Cities of Refuge
God commanded Israel that as they settled in the Promised Land they were to set aside six cities that were to be given to the Levites (Num. 35:6). These six cities, three on each side of the Jordan River, were to also be cities of refuge, “where you shall permit the manslayer to flee.” The idea behind these six cities was both the protection of the people and the purity of God’s chosen city.
In the ancient context when one man murdered another it was the responsibility of his living family members to seek vengeance. This of course could result in constant family feuds, and eventually in the destruction of the peoples. To rectify this problem God instituted the cities of refuge where a manslayer could flee for sanctuary and await a more fair trial. But there was indeed something else going on in God’s mind when He commanded the establishment of these cities. Peter John Naylor explains:
The root cause for the cities of refuge is found in the Abrahamic covenant (which is implied in vs. 33-34), that bloodshed pollutes the land. Israel was not to defile the land where God dwelt among them…The ultimate reason, therefore, was not justice for its own sake. Rather, it was to maintain God’s purposes, set forth in the Abrahamic covenant. These were, first, to preserve Israel’s fellowship with God, who is of purer eyes than to look upon iniquity (Hab. 1:12-13); and secondly, to preserve Israel in the land. In this matter, two of the promises are joined (34).[1]
The city was a place of protection and civil justice, and it was created to be such by God. Tim Keller comments, “When Israel moved into the Promised Land, the first cities were built by God’s direction as ‘cities of refuge,’ where the accused person could flee for safety…Thus God invented cities to be a sign of divine, not self, protection.”[2] God created the city for the protection of men and it is meant to be a pointer to His own love of justice and His own great defense.
Of course the cities of refuge are ultimately meant to be a pointer of the greatest refuge man can take from the greatest threat he faces. They are meant to point us ultimately to the cross of Christ and the atonement that is our refuge from the wrath of God. Naylor picks up on this when he writes, “The gift of cities of refuge was not an incidental matter. It was vital and practical and touched the heart of God’s plan of redemption.”[3] Jesus is the ultimate refuge to whom all manslayers must flee.[4]
In God’s common grace He still allows the city to be such a place for men today. We may readily recognize the perversion that sin has brought into this gift; for vile men are much more able to hide in the shadows of the city than they are in the sweet fenced in yards of the suburbs.[5] But the weak, the frail, the homeless, the poor, the minorities find more security in the city than they do in the rural areas. Keller explains why this is as true of cities today as it was in the Old Testament. He writes, “The density of the city creates the possibility of strong minority communities. Density creates diversity. The dominant majorities often dislike cities, but the weak and powerless need them.”[6] The city is still a place of refuge and safety, not as perfectly as God had intended, but thanks to His common grace that ideal still lingers on in some form.
[1] Peter John Naylor, “Numbers.” New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition. ed. by D.A. Carson, R. T. France, J.A. Motyer, and G.J. Wenham. Downer’s Grove: IVP, 1994.197.
[2] Keller.
[3] Naylor, Ibid.
[4] It is relevant here to point out that all men are “manslayers” in so far as they have hated another; Jesus Himself said that those who are angry with their brother are guilty of murder (Matt. 5:21-22).
[5] Of course one would be foolish to suppose that such men do not live in the suburbs too, any local news channel will reveal otherwise.
[6] Keller.
Sparrow & Heart Soul Care 