Joshua 20

Introduction

Joshua 20 records the establishment of the cities of refuge, a legal institution with deep theological significance in ancient Israel. The command originates with the LORD himself (v. 1) and fulfills instructions given earlier through Moses in Numbers 35:9-34 and Deuteronomy 19:1-14. Though the chapter is brief — only nine verses — it addresses a profound moral and legal problem: how does a society governed by blood-justice protect the person who kills accidentally? In the ancient Near East, the death of a family member obligated the nearest male relative to avenge the blood. Without a mechanism for distinguishing accidental from intentional killing, innocent people would die at the hands of grief-stricken avengers acting within their legal rights.

The solution God provides is carefully structured. Six cities are designated — three on each side of the Jordan — where a person who has killed unintentionally may flee and receive a fair trial. The manslayer is protected from the avenger of blood until the assembly renders judgment, and he remains in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest. This last detail is not merely administrative but deeply theological: the high priest's death functions as a kind of atoning event that releases the manslayer from his exile, a pattern that later biblical writers would connect to the death of Christ as the ultimate High Priest (Hebrews 6:18-20).

The Command to Establish Cities of Refuge (vv. 1–6)

Notes

The opening formula — "the LORD spoke to Joshua" — signals that this is not Joshua's initiative but a direct divine command: the institution is grounded in God's own concern for justice and mercy.

The key phrase in verse 2 is עָרֵי הַמִּקְלָט, "cities of refuge" or "cities of asylum." The noun מִקְלָט derives from a root meaning "to take in" or "to receive," emphasizing that these cities are places of reception and shelter. The term appears almost exclusively in connection with this institution (see Numbers 35:6, Numbers 35:11-15, 1 Chronicles 6:57).

Verse 3 contains a two-part phrase that together defines accidental homicide. The first is בִּשְׁגָגָה, meaning "by mistake" or "unintentionally" — the same word used for unintentional sins in the Levitical sacrificial system (Leviticus 4:2, Numbers 15:22-29). The second is בִּבְלִי דַעַת, literally "without knowledge" or "without intent." Together they create a double emphasis: the killing was both accidental and lacked any conscious purpose. The translation here preserves both phrases — "by mistake, without intent" — to capture this legal precision.

The figure of the גֹּאֵל הַדָּם, "avenger of blood," is a central concept in Old Testament law. The word גֹּאֵל comes from the verb meaning "to redeem" or "to act as kinsman." The same root gives us the "kinsman-redeemer" of Ruth 4:1-6 — the relative who buys back family land and marries the widow. As blood-avenger, the go'el is the nearest male relative obligated to pursue and execute the killer of his kinsman. This is not vigilante justice but a recognized legal role in a society without a centralized police force. The dual nature of the go'el — both redeemer and avenger — reflects a worldview in which family bonds carry both protective and retributive obligations.

Verse 4 describes a specific legal procedure. The manslayer must stand at the entrance of the city gate — the place where legal proceedings were conducted in the ancient world — and present his case to the elders. The Hebrew וְדִבֶּר בְּאָזְנֵי זִקְנֵי הָעִיר, literally "and he shall speak in the ears of the elders of that city," indicates a formal oral hearing. Only after this preliminary hearing do the elders admit him into the city.

Verse 5 emphasizes two conditions for protection: the killing was "without knowledge" and the killer bore no prior hatred — וְלֹא שֹׂנֵא הוּא לוֹ מִתְּמוֹל שִׁלְשׁוֹם, literally "and he was not hating him from yesterday or the day before." This idiom means "previously" or "in time past." The legal test is twofold: was the killing accidental, and was there any preexisting enmity? If the answer to both is yes — accidental and without malice — the manslayer receives protection.

Verse 6 introduces a theologically significant element: the manslayer must remain in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest. The Hebrew הַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל — "the great priest" — is the one who serves "in those days." This is not an arbitrary time limit. In Numbers 35:25, the connection is made explicit: the manslayer remains in the city of refuge "until the death of the high priest who was anointed with the holy oil." The high priest's death functions as a kind of corporate atonement — his passing releases all manslayers from their exile. The logic is never fully explained in the text, but the implication is that the high priest's death absorbs or covers the blood-guilt that the accidental killing created, even though the killing was unintentional.

The phrase "return to his own city and his own house" — אֶל עִירוֹ וְאֶל בֵּיתוֹ — emphasizes complete restoration. The manslayer does not merely escape punishment; he recovers his former life, property, and standing.

Interpretations

The high priest's death as the trigger for the manslayer's release has been read typologically throughout Christian history. The author of Hebrews describes Jesus as a "great high priest" (Hebrews 4:14) and presents believers as those who "have fled for refuge to take hold of the hope set before us" (Hebrews 6:18). Just as the high priest's death released the manslayer from exile, Christ's death as the eternal High Priest releases sinners from the penalty of their guilt. The cities of refuge thus become a type of the gospel: a place of safety for those who, though guilty of death (in a fallen world), flee to God's appointed provision.

Reformed interpreters have particularly emphasized the parallel: the manslayer did not earn protection but fled to a divinely appointed place of safety, just as the sinner is justified not by works but by fleeing to Christ. Arminian interpreters, while affirming the typology, tend to stress the manslayer's responsibility to actually flee — the refuge exists, but the individual must choose to go there.

The Six Cities Designated (vv. 7–9)

Notes

The verb in verse 7 is וַיַּקְדִּשׁוּ, from the root קדשׁ, meaning "to set apart" or "to make holy." This is the same root from which "holy," "sanctify," and "sanctuary" derive. The cities of refuge are not merely designated — they are consecrated, set apart for a sacred purpose. This word choice underscores that the protection of the accidentally guilty is a matter of holiness, not just legal convenience.

The six cities are strategically distributed across the land. West of the Jordan, from north to south: Kedesh in the territory of Naphtali (the far north), Shechem in the central highlands of Ephraim, and Hebron in the southern hill country of Judah. East of the Jordan, similarly from north to south: Golan in Bashan (the northernmost Transjordanian territory, belonging to Manasseh), Ramoth in Gilead (central Transjordan, belonging to Gad), and Bezer on the wilderness plateau (southern Transjordan, belonging to Reuben). This even distribution — three on each side, spaced from north to south — ensured that no Israelite was ever too far from a place of refuge. The rabbis later required that roads to the cities of refuge be maintained in good repair and clearly marked (Talmud Makkot 10b), so that a fleeing manslayer would not lose his way.

Each of the western cities carries historical and theological weight. Kedesh was a major Canaanite city conquered by Joshua (Joshua 12:22). Shechem was where Abraham first received the land promise (Genesis 12:6-7) and where Joshua would later renew the covenant (Joshua 24:1). Hebron — here identified by its older name Kiriath-arba — was the burial place of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Genesis 23:19, Genesis 35:27) and would later become David's first capital (2 Samuel 2:1-4). The cities of refuge are thus woven into the larger narrative of God's promises.

The eastern cities were previously designated by Moses himself in Deuteronomy 4:41-43, making Joshua's action here the completion of what Moses began. Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan correspond exactly to Moses's earlier selection.

Verse 9 concludes with a note of inclusivity: these cities serve not only "all the children of Israel" but also הַגֵּר הַגָּר בְּתוֹכָם — "the foreigner dwelling among them." The גֵּר is the resident alien, the non-Israelite living within Israel's borders. This person receives the same protection under the cities of refuge as any native Israelite. In a world where foreigners typically had no legal standing, this provision stands out. It reflects the repeated biblical principle that Israel must protect the vulnerable outsider because they themselves were once foreigners in Egypt (Exodus 22:21, Deuteronomy 10:19).

The final clause reiterates the purpose: the manslayer shall "not die by the hand of the avenger of blood until he stands before the assembly." Justice must precede execution. The assembly — הָעֵדָה — functions as a judicial body, ensuring that no one is punished without a hearing. This principle — that no one may be punished without first standing trial — recurs throughout biblical law.

Interpretations

Some interpreters see the six cities of refuge as a picture of the universal accessibility of the gospel. Just as no Israelite was too far from a city of refuge, so no sinner is beyond the reach of God's grace. The inclusion of the foreigner strengthens this reading: salvation is not limited to one nation or people. Others, particularly in the dispensational tradition, focus on the specific tribal assignments and geographical details as evidence of God's meticulous care for the physical land and its administration — details that will matter again in the prophesied restoration of Israel.