9:14. Nothing is here said of slaves; they had no legal rights, and it is therefore improbable that they could claim any asylum.

16–23. Specimen cases of murder and accidental homicide respectively; cf. Exodus 21:13 f.