Title PageVarious Interpretations with EvaluationThe Expiatory ViewThe Typical ViewThe Grief-stricken ViewAdministrativeDocumentation EndGrace Journal 1.2 (Fall, 1960) 7-22. [Copyright © 1960 Grace Theological Seminary; cited with permission; digitally prepared for use at Gordon College] THE RELEASE OF HOMICIDES FROM THE CITIES OF REFUGE A Critical Monograph on Numbers 35:25 Abridged by the Author WARREN DRIVER Assistant Professor Grace College "And the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled: and he shall abide in it unto the death of the high priest, which was anointed with the holy oil" (Num. 35:25). Why were the homicides who were detained in the cities of refuge released upon the death of the high priest? The reason why this event of religious interest in Israel should be the terminus of the slayer's confinement, as indicated in Numbers 35:25, has elicited a variety of explanations. First, however, the ancient customs regarding kinsmen and the procedure in cases of homicide must be ascertained. In some ancient eastern civilizations if a man were slain by another man, the duty of avenging him lay as a sacred obligation upon his nearest relative. In the Biblical record the next of kin is called a go'el, the active participle of ga'al meaning "to deliver," "to redeem," "to buyback." Oehler describes the go'el as "that particular relative whose special duty it was to restore the violated family integrity, who had to redeem not only landed property that had been alienated from the family (Lev. 25:25fF), or a member of the family that had fallen into slavery (Lev. 25:47ff), but also the blood that had been taken away from the family by murder."1 The in the last named capacity is almost inevitably known as go'el haddam, "the redeemer of blood." The Authorized Version translates this duty as "the avenger of blood," but Trumbull points out that the mission of the go'el haddam under the Old Testament law was not vengeance but equity. He was not an avenger, but a restorer, a redeemer, a balancer.2 Genesis 9:6 expresses generally the precept that he who sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. The first indication of the redemption of blood is to be found in Genesis 27:45. The words of Rebekah, "Why should I be deprived also of you both in one day? 'I mean that if Jacob were slain by the hand of Esau, then Esau would be slain by the redeemer of blood. We cannot be certain how long blood-redemption existed among the people, but it is clear from II Samuel 14:6-11 that it was still in existence and in full force in David's time. The performance of the duty itself was probably regulated by the closeness of the relationship and corresponded to the duty of the redeeming from bondage (Lev. 25:49) and to the right of inheritance (Num. 27:8). The order in which the nearest relative was considered is given in Leviticus 25:48-9; first a brother, then an uncle or an uncle's son, and after them any other relative. While God Himself would avenge the blood that was shed (Gen. 9:5), He withdrew its execution from subjective caprice and restricted it to cases of premeditated homicide or murder. But to whom or where was the unintentional homicide to flee? The cities of refuge were instigated for this express purpose. 78 GRACE JOURNAL The directions for the institution of the cities of refuge are to be found in Numbers 35:9- 34. These are the fulfillment of the original promise God had given in Exodus 21:13 that He would appoint a place for a man who should unintentionally slay his neighbor to which he might flee from the "redeemer of blood." These cities were available to both the children of Israel and also the foreigners and settlers who were dwelling among them (Num. 35:15). Levitical or priests' towns were selected for all these free cities. Jamieson explains: This was partly because it was to the priests and levites that the people would all look for an administration of justice and partly because these cities were the property of Jehovah. It was no doubt felt that they would be the most suitable and impartial judges and that their presence and counsel would calm and restrain the stormy passions of the blood avenger.3 The number of cities was fixed at six; three were to be "on this side Jordan," and three "in the land of Canaan" (Num. 35:14). The three cities on the eastern side of Jordan were selected by Moses himself; they were Golan in the territory of Manassah, Ramoth- gilead in the tribe of Gad, and Bezer in the lot of Reuben (Deut. 4:41-3). The three cities in Canaan were not appointed until the land was distributed among the nine and one-half tribes; they were Kedesh in Naphtali, Shechem in Mount Ephraim, and Kirjath-arba or Hebron in Judah (Josh. 20:7). The laws governing these six cities are repeated in Deuteronomy 19:1-13 with a special exhortation that they be carried out. In Numbers 35:24-5 and Joshua 20:4 we find the procedure incumbent upon the manslayer who had fled to a sanctuary city. He was first of all to state his cause before the elders, no doubt at the gate. The elders were those who, by common consent, were granted a superior position because of their descent, age or ability. They formed a local authority for the transaction of judicial or other business.4 The preliminary decision of the elders had to be given in the manslayer's favor before he could be admitted. If the avenger of blood appeared they were not to deliver up the person whom they had received, but they were to hand him over on the charge of the redeemer of blood to the congregation to which he belonged. The trial then commenced. The manslayer could only be convicted of murder by the evidence of at least two witnesses. One witness could not only be more easily mistaken than several, but he would be more likely to be partial than several persons who were unanimous in bearing witness to one and the same thing. Also, the judiciary was not ecclesiastical in this instance, but the people themselves were in charge. The intentions of the manslayer had next to be determined; the criterion regarding the determination whether the homicide was guilty or not will be dealt with at length later on. If the manslayer was declared a murderer, the elders of his city were to have him turned over