Introduction

Well, we are back in Deuteronomy again. And hopefully, you will see that this short passage on the cities of refuge is a passage that is still very, very relevant for today. Most people only apply the avenger of blood and the cities of refuge to our relationship with Jesus - and that is an important lesson - and we will get to that later in the sermon. But I don't want to neglect the practical lessons that this passage gives to civics - an area that most preachers completely ignore.

Application to civics

This was God's justice, not simply a vestige of pagan civics (v. 41a with Numb. 35:9ff; Joshua 20:1-2)

And the first thing I want you to see is that this is not simply a leftover vestige of some antiquated patriarchal form of justice - like some people make it out to be. Believe it or not, some commentaries claim that this was Moses' attempt to ameliorate an already entrenched ancient barbaric practice of vengeance that Moses didn't like, but didn't have the power to completely get rid of. Yeah, right!!! For example, Barrows says,

We have here, as in the case of divorce, an ancient usage tolerated, and at the same time ameliorated by the provisions annexed to it...¹

And I found numerous commentaries who said that the idea of an avenger of blood was barbaric and unjust, and though Moses wasn't able to get rid of it, he tried to at least curb it somewhat.² And I say, "Absolutely not!" Though in this brief passage it simply says that "Moses set apart three cities," Numbers 35:9 makes it clear that God Himself mandated that Moses set these cities apart and God mandated the principle of an Avenger of Blood. Joshua 20:1-2 says much the same. It says,

Josh. 20:1 The LORD also spoke to Joshua, saying, 2 “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Appoint for yourselves cities of refuge, of which I spoke to you through Moses...

So the bottom line is that this passage (and the more detailed one in chapter 19) reflects both the grace and the justice of God. So even if there is no one-to-one parallel for today, we still need to mine the core principles of justice and grace. And that's what I hope to do today. We will get into more details when we get to Deuteronomy 19, but I will introduce you to a few today.

These cities were "set apart" (v. 41b)

First, God is the only one who can give exceptions to the death penalty for man-slaying. The modern state has the tendency toward leniency where God is severe, and the tendency toward harshness where God is moderate. What do I mean by harshness? Well, I think it is ridiculous to imprison people for a decade for theft when the Bible requires restitution to the victim. Imprisonment is being way harsher than God is, and fails to bring any justice to the victim - who (in addition to being robbed) also has to pay for that prison with his taxes - he's been robbed twice - once by the thief and once by the state. But on the other end of the spectrum, the modern state gives a pass to abortionists who butcher little children every day. Man's counterfeit justice is inconsistent and irrational. In any case, all penalties inflicted by the state must be appointed by God. He is the definition of true justice and true mercy.

Implementation of Biblical civics can sometimes be incremental (v. 41c with Numb. 35:13)

The next application that I see is that the implementation of Biblical civics can sometimes be uncompromisingly incremental. Numbers 35:13 mandated that there be six cities in the land, with three being on the east side of the Jordan River and three on the west side. Well, they have only conquered the east side of the Jordan, so there are only three of the six that could be established at this point. It would take another seven years before the western territory was conquered and the three additional cities could be occupied by Levites and could be set aside as cities of refuge. That is such an obvious point that you would think that it wouldn't need mentioning. But there are perfectionists out there who aren't willing to advance Biblical justice incrementally as God's providence allows. For them it is all or nothing. God calls us to push for His law as much and as far as providence allows. So if we can abolish abortion in Nebraska, we should praise God - even if other states don't immediately follow suit. But our goal should always be to press for God's justice, not a lesser justice.

God distinguished between premeditated murder and manslaughter (v. 42)

The next thing that we see is that this passage helps us to distinguish between murder and manslaughter. And it is a very helpful distinction. Beginning with the country of Armenia, which became a Christian nation in 301 AD, Christian nations began to adopt this distinction into their law codes. Not all nations have made this distinction, but I think it is an important one.

Verse 42 says, "that the manslayer might flee there, who kills his neighbor unintentionally, without having hated him in time past, and that by fleeing to one of these cities he might live..." This shows that criminal law needs to look at intent. A person had been killed, but in this case it was because of an accident. It was not intentional. If that is true of an issue related to death, how much more so of other issues? I think all four perspectives of ethics (what I call quadperspectivalism) need to be taken into account in the realm of civil law.

But his need to flee to the city shows that there was a penalty for even unintentional killing. Blood always defiles the land, even when it is accidental. So even manslaughter calls for recompensing blood, but God provides for a lesser penalty because of extenuating circumstances. And as we will see in the last point, Christ's blood alone can ultimately cleanse the land. We will look at that when we look at the ceremonial aspect of this passage. In any case, verse 42 shows that God's law actually looks out for the welfare of individuals. He does not want people to needlessly die. It’s not as if that person would get off Scott free just because it was an accident. There are consequences to carelessness too.

In any case, in the Bible, God gave a specific sentence for absolutely every crime, and if you can't find a penalty for it in the Bible, then it is by definition not a crime. That's how you can know if something is a crime or not. If there is no penalty that the Bible authorizes the state to give to a sin, then that sin is not a crime. And every penalty God gave fit the nature of the crime so as to produce justice. Εxodus 21 says, "...you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (vv. 23-25). That chapter of Exodus would indicate that an abortionist who cuts a baby apart limb by limb should not receive a painless death by lethal injection. There needs to be a just retribution. Shooting him is way too good of a death penalty for a baby butcher. Like-receives-like. And God’s penalties were not just intended to punish; they were intended to inspire fear in others. If people were punished in the Biblical way, abortion would become extremely rare, and it would become rare pretty quickly.

In any case, many verses require that when a human life was taken, the murderer was to be executed. But these verses outline both a rescue and a punishment of the man guilty of manslaughter. Even accidental manslaughter does not get off Scott-free. So this indicates that any taking of life is considered serious by God, and it motivates people to not be careless.

The city of refuge was not intended to help those engaged in first-degree murder (v. 42)

Verse 42 contrasts this unintential killing with first-degree murder, which is defined as being intentional and due to malice. The city of refuge was not intended to help a murderer escape justice. Deuteronomy 19, Numbers 35, and Joshua 20 all describe the mandate that such a murderer be put to death - even if he fled to the city of refuge. He could be put to death before he reached the city of refuge, but the Levites (who were experts in God's law) were expected to conduct a trial of any and all who fled to their city to escape from the avenger of blood. If they found the person guilty of murder, the law required that they hand over the guilty person to the avenger of blood. We will get to the fascinating subject of the avenger of blood when we get to Deuteronomy 19, but here I will just briefly comment on him.

Some people think that the Avenger of Blood could be any relative who got mad and wanted to exact vengeance. Others (like myself) think that he was an officially designated person who was a powerful clan leader like Boaz. Boaz was also called a Go'el, which in various contexts is translated as Kinsman Redeemer, Redeemer, Avenger, or Avenger of Blood. I will deal with those controversies in more detail when we get to chapter 19. But let me anticipate the answer by saying that personal vengeance was absolutely prohibited in the law of God. I believe Scripture completely rules out the most common interpretation, that the Avenger of Blood was just any relative who got mad and decided to whack the murderer and/or the person guilty of unintentional killing. But, Leviticus 19:18 says, "You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD." There is no contradiction in God's law, but the most common interpretation of the Avenger of Blood completely contradicts that verse and several similar Scriptures. Romans 12:19 quotes two verses from the Mosaic law when it says, "Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' says the Lord." And how does God repay in terms of human justice? Romans 13:4 says that He appoints officers who have the specific duty of bringing God's justice. And as we dig into God's law in Deuteronomy, we will see how God appoints such officers. But let me give you a couple of other passages (including one from a city of refuge passage) that says that even a cold-blooded murderer could only be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses and often only after a trial. These kinds of passages need to be reconciled with your theory of the Go'el or Avenger of Blood. Deuteronomy 17:6 says, "Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness." That's pretty clear. So an Avenger of Blood simply could not put someone to death without official witnesses. Deuteronomy 19 deals with the Avenger of Blood and the cities of refuge, and says, "One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established" (v. 15). So I agree with the Holman Old Testament Commentary when it says,

the avenger of blood was acting in a civil rather than a private capacity. He was not seeking personal vengeance, which was prohibited under divine law (Rom. 12:19; cp. Lev. 19:18; Deut. 32:25). The avenger of blood was God’s mediator of justice in Israelite society, and he was appointed in certain cases to execute capital offenders (cp. Deut. 19:12).³

Typically, those who accept the theory that the Avenger of Blood was simply an angry relative who was taking personal vengeance claim that this was simply a primitive tribal (or even pagan) idea of justice that was gradually fazed out as God's law replaced it. But no, we have already seen that this was God's justice. And any legitimate slaying would require witnesses and usually a court case. And Numbers 35 and Deuteronomy 19 explicitly mention a court. But I will deal with that controversy when we get to chapter 19.

The cities of refuge include a mixture of ceremonial law and civil law (Deut. 19; Numb. 35; Josh 20)

Right now I want to quickly mention that the cities of refuge include both ceremonial and civil law, and the ceremonial picture of these cities is a beautiful type of Christ, as is the Go'el or Avenger of Blood. The Go'el is often translated as Kinsman Redeemer - which almost everyone acknowledges has at least some ceremonial significance that is no longer binding. As both Avenger and Redeemer, the Go'el typologically pointed forward to Jesus. And in a bit I will show how the cities of refuge point forward to Jesus as well.

But I want to point out that even though there is not a one-to-one correspondence to today, since this passage does indeed describe God's justice, we can still apply the general principles of this justice to our modern society. So don’t ignore the passage because there is some ceremonial law involved. Obviously we won't have God-appointed cities of refuge, but we can have equivalents that are minus the ceremonial law. We won't have go-els today, but we can have equivalents minus the ceremonial law. We don't have a high priest, so we can't 100% apply the provision that the man can leave the city when the high priest dies, but justice would still require that the person's freedom of movement be somewhat restricted for a long period of time. So let me make a few more civic applications before we get to the typological meaning.

These cities were not prisons

One further application is that these cities were not prisons. That is so important to understand. Some people use this passage to justify prisons. I’m sorry, but these three cities were anything but a prison. Each of the cities of refuge were fairly large, so the person guilty of manslaughter was free to roam within the city, have a family in the city, and work within the city. But the city still did restrict his movements - at least if he didn't want to risk being killed by the go-el. If he was willing to take the risk, then yeah, he was free to leave.

Who was the Go'el that tried to catch the killer? (Numb. 35; Deut. 19; Josh 20)

But we need to understand who the Go-el was in order to make a general equity application. The go-el was a recognized part of the local militia from the same community that the man lived in. He didn't have to be full-time in that role as an avenger of blood, though Scripture shows some who were - especially during times of civil unrest. If a murder happened, God wanted there to be a personal presence of this clansman to bring closure to the murder. Some people simply think that it is enough to have a relative throw the switch on an electric chair or throws the first stone. While that can bring closure to the murder (and I don't have a problem with that application), there is more to it than that. The kinsman redeemer or avenger of blood was a mighty man like Boaz or like Joab who helped to establish order in the land. It wasn't just any relative. Thus, many think that he was the head of the local militia, while others think that he was more equivalent to a permanent sheriff. I happen to hold to that second viewpoint. For example, Boaz was a kinsman-redeemer/avenger-of-blood. He was a go’el.

And there was a lot of latitude given to the go-el just as there is a fair bit of latitude given to a modern sheriff. When a murderer resists arrest, the sheriff can respond with force, even up to killing the perp if it looks like he and others may be endangered without doing so. Numbers 35 doesn't require the go-el to wait till a court is in session if the dangerous man is on the loose. He can kill him on sight. But, the goal was to arrest him and bring him to justice. That was the ideal. If he couldn't arrest him before he got to a city of refuge, he was to bring charges to the court within the city of refuge and ask the leaders of that city to turn him over for justice.

So could this go-el execute people at will? No. Before pursuing the man, the Go'el would either have to have witnessed the killing or to have talked to enough witnesses to be able to clearly identify this dangerous man on the run. If you want an analogy, just think of the secret service agent taking out the young man who attempted to assassinate former president Trump. The secret service didn't have to wait till a court determined his guilt. He was in the process of doing guilty things worthy of retaliation. He was taken out before he could get any more rounds off because he was an immediate danger. And it is precisely because of such latitude that a man guilty of manslaughter but not guilty of murder might need to high-tail it to a city of refuge where a court trial could be held. If he wasn't guilty of either, then he would return home once the avenger of blood heard the verdict. And I will give more details when we get to Deuteronomy 19. But let me give two verses that speak about a jury of peers who help to judge the case. Joshua 20:6 says, "And he shall dwell in that city until he stands before the congregation for judgment..." Numbers 35 says,

24 then the congregation shall judge between the manslayer and the avenger of blood according to these judgments. 25 So the congregation shall deliver the manslayer from the hand of the avenger of blood, and the congregation shall return him to the city of refuge where he had fled, and he shall remain there until the death of the high priest who was anointed with the holy oil.

So verse 25 of Numbers 35 is crystal clear that the "congregation" who acted as a final jury was not the congregation in the city of refuge, but it was the congregation in his own town. And if he was judged innocent of first-degree murder by his local court, he was then brought back to the city of refuge. So there were actually two court cases that happened. An initial one in the city of refuge, then another one in his own home town. And in a bit I will tease out the relationship between these two courts.

What was the function of these cities? (Numb. 35; Deut. 19; Josh 20)

But lets look quickly at the function of these cities.

The inhabitants of these cities were experts in the law (Numb. 35:6; Josh 21:27)

First, these were cities inhabited by specialists in the law of God. The Levites were scattered throughout every hamlet of Israel as pastors, but there were also some Levites who occupied these cities as specialists in the application of God's law. It could sometimes be tricky to determine whether someone was killed unintentionally or intentionally, so each of the six cities of refuge were required to be Levitical cities. And there were 42 additional cities of specializing Levites throughout the land to give advice to other courts. This is very significant. The Levites were the skilled theologians of the country. They were the experts in applying the Bible to life's tough issues. You could say that they had the equivalent of PhDs in Biblical ethics. And Scripture is clear that each of these six cities was full of Levites who were instructed in the law of God. For example, Numbers 35:6 says,

Now among the cities which you will give to the Levites you shall appoint six cities of refuge, to which a manslayer may flee. And to these you shall add forty-two cities

Is there anything we can learn from this? I believe so. In early America, courts would sometimes call for theological experts to give advice and help the judges think through tricky issues. After all, properly applying God's law to civics is an exercise in theology. So I think there is still a role for modern Levites, a term that the Bible applies to theological teachers and skilled pastors.

They illustrate the right of interposition

But there is another application that could be made. This passage implies that a city might need to rescue a person from an overzealous executive branch. In other words, it at least introduces the idea of interposition by cities and possibly by pastors. That's the way the early church interpreted this passage. In the first 1200 years of church history, churches many times acted in the capacity of a city of refuge when a government agent was acting tyrannically, and they hid innocent people from the state. That's legit. Now, it is a right that can sometimes be abused, but such interposition is totally legit. So again, even though there is not a one-to-one correspondence, there are principles such as interposition that can apply.

They illustrate that when death occurs because of carelessness, God's law requires a certain degree of inconvenience and restriction of movement

So why did this man even need to flee if he was not guilty of murder? For two possible reasons. First, the go-el may not have been thinking clearly or might himself have been unrighteous. Joab was a case in point where all he cared about was personal vengeance for his brother's death, not God's justice. And ironically, Joab killed Abner right in front of a city of refuge. But Abner was not guilty of either murder or manslaughter. He had even warned Joab's brother to stop pursuing him since he would be forced to kill him in self-defense. Lawful self-defense is not punishable at law. So even though Joab was a go-el, there was no way that he should have retaliated by executing Abner. David and Solomon treated Joab's execution of Abner as being murder - which it was. It was murder. That means that even government agents can be guilty of murder. They are guilty of murder if they kill someone God has not authorized them to kill. But I use the illustration of Joab to show that there were times when a person might need to flee from an overzealous executive branch, and in that circumstance the city could provide insulation and protection. That's why they were walled cities.

But second, God did not intend for anyone guilty of manslaughter to get off Scott-free. And I think that is the main point. God's law required that carelessness itself be punished. And with your children, you should not let the excuse "I didn't mean to" get a child off Scott-free. Carelessness shouldn't be punished as severely as deliberate evil, but it should still have some restrictions. But, back to these cities, it is true that the place that he is required to flee to was designed to give some liberty, but it was also designed to restrict the man's movements. He could not safely leave the city until the high priest died. And yes, there is a ceremonial aspect to that which has passed away (and we will look at that shortly), but there were still years in which he would not have had full freedom to do whatever he wanted to do. This gives justification for modern courts to have some latitude in imposing probationary travel restrictions. It wasn't a prison, but it wasn't his normal freedom either. The manslaughter may have been accidental, but such travel and movement restrictions were designed to make others think twice about being careless about their actions or careless with their equipment. We cannot be careless about life. Life was considered so important by God that even manslaughter had negative consequences for a time.

Other civic principles illustrated

Until we get to Deuteronomy 19, I can't get into the details, but let me give you six other civic principles that were illustrated by the cities of refuge. And I didn’t put these six subpoints into your outline.

1. First, notice that the man went to the city of refuge of his own free will. He was not forced to go there. He was not incarcerated by a police force. He went there because there was safety provided. He was motivated to flee there.

2. Second, commentators point out that in Numbers 35 there were clearly two courts who listened to the case. The city of refuge held the first court case and made a provisional judgment that he could stay in the city. If they found him guilty of murder, they would automatically hand him over to the avenger of blood. But theirs was only a provisional court judgment. So commentators point out that the word "congregation" here refers to a different court than the court in the city of refuge. It refers to the court from his home town that he fled from. Otherwise why is that court returning him to the city of refuge in verse 25 of Numbers 35? That regional court court could issue an extradition-order so that they could give a court trial among his peers. Gary North points out that the home city would provide an escort to take him to his home town and then (if found innocent of murder) to take him back to the city of refuge. So there were actually two potential court cases.

3. Third, if what we have already said is true, Gary North points out that this means that the city of refuge almost acted like an embassy and the home court had to request that he be tried at home. They couldn't force the issue; it was a request of a different jurisdiction. So potentially (if the city of refuge smelled a rat and thought that the man would not get justice at his home court) they could refuse to hand him over. This is one of many balances of power in civics that you see in the Bible.

4. Fourth, when you take all of Numbers 35, Deuteronomy 19, and Joshua 20 together, you see passages rich in lessons on embassies, sanctuary cities, extradition, jurisdiction, protective custody, provisional courts, normal local and regional courts, probationary boundaries and restrictions established by a court, and what could happen if a person went beyond those probationary boundaries. And we won't get into all of that today.

5. Fifth, it is clear that the city did not force the man to stay within its confines. The Bible did not allow for any kind of police department. A sheriff’s department yes, but not a police state. It expected citizens to be self-policing. And the city wasn't a prison. There were no God-authorized prisons in the Bible. All prisons should be abolished in America without exception. They are inhumane, costly, places where criminals disicple each other into worse crime, and they are determinental to both the prisoner and society. We need to be on a campaign against prisons and resinstitute restitution for most crimes and the death penalty for a small handful of crimes. And the reason I say that this was not a prison is that if this man wanted to risk leaving, he could. The next verses in Numbers 35 say what could happen then,

26 But if the manslayer at any time goes outside the limits of the city of refuge where he fled, 27 and the avenger of blood finds him outside the limits of his city of refuge, and the avenger of blood kills the manslayer, he shall not be guilty of blood, 28 because he should have remained in his city of refuge until the death of the high priest. But after the death of the high priest the manslayer may return to the land of his possession.

6. One last principle of justice can be seen in both Numbers 35:32 and Joshua 20:9. Those two verses gave the same justice for stranger and for native-born, and Numbers 35 adds that the same justice must be given to rich and poor. Numbers 35 prohibited a rich man from buying his way out of the restrictions placed upon him. Justice was equal for anyone in the country. If you know much about ancient history, you know that this equal protection was a radical departure from pagan views of justice. OK, enough on the literal applications to civics.

The ceremonial/symbolic meaning pointing to Jesus (cf. Heb. 6:18; Deut 33:27; 2 Sam. 22:3; Ps. 9:9; 14:6; 28:8; 31:2; 46:1,7,11; 91:2,9)

But let me end by pointing to the symbolic/ceremonial meaning of this passage. It is pretty generally agreed that both the go-el and the cities of refuge were symbols that pointed forward to Jesus. As go-el Jesus both takes vengeance on our enemies and He redeems us. He is also the high priest who dies and cleanses the land of blood guilt. But I want to especially focus today on the cities of refuge because that is what this passage is focusing on.

These cities were similar to the "altar" as a place of refuge (Ex 21:14; cf. 1 Kings 2:28-29; Heb. 6:18; Ps. 91:2,9,10)

Several commentators point out that the altar at the tabernacle and later at the temple had a similar function to the city of refuge. But since Exodus 21:14 prohibited a murderer from gaining refuge at the altar, Solomon rightly ordered Joab to be killed when he laid hold of the horns of the altar. Joab didn't need a trial since he brazenly admitted guilt. He was proud of what he did. But the point some commentators make is that the role of the altar in the tabernacle and later in the temple was parallel to the role that cities of refuge had. So there was a ceremonial aspect to them.⁴

Thus, Hebrews 6 says that we have fled for refuge to Jesus (Hebrews 6:18). And numerous Scriptures speak of God as being a city into whom we flee to find refuge. It's a beautiful picture of salvation. For example, one of the verses in your outline says,

Psa. 91:2 I will say of the LORD, “He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust.”... 9 Because you have made the LORD, who is my refuge, even the Most High, your dwelling place, 10 no evil shall befall you....

It is saying that as long as we abide in Jesus, we are safe from the retribution of the law. As an old hymn writer put it, "Jesus paid the price that law could never demand twice." Praise God! There is no double jeopardy in God’s justice. If Jesus paid the penalty for us, we are free.

They were a God-ordained place of mercy (cf. Jonah 2:9; Rev. 13:8; Acts 4:12)

Next, we have already seen that God established these cities. In the same way, Scripture says, "Salvation is of the LORD" (Jonah 2:9). It originates in God and is graciously provided by God. It's not as if God is the meanie and Jesus is the good guy. No. God Himself provided this means of salvation. And He did so before the foundation of the world according to Revelation 13:8.

Acts 4:12 is quite clear when it says, "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." As one old preacher worded it,

Not Sinai — Christ! · Not Religion — Christ! · Not Feelings — Christ! · Not Baptism — Christ! · Not Good Works — Christ!

He alone is our safe refuge. But the point is that we must flee to Christ by faith in order to be safe.

Each city was clearly visible on a high hill (cf. Matt. 5:14; Gal. 3:1; Acts 5:31; 26:26)

Next, each city was situated so as to be clearly visible on a high hill. Jesus likened those who preached His Gospel to a city set on a hill (Matt. 5:14), and Paul told the Galatians, "before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified" (Gal. 3:1), and Peter said that God had highly exalted Jesus to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins (Acts 5:31). God made sure that the message couldn't be missed. As Paul worded it in Acts 26:26, "this thing was not done in a corner."

God ensured easy access to the cities (v. 43; Deut. 19; cf. Ps. 34:18; Is. 51:5)

Next, God ensured easy access to the cities. Deuteronomy 19 specified that the three cities on this side of the Jordon and the three cities on the other side had to have well-paved roads, with easy access, and they had to be in the midst of the land. All six cities were placed so that, no matter where the manslayer resided, he could reach a city within a day. Psalm 34:18 says that the Lord is near to those who have a broken heart. In terms of justification, Isaiah 51:5 says, "My righteousness is near." It's a very vivid image of how near Christ is to all of us, yet we still need to come to Him.

There is no mercy for presumptuous rebellion

Next, just as there was no mercy at these cities for rebels who killed with presumption, the Bible speaks of salvation only being offered to those who are humble of heart, not to those with stiff necks who continue to sin with a high hand.

These cities provided refuge for Jew and Gentile alike

Several passages indicate that these cities provided refuge for Jew and Gentile alike, and in both testaments, Jew and Gentile could find salvation in the Messiah. No one is beyond the reach of the Gospel except for the person who rejects Christ.

The person was only safe if he stayed in the city (cf. 1 John 2:28)

Next, the person was only safe if he stayed in the city. Knowing about the city did not help. Knowing others who were in the city did not help. As far as justice was concerned, punishment was death-for-death. But God made a special provision for unintentional death. It was to stay in the city till the death of the high priest. Solomon's execution of Shimei is a similar situation. Shimei was worthy of death, but Solomon had mercy and told him that as long as he stayed in the city, he would be safe. When he left the city to search for two runaway slaves, he was rightly executed. Well, in the same way, we must abide in Christ. 1 John 2:28 says, "And now, little children, abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming." He bore the death penalty for us, and we must bear the death penalty if we are outside of Christ.

The typological meaning of the names of these cities (v. 43)??

And finally, each of the six cities had names that many people believe were also typological. I put two question marks beside that heading because I am not certain on this point, but I do find the names of all six cities to be intriguing. I won't look at the names of the other three cities, but let's look at the three mentioned in verse 43.

Bezer = "fortified place"

Bezer means "fortified place," and several Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah liken Him to a fortress and strong tower. There is a refuge for those who are under the power of sin and under the power of Satan.

Ramoth = "exalted" or "heights"

Ramoth means "exalted," and Philippians 2:9 says of Jesus that "God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name." But what is especially remarkable is that Ephesians 2:6 says that when we are united to Jesus, we too are exalted. It says, "and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus."

Golan = "exiled"

And finally, Golan means "exiled." Jesus was forsaken so that we would not have to be.

Now, whether or not the names themselves are typological, I am not sure, but the names do at least coincidentally highlight aspects of Christ's person and work.

So I hope that this short passage has opened up for you at least some principles of both justice and mercy. Let's pray.