Grace 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
Assistant Professor
"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
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
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.
7
8 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
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
(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
were
selected by Moses himself; they were Golan in the
gilead in the tribe of Gad, and Bezer in the lot of Reuben (Deut.
in
tribes;
they were Kedesh in Naphtali,
Shechem 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 to
the
avenger of blood (Deut.
be
escorted to the nearest city of refuge to which he had fled and remain within
the
confines of
that city until the death of the high priest. If he decided to leave the city
of
refuge
before that time, the redeemer of blood could take hold of him and slay him
outside the
borders of the city, and "he would not be guilty of blood." (Num.
35:27)
However,
THE RELEASE OF HOMICIDES FROM THE CITIES OF REFUGE 9
after the
death of the high priest he might return "into the land of his
possession," that is,
his
hereditary possession (Num. 35:28) without the redeemer of blood being allowed
to
pursue him
any longer.
The problem, then, is: Why were the homicides who were detained in
the cities of
refuge
released upon the death of the high priest?
VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS WITH EVALUATION
The Expiatory View
This view is held by those who would explain the release of the
manslayers at the
time of
the death of the high priest by assigning expiatory or atoning value to this
significant
event. They point out that human blood has been shed, though inadvertently,
and
demands expiation (cf. Gen. 9:5, 6; Num. 35:33). God in His mercy made
provision
for
cities of refuge so that the offender could flee the wrath of the redeemer of
blood.
The blood of
the homicide was not required to be shed because he had not sinned
willfully.
Inasmuch as the release of the homicides was "coincident with the high
priest's
death,
great value is placed upon the death of the high priest himself. Keil states:
The death of the high
priest had the same result in a certain sense, in relation to
his time of office, as his function on the day of atonement
had had every year.5
Great emphasis is placed upon the appositional clause in Numbers
35:25 which
refers to
the high priest "who has been anointed with the holy oil." Keil holds that this
definitive
clause makes this viewpoint "unmistakably evident," and "it
would appear
unmeaning and
superfluous on any other view."6 He further elaborates this
point by
saying:
This clause points to
the inward connection between the return of the slayer
and the death of the high priest. The anointing with the holy oil was
a symbol of
the communication of the Holy Ghost, by which the high priest was
empowered
to act as mediator and representative of the nation before God, so
that he alone
could carry out the yearly and general expiation for the whole nation,
on the great
day of atonement. But as his life and work acquired a representative
signification
through this anointing with the Holy Ghost, his
death might also be regarded as a
death for the sins of the people, by virtue of the Holy Ghost imparted
to him,
through which the unintentional manslayer
received the benefits of the
propitiation for his sin before God, so that he could
return to his native town,
without further exposure to the vengeance of the
avenger of blood.7
The strength of this view is supposed to be enhanced by the fact
that its tradition
goes back
to the earliest days of church history. Keil points
out that many of the Rabbins,
fathers, and
earlier commentators maintain that the death of the high priest was regarded
as
expiatory. Both the Talmud and Mekelta agree with
Philo in holding this view, and
they are
followed in general by Jewish commentators. Some modern commentators who
would
concur with this view are Barth, Gossman,
Lange and Williams.
10 GRACE
JOURNAL
The word kipper whose primary meaning is "to
cover" is usually found in the piel
and constructed
with be'ad, le, and 'al meaning
"to expiate an offense" or "to make
atonement for
an offender." The word "atone," then, is a translator's attempt
at
interpreting the meaning of kipper. This word, however, has been seized
upon and used
in a
theological sense to express the entire work of Christ upon the cross, and it
is used to
represent the
work of the lamb of God taking away the sin of the world. The Standard
Dictionary
defines the meaning of expiation thusly: "The active means of expiating,
or of
making
reparation or satisfaction, as for offense, or sin; the removal of guilt by
suffering
punishment;
atonement, or an atonement."8 In its Old Testament usage,
atonement is
thought of
as a covering for sin while expiation deals with reparation or satisfaction for
wrong
done, although both have to do with removal of guilt for sin. Although
"expiation"
is not
to be found in the Authorized Version, it is used as a translation of kipper
in
Numbers
35:33 (ASV) in the sense indicated above. Commentators use
"atonement" and
"expiation" as synonymous so the writer will regard them
as such and view them in their
Old Testament sense.
Although several commentators hold the Expiatory View, Keil clearly is the chief
representative with the others merely following his lead. He goes back to
Genesis 9:5
which
asserts generally the precept that he who sheddeth
man's blood, by man shall his
blood be
shed. This fundamental truth is based upon the idea of man's being created in
the
image of God, and murder being primarily a transgression against the Creator
and
Lord of
human life (Gen. 9:6). The shedding of blood pollutes the land and to allow the
blood of
man to go unexpiated amounts to defiling the land
(cf. Num. 35:33-4). The
explanation that
appeals to those holding this view is that the high priest, who has
received a
representative significance due to his anointing, satisfies the demands of the
law
himself when he dies. The similarity between this function of the high priest
and the
"heavenly One, who through the eternal (Holy) Spirit offered
Himself without spot to
God, that we
might be redeemed from our transgressions, and receive the promised
eternal
inheritance" is often pointed out. 9
Numbers 35 clearly delineates between two kinds of killing in
reference to which
the
avenging of blood is commanded; verses 16-21 describe willful murder while in
verses 22-3
accidental homicide is discussed. In verses 16-21 two kinds of activities are
described as
murder. Verse 16-18 is a case where one strikes another in such a way that
death may
be seen as the probable consequence; that is, if an iron instrument were used,
such as
an ax, hatchet, or hammer; or a stone "which filled the hand" meaning
no doubt a
stone
large enough to kill someone; or a wooden instrument, a thick club or a strong
wooden
instrument, the suspected person was to be declared a murderer. "The
suspicion
would rest
upon anyone who had used an instrument that endangered life and therefore
was not
generally used in striking."10 Verses 20-21 give a case where one has hit another
in
hatred or threw at him lying in wait, or struck him with the hand in enmity, so
that he
died. In
this case the means by which the actual murder is effected
is immaterial. He is
declared a
murderer in both instances; and if he flees to a city of refuge, the elders of
the
city are
to have him thrown out and delivered over to the avenger of blood (cf. Deut.
19:
11, 12). In
this instance even the altar couldn't protect (cf. Exod.
21:14). Clearly, such a
premeditated act is a sin committed "with a high hand," i.e.
defiantly and deliberately; the
law
provides no opportunity for a sacrifice (cf. Exod.
21:12, 14; Num. 15:30-31).
THE RELEASE OF HOMICIDES FROM THE CITIES OF REFUGE 11
On the other hand, the law provided for six cities of refuge in
order to shelter the
one who
had slain a man not out of enmity from his heart. Numbers 35:22 and Exodus
21:13 cover
the case in which hurt was not intentional, while Deuteronomy 19:4 deals
with
inadvertent or unintentional manslaughter. An example of the last mentioned
case is
given in
Deuteronomy 19:5 where a man accidentally kills his neighbor in the forest
while
chopping wood when the head of the ax being used slips off and strikes his
neighbor so
that he dies. The action on the part of the man-slayer in this case would be
the same
for anyone who sinned "unwittingly." He was to bring a she-goat one
year old,
without
blemish, and the animal was to be made a sin-offering for the sin which had
been
committed.
After the atonement had been made, the offender was promised that he would
be
forgiven (cf. Lev. 4:27-31; Num. 15:27-28). That accidental homicide is classed
and
treated as
sinning "unwittingly" or "through error" and is definitely
stated as such in
Numbers 35:11 and Joshua 20:3, 9.
An example of an atonement to be provided for an untraced murder
is to be found
in
Deuteronomy 21:1-9. If a man be found murdered in the open country, and there
be no
indication who
the murderer is, the elders of the city who are nearest to the spot where
the
corpse was found are to procure a heifer which has never been used for any
work.
They are to
take it to a running stream, and having there slain it in the presence of the
priests, to
wash their hands over it. At the same time they solemnly avow before God that
their city
is guiltless of the murder and entreat Him to forgive His people for the crime
that has
been committed in its midst. "Blood innocently shed defiles a land or
people
until some
recognized atonement be offered for it."11
The writer concludes that the homicide who is admitted into a city
of refuge
would have
made atonement for the blood which he had shed inadvertently and which
had
defiled the
the law
as stated above. This would, of course, render the Expiatory View as
unnecessary.
Lange's contention that "the great event of the death of the high priest
covers with
respect to God a mass of sins which have risen from ignorance or
mistakes"12 is
nullified and completely out of order. The errors of the Expia-
tory View need now to be exposed and answered.
As already noted, Keil asserts that the
death of the high priest was regarded as
expiatory
unmistakably from the addition of the qualifying clause, "who has been
anointed with
the holy oil." The instructions for the preparation of the holy oil are to
be
found in
Exodus 30:22-38. The specifications for the ingredients that are to make up
this
oil are
in verses 23-25; the tent of meeting, the articles that are included in the
tent, and
finally
Aaron and his sons are instructed to be anointed with this preparation. Verse
31
says,
"and thou shalt speak unto the children of
anointing oil
unto me throughout your generations."
Similar qualifying words or clauses relating to the high priest
are to be found
interspersed throughout the Pentateuch. For the phrase "the anointed
priest" see Leviticus
4:3, 5, 16;
6:22. See Leviticus
anointed"
and "upon whose head the anointing oil is poured" etc. Gray states,
"Occasionally
and chiefly, as here (Num. 35:25) when no reference has been made by
name to
the person intended, more distinctive terms or descriptions are used; these
most
frequently
refer to the distinctive anointing of Aaron and his successors"13
(cf. also Exod.
29:7, 29;
Lev. 8:12). Weinel considers such passages to be
additions, while Gray calls
them
"redundant definitions." It seems to the writer that the addition of
12 GRACE
JOURNAL
qualifying
words, phrases or clauses is used by the writers of the Old Testament to point
out that
which is distinctive and most significant concerning the man or his office.
Compare
Jeroboam I, for example. "Jeroboam, the son of Nebat,
who made
is
repeated over and over again. Later wicked kings were described often as
"walking in
the sins
of Jeroboam" or "following the sins of Jeroboam" or
"departing not from the sins
of
Jeroboam." That for which Jeroboam was chiefly remembered was his
defection from
Jehovah
worship and the leading of subsequent kings in an idolatrous direction. Such a
literary
custom would explain the presence of such a phrase in Numbers 35:25.
Unquestionably the significance of the phrase under discussion is
that the
anointing of
the high priest set him aside in a special way to carry out the functions
incumbent upon
his office. This is clearly evident in Exodus 30:30 where we read, "and
thou shalt anoint Aaron and his sons, and sanctify them, that
they may minister unto me
in the
priest's office." Keil gives an excellent
statement of this fact:
The anointing with the
holy oil was a symbol of the communication of the
Holy Ghost, by which the high priest was empowered to act as
mediator and
representative of the nation before God, so that he
alone could carry out the yearly
and general expiation for the whole nation, on the great day of
atonement.14
Unger broadens the anointing to cover prophet, priest, and king;
and he gives
references to
show that the coming of the Spirit in connection with the office and the
anointing are
closely related.
Kings, priests, and
prophets were anointed with oil or ointment. . . oil
was a fit-
ting symbol of the Spirit, or spiritual principle of life, by virtue
of its power to
sustain and fortify the vital energy; and the
anointing oil, which was prepared
according to divine instructions, was therefore a
symbol of the Spirit of God, as
the principle of spiritual life which proceeds from God and fills the
natural being
of the creature with powers of divine life. The anointing with oil,
therefore, was a
symbol of endowment with the Spirit of God for
the duties of the office to which
a person was consecrated. (Lev.
The addition
of the clause "who was anointed with the holy oil," therefore, has to
do with
the
setting aside of the high priest for his priestly functions, being a symbol of
the
endowment of
the Spirit of God. Of course, the death of the high priest was hardly a duty
of the
office to which he was consecrated, and the above interpretation of this clause
would
exclude the Expiatory View.
The proposition of a man other than the God-man, Christ Jesus,
being offered in
any
sense as an atonement for sin presents a startling innovation, to say the
least. As
Watson puts
it, "Although many of the Rabbins and fathers
held this view as to the
expiatory
nature of the high priest's death, there is absolutely nothing in scripture or
reason to
support it."16 The
high priest himself could not become an acceptable
atonement for
the sins of anybody, including himself. Although he was to be one who
had no
physical blemish (Lev.
sinful
nature. We find provision for a sin-offering to be made for Aaron and his sons
when they
were consecrated to the priesthood (Exod. 29:10ff),
and on the yearly day
THE RELEASE
OF HOMICIDES FROM THE CITIES OF REFUGE 13
of
atonement the high priest was to "make atonement for himself and the
people"
(Lev.
16:24). This utterly refutes the
contention of Philo that "the high priest was
immaculate and
sinless."17 Of course, it is impossible to speak of an atonement without
the shedding
of the blood as he value of the sacrifice was due to the life of the victim
being
shed. Needless to say, the high priest was not offered up as a sacrifice when
he
expired. His
only hope was the substitutionary sacrifices which
were made on the yearly
day of
atonement for himself and the people which looked forward to that day when the
Lord Jesus
Christ, the lamb of God, who would with one offering
perfect for ever them
that are
sanctified (Heb.
the
penalty binding upon all mankind, lithe soul that sinneth,
it shall die."
Keil, in attempting to bolster his position, maintains that many of
the Rabbins,
fathers, and
earlier commentators regarded the death of the high priest as expiatory. The
writer has
been unable to find any comment whatsoever from the Anti-Nicene or Post-
Nicene
fathers and has traced the modern commentators who hold this view as far back
as Keil himself. Quite
evidently, this view dates back at least to Philo and has come
down to
the present time as a part of Rabbinical theology. Ginzberg
says:
The phrase, frequently
recurring in the Talmud, 'the death of the high priest
atones' (Mak. 11b)
really shows that, according to the opinion current among the
Rabbis, the chief factor was the death with its atoning power.
This is easily ex-
plainable from the point of view of rabbinical
theology, since in general the death
of the pious acted as an atonement for
the more possesses power of atonement.18
The practice
of Keil and his followers of using extra-Biblical
sources and Jewish tradition
to
support their view is precarious to say the least. The writer emphatically
rejects this
view as
being unbiblical and foreign to the doctrinal teaching of the atonement as set
forth in
the Scripture.
The Typical View
The commentaries that set forth this suggestion are divided
somewhat in their
emphases; one
would call the death of the high priest directly a typical atonement while
the
other would say that if the high priest's death held a general typical
significance in
looking
forward to the day when Christ, the great high priest, would releast those captives
from sin
who trust in Him. The typical atonement position, although possibly traceable
to
Keil, is set forth by Ellicott in the following
eloquent manner:
As the high priest, by
reason of the anointing with the holy oil, became
qualified to act as the representative of the
nation, and in that capacity acted as
their mediator for the great day of atonement, so the death of the high
priest
assumed a symbolical or representative character,
and became a type of that great
High Priest who, through the eternal Spirit, offered Himself
without spot to God,
and who by His death made a propitiation for the sins of the world.
Thus, as by
the death of the Jewish high priest a typical atonement was made for
the sin of the
Israelitish manslayer, and he was restored thereupon
to "the land of his
possession" amongst his brethren, so by the
death of our
14 GRACE
JOURNAL
High Priest they who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope
set before them,
are restored to the inheritance which had been forfeited by sin, and
made joint
heirs with Christ of those mansions which He has gone before to prepare
for those
who love Him.19
Others who
concur with the typical atonement view are Keil and Gossman.
Those who would see a general typical significance in the death of
the high priest
reason
something like the following elaborate statement from The Bible Commentary:
The High Priest, as
the head and representative of the whole chosen family of
sacerdotal mediators, as exclusively entrusted with
some of the chief priestly
functions, as alone privileged to make yearly atonement
within the Holy of
Holies, and to gain, from the mysterious Urim
and Thummim, special revelations
of the will of God, was, preeminently a type of Christ. And thus the
death of each
successive high-priest presignified
that death of Christ by which the captives were
to be freed, and the remembrance of transgressions made to cease.20
Others who
concur with this view are Ainsworth, Barth, Benson,
Edersheim, Wordsworth, and James
M. Gray.
In regard to the subject of types, there are two schools of
thought as to what
constitutes a
type. Bishop Marsh is the representative of the older school and set forth his
famous
principle in his Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible
where he
held that
a type is only a type if the New Testament specifically so designates it to be
such. Ramm says regarding this tenet:
This is a very strict
principle and was advocated to curtail much of the fanciful
and imaginary in typological interpretation. Because it is a stern
and precise
formula it has exerted to great influence on
theological thought. Many Protestant
exegetes if not adhering to the very letter of
Marsh's principle certainly follow it
very closely.21
Needless to say, such a view would immediately negate the possibility
of any kind
of
typical view regarding the death of the high priest as there is nothing to be
found in the
New Testament relevant to this event. Such an outlook is the safest possible
position and
the
writer is greatly prone to adhere to this view; however, it is a position taken
largely in
reacting from
the abuse of a good thing. This is not always a healthy outlook and may rob
us of
precious truth.
Such men as Glassius, Fairbairn, Terry and others would go along with Marsh in
saying that
the New Testament is the point of departure in typological studies; but they
insist that
Marsh did not dig out the full teaching of the New Testament on the subject.
Glassius
propounded the view that types were of two sorts, innate and inferred. An
innate
type is a
type specifically declared to be such in the New Testament. An inferred type is
one
which has no specific designation in the New Testament, but its existence is
justified
by the
nature of the New Testament materials on typology. Fairbairn
would say that the
Old
Testament and New Testament contain the same basic system of theology; they run
side by
side like two parallel rivers. Their parallelism is indicated by occasional
channels
or
types which connect them. These channels or types are possible only because the
two
rivers run
parallel. The Marshian principle for him fails to
realize that other channels may
be cut
through which are not specifically named in Scripture; otherwise the rela-
THE RELEASE
OF HOMICIDES FROM THE CITIES OF REFUGE 15
tionship of the two testaments is rather
mechanical.22
The fact that Aaron as the high priest was a type of Christ is
clearly attested to in
the book
of Hebrews. Unger presents the following summary of the high priesthood of
Aaron and Melchisedek, which is substantially the view presented in
the Scofield Bible:
Aaron as high priest is
a type of Christ. The functions, dress and ritual
connected with the high priest's anointing are
minutely instructive of the Person
and work of Christ as a Priest. Although Christ is a Priest after the
order of
Melchisedek (Psa. 110:4;
Heb. 5:6;
after the pattern of Aaron. The order is expounded in Hebrews,
chapter 9. Death
often disrupted the Aaronic priesthood;
therefore, Christ is a Priest after the order
of Melchisedek as "King of
Righteousness" and "King of Peace" and in the
perpetuity of His priesthood.23
Scofield
makes the following added comment:
The contrast between
the high priesthood of Melchisedek and Aaron is only
as
to person, "order" (or appointment), and duration.
In His work Christ follows the
Aaronic pattern, the "shadow" of which
Christ was the substance (Heb. 8:1-6;
9:1-28).24
However, even though the Aaronic
priesthood is set forth in the New Testament
as
typical of Christ, not every facet concerning the high priest necessarily has a
New
Testament counterpart. Ramm
wisely points out an imperative caution which should be
exercised in
deciding what is typical:
Great care must be
taken to lift out of the Old Testament item precisely that
which is typical and no more. There are points of pronounced similarity
and
equally so, points of pronounced dissimilarity
between Christ and Aaron or Christ
and Moses. The typical truth
is at the point of similarity. One of the cardinal
errors in typology is to make typical the
elements of dissimilarity in a type.25
We must,
therefore, in all fairness examine those areas which are divergent in order to
ascertain
whether we should declare the death of the high priest as being typical of
Christ's death.
The Typical Atonement View, which evidently finds its origin in Keil's writings,
is
based squarely upon the Expiatory View. Keil states:
But inasmuch as,
according to this view (Expiatory View), the death of the
high priest had the same result in a certain sense, in relation to his
time of office,
as his function of the day of atonement had had every year, the
death of the
earthly high priest became thereby a type of that
of the heavenly One, who,
through the eternal (holy) Spirit, offered
Himself without spot to God, that we
might be redeemed from our transgressions, and receive the promised
eternal
inheritance (Heb.
The writer rejects this view as being untenable and holds that the
arguments
propounded in
refuting the Expiatory view immediately negate the possibility of a typical
atonement. It
is im-
16 GRACE
JOURNAL
possible to
discuss the word atonement without having the necessity of efficacious blood
being
shed. Lange, who regards the death of the high priest as a "peculiar
method of
atonement,"
helps to refute his own position in pointing out a glaring weakness in the
typical
atonement view by saying:
Still we must emphasize the fact that this
dynamic or moral efficacy of his
(high priest's) death is not mentioned
among the definite types of the Old
Testament, and could not be so mentioned, since the death of the
high priest was
not always edifying.27
Watson
points out what has already been emphasized in the discussion under the
Expiatory
View; namely, that the expiation provided for under the sacrificial system of
the
Mosaic law was pertinent only as far as the functions of the office of the high
priest
were
concerned, and was entirely inefficacious regarding the person himself. He
says:
All the expiation,
moreover, which the Mosaic law provided for was ceremon-
ial. If the death of the high priest was
efficacious only so far as his functions were,
then there could be no atonement or appearance of atonement for moral
guilt,
even that of culpable homicide for instance. The death of the high
priest was
therefore in no sense a type of the death of
Christ, the whole meaning of which
lies in relation to moral, not ceremonial, offenses.28
Although a goodly number of commentators see the death of the high
priest as
foreshadowing the death of Christ, in effect they are advocating the same thing
propounded by
the advocates of the Typical Atonement View. They fail to see one of the
most
glaring points of divergence between the death of the high priest and the death
of
Christ;
namely, that Christ didn't die as the high priest. This is positively stated in
Hebrews 8:4;
"Now if he (Christ) were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, seeing
there are
those who offer the gifts according to the law." We must remember also
that
there was
a high priest functioning under the Mosaic economy while Christ was on earth;
and,
besides, Christ could not have received His anointing as a high priest as He
was of
the
tribe of
appointed time
subsequent to His ascension. Such points of difference force the writer to
reject any
typical view put forth regarding the significance of the death of the high priest.
Habershon
holds that there must be either a New Testament passage giving authority to
call
something a type or some expression or analogy which indicates the antitype.
She
states:
"We cannot state with certainty that anything is a type unless we have
some
warrant for
doing so."29
The writer is loath to divest the Bible of typical truth when such
is present to bless
and
instruct in the things of the Lord; nevertheless, the attempt by the advocates
of this
view to
find typical significance in the death of the high priest does violence to the
entire
study of
typology.
In the final analysis, it is the opinion of the writer that as far
as the problem with
which we
are confronted is concerned, no typical view can offer a satisfactory
explanation as
to why the death of the high priest released the homicides from the cities
of
refuge. We must seek somewhere else for an immediate reason why the Lord God
settled upon
such a unique feature. Patrick, after affirming that "it (the death of the
high
priest)
might represent our deliverance only by the death of the Son of God,"
reverses
himself
saying:
THE RELEASE OF HOMICIDES FROM THE CITIES OF REFUGE 17
. . . of which many great men looked upon
this as a type or shadow; though it
must be confessed, there is not the least signification of this in the
New
Testament. And since the great expiation, which the
high-priest made every year
on the day of atonement, did not procure such men their liberty, I
cannot look
upon it (the release of the homicides) as the effect of the
high-priest's death, but
only of that which followed upon it, by virtue of this law.30
The Grief-stricken View
This view explains the release of the homicides from the cities of
refuge in terms
of the
extreme sorrow which was supposed to swallow up all personal regrets and
resentments
occasioned by the high priest's death. The impact of such a national calamity
is
supposed to have so overcome and shocked the avengers of blood that they would
naturally have
forfeited any future hostility toward innocent manslayers. Jamieson clearly
propounds this
view:
But the period of his (the manslayer's)
release from this confinement was
not until the death of the high priest. That was a season of public
affliction, when
private sorrows were sunk or overlooked under a
sense of national calamity, and
when the death of so eminent a servant of God naturally led all to
serious
consideration about their own mortality.31
Other
commentators who rely solely upon this view or incorporate it into their
overall
explanation are Lowth, Lange, Matthew Henry, and Scott.
Unquestionably, this view can be traced back to the 12th century
Jewish Rabbi
Maimonides. His
eloquent explanation is as follows:
It (the city of refuge) is a prudent
charity to the manslayer, and to the
relations of him that was slain; for by this means
the manslayer was kept out of
the sight of the avenger of blood, who might have been tempted, some
time or
other, to fall upon him, if he had come in his way: but by long absence
his anger
might be mitigated, at least by the death of the high-priest, the most
excellent of
all other persons, and most dear to everyone in the nation. Which made the public
grief so great when he died, that men forgot their private resentments:
for nothing
could fallout more grievous to all the people than the death of the
high-priest,
which swallowed up all other grief. (More Nevoch.
par. iii. cap. 40).32
In setting forth such a view, Maimonides
departs radically from the traditional
rabbinical
theology. Although all Jewish commentators have an extremely high regard for
the
person of the high priest, Ginzberg curtly disregards
this view with the following
words,
"Maimonides' explanation that the death of the
high priest was an event that
moved the
entire people so much that no thoughts of vengeance could arise in the
avenger of
blood, conforms as little to the spirit of the early rabbis as to that of the
Bible.33
18 GRACE
JOURNAL
There is no question but that this view is foreign to the
Scriptural passages dealing
with the
cities of refuge. Moreover, the question of retribution performed for blood
having been
shed was not based upon an enraged temper or even family honor; but the
avenger of
blood was required under the Mosaic law to requite the blood that had been
shed by
shedding the blood of him who had shed the blood (cf. Num. 35:33). Oehler
succinctly
states the matter, "The avenging of blood becomes a divine command; it is
not
merely a
matter of honor, but a duty of religion."34 It is because the protection of the
integrity of
the family is also at stake that the incumbent to redeem the blood shed is
chosen from
the nearest kin. There is no question but that feelings would soar as the
result of
blood being shed and revenge would be apt to be taken "while the
manslayer's
heart is
hot" (cf. Deut. 19:6). The whole point of the cities of refuge was to
protect the
manslayer who
slew his neighbor "unwittingly" and "was not worthy of
death" (cf. Deut.
19:6) before
injustice was performed from an uncontrolled temper. (Compare the
needless
blood feuds that are to be found among the Arab tribes even to this day.)
Maimonides' contention that the long absence of the
manslayer might mitigate the
anger of
the avenger of blood is open to grave doubts. A lapse of time could cause such
resentments to
be abated and often forgotten, but in some cases we can be assured that
the
initial heat of revenge could eat at the heart like a canker so that it became
more
inflamed
instead of subsiding. We must remember also that there was the possibility of
the high
priest dying the day after the acquittal of the homicide so that the memory of
the
event
would yet be fresh in the mind of the redeemer of blood. Some of the
commentators have wondered at the equity of this law whereby one man might be
separated from
his family for many years while another for but a few months, weeks,
or even
days. The basic point is that the provision set down by the law hinged upon the
death of
the high priest himself, and God in His wisdom and grace had provided a
refuge
for the
innocent manslayer.
We can be assured that the death of the high priest, while no
doubt causing a
period of
public grief, would not change the heart of a man set upon revenge. Moreover,
the
homicides had to be declared innocent before they could be admitted to the
cities of
refuge in
the first place. We must assume that they would have made an
atonement
provided for
their action and consequently satisfied the demands of the law. The only
possible legal
way in which the avenger of "blood could seek vengeance upon the
homicide
would be if the homicide forsook the protection of the city where he had been
instructed to
stay. Then the avenger of blood could slay the manslayer if he chose, and
"not be guilty of blood" (cf. Num. 35:26-28). Actually
we cannot even assume that every
redeemer of
blood carried such resentment in his heart in view of the fact that his
relative
was
slain "through error." The fatal weakness of this view is that if
such a phenomenon
were even
possible it describes the supposed result of the death of the high priest and
does not
explain what significance is inherent in the law itself which effects the
release of
the
manslayers; actually, it explains nothing.
Administrative
The writer regards this view as the true solution of the problem.
This view regards
the
administrative term of the high priest as constituting a definite epoch which
is
terminated at
his death. The cases of the homicides in the cities of refuge are so vitally
incorporated into the administrative life of the high priest that their cases
are expunged
from the
record and considered as null and void upon his decease. Savile
states the matter
thusly:
THE RELEASE
OF HOMICIDES FROM THE REFUGE CITIES
19
One thing all knew
respecting the anointed high-priest, viz. that he was the
head and representative of the whole community in matters pertaining
to life and
death; and as some limitation would evidently require to be set to the
restraint laid
on the manslayer, the thought would naturally commend itself to the
people to
make responsibility for an accidental death cease and terminate with
the death of
him who stood nearest to God in matters of that description. In the
general re-
lations of the community a change had entered in
that respect, which touched all
interests, and it was fit that it should specially
touch those who had been casually
bereft of the freedom of life.35
Higher critics of a certain type take this view, as they look on
the passages
regarding the
institution of the cities of refuge, as being a late development coming from
"the Document P." They see a gradual conflict between
civil and priestly interests, with
more and
more influence accruing to the high priest until he had become the political as
well as
the religious leader of the people. McNeile in the
Colleges says:
The high priest was the
head of the religious affairs of the Jewish church,
and rose, in the popular estimation, to a higher importance than the
civil gov-
ernor who was appointed by a foreign power. So
that "unto the death of the
high priest" would have almost the same force that the words
"until the death
of the reigning sovereign" would bear today.36
Other
commentators holding this view are Aarton, Dummelow, Genung, Henry, Patrick,
Reihm, and Winterbotham.
In this view, the duration of the high priest's office is treated
as the cessation of an
epoch
where certain questions that have remained open are to be regarded as now
settled.
Baudissin uses
Numbers 35:25, 28 as verses which indicate that "the high-priestly
dignity is
clearly thought of as conferred for life."37 At the death of
the high priest,
therefore, a
completed period of the theocratic life is effected, and all of the cases which
have
detained the homicides in the cities of refuge are considered as null and void.
The
manslayers are
permitted to return to their inheritance without fear of coercion from the
avenger of
the blood and a new period in the life of the nation begins with the
inauguration of the next high priest. This is the singular secular authority
ascribed to the
high
priest, and it arises out of his official position as high priest of the land.
The six
cities of
refuge formed a part of the forty-eight Levitical
cities; both Numbers 35:9-34
and
Joshua 20:1-9 are joined to passages which record the inheritance of the land
as
distributed to
the Levites. The priests received as dwelling-places thirteen of the towns
which were
given to the Levites (cf. Josh. 21:4, 10ff). Of course, the priests had no
inheritance in
the land; they were to be sanctified solely to the Lord and were his portion
(Num.
18:20). The priests were partially supported through the tithes of the Levites
(Num.
the
gate. They would have been in charge of escorting this person to his
congregation in
order to hear
his innocence declared. Finally, they would place the homicide in one of the
six Levitical cities where protection would be available from
the avenger of blood. The
writer
feels, therefore, that the close connection both in function and Scriptural context
between the
priests, Levites and the high priest plus the fact that the nature of
20 GRACE
JOURNAL
the
homicides' detention was a legal issue, makes the connection between the high
priest
and the
cities of refuge a natural and intimate one. Henry states the case
emphatically:
The cities of refuge
being all of them Levites' cities, and the high-priest being
the head of the tribe, and consequently having a peculiar dominion
over those
cities, those that were confined to them might
properly be looked upon as his
prisoners, and so his death must be their
discharge; it was, as it were, at his suit,
that the delinquent was imprisoned, and therefore at his death it
fell.38
Patrick also
stresses this aspect:
For the high-priest
having a great power everywhere, and particularly in these
cities of the priests and Levites, over whom he
was chief, it is possible that
manslayers might be confined here by some act of his
authority; which expiring
with himself, he was released.39
The significance of the appositional clause, "who has been
anointed with the holy
oil"
as pointing up the distinctive and official nature of the high priest's
calling; namely,
that of
representative of the people before God has been indicated above. The stress
which is
laid upon the fact of the high priest's death (Num. 35:28) plus this solemn
notice
of his
having been anointed with the holy oil, seem to point unmistakably to something
in
his
official and consecrated character which made it right that the rigour of the law
should die
with him.40 Henry describes the matter as Actio
moritur cum persona-the suit
expires with
the party.41
The significant parallel of this situation and the year of Jubilee
is mentioned by
Winterbotham. He states, "What the Jubilee was to
the debtor who had lost his property,
that the
death of the high priest was to the homicide who had lost his liberty."42
Not only
did the
homicide lose his liberty, but he was deprived of his inheritance for a period
of
time;
perhaps even for the rest of his life. Inasmuch as both the year of Jubilee and
the
death of
the high priest are vitally related to the inheritance of the individuals
involved, it
seems that
this comparison is valid and points to the consistency of the principle behind
these laws
(cf. Lev. 25 and Num. 35:28). Those higher critics who can manage to say
anything at
all constructive regarding our problem after they have labored diligently to
prove this
law to be post-exilic inevitably adopt this view. Actually, by assigning the
high
priest the
role of the reigning authority in their evolutionary conception, their view of
the
authority of
the high priest is substantially the same as those of us who regard this law as
being
pre-monarchial. We can, therefore, use with profit the comparison which George
F.
beginning of
his administration. He says, "The sojourn in the city of refuge is
regarded as
a
species of exile, a punishment which was removed by a general amnesty at the
ascension of
the new high priest, the real sovereign."43
The writer concurs with this view which seems to be the most
natural and obvious
explanation of
the problem. The problem is one fundamentally of Jewish jurisprudence in
which an
administrative change in the high priest begins a new era as far as the cities
of
refuge are
concerned. This statute of limitations
is succinctly summed up by
Winterbotham: "When he (the high priest) died all processes of vengeance
lapsed,
because they
had really been commenced in his name."44
THE RELEASE
OF HOMICIDES FROM THE CITIES OF REFUGE 21
DOCUMENTATION
1. Gustave Oehler, cited by C. F. Keil and Delitzsch; Biblical
Commentary
on the Old Testament (Eerdmans) ,
III, 262.
2. H. Clay Trumbull,
The Blood Covenant (Wattles), 260.
3. Robert Jamieson, A Commentary, Critical Explanatory (Zondervan), 119.
4. G. T. Manley, "Deuteronomy," New Bible Commentary
(Eerdmans)" 214.
5. C. F. Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical
Commentary on the Old Testament, III, 265.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (
9. John
Peter Lange, "Numbers," A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures
(Scribners),
187.
10. Knobel, cited by Keil and Delitzsch, op. cit., 263.
11. S. R.
Driver, "Deuteronomy," The International Critical Commentary (Scribners),
241.
12. Lange,
loc. cit.
13. George
Buchanan Gray, "Numbers," The International Critical Commentary
(Scribners),
475.
14. Keil, op. cit., 265.
15. Merrill
F. Unger, Unger's Bible Dictionary (Moody), 805.
16. Robert
A. Watson, "Numbers," The Expositor's Bible (Funk & Wagnalls), 405.
17. Louis Ginzberg, The Jewish
Encyclopedia (Funk & Wagnalls), II, 259.
18. Ibid.
19. C. J.
Ellicott, "Numbers," A Bible Commentary for English Readers (Cassell), I, 574.
20. T. E. Espin and J. E. Thrupp,
"Numbers," The Bible Commentary, ed. F.C. Cook
(Scribners) ,
I, 787.
21. Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical
Interpretation (Wilde), 200.
22. Ibid.,
201 .
23. Unger, op.
cit., 889.
24. The
Holy Bible, King James Version, ed. C. I. Scofield
(
25. Ramm, op. cit., 209, 210.
26. Keil, loc. cit.
27. Lange, op.
cit., 188.
28. Watson, loc.
cit.
29.
30. Symm Patrick, A Critical
Commentary and Paraphrase on the Old and New
Testament (Scofield), I,
741.
31. Jamieson,
op. cit., 120.
32. Patrick,
loc. cit.
33. Ginzberg, loc. cit.
34. Gustav
Friedrich Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament
(Funk & Wagnalls), 237.
35. B. Wrey Savile,
'"Manslayer," The Imperial Bible-Dictionary, ed. Patrick Fairbairn
(Blackie and Son), II, 157.
36. A. H. McNeile, "Numbers,"
(Cambridge University Press), 187.
37. Wolf Baudissin, "Priests and Levites," A Dictionary
of the Bible, ed. James Hastings
(Scribners), IV, 83.
22 GRACE
JOURNAL
38. Matthew
Henry, A Commentary on the Holy Bible
(Funk & Wagnalls), I, 421.
39. Patrick,
loc. cit.
40. R. Winterbotham, "Numbers," The Pulpit Commentary
(Funk & Wagnalls), 448.
41. Henry, loc.
cit.
42. Winterbotham. loc. cit.
43. George F. Moore, "Asylum," Encyclopedia Biblica, ed. T.K. Cheyne and
J.
Sutherland Black (Macmillian), 1, 377.
44. Winterbotham, loc. cit.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
Grace Theological Seminary
www.grace.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
thildebrandt@gordon.edu