John Calvin Commentary Numbers 35:19

"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..