In this case, it is supposed that the relations of the person slain would demand the life of the slayer, as a satisfaction to that ancient law that whoso sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. (2.) It is provided that if upon trial it appeared that the murder was done...
Show full excerpt
In this case, it is supposed that the relations of the person slain would demand the life of the slayer, as a satisfaction to that ancient law that whoso sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. (2.) It is provided that if upon trial it appeared that the murder was done purely by accident, and not by design, either upon an old grudge or a sudden passion, then the slayer should be sheltered from the avenger of blood in any one of these cities, v. 4-6. By this law he was entitled to a dwelling in that city, was taken into the care of the government of it, but was confined to it, as prisoner at large; only, if he survived the high priest, then, and not till then, he might return to his own city. And the Jews say, "If he died before the high priest in the city of his refuge and exile, and was buried there, yet, at the death of the high priest, his bones should be removed with respect to the place of his fathers' sepulchres." We have here the nomination of the cities of refuge in the land of Canaan, which was made by the advice and authority of Joshua and the princes (v. 7); and upon occasion of the mention of this is repeated the nomination of the other three in the lot of the other two tribes and a half, which was made by Moses (Deut. iv. 43), but (as bishop Patrick thinks) they had not the privilege till now. 1. They are said to sanctify these cities, that is the original word for appointed, v. 7.