Cities Of Refuge

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible

Refuge, Cities Of

1. Origin of the right of asylum . The city of refuge was the product of two primitive religious ideas that were employed to neutralize one another, the sacredness of blood or life and the sacredness of locality; both were based on the presence of the Divine in the blood and the locality. There was a community of blood or life between the god and his people that made it an unpardonable offence to slay one of his people; it mattered not whether the slayer was within or without his people, whether the deed was intentional or accidental. A wrong had been done that could be atoned for only by blood (Robertson Smith, Rs [Note: S Religion of the Semites.] , [1907] p. 32 ff.). On the other hand, the god chose certain places for his manifestation, and there it was customary for his people to meet and worship him. Within the precincts claimed by his presence all life was sacred, and so it came about that even a murderer, if he escaped to the haunts of a god, would be safe from those to whom he had forfeited his life, so long as he remained within their sacred limits ( ib . p. 148 f.). The murderer thus escaped the penalty of his wrong, but he remained an ineffective unit for his tribe; immediately he left the asylum of the god he was at the mercy of the avenger of blood , and so both tribe and individual were in a measure punished. This primitive usage still prevails in savage communities, and has been widened by extending the privilege of asylum to places occupied by former kings and to the graves of former rulers (Frazer, Fort. Review , 1899, pp. 650 654).

2. Development of asylum in Ot . In this absolute form the right of asylum is not recognized anywhere in the Ot. It is extended only to one who has without intention committed homicide (  Exodus 21:13 ). One who has treacherously sullied his hands with blood can find no refuge at the altar of God; he may be taken from it to death (  Exodus 21:14 ), or he may even be struck down at the altar, as was the fate of Joab (  1 Kings 2:30-31;   1 Kings 2:34 ). The community came between the fugitive and the avenger of blood, and determined whether he should be handed over to death. This was likely the result of the fusion of different tribes and the necessity of recognizing one common authority. We can trace three stages of development of this right of asylum in the Ot.

(1) Every altar or sanctuary in the land could extend its protection to one who had without intention taken the life of another. He had to justify his claim to protection by showing to the authorities of the sanctuary that his deed was unpremeditated. But after the fugitive had submitted satisfactory evidence, he was allowed to remain within the sacred precincts. He could not, however, return home, and had evidently to pass the remainder of his life in the refuge to which he had fled. He could not appease the avenger by money. His want of prudence must entail some punishment, and so he could not pass beyond the city boundaries without risk of death at the hands of the avenger of blood. What provision was made for his maintenance is not revealed, but very likely he had to win his subsistence by his work. Whether his family could join him in his asylum is a question that is also unanswered. This is the stage of development in   Exodus 21:13-14 ,   1 Kings 1:50; 1Ki 2:28;   1 Kings 2:34 . It is not at all likely that Joab’s death was brought about at the altar in Jerusalem because of some exceptional authority exercised over it by the king. Joab evidently knew he could be put to death there (  1 Kings 2:30 ).

(2) When the provincial high places and altars were suppressed by Josiah in b.c. 621, the right of asylum there fell with them, and provision had to be made for the continuance of ancient usage on a modified basis. Very likely there was less need for it, as the power of the Crown had been growing. Cities of refuge, situated at convenient distances, were set apart for the manslayer (  Deuteronomy 19:2-7 ), and it may even be that the roads thither were specially kept and marked to make escape easy (  Deuteronomy 19:3; but cf. Steuernagel, Deut . p. 71 f.). The fugitive had to justify his claim to protection by showing to the elders of the city whither he had fled his innocence of murderous motives. Any one who failed to convince them of the validity of his defence was handed over to the elders of his own city, and they in turn surrendered him to the avenger of blood. Practically, then, the community administered justice, but when the death penalty was to be exacted, it was exacted not by the community, but by the avenger of blood in accordance with primitive usage (  Deuteronomy 19:12-13 ).

(3) In post-exilic times the cities of refuge established under the Deuteronomic Code remained, and the judicial procedure followed was very much the same, only the community presumably at Jerusalem and not the elders of the city of refuge ( Numbers 35:12;   Numbers 35:24-25 ) was to determine the guilt or the innocence of the fugitive.   Joshua 20:4 , however, contemplates a provisional inquiry by the elders of the city before protection is granted. The law was mitigated so far that the unwitting manslayer was no longer doomed to spend all his days there but was free to return to his home on the death of the high priest of the time (  Numbers 35:25;   Numbers 35:23 ,   Joshua 20:6 ). This points to the post-exilic origin of this modification. The high priest was then the only constituted authority that Jewish law could recognize.

3. Number of cities of refuge . The statements bearing on the number of the cities of refuge are conflicting (  Numbers 35:11;   Numbers 35:13-15 ,   Deuteronomy 4:41-43;   Deuteronomy 19:7-10 ,   Joshua 20:2;   Joshua 20:7-8; cf. Driver, Deut . pp. 78, 233; Gray, Num . p. 469). Ultimately there were six, but at first there appear to have been only three (  Deuteronomy 19:2;   Deuteronomy 19:7 ). They were established first in the time of Josiah when the boundaries and the population of the Jewish State would be comparatively small, and Jewish authority did not likely cross the Jordan to the east. In such conditions three cities would be ample. But when in post-exilic times the Jews covered a wider area, there would naturally be need for more cities; and so we find the number in Numbers and Joshua stated at six, and additions made to the text in   Deuteronomy 4:41-43;   Deuteronomy 19:3 to suggest that the number six had been contemplated from the beginning. These six cities were Kedesh, Shechem, and Hebron on the west, all well-known sanctuaries from early times, and Golan, Ramoth, and Bezer on the east. Of the situation of these last we know nothing definitely; even the site of Ramoth, to which reference is made elsewhere in the Ot (  1 Kings 4:13;   1 Kings 22:3 ff.), is a subject of doubt (see G. A. Smith, Hghl [Note: Ghl Historical Geography of Holy Land.] p. 587; Driver, Deut . xviii, xix), but they probably shared the sacred character of the cities on the west.

J. Gilroy.

American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

To provide security for those who should undesignedly kill a man, the Lord commanded Moses to appoint six cities of refuge, or asylums, that any one who should thus shed blood might retire thither, and have time to prepare his defence before the judges, and that the kinsmen of the deceased might not pursue and kill him,  Exodus 21:13   Numbers 35:11-34 . Of such cities there were three on each side Jordan. On the west were Kedesh of Naphtali, Shechem, and Hebron; on the east, Golan, Ramoth-Gilead, and Bezer,  Joshua 20:7,8 . These cities served not only for Hebrews, but for all strangers who resided in the country,  Deuteronomy 19:1-10 . The Lord also commanded that when the Hebrews should multiply and enlarge their land, they should add three other cities of refuge. But this command was never fulfilled.

The custom of blood-revenge appears to have been an institution or principle very early introduced among the nomadic oriental tribes. So firmly was this practice established among the Israelites before their entrance into the promised land, and probably also even before their sojourning in Egypt, that Moses was directed by Jehovah not to attempt to eradicate it entirely, but only to counteract and modify it by the institution of cities of refuge. The custom of avenging the blood of a member of a family or tribe upon some member of the tribe or family of the slayer, still exists in full force among the modern Bedaweens, the representatives in a certain sense of the ancient Israelites in the desert. They prefer this mode of self-vengeance. Niebuhr informs us that "the Arabs rather avenge themselves, as the law allows, upon the family of the murderer; and seek an opportunity of slaying its head, or most considerable person, whom they regard as being properly the person guilty of the crime, as it must have been committed through his negligence in watching over the conduct of those under his inspection. From this time the two families are in continual fears, till some one or other of the murderer's family be slain. No reconciliation can take place between them, and the quarrel is still occasionally renewed. There have been instances of such family feuds lasting forty years. If in the contest a man of the murdered person's family happens to fall, there can be no peace until two others of the murderer's family have been slain." How far superior to this was the Mosaic institution of cities of refuge, where the involuntary homicide might remain in peace till the death of the high-priest, and then go forth in safety, while a really guilty person did not escape punishment.

Among most of the nations of antiquity, temples, and particularly the altars within them, were regarded as proffering an asylum for fugitives from violence. Among the Hebrews we find indications of the custom on the part of the culprit of fleeing to the Lord's altar. But this was not allowed to screen the guilty from deserved punishment,  Exodus 21:14   1 Kings 2:28-34 .

There is an appointed city of refuge for sinners exposed to the second death, and an altar of refuge sprinkled with atoning blood. Happy the soul that flees and is safe in Christ, ere it is overtaken by the avenging law of God.

Morrish Bible Dictionary

The Cities of Refuge on the west of Jordan were KADESH,in mount Naphtali, in Galilee; Shechem, in mount Ephraim; and Kirjath-Arba, which is Hebron, in the mountain of Judah. And on the east of the Jordan they were Bezer, in the wilderness, in the tribe of Reuben; Ramoth-In-Gilead, in the tribe of Gad; and Golan, in Bashan, in the tribe of Manasseh.  Joshua 20:7,8 . It has been calculated that the distance of these from city to city would be about 70 miles, so that no one would in any part be farther than about 35 miles from one of them.

Easton's Bible Dictionary

 Numbers 35 1

Holman Bible Dictionary

Cities Of Refuge

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

המּקלט ערי , ‛ārē ha - miḳlāṭ  ; πόλεις τῶν φυγαδευτηρίων , póleis tṓn phugadeutērı́ōn (compare   1 Maccabees 10:28 ), and other forms):

1. Location:

Six cities, three on each side of the Jordan, were set apart and placed in the hands of the Levites, to serve as places of asylum for such as might shed blood unwittingly. On the East of the Jordan they were Bezer in the lot of Reuben, Ramoth-gilead in the tribe of Gad, and Golan in the territory of Manasseh. On the West of the Jordan they were Hebron in Judah, Shechem in Mt. Ephraim, and Kedesh in Naphtali (  Numbers 35:6 ,  Numbers 35:14;  Joshua 20:2 ,  Joshua 20:7 ff;   Joshua 21:13 ,  Joshua 21:21 ,  Joshua 21:27 ,  Joshua 21:32 ,  Joshua 21:38; Bezer is named in  Joshua 21:36 , but not described as a City of Refuge). An account of these cities is given in separate articles under their names.  Deuteronomy 19:2 speaks of three cities thus to be set apart, referring apparently to the land West of the Jordan.

2. Purpose:

From time immemorial in the East, if a man were slain the duty of avenging him has lain as a sacred obligation upon his nearest relative. In districts where more primitive conditions prevail, even to this day, the distinction between intentional and unintentional killing is not too strictly observed, and men are often done to death in revenge for what was the purest accident. To prevent such a thing where possible, and to provide for a right administration of justice, these cities were instituted. Open highways were to be maintained along, which the manslayer might have an unobstructed course to the city gate.

3. Regulations:

The regulations concerning the Cities of Refuge are found in  Numbers 35;  Deuteronomy 19:1-13;  Joshua 20:1-9 . Briefly, everything was to be done to facilitate the flight of the manslayer, lest the avenger of blood, i.e. the nearest of kin, should pursue him with hot heart, and, overtaking him, should smite him mortally. Upon reaching the city he was to be received by the elders and his case heard. If this was satisfactory, they gave him asylum until a regular trial could be carried out. They took him, apparently, to the city or district from which he had fled, and there, among those who knew him, witnesses were examined. If it were proved that he was not a willful slayer, that he had no grudge against the person killed, and had shown no sign of purpose to injure him, then he was declared innocent and conducted back to the city in which he had taken refuge, where he must stay until the death of the high priest. Then he was free to return home in safety. Until that event he must on no account go beyond the city boundaries. If he did, the avenger of blood might slay him without blame. On the other hand, if he were found guilty of deliberate murder, there was no more protection for him. He was handed over to the avenger of blood who, with his own hand, took the murderer's life. Blood-money, i.e. money paid in compensation for the murder, in settlement of the avenger's claim, was in no circumstances permitted; nor could the refugee be ransomed, so that he might "come again to dwell in the land" until the death of the high priest ( Numbers 35:32 ).

A similar right of refuge seems to have been recognized in Israel as attaching to the altar in the temple at Jerusalem ( 1 Kings 1:50;  1 Kings 2:28; compare  Exodus 21:12 f). This may be compared with the right of asylum connected with the temples of the heathen.