Original Meaning

FROM A LITERARY PERSPECTIVE, this short paragraph is a narrative epilogue to Moses’ first address. By setting aside three towns1 of refuge east of the Jordan, Moses fulfilled part of Yahweh’s instruction in Numbers 35:9–34 (cf. Josh. 20). The narrator is content to record his actions and to offer a summary statement of the function of these towns (cf. 19:1–13).

The principles underlying the towns of refuge accord with the humanitarian interests of the book of Deuteronomy as a whole. While Numbers 35:6–34 incorporates this law fully into the Israelite system of justice, any system that invests relatives of the victims of a crime with responsibility for administering justice is vulnerable to abuse. To protect a potential secondary victim, Yahweh required the Israelites to designate six towns as refuges to which a person who had accidentally caused another person’s death could flee for asylum. This would give communities affected by the tragedy time to investigate the circumstances of the death. The towns so identified by Moses were distributed so all who lived east of the Jordan would have ready access: Bezer in Reuben’s tribal land, Ramoth in Gilead of the Gadites, and Golan in Bashan for the eastern half of the Manassites.2

Bridging Contexts

WHY THE EDITOR OF Moses’ speeches closed his first address with this account is unclear. However, in its present location this episode reminds readers that as the Israelites approached the time for crossing the Jordan, the tribes who remained east of the river were subject to the same ethical standards as those who would cross over into the actual Promised Land. Furthermore, these cities of refuge served as memorials to the faithfulness of Yahweh. If the Israelites will conduct their campaign west of the Jordan the way they had fought Sihon and Og in the east, they will soon have their own cities of refuge to memorialize God’s faithfulness.

Contemporary Significance

WE WILL REFLECT ON the theological implications of this policy more intensely when we return to the subject of cities of refuge in 19:1–3. For now we note that except for the archival notes in 1 Chronicles 6, after Joshua’s allocation of the cities of refuge west of the Jordan in Joshua 20, the topic never reappears in the Old Testament. But what are modern Christians supposed to do with a literary and judicial fossil like this? While it is difficult to domesticate the picture of justice here and square it with the needs of twenty-first century life, the passage yields a couple of insights of special relevance for our time.

(1) Whereas this provision presupposes that the Israelites will execute murderers, it recognizes the danger of potentially escalating cycles of revenge. It also recognizes that whenever one person accidentally or inadvertently causes another’s death, there are actually two victims: the one whose physical life was taken and the one deprived of social life. This policy illustrates the need for all judicial systems to take into account the lives of potential secondary victims. Even as it grieves over accidental loss of life, a just society will guard against unwarranted violent responses to innocent acts.

(2) As Moses will keep reminding us, God’s people need memorials to keep alive the memory of God’s actions on their behalf and to remind us to be open to his continued action on our behalf. When Israel trusted in Yahweh and engaged the enemy on his terms, the victory was certain. So it is for the church that engages the kingdom of darkness on his terms.