Commentaria in Numeros
him whom he shall have killed, understand unwillingly or unwittingly, as is said in verse 11, and Josue xx, 3; for these asylum cities were established for the protection of the innocent: whence the homicide had to plead innocence before he was admitted to these asylums. “He shall stand,” says Josue, xx, 4, “before the gate of the city, and shall speak to the ancients of that city such things as prove him innocent, and so they shall receive him, and give him a place to dwell in.”
For in the old law, on account of the hardness of that people, it was permitted to the kinsmen to kill the striker of their relative, without other condemnation by a judge, in whatever place they found him, as is plain from verses 19 and 27. God therefore commanded these cities of refuge to be established, to which those who had committed a slaying might betake themselves, that there they might be safe until their cause was examined, and this either in the gate of the city to which they had fled, or in the place where they had committed the homicide, as I shall say on verse 25. Whence they were led thither, and there the kinsmen of the slain brought their suit against them, in which, if they were found innocent, namely to have done the slaughter not of purpose but ignorantly, by chance, or in self-defence, they were sent back to the place of refuge, as is said in verse 25; but if they were found guilty, namely to have killed knowingly and of purpose, they were themselves put to death.
On this side of the Jordan, Moses designated three cities of refuge, namely Bosor, Ramoth and Golan. But He commands here, verse 14, that after the Hebrews have crossed the Jordan, in the promised land, they designate three others besides; which was in fact done, Josue chapter xx, verse 7. The cities of refuge, then, were in all six, to which God commanded three more to be added, Deuteronomy xix, 9, namely when the bounds had been more widely extended. Moreover, all the cities of refuge were inhabited by Levites, doubtless that by the dignity of the priesthood unjust violence (if the kinsmen of the slain pursued the homicide to put him to death) might be the more easily prevented, and that by men skilled in human and divine law, namely Levites and priests, capital judgments of this kind might be judged more rightly and holily.
You will ask whether the city in which the tabernacle was, or the tabernacle itself, was an asylum. Tostatus denies, Question XI; Covarruvias affirms, chapter xx, conclusion 2, book of Variae resolutiones. I say that the altar and the tabernacle were an asylum; but not the city itself in which they were. It is plain from this that Joab fled from the city to the tabernacle and altar, as to an asylum: for this place is of itself sacred. The same is gathered from Exodus xxi, 14. So Serarius on Josue xx, Question VII, where he confirms it at greater length.
A mystical explanation of the six cities of refuge is given by St. Ambrose, book On Flight from the World, chapter ii; and Galianus in the same place, verse 9, note 4, where he teaches that for penitents the mystical asylums are contrition, prayer, the grace of God, the Sacraments and entrance into Religion. “The law,” says St. Ambrose, “teaches that we must flee the world, and follow God. Now the refuges of the six cities are these: the first city is the knowledge of the Word, and after its image the form of living. The second, the consideration of the divine operation by which the world was created. The third, the contemplation of the royal power and eternal majesty. The fourth, the beholding of the divine propitiation. The fifth, the contemplation of the divine law, which commands what is to be done. The sixth, the part of the law which prescribes what is not to be done.” So St. Romuald, fleeing to a monastery from a slaughter at which he had been present, changed the literal asylum into a mystical one, and, becoming a monk, instituted the Order of Camaldoli; in which he lived with wonderful sanctity to a hundred years, and died in the 120th year of his age.
Verse 15. AS WELL TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL AS TO STRANGERS AND SOJOURNERS—namely those converted to Judaism, that is, proselytes. For these are called strangers and sojourners: namely he is called a stranger (advena), or, as it is in Hebrew, ger, who has now first, or at least not long ago, come and joined himself to Judaism. A sojourner (peregrinus), or, as it is in Hebrew, toshab, is he who joined himself long ago and has dwelt long among the Israelites; and so the Greek words prosēlytos and paroikos are to be taken. So Serarius on Josue 20, Question 6. Proselytes, therefore, enjoyed the right of asylum, but not Gentiles remaining in heathenism. So Abulensis and Serarius; although Masius and Magalianus hold that the right of asylum was granted here even to these Gentiles, which opinion is not improbable.
Note: The Jews by birth had three privileges which proselytes lacked: the first, that a servant, if he were a Jew, became free in the seventh year and the fiftieth; but not if he were a proselyte, Leviticus xxv, 40 and 43. The second, the Jews enjoyed the privilege of remission of debts in the seventh year, not proselytes, Deuteronomy xv, 3. The third, Jews could not lend to Jews on usury, but could to proselytes, Deuteronomy xxiii, 19. In the rest, the laws were equal for both. So Abulensis.
THAT HE MAY FLEE TO THEM WHO HATH SHED BLOOD UNWILLINGLY (involuntarily, in ignorance).
Note: These cities of refuge were properly established for homicides alone, not for those who had only hurt another. If, however, these had fled to them, they enjoyed the common right of asylum. Again, voluntary homicides had no right of asylum. But what if one had killed another voluntarily, yet defending himself, and repelling force by force? I answer: Such a slayer had the right of asylum, nay, this his innocence being proved, he was sent home free from the asylum, because he was not a homicide and guilty, but wholly innocent. So Abulensis, Question V, on chapter xx of Josue, and in the same place Serarius and Magalianus. But if anyone had committed a slaughter in the very asylum, namely in the cities of refuge, he did not enjoy the right of asylum. So Abulensis, in the same place, Question XIX.
(1) Verse 12. For the kinsman of the slain, the Hebrew has Goel, the avenger of blood, as he is called below, verse 24. Even now among the Arabs, if anyone has been slain, the nearest in blood judges that this most sacred duty is laid upon him, to kill the author of the slaughter with his own hand.