Bible Commentaries

EXPOSITION

THE CITIES OF REFUGE.—

Joshua 20:1

Cities of refuge. The original is more definite, the cities of refuge. So LXX. Whereof I spake to you. In Exodus 21:13; Numbers 35:9; Deuteronomy 19:2. Here, again, Joshua is represented as aware of the existence of the Pentateuch. It must, therefore, have existed in something like its present shape when the Book of Joshua was written. The words are partly quoted from Numbers and partly from Deuteronomy; another proof that these books were regarded as constituting one law, from the "hand of Moses," when Joshua was written.

Joshua 20:3

Unawares and unwittingly. Literally, in error, in not knowing. Numbers 35:16-18 and Deuteronomy 19:5, give a clear explanation of what is here meant. Knobel notices that the first of these expressions is found in Le Deuteronomy 4:2, and the second in Deuteronomy 4:42. The latter is "superfluous," and therefore a "filling up of the Deuteronomist." The "Deuteronomist" must have been very active in his "filling up." If he were really so lynx-eyed in a matter of style, it is a wonder that he was so careless, as we are told he is, in matters of fact. To more ordinary minds it would seem as if the author, familiar with the books of Moses, was quoting Deuteronomy for the precept, and Leviticus for the nature of the offence. The avenger of blood. The Hebrew word is worthy of notice. It is Goel; that is, literally, redeemer, one who buys back at the appointed price what has fallen into other hands, as a farm, a field, a slave, or anything consecrated to God. Hence, since the duly of such redemption, on the death of the owner, devolved upon the nearest relative, it came to mean "blood relation." Thus Boaz (Ruth 4:1, Ruth 4:6, Ruth 4:8) is called the Goel of Elimelech and his widow. In the present passage, the phrase "the redeemer (LXX. ἀγχιστεύων next of kin) of the blood" signifies the exactor of the only penalty which can satisfy justice, namely, the death of the murderer. So we are taught in Genesis 9:6; Exodus 21:12, Exodus 21:14; Le Exodus 24:17, 21. This duty, which in civilised society belongs to the government, in uncivilised tribes is usually left to the relatives of the murdered man. Hence the terrible blood feuds which have raged between families for generations, and which are not only to be found among savage nations, but even in countries which lay claim to civilisation. In Ireland, for instance, it is not so long ago since one of these blood feuds in the county Tipperary had acquired such formidable proportions that the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church there were compelled to resort to a mission in order to put an end to it. A man had been killed nearly a century before in an affray which commenced about the age of a colt. His relatives felt bound to avenge the murder, and their vengeance was again deemed to require fresh vengeance, until faction fights between the "Three-Year-Olds" and the "Four-Year-Olds" had grown almost into petty wars. A thrilling story written by the late Prosper Mérimée turns upon the Corsican vendetta, and so true is this story to life that in the very year in which these words were written an occurrence precisely similar, save in its termination, was reported in the daily journals to have taken place in that island. The only way in which the feud could be terminated was by summoning the representatives of the two families before the authorities and exacting an oath from them that they would cease their strife. It is no small corroboration of the Divine origin of the Mosaic law that we find here a provision for mitigating the evils of this rude code, and for at least delivering the accidental homicide from the penalty of this law of retaliation. Yet for the offence of wilful murder the penalties enjoined by the Jewish law were terribly severe. A deliberate violation of the sanctity of human life was an offence for which no palliation could be pleaded. No right of sanctuary was to be granted to him who had wantonly slain a fellow creature. "No satisfaction" was to be taken for his life (Numbers 35:31). "The land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, save by the blood of him that shed it" (verse 33). Such provisions might be expected of a lawgiver who had laid down as the fundamental principle of humanity that man was created "in the image of God," after His likeness; that God had "breathed the breath of life" into him, and man had thus "become a living soul" (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:7). Such inward harmony is there between Moses' inspired revelations concerning God's purpose in creation, and the precepts he was commanded to deliver to the children of Israel.

Joshua 20:4

And when he that doth flee unto one of those cities. This passage is in accordance with the instructions given in Numbers 35:1-34, but is not a quotation from it. The passage may be translated, "and he shall flee ... and shall stand." Shall declare his cause. Literally, shall speak. This was to be clone at the "gate of the city," the place where all legal business was transacted (see Ruth 4:1; 2 Samuel 15:2).

Joshua 20:5

And if. Or, "and when." Deliver. Literally, cause to shut up ( συγκλείσουσι, LXX), implying the completeness of the deliverance, from which no escape was possible. And hated him not before time. Daun, cited in Keil's Commentary here, remarks on the difference between the Jewish law of sanctuary and that of the Greeks and Romans. The former was not designed to save the criminal from the penalty he had deserved, but only the victim of an accident from consequences far exceeding the offence. The Greeks and Romans, on the contrary, provided the real criminal with a mode of escape from a punishment which he had justly merited.

Joshua 20:6

Until he stand before the congregation. That is, until he had had a fair trial. It was no object of the Jewish law to make a man a victim to passion. Until the death of the high priest. The further to protect the unwitting homicide from the consequences of an unjust revenge, he was, if innocent, to return to the city of refuge, and to dwell there until there was reasonable ground to suppose that the anger of the relatives of the slain man should have abated. This is clear from Numbers 35:24, Numbers 35:25. Why the period of the death of the high priest should have been fixed upon is not easy to explain. Keil thinks it is because the death of the high priest was typical of the death of Christ, and refers to Hebrews 9:14, Hebrews 9:15. But the reference is not to the point. The high priest's death was in no sense typical of the death of Christ. His yearly entrance into the holy place once a year, on the Day of Atonement, was so typical. It might have been supposed that this yearly atonement would have been regarded as a propitiation for all the sins committed during the year. Certainly the fact that the high priest died the common death of all men, and the inauguration of his successor to fill his place could in no way be regarded as an atonement for sin. There is more force in Bahr's suggestion in his 'Symbolik' (2.52). The high priest, on this view, is the head of the theocracy, the representative of the covenant. He concentrates in his person (so Bahr puts it in another place—see vol. 2.13) the whole people of Israel in their religious aspect. His death, therefore, stands in a connection with the life of Israel which that of no other man could do. "It is," says Maimonides ('Moreh Nevochim,' 3.40), "the death of the most honoured and beloved man in all Israel. His death plunges the whole community into such distress that private sorrow is lost in the general affliction." Thus the covenant in a way recommences with the inauguration of the new high priest. Bahr complains that Philo has carried this view to an extravagant and fanciful extent. Hengstenberg takes the same view as Maimonides, that the high priest's death was "a great calamity," affecting the whole nation.

Joshua 20:7

And they appointed. The original, which, strange to say, the LXX. and Vulgate, as well as our version, have neglected to render, is sanctified (heiligten, Luther). The selection is itself a proof that our author knew well what he was writing about. It is not likely that in the later times of Jewish history, when the law had been forgotten (2 Kings 22:8) and its precepts had long been in abeyance, that the institution of the city of refuge remained in full force. But we find three cities selected on each side of Jordan. Those on the west were in the tribe of Naphtali on the north, of Ephraim in the centre, and of Judah in the south. The same is the case with those on the other side Jordan. Thus every little detail of the narrative, when closely scrutinised, does but show more entirely how free this narrative is from the reproach so hastily cast upon it of being a loose and inaccurate compilation, attempted by a man who had not the slightest literary fitness for the task he had undertaken. A corroboration of this view may be found in the fact that all these cities were Levitical cities. Thus, as the crime of homicide was looked upon under the Mosaic law as a crime apart from all other crimes, inasmuch as it was an offence against the life which was God's gift, and man, who was God's image, so the offender who pleaded extenuating circumstances for his offence was placed, until his trial could be held, under the special protection of the Divine law. For "the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and men should seek the law at his mouth." It was the special privilege of the tribe of Levi to possess the "key of knowledge." It was to them that the duty of ascertaining the wilt of God by Urim and Thummim was assigned (Numbers 27:21). Thus a special acquaintance with the law (Deuteronomy 33:8), and a special fitness for deciding the difficult questions sometimes arising out of it, would naturally be found in the elders of those cities which had been set apart as cities of refuge. In Galilee. Hebrew, Hag-Galil, the circle. Here we have the masculine, as in Joshua 13:2; Joshua 17:17; Joshua 22:10, Joshua 22:11, the feminine form. This is the first place in Scripture in which the word Galil, or Galilee, is applied to this region. Gesenius regards it as having been originally a district of twenty towns round Kedesh in Naphtali. Such a region of twenty towns is mentioned in 1 Kings 9:11 (see also Isaiah 8:1-22 :23; or, Isaiah 9:1 in our version). Kedesh has already been noticed (see also Joshua 21:32).

Joshua 20:8

By Jericho eastward. Or, eastward of Jericho. This, of course, only refers to Bezer. The plain. The Mishor, or table land (see Joshua 3:16, Joshua 9:1, and notes). Our version, by its renderings, obscures the beautiful precision with which our historian never fails to hit off the physical geography of the country. Thus, the plain of Bashan, Gilead, and Reuben is always the Mishor; the strip of land between the mountains and the Mediterranean is always the Shephelah; the depression of the Jordan Valley and the country south of the Dead Sea is invariably the Arabah; wide plains shut in between ranges of hills or situated on their slopes are distinguished by the title of Emek; while narrow waterless ravines are known by the name of Ge. We may quote here the emphatic words with which Canon Tristram concludes his 'Land of Israel,' "While on matters of science the inspired writers speak in the ordinary language of their times (the only language which could have been understood), I can bear testimony to the minute truth of innumerable incidental allusions in Holy Writ to the facts of nature, of climate, of geographical position—corroborations of Scripture which, though trifling in themselves, reach to minute details that prove the writers to have lived when and where they are asserted to have lived; which attest their scrupulous accuracy in recording what they saw and observed around them; and which, therefore, must increase our confidence in their veracity, where we cannot have the like means of testing it. I can find no discrepancies between their geographical or physical statements and the evidence of present facts. I can find no standpoint here for the keenest advocate against the full inspiration of the scriptural record. The Holy Land not only elucidates but bears witness to the truth of the Holy Book." Ramoth in Gilead. See Joshua 13:26, where it is called Ramoth Mizpeh; also Joshua 21:38. All these cities of refuge were Levitical cities. It is famous as the headquarters of Jehu's rebellion, in which he clearly had the support of the priestly party (2 Kings 9:1-37). The key to his subsequent conduct is found in this fact. His "zeal for the Lord," displayed so ostentatiously to Jonadab, who we may suppose, as being of the "family of the scribes," to have become identified with the Levites (cf. 1 Chronicles 2:55 with 1:16, and 1 Chronicles 27:32 with Ezra 7:12, Jeremiah 8:8), was simply a stroke of policy, to bind to his interest the sacerdotal party, to whom,with the army, he owed his throne. Just such a policy commended itself to the worldly wisdom of our own Lancastrian princes, and led to the enactment of the infamous statute de heretico comburendo in the fifteenth century. Jehu, we find, was contented with the one vast sacrifice of idolaters, for whom he cared nothing, and gave himself no further trouble to secure purity of worship for his people. The one great value of the geographical and political details in the book of Joshua is that when carefully studied they supply us with the key to many a mystery in the after history of Israel, which, but for their aid, we should scarcely have unravelled.

Joshua 20:9

Appointed. Or, of refuge or resort. Our version has followed the LXX. and Vulgate here. Greek, unawares; Hebrew, in error or inadvertently, as above. Matthew Henry's note on the cities of refuge is worthy of remark. He says, "I delight not in quibbling on names, yet am willing to take notice of these." Thus Kedesh, he reminds us, is holy. Shechem, a shoulder, reminding us of Him upon whose shoulder the government was to be. Hebron is fellowship, recalling the fellowship we have in Christ. Bezer is a fortification, reminding us of God our stronghold (later criticism, however, gives another derivation to this unusual word, which in Job 22:24, Job 22:25, means the ore of a precious metal), Ramoth is height or exaltation, and to such exaltation we are called in Jesus Christ. Lastly, Golan is exultation, so says Matthew Henry, deriving it from גִיל or גוּל. But Gesenius derives it with equal probability from גלה "to make bare," hence to lead into captivity.

HOMILETICS

Joshua 20:1-9

The cities of refuge.

The institution of these cities was intended to put bounds to revenge, while providing for the punishment of crime. As Lange remarks, the Mosaic law found the principle of vengeance at the hand of the nearest relative of the deceased already recognised, and desired to direct and restrain it. Three considerations suggest themselves on this point.

I. THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE. The most serious crime one man could commit against another (offences against God or one's own parents are not included in this estimate), according to the Mosaic, and even the pre-Mosaic code, was to take his life. The sanctity of human life was ever rated high in the Old Testament. Nothing could compensate for it but the death of him who violated it. The duty had always been incumbent on the nearest blood relative, and Moses did not think it necessary to institute any other law in its place. He only placed the restriction upon the avenger of blood, that in case the murderer should reach a city of refuge, he should have a fair trial before he was given into the hands of his adversary, in ease it should prove that, instead of murder, the deed was simply homicide by misadventure. It has been strongly urged that capital punishment, even for murder, is opposed to the gentler spirit of Christianity. Without presuming to decide the question, this much is clear, that God in His law has always regarded human life as a most sacred thing, and any attempt to take it away as a most awful crime. It may be observed, moreover, that in Switzerland, where the punishment was abolished, it has had in several cantons to be reimposed. It is also a curious fact, and one somewhat difficult to explain, that a higher value is set, as a rule, upon human life in Protestant than in Roman Catholic communities. There can be no doubt that the severer view is in accordance with the Old Testament Scriptures, and we may see why. The evil effect of other crimes may, in a measure, be repaired, but life once taken away can never be restored. Man, moreover, is the image of God, and life His greatest gift. To deface the Divine image, to take away finally and irrevocably, so far as the natural man can see, what God has given, is surely the highest of crimes.

II. VENGEANCE MUST BE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE LAW. The rule for Christians as individuals is, never to take vengeance at all, but to submit to the most grievous wrongs in silence. But there are times when a Christian is bound to regard himself as a member of a community, and in the interests of that community to punish wrong doers. We learn a useful lesson from the chapter before us. We may not take the law into our own hands. We are not the best judges in our own cause. The punishment we inflict is likely to be disproportionate to the offence. We are bidden, if our neighbour will not listen to us (Matthew 18:15-17) to take others with us to support us in our complaint, and if that be in vain, to bring the matter before the assembly of the faithful, who take the place in the Christian dispensation of the elders of Israel. But in all cases the decision must not rest with ourselves. It would be well if every one, before bringing an action or prosecution at law against another, would submit the matter to some perfectly disinterested persons before doing so. It would be well if the Christian congregations exercised more frequently the power of arbitration, which was clearly committed to them by Christ. It should be the city of refuge to which the offender should betake himself, and he should be free from all penalties until the "elders of that city" declare that he has deserved them.

III. WHERE WE CANNOT ABOLISH AN EVIL CUSTOM, WE MAY AT LEAST MITIGATE ITS EVIL EFFECTS. It must often happen to the Christian to find laws and customs in existence which we feel to be opposed to the spirit of Christianity. Two courses are open to us, to denounce and resist them, or to accept them and try to reduce the amount of evil they produce. There are, of course, some customs and laws against which a Christian must set his face. But there are many more in which it would be fanaticism, not Christianity, to do so. Such a spirit was displayed by the Montanists of old (as in the case of Tertullian, in his celebrated treatise 'De Corona'), who frequently reviled and struck down the images of the gods. Such a spirit is often displayed by Christians of more zeal than discretion now. A remarkable instance of the opposite spirit is shown by the attitude of Christ's apostles towards slavery. Slavery is alien to the first principles of Christianity. And yet the Christians were not forced to manumit their slaves, but were only enjoined to treat them gently and kindly. Such was obviously the best course, so long as Christianity was a persecuted and forbidden religion. It is often our duty so to deal with customs which are undesirable in themselves, but which, as individuals, we have no power to put down. So long as we have it in our power to remove from them, in our own case, what is objectionable or sinful, it is our duty to conform to them, at the same time hoping and praying for better times.

HOMILIES BY R. GLOVER

Joshua 20:1

Cities of refuge.

The institution of cities of refuge interests us as at once an admirable instance of the spirit of the Mosaic legislation, and as an arrangement of gracious wisdom. In the absence of courts of law and any sufficient arrangement for the administration of justice, a system has uniformly arisen in all primitive tribes, and is found in many places today, of charging the nearest male relative with the duty of putting to death the murderer of his kinsman. The Vendetta, as it is termed, is still practised among the Arab tribes, and even survives vigorously in the island of Corsica. By it there was always a judge and an executive wherever there was a crime. And doubtless such a custom exercised a highly deterrent influence. At the same time a rough and ready system of punishment like this was incapable of being applied with that discrimination essentially necessary to justice. In the heat of revenge, or in the excitement and danger incident to what was regarded as the discharge of a kinsman's duty, men would often not inquire whether the death was the result of accident or of intention. It might chance that none bewailed the death more than him who committed it. But the rude law left the responsible kinsman no alternative. The one who slew might be his own relative, it might be that a blow of anger, not meant to kill, or some sheer accident, took away the life of one dear to him who struck the blow, or was the unhappy cause of the accident. But where blood had been shed, blood was to be shed. And so one fault and one bereavement not infrequently involved the commission of a greater fault, and the experience of a greater bereavement. In this position of things Moses stepped in. And in the legislation he gave on the subject there is much that is worthy of notice.

I. Observe, WHAT HE DID NOT PRESCRIBE. The payment of "damages" for a death inflicted has been a form in which the severity of these rules for the punishment of a murder has been mitigated. In Saxon times in England, blood money was continually offered and taken. In many other lands a fine has been laid on the murderer for the benefit of his family. The Koran permits such a compensation; and today, in some Arab tribes, a man may escape the penalty of murder if he can pay the fine which custom prescribes. But though such an alternative must have been familiar to Moses, it is not adopted by him. On the contrary, he expressly forbids the relatives to condone a crime by receiving any money payment for it: (see last chapter of Numbers). This is a very striking fact, for many would very much have preferred a law allowing the giving and receiving of such a fine, to the law actually given. His not adopting such a rule shows that Moses was apprehensive of the danger of conscience being dulled, and crime encouraged by any compromise effected between guilt on the one side, and greed on the other. Such a rule would always mitigate the abhorrence of crime; would make it safer for the rich to indulge their animosities, than for the poor to injure, by accident, a fellow man. Law, duty, self respect would be lowered. Life would be held less sacred. Instead of its being invested with a Divine sanction, and the destruction of it made an awful crime, it would appear as something worth so many pounds sterling, and men would indulge their taste for the murder of those they disliked, according to their judgment of what they could afford to pay. The poor substitute of a fine instead of the punishment of death is not only not accepted, but explicitly forbidden. And so far the legislation of Moses suggests that whatever course our criminal legislation may take in dealing with crime, it will do well to maintain the sanctity of life and to guard against such a method of dealing as would increase the crime that it should prevent. But observe, secondly, that while the sanctity of life is maintained.

II. JUSTICE IS SUBSTITUTED FOR REVENGE. The six cities of refuge were simply six cities of assize, where an authoritative verdict could be found as to whether the death was wilfully or unintentionally inflicted. The man who had taken a life claimed of the elders of the city (Joshua 20:4) protection, and received it until his case was adjudicated on. He was tried before the congregation, the assembly of the adult citizens. As these were all Levites (the six cities of refuge being all of them Levitical cities) they were familiar with law, and had, probably, a little more moral culture than their non-Levitical brethren. A calm unbiassed "judgment by their peers" was thus provided forevery accused person—a tribunal too large to be moved by animus or corrupted by bribes. If on explicit evidence of two or three witnesses it proved to be a case of wilful murder, further asylum was denied him, and he was delivered to death. If it proved a case of either accident or manslaughter, the asylum was lengthened, and beneath the protection of God he was safe, as long as he kept within the precincts of the city and its suburbs. How admirable such an arrangement! A better court of judgment in such cases, than such a jury of two or three hundred honest men, could not be devised. It was costless; it was simple; it involved no delay. It restrained a universally recognised right, but did it so wisely and fairly none could complain. A provision of unconditional asylum, as it developed later in connection with religious buildings, has proved an unmitigated evil even in Christian lands, an encouragement to all crimes, promoting not morality, but only the cunning which committed them within easy reach of such sanctuary. This gave Israel, for the most important of all cases, a court of justice that protected innocence, that soothed revenge, that prevented blood feuds settling and growing to large dimensions. It is a lesson for us, as individuals, always to guard against our being carried away by passion, and to import into every quarrel it may be our unhappiness to fall into, the calm and unbiassed judgment of others. It may be our duty to others to prosecute or punish a criminal. But revenge is an unholy passion which has no sanction from on high. Lastly observe:

III. A CURIOUS PROVISION IN THE LAW. If innocent of wilful murder, the man had a right of asylum in the city. But leaving the city, he lost it, and might lawfully be slain. The nearness of living Levites was his protection. But the perpetual residence in the city of refuge was not enjoined. For when the high priest died, he could go back to his proper home and dwell there. The high priest was to be thought of—as an intercessor who had entered within the veil—beneath the protection of whose prayers all these refugees were sacred; and for them the whole land became one great place of refuge. THE DEATH OF ANOTHER HIGH PRIEST WAS AN ENTERING WITHIN THE VEIL, WHICH BENEFITS WITH DIVINE PROTECTION ALL WHO TAKE REFUGE IN THE DIVINELY APPOINTED PLACE. They by innocence got the benefit of his pleading—we by repentance. Are we all under the shadow of the heavenly Intercessor?—G.

HOMILIES BY J. WAITE

Joshua 20:1-6

The manslayer and his refuge.

The institution of the cities of refuge stands as a conspicuous memorial of the beneficent spirit of the Mosaic economy. It bore a resemblance to that right of asylum, or sanctuary, which in some form or other has found a place in the usage of all nations from the earliest times, but it was not liable to the same abuse. Every provision of the Mosaic economy enshrined some enduring principle. Some great moral lesson was intended to be impressed by it on the minds of the people. The institution changes or passes utterly away; the principle, the lesson, remains. Note here—

I. THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE. The institution bore striking witness to this. This was its root principle. It was intended as a check on that form of ferocity for which Oriental tribes have ever been remarkable—the thirst for vengeance in the shedding of blood. It threw a shield over an endangered life. This at once commends it to a radical instinct of our nature. God has implanted in our breasts an intuitive sense of the value of life. Not only the instinct of self preservation ("skin for skin," etc; Job 2:4), but something also that prompts to respect for the life of another. The most barbarous conditions of humanity are not altogether destitute of the traces of this. The natural effect of religion and civilisation is to develop it. Mainly on this instinct rests the admiration we feel for any marvellous triumph of surgical skill, for the rescue of imprisoned miners, or of a shipwrecked crew, or of a wounded comrade from the battlefield. It is not merely satisfaction in beholding consummate skill, resolute endurance, deeds of daring and self sacrifice—but in the fact that life is saved. The "vital spark," so mysterious in itself, and so mysteriously kindled, is kept from being extinguished. The humane spirit, the spirit in sympathy with humanity as such, feels just the same however feeble or apparently worthless and despicable the life may be. We don't stay to consider either its actual conditions or its latent possibilities; we only know that it is good to save it. There is no higher mark of Christian civilisation than the diffusion of a nobler sentiment as to the inherent value of human life. "The Son of Man came not to destroy men's lives, but to save them" (Luke 9:56). This fact has its manifest, though indirect, bearings on the question of man's immortality. If physical life is surrounded by such sanctions and safeguards, does it not at least suggest the indestructibility of the essential being of the man?

"That not one life shall be destroyed,

Or cast as rubbish on the void,

When God shall make the pile complete."

II. FORFEITURE OF LIFE. This principle of sanctity bears on the slain as well as on the slayer. If it shields the one, not less does it avenge the other. The right of asylum was based on the foregoing right of the Goel, the blood avenger (see Numbers 35:19, et seq; Deuteronomy 19:11-13). This was the outgrowth of the ancient law given to Noah, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed" (Genesis 9:6). And, again, to Moses at Sinai, "Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth," etc. (Exodus 21:23, Exodus 21:24). So severely was this rule to be applied, that no kind or measure of "satisfaction" could be taken for the forfeited life of the murderer (Numbers 35:31). Such was the Mosaic law. The gentler spirit of Christianity inculcates a different rule. As that softened and restrained the natural savagery of the olden times, so this brings in the reign of still nobler principles of moral and social life (Matthew 5:38, 89; Romans 12:19). It is questionable whether the teaching of Christ and his Apostles does not throw such an air of sanctity over the being of every man, and make restorative love rather than retributive justice the universal law, as completely to annul the old order of "life for life." At the same time the principle of retribution is in no way obliterated—less literal, less circumstantial, entrusted less to the hands of man, but not less real. The avenger still tracks the steps of the transgressor. He cannot escape "the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds" (Romans 2:5, Romans 2:6). Vengeance may suffer even "the murderer to live," but he bears the penalty and the curse within. "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth," etc. (Galatians 6:7, Galatians 6:8).

III. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SPIRIT ABOVE THE FORM OF EVERY DEED. The city of refuge was a provision for the protection of the manslayer from lawless and indiscriminate violence, that he might be subject to judicial inquiry as to the real meaning and intent of what he had done. He must be brought before tribunal of the people. The "congregation" must judge between the slayer and the avenger, and if it is shown that he was not the enemy of the man slain, nor "sought his harm," he shall be delivered (Numbers 35:22-25). Here was a striking witness to the principle that it is the spirit, the purpose, that determines the real quality of every deed. God is the "Searcher of hearts," and He would have man, according to the measure of his insight, estimate everything by what gives birth to it there. The "Sermon on the Mount" is a Divine lesson on the importance of the spirit above the form (Matthew 5:21, et seq). The law of Christ is a "discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." It is the motive that determines the merit or demerit of every deed. God has given us no power infallibly to trace or weigh the motives of men, but as far as they are disclosed so let us judge.

IV. THE BLENDING OF JUSTICE WITH MERCY IN THE TREATMENT OF TRANSGRESSION. The city of refuge bore witness to the principle of equity between man and man, and equity is the qualification of law by reason and humanity. The manslayer, however innocent, must suffer for the ill that he has done, but safeguards are provided against his being subject to any flagrant wrong. Whatever it may cost him he must flee to the city, but it is not more than six miles distant and the way is clear. He loses his liberty, home, perhaps property, but he is safe. In all this there is a remarkable blending of regard for the majesty of law and the sanctity of social order, with kindly protection of human weakness.. It is full of instruction. A true social economy is the due balance of reciprocal rights, interests, etc. We deal righteously with each other only when mercy tempers justice, when law is interpreted liberally and applied with charity.

V. AN ANALOGY IS OFTEN INSTITUTED BETWEEN THE CITY OF REFUGE AND THE GOSPEL WAY OF SALVATION. There is an essential mark of difference between the two; the one was for the protection of the innocent, the other is God's provision for the redemption of the guilty. But they are alike in this, that they tell of shelter from the fatal stroke of the avenger. We are reminded how—

"All the lives that are were forfeit once,

And He who might the vantage best have took

Found out the remedy."

When He "maketh inquisition for blood," then shall it be found that "there is no condemnation for them that are in Christ Jesus," who have "fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before them."—W.

HOMILIES BY W.F. ADENEY

Joshua 20:2

Cities of refuge.

I. THE APPOINTMENT OF CITIES OF REFUGE EXEMPLIFIES UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE. We do not need such cities because we can attain the end they were set apart to accomplish by simpler means, but we are called to observe the principles they were instituted to maintain.

(a) do not judge others needlessly (Matthew 7:1);

(b) when it is necessary to judge do not be deceived by outward appearance, but consider differences of motive (John 7:24).

II. THE APPOINTMENT OF CITIES OF REFUGE IS AN ILLUSTRATION OF GOD'S GRACE OF REDEMPTION.

(1) God provides a city of refuge in Christ. He is a refuge from the dangers that beset us, from the consequences of our own acts, from the indwelling power of sin.

HOMILIES BY S.R. ALDRIDGE

Joshua 20:2, Joshua 20:3

Danger and safety.

The Book of Joshua supplements the Pentateuch. It tells Us of the execution of the behests contained in the law. Hence it preaches a continual lesson of obedience. How far do our lives exhibit a conformity of practice to gospel precepts? Surely God says to us, as to Joshua, "Be mindful of the commandment given by the hand of My servant."

I. A PREVALENT CUSTOM MODIFIED. The rights of kinsmen were various and strongly insisted on. The exaction of vengeance for the death of a relative was deemed among the most important of these rights. The nearest kinsman became the "avenger." To abrogate such an institution might have been impossible; at any rate, it was wisely ordained that particular rules should regulate its operation and soften its character. Legislation must ever have regard to the prevalent opinion, must not be too far in advance of the age. This principle of directing popular thoughts to more wholesome channels was recognised by the Church of the early centuries, when it sought to lead men away from orgies and revelries to joyous Christian festivals, and missionaries of modern days have adopted this plan with success. We may alter the ship's course even if we cannot absolutely check her progress. The modification of Goelism introduced

II. POINTS OF RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN THE CITIES OF REFUGE AND THE SALVATION OFFERED IN THE GOSPEL, That the ordinances of the Israelites were a figure for the time to come, is in many places of the New Testament expressly affirmed (see 1 Corinthians 10:6, 1 Corinthians 10:11; Hebrews 9:9; Hebrews 10:1). And with great likelihood the words of Hebrews 11:18 have been supposed to refer to the very institution now under discussion.

III. THE SUPERIORITY OF THE GOSPEL SALVATION.

CONCLUSION. Flee to this refuge! Delay, and the footstep of the avenger shall be heard close behind you, and fear shall paralyse your flight. "Satan hath desired to have you;" but haste to the Saviour, let His strong arms protect you, and sheltered 'neath His smile your panting heart shall cease tumultuously to beat. And if you have won Christ and are "found in Him," not having your own righteousness, how secure and peaceful you may be. What rejoicing should be yours! To be tormented with doubt while you are in such a stronghold is foolish, and impairs the glory of the salvation Christ hath wrought. "Neither shall any man pluck them out of My hand."—A.

HOMILIES BY E. DE PRESSENSE

Joshua 20:2

The cities of refuge.

We know how strictly the law of Moses applied the avenging law. He who had killed was himself to be killed. The nearest relation of the victim had the right, and it was his duty, to pursue the offender. He was the avenger of blood. The law, under its original form, made no distinction between a murder committed purposely and of premeditation, and an unintentional murder. It may well be said that in this respect it was the inexorable law of the letter which killeth.

I. The establishment of cities of refuge, intended to serve as a sanctuary to the murderer who had killed some one by accident, IS LIKE THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS THE NEW LEGISLATION WHICH DEALS RATHER WITH THE INTENTION THAN WITH THE ACT, and is aimed primarily at the heart. The last commandment of the Decalogue, which prohibits covetousness, carries the Divine law into the inner region of the moral life, showing that its scope is far wider than the sphere of outward action or speech. The man who has unintentionally committed murder, finds in the city of refuge a means of escaping the vengeance of the pursuer. This provision is in itself a protest against the Pharisaic spirit which based its judgment upon the outward act alone. The new covenant gives yet riffler application to the same moral principle, when it declares that hatred in the heart involves the moral guilt of murder, as lust does of adultery.

II. The establishment of cities of refuge is AN ADMIRABLE EMBLEM OF THE CHURCH. The Church is the city set upon a hill, whose gates stand open day and night to those whom the law condemns. Only those to whom it offers shelter are not exclusively persons who have transgressed unwittingly, as was the case with the Israelitish cities; all who have broken the law of God, even with open eyes, may there find shelter, on the one condition that they enter by the door. "I am the door," says Jesus Christ, "no man cometh unto the Father but by me" (John 10:7). This is a strait gate—so strait that none can pass through it except on bended knees and laying aside every weight. By repentance and faith everything that is of self and sin must be abjured. But so soon as these conditions are fulfilled, the door is opened. No one is too great a sinner to enter there. Publicans and harlots, all the sorrowful and sinful, let them hasten, arise and enter in. The city of refuge is open for all. The Church of the middle ages restored in a literal sense the Jewish custom of having cities of refuge. It opened its sanctuaries to murderers and spread over them the shield of its protection. This was called the privilege of sanctuary; but it became a grave abuse. Let us cleave to the one great privilege of finding refuge in the true Church built upon the great Cornerstone. The old cities of refuge promised safety from the avenging arm of the inflexible law. We have a further pledge of our safety in the blood that was shed for our sins, in the redeeming sacrifice by which our debt was paid. Sheltered beneath this outspread wing of everlasting love, we are safe from the condemnation of the righteous law which we have broken.—E. DE P.