John Calvin Commentary Numbers 35
John Calvin Commentary
Numbers 35
John Calvin Commentary
Numbers 35
"And Jehovah spake unto Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho, saying," — Numbers 35:1 (ASV)
And the Lord spoke to Moses. Although no inheritance was assigned to the tribe of Levi, it was still necessary that they be supplied with dwelling places. No lands were given to them where they might sow and reap; but by way of compensation, the tithes were a sufficient means of subsistence, even after deducting the tithes that were paid to the poor.
God now, however, makes provision for their residences. Here we must carefully note that they were distributed over the whole land in such a way as to be, as it were, guards regularly stationed for the preservation of God’s worship, so that no superstition might creep in, or the people fall into gross contempt of God.
For we know that they were chosen by Him, not only to attend to the ceremonies, but also to be the interpreters of the Law and to foster sincere piety among the people. If all had been placed in one location, there was a danger that the doctrine of the Law would immediately fall into oblivion throughout the whole land, and thus the other tribes would become irreligious.
Therefore, the incomparable goodness of God shone forth here, since their punishment was turned, as it were, into a reward for virtue, and their disgrace into honor. For this dispersion of the tribe of Levi had been foretold by the holy patriarch Jacob (Genesis 46:7), that their posterity would be scattered in that land, which Levi, the father of their race, had polluted by a detestable murder and wicked treachery.
God eventually proved that this prophecy, which proceeded from Him, did not fall to the ground unfulfilled. Nevertheless, although the Levites were to be scattered here and there as a token of their disgrace, they were still placed in various parts of the land so that they might keep the other tribes under the yoke of the Law.
It was, then, by God’s wonderful providence that they were placed in distinct and fixed residences, rather than being allowed to mingle indiscriminately with the rest of the people. For the cities God assigned to them were like so many schools, where they could better and more freely engage in teaching the Law and prepare themselves for performing the office of teaching.
For if they had lived indiscriminately among the multitude, they would have been liable to contract many vices and to neglect the study of the Law. But when they were thus gathered into separate communities, such an association reminded them that they were set apart from the people so that they might devote themselves entirely to God.
Besides, their cities were like lamps shining into the very farthest corners of the land. They were therefore fortified, as it were, by walls, so that the corruptions of the people would not penetrate to them.
Their association together also should have stimulated them to mutually exhort each other to uphold decent and modest manners, temperance, and other virtues worthy of God’s servants. Meanwhile, if they fell into dissolute habits, they were all the less excusable.
Thus, their cities were like watchtowers in which they could keep guard, so as to drive impiety away from the borders of the holy land. From here the light of heavenly doctrine was diffused; from here the seed of life was scattered; from here examples of holiness and universal integrity were to be sought.
"And the suburbs of the cities, which ye shall give unto the Levites, shall be from the wall of the city and outward a thousand cubits round about." — Numbers 35:4 (ASV)
And the suburbs of the cities. A discrepancy appears here, from which a question arises. Moses first limits the suburbs to a thousand cubits from the city in every direction, and then seems to extend them to two thousand.
Some explain the difficulty this way: namely, that the parts nearest to the city were designated for cottages and gardens, and then another space of a thousand cubits was left free for their flocks and herds. However, this explanation seems merely invented to evade, by this subterfuge, the alleged contradiction.
My own opinion, rather, is that after Moses had given them a boundary of a thousand cubits on every side, he proceeds to show the way in which they were to be measured, so that he might prevent any quarrels that might arise with their neighbors.
It is plain that when he repeats the same thing twice, the latter statement is only an explanation of the former. Thus, it would be absurd that, after having fixed a thousand cubits, he should immediately double that number.
However, it will all be very consistent if this measurement is taken in a circuit. For if you draw a circle, and then a line from the center to the circumference, that line will be about a tenth of the whole circumference. If you then compare the fourth part of the circle with the straight line going to the center, it will be greater by one and a half parts.
But if you leave a thousand cubits for the city, the two thousand cubits199 in the four parts of the circumference will correspond with one thousand cubits from the city towards each of the boundaries.
It is afterwards prescribed, in accordance with equity, that a greater or lesser number of cities should be taken according to the size of the possessions belonging to each tribe. For, just as in paying tax or tribute, regard is given to each person’s means, so it was just that every tribe should contribute equitably in proportion to its abundance.
Regarding the cities of refuge, I will now omit explaining their condition, because this matter relates to the Sixth Commandment. Let us only observe that the unfortunate exiles were entrusted to the care of the Levites so that they might be more safely guarded.
Furthermore, it was probable that those who presided over holy things would be upright and honest judges, so as not to admit individuals indiscriminately out of hope of personal gain or from carelessness, but only to protect the innocent after duly examining their case.
199 “Les huit mille coudees prinses aux quatre quatriers conviendront avec les mille coudees d’espace entre la ville, et les bornes des fanbourgs.” — .” — Fr. The more common solution of this difficulty appears to be that suggested by Maimonides, viz., that besides the 1000 cubits allotted to the suburbs, 2000 more were added for fields and vineyards. Rosenmuller, however, demurs to this interpretation, which he does not consider the text will bear. I have translated . The more common solution of this difficulty appears to be that suggested by Maimonides, viz., that besides the 1000 cubits allotted to the suburbs, 2000 more were added for fields and vineyards. Rosenmuller, however, demurs to this interpretation, which he does not consider the text will bear. I have translated C. word for word, but I believe his figures are wrong. It is probable that his theory is the same as that of Corn. a Lapide, which he thus more clearly propounds, “God seems here to comprise the city and its suburbs in a circle, so that the center should be the city, and the circumference should end at the distance of 1000 cubits on every side of the city walls. This circle He divides into four triangles, each of which is . word for word, but I believe his figures are wrong. It is probable that his theory is the same as that of Corn. a Lapide, which he thus more clearly propounds, “God seems here to comprise the city and its suburbs in a circle, so that the center should be the city, and the circumference should end at the distance of 1000 cubits on every side of the city walls. This circle He divides into four triangles, each of which is isosceles, i e., it, has its two sides equal, which are drawn from the center to the circumference. God, therefore, here commands, that the suburbs on every side should be extended a thousand cubits, and that the east side should be contained in two lines (each, of course, of 1000 cubits) drawn from the city to the circumference of the suburbs, which two lines comprehend that east side in the shape of a triangle;” and so also with the other sides, “so that the two lines drawn to the circumference of each side, which are the two equal sides of the triangle, should together contain 2000 cubits."it, has its two sides equal, which are drawn from the center to the circumference. God, therefore, here commands, that the suburbs on every side should be extended a thousand cubits, and that the east side should be contained in two lines (each, of course, of 1000 cubits) drawn from the city to the circumference of the suburbs, which two lines comprehend that east side in the shape of a triangle;” and so also with the other sides, “so that the two lines drawn to the circumference of each side, which are the two equal sides of the triangle, should together contain 2000 cubits."
"Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan," — Numbers 35:10 (ASV)
Speak unto the children of Israel. God appointed the cities of refuge not only to make a distinction between sins of malice and error, but also so that innocent blood would not be rashly shed. Until now, we have seen how severely He intended murder to be punished. However, since it would have been by no means just that someone who had not willfully but accidentally killed his neighbor should be subjected to the same punishment as willful murderers, an exception is added here, so that one who had killed another ignorantly and unintentionally might escape.
Although, as has been said, God had a further object: namely, to prevent murder upon murder from being committed, and to prevent the land from thus being polluted. Let us now examine the details in order. Although at the outset He only mentions the cities on the other side of the Jordan, we still gather from what follows that six cities were chosen for this purpose, three of which were on this side of the Jordan.
He intended for them to be situated so that every part of the country would have one of them in its vicinity, to prevent the exile of the guiltless, unhappy persons from being made more painful by the distance they would have to travel. We have already briefly pointed out52 that these cities were to be in the portions of Levi, so that the dignity of the priesthood could better protect the exiles. This was also because it was probable that there would be more prudence and seriousness among the Levites, ensuring that the refuge granted to the innocent would not also shield the guilty.
52 See vol. 2 p. 251, on , on Numbers 35:6..
"But if he smote him with an instrument of iron, so that he died, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death." — Numbers 35:16 (ASV)
And if he smite him with an instrument of iron. God appears to contradict Himself. A little further on, He absolves involuntary murderers, even if they have inflicted the wound with iron or with a stone, while here He absolutely declares that whoever shall smite another with wood, or iron, or a stone, shall be guilty of death.
But this is easily explained if we consider His meaning. For, after having pardoned the unintentional act (errori),53 to prevent any from misconstruing this as affording impunity for crime, He at once anticipates them and again reinforces what has been said before.
By the express mention of iron, wood, and stone, He more clearly explains that no voluntary murders are to be pardoned. Otherwise, as laws are commonly evaded by various subtleties, they would have perhaps endeavored to limit what had been said respecting the punishment of murderers to one single type of murder, namely, when a person had been slain with a sword.
It is not, then, without cause that God condemns to death every kind of murderer—whether he has committed the crime with a weapon (of iron), by throwing a stone, or with a club—since it is sufficient for his condemnation that he conceived the intention to do the evil act.
It is well known that54 by the Lex Cornelia, whoever had carried a weapon with the intention of killing a man was guilty. Martianus cites the reply of Adrian: "He who has killed a man, if he did it not with the intention of killing him, may be absolved; and he who has not killed a man, but has wounded him with intention to kill him, is to be condemned as a murderer." Paulus also teaches that in the said Lex Cornelia, the evil intention (dolus) is taken for the deed.
Another reply of Adrian is very true: that in crimes, the will and not the result must be regarded. Hence that saying of Ulpian: that there is no difference between the man who kills and him who causes the death of another.
Here, therefore, God had no other object than to cut off from murderers all means of evasion if they should be convicted of a wicked intention, especially when it resulted in an actual attempt, since there was no difference whether they had made use of a sword, a mallet, or a stone.
53 “De peur que cela ne tirast trop longue queue, et que les criminels en fissent couverture d’impunite, il exprime notamment les facons de tuer plus communes, quand on y va de guet-a-pens. Ainsi en nommant les instrumens, qui sont destinez, ou qu’on applique a mal faire,” etc.; for fear this should be carried too far, and that criminals should make it a ground for impunity, he expressly mentions the more ordinary kinds of deliberate murder. Thus, by naming the instruments, which are intended, or used for inflicting injuries, etc. — Fr..
54 Vide Digest. 48, tit. 8. In legem Corneliam de Sicariis, et Veneficiis, 1 Section 3. “Divus Hadrianus rescripsit, eum, qui hominem occidit, si non occidendi animo hoc admisit, absolvi posse: et qui hominem non occidit, sed vulneravit ut occidat, pro homicida damnandum: et ex re constituendum hoc.” — Digest. 48, tit. 8. In legem Corneliam de Sicariis, et Veneficiis, 1 Section 3. “Divus Hadrianus rescripsit, eum, qui hominem occidit, si non occidendi animo hoc admisit, absolvi posse: et qui hominem non occidit, sed vulneravit ut occidat, pro homicida damnandum: et ex re constituendum hoc.” — Ibid., 11 “Ulpianus, lib. 8, ad legem Juliam, et Papiam. Nihil interest, occidat quis, an causam mortis praebeat.” ., 11 “Ulpianus, lib. 8, ad legem Juliam, et Papiam. Nihil interest, occidat quis, an causam mortis praebeat.” Vide item, Julii Pauli Recept. Sentent., lib. 5, tit. 23, Section 2. “Qui hominem occiderit, aliquando absolvitur. Et qui non occidit, in homicida damnatur. Consilium enim uniuscujusque, non factum puniendum est. Ideoque qui cum velit occidere, id casu aliquo perpetrare non potuerit, ut homicida punietur. Et is, qui casu jactu teli hominem imprudenter occiderit, absolvitur.”, Julii Pauli Recept. Sentent., lib. 5, tit. 23, Section 2. “Qui hominem occiderit, aliquando absolvitur. Et qui non occidit, in homicida damnatur. Consilium enim uniuscujusque, non factum puniendum est. Ideoque qui cum velit occidere, id casu aliquo perpetrare non potuerit, ut homicida punietur. Et is, qui casu jactu teli hominem imprudenter occiderit, absolvitur.”
"The avenger of blood shall himself put the murderer to death: when he meeteth him, he shall put him to death." — Numbers 35:19 (ASV)
The revenger 55of blood himself.
When God commanded that murderers should suffer death, He required that they be condemned by judges after a proper trial. However, it seems somewhat barbaric that He would now permit the relative of the dead man to take vengeance. This is a very bad precedent: to give the power of the sword to private individuals, and this, moreover, in their own cause.
It was indeed previously permitted, as we will see in its proper place, to put to death robbers by night, just as it was also lawful for the husband or father of a ravished woman to kill an adulterer caught in the act. However, it is absurd that the law should allow a person to avenge the death of his brother.
But it should not be supposed that this license was ever granted by God, allowing a man to neglect public authorities and inflict punishment on his brother's murderer wherever he might meet him. This would have been to give free rein to sudden anger, so that blood would be added to blood.
Therefore, it is probable that the danger of this is warned against here, rather than the gate being opened to private vengeance. It is as if to say that unless a provision was made for the innocent, the fury of those whose relatives had been slain could hardly be restrained—not because it was lawful for them to repay violence with violence, but because they would not consider it a crime, and impunity would encourage them, if their just indignation were pardoned.
It must be understood, then, that when a man had been maliciously and willfully killed, a death inflicted by his relative in vengeance was not punished. This was because it was considered harsh that a man should be condemned to death as a criminal who had only slain a murderer already exposed to capital punishment, acting under the impulse of that love towards his own blood, which is naturally implanted in everyone.
This, however, was tolerated and not approved of, because, as I have already said, punishments are to be inflicted by public judgment and not by private will.
But since this indulgence was granted on account of the people's hardness of heart, God here reminds them how necessary it was to provide an asylum for the innocent, because all murderers would otherwise have been indiscriminately attacked.
In short, a comparison is made between the guilty and the innocent, for unless a just distinction had been drawn, all alike would have been exposed to death.
The murderer, he says, is worthy of death if, by chance, he is met by the relative of the man murdered.
A remedy must, therefore, be provided, so that one who is not criminal does not accidentally receive the same punishment.
Thus, it is eventually concluded that a distinction is made between the one and the other by a lawful trial.
The mode of procedure is also prescribed, namely, that the congregation should acquit the man who has killed another unintentionally.
But because there is some perplexity in the words, it must be observed that as soon as a person had slain another, he immediately went to the place of refuge and there declared that he sought shelter.
After this declaration, it was open for the relatives of the dead man to lay their accusation, and then, after both parties were heard, judgment was pronounced.
Otherwise, there is a manifest contradiction in the context, since it is presently added, they shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled, from which it appears that after the exile had presented himself to state his case and to clear himself, it was usual for a day to be appointed on which his accusers should come forward.
The sum is that the murderer should nowhere find refuge unless he was acquitted of his crime.
This was an excellent precaution to prevent the same punishment from being inflicted upon misfortune and criminality, while56 at the same time, the temporary banishment testified how carefully bloodshed was to be avoided.
God likewise spared the eyes of those whose brother had been killed, so that their grief would not be kept alive by continually beholding (the person who had killed him57).
This we gather from verse 26, where impunity is granted to the relatives if they had caught and killed the man—whose duty it was to withdraw himself—outside the boundaries of his refuge. This was not because the fury of their indignation was excused before God, but because it would otherwise have been difficult to restrain the strong desire for vengeance proceeding from the feelings of human nature.
55 “Propinquus sanguinis.” — Lat..
56 The Fr. gives a different turn to this sentence; “que pour obvier a un nouveau meurtre en bannissant pour un temps celuy, qui avoit tue quelqu’un par erreur;” as well as to prevent a fresh murder, by banishing, for a time, the person who had killed another unintentionally.. gives a different turn to this sentence; “que pour obvier a un nouveau meurtre en bannissant pour un temps celuy, qui avoit tue quelqu’un par erreur;” as well as to prevent a fresh murder, by banishing, for a time, the person who had killed another unintentionally.
57 Added from Fr..
Jump to: