Dennis Tuuri

# Sermon Transcript – Joshua 20

Sermon scripture is Joshua chapter 20, the 20th chapter of the book of Joshua. That last song is written by Augustus Toplady, who was a strong, very strong Calvinist. And today we come to the cities of refuge. It will be my intent to show the correlation between the cities of refuge, the atoning work of Jesus Christ, and then the victory in the land that the book of Joshua speaks to. So with that in mind, let us read Joshua chapter 20.

Please stand. The Lord also spake unto Joshua, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, I appoint out for you cities of refuge, whereof I spake unto you by the hand of Moses, that the slayer that killeth any person unawares and unwittingly may they flee thither, and they shall be your refuge from the avenger of blood. And when he that doth flee unto one of these cities shall stand at the entering of the gate of the city, and shall declare his case in the ears of the elders of that city, they shall take him into the city unto them, and give him a place that he may dwell among them.

And if the avenger of blood pursue after him, then they shall not deliver the slayer up into his hand, because he slew his neighbor unwittingly, and hated him not aforetime. And he shall dwell in that city until he stand before the congregation for judgment and until the death of the high priest that shall be in those days. Then shall the slayer return and come unto his own city and unto his own house, unto the city from thence he had fled.

And they appointed Kadesh in Galilee in Mount Naphtali and Shechem in Mount Ephraim and Kirjath Arba, which is Hebron, in the mountain of Judah, and on the other side Jordan by Jericho eastward they assigned Bezer in the wilderness upon the plain out of the tribe of Reuben, and Ramoth in Gilead out of the tribe of Gad, and Golan in Bashan out of the tribe of Manasseh. These are the cities appointed for all the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them, that whosoever killeth any person unawares might flee thither, and not die by the hand of the avenger of blood until he stood before the congregation.

We thank God for his word, and we pray now that he would illuminate our understanding.

Back to the book of Joshua. And you will have noticed that there is a major shift in the book. We’ve now come to the story of the preparation for conquest which began in the first opening chapters. Then the delineation of that conquest in the next few chapters, and then the assignment of the land, the inheritance of the various tribes in the chapters we’ve just concluded. Those all sort of form a unit, and now we kind of transition into life in the land. And so we’ve kind of reached a major turning point here in the book of Joshua. And of course there’s only a few chapters left.

We’re going to spend two weeks on this particular chapter. Next week is what the Christian Action Council has referred to as Sanctity of Human Life Sunday. That’s the Sunday nearest to the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision of the Supreme Court, legalizing abortion on demand essentially. And at this church every year we celebrate that—celebrate in a liturgical sense, not in a joyous sense, a liturgical sense with a liturgy of malediction and with a service aimed at talking to the sin of abortion and the need for abortionists to be punished.

Now, in the providence of God, we’re brought to that Sunday in the context of the cities of refuge, which among other things affirm the sanctity of human life. And we’ll talk about that more next week. So I want to stay on this particular chapter, chapter 20, next week as well. And then the following week we’ll talk about the Levitical cities from chapter 21 and going on into the rest of the book.

But today we’re going to talk about the cities of refuge. I don’t have an outline, but basically, if you want to keep notes, what I’m going to try to do here—my best intention is to begin with kind of an overview of the laws relating to the city of refuge found in the Pentateuch, and then after looking at the various sections of the Pentateuch where those instructions are given, we’ll look at a number of specific elements that the city of refuge indicates to us. It’s a tremendously important doctrine for lots of reasons which we’ll enumerate in the second part of the talk today.

First, an overview of the text involved with the Pentateuch, and then secondly, a delineation of eight or nine different points that are very significant in the cities of refuge in a brief fashion. And then I’m going to focus in the third part of the outline on two elements—or three elements actually. First, Jesus Christ as our city of refuge, how all these things point to the work of Jesus Christ, and secondly, as a corollary to that, the role of mediation in terms of the cities of refuge. And then third, I’m going to tie it back into the entire context of the book of Joshua.

So we’re going to start with a brief overview. Then we’ll look at some important points which we’re not going to pause much on but just delineate them quickly. Then we’ll go to the work of Jesus Christ as the city of refuge, mediation, and then finally the context in the book of Joshua. So it’s not quite so easy for you to follow along, but maybe if you’re writing those points down then it’ll be even better than if you have a printed outline in front of you.

Okay. First, the city of refuge is—as I just made mention—a very important doctrine. It’s mentioned a number of times in the Pentateuch, and to properly understand it, I suppose I’d like to start with Genesis 9.

In Genesis 9, verses 5 and 6—or actually beginning in verse 3—this is God speaking to Noah after the flood. And he talks about how everything can be meat for Noah, but the flesh, the life thereof—which is the blood thereof—you shall not eat. And then he says, “Why surely your blood of your lives will I require at the hand of every beast will I require it, at the hand of man, at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood by man shall his blood be shed. For in the image of God made he man.”

So in Genesis 9, we’re told that whoever sheds man’s blood, God’s going to require something of it. And significantly he says even at the hand of the beast, I’ll require something. So the shedding of blood itself—whether intentional or unintentional, whether done by man or by beast—is going to require some sort of satisfaction from God. And that’s what the city of refuge properly helps us to understand is how this is required.

And then verse 6, as I said: “Whosoever sheds man’s blood by man shall his blood be shed. For in the image of God, he created man.” The significance of man’s blood is not because man is such a neat creature in and of himself. It’s because of his correlation to being God’s primary, chief image bearer for the person of God. And so man has great significance only because he is an image bearer of God.

And because he is that, he has tremendous significance. We people say “Earth first.” No, no—man first. Not because we like man, but because man is the primary image of God. Man was created in God’s image in a sense in which everything else was not. Man is extremely significant. We’ll talk more about that next week in terms of the sanctity of human life.

So we have understanding there that the importance of when men’s blood is shed, something’s got to happen. God’s going to require something. In Exodus 21, in a very specific fashion, the cities of refuge are beginning to be referenced. Exodus 21:12-14, we read that if anybody smites a man so that he dies, he shall surely be put to death. “If a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand, then I will appoint thee a place whether he shall flee. But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor to slay him with guile, thou shalt take him from mine altar that he may die.”

So this section tells us, and preparing us for the coming cities of refuge, that if you kill a man presumptuously—intending to kill him, malice aforethought, so to speak—you’ve got to die. But if you kill a man unintentionally, and it’s interesting that phrasing is “if God deliver him into his hand”—if in the providence of God, an action you take inadvertently kills somebody else—then God says, “I’m going to appoint a place that he may go to be safe. He won’t be killed, but he’s going to have to go to a particular place,” and that’s going to become these cities of refuge that we’re reading about in Joshua.

Now, these specific six cities which we just had named—very important from this Exodus 21 passage is that he says that if the guy kills him presumptuously—premeditated murder—”then you shall take him from my altar,” is what God says in that text. So we see here a very important part of the cities of refuge. The central city of refuge is God’s altar. Okay? That’s where he’s taken from. If he doesn’t get refuge at God’s place of refuge in the land, so there’s a correlation back to the altar here.

Now, Deuteronomy 4—we have Moses in Deuteronomy 4 actually appoints three cities. We read in Deuteronomy 4:41 and following: “Moses severed three cities on this side Jordan toward the sunrising that the slayer might flee, which should kill his neighbor unawares, and hated him not in times past.”

So here Moses takes the east side. See, is that right? Yeah, east side of the Jordan. Remember that we have essentially the land of Canaan on the west side of Jordan. On the east side, there are two and a half tribes over there—Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh. On that side, there are three of these cities of refuge appointed. And Deuteronomy 4 tells us Moses did that. It also tells us a very important phrase that the man who goes there has not hated the other man that he killed aforetime. So his emotional state, his state of peace or lack of peace with the person he kills is part of the determination of whether or not he gets to stay in a city of refuge.

Deuteronomy 19, verses 1 and following, is an extended passage about the cities of refuge. And we’ll make reference to several things in this. In verse 4, for instance, in Deuteronomy 19, we have very similar language to Joshua 20: “Whoso killeth his neighbor ignorantly whom he hath not hated in time past.” This is what’s going to happen to him. He gets to go to a city of refuge.

And then he actually gives us a significant case from verse 5 in Deuteronomy 19: “As when a man goeth into the wood with his neighbor to hew wood and his hand fetcheth a stroke of the axe to cut down the tree and the head slips off the axe and lights upon his neighbor that he dies. He shall go to one of these cities of refuge.”

So he actually gives us a case of what might happen. You’re chopping wood, the axe head flies off accidentally and it kills whoever you’re sitting there with. You get to go to the city of refuge instead of being killed and executed.

Now Deuteronomy 19 tells us that one of the reasons for these cities of refuge—multiple cities of refuge—they’re not just having one place is because you want to be able to get to one of these places fairly quickly. And if you’re at the northern end of Canaan and you did something at the southern end, you killed somebody unintentionally, you’d want to get up there as quick as you could, but that’s a long way to go. So he places these six cities of refuge in various centrally located areas in Canaan and on the other side of Canaan for the purpose of the guy being able to get there quickly.

The delineation of the three cities: one city is in the northern group, there’s one city in Ephraim in the middle of the country, and one city in Judah, which you remember is the southern area of the country. So they’re located geographically so that people can get there quickly.

Additionally, Deuteronomy 19 tells us that they had to prepare roads to these cities of refuge. Very significant. They had to make it easy to get to these places that God said he’d established for people who had killed other people unawares or unintentionally could go to.

Interestingly also, Deuteronomy 19 says—and you notice that most of these passages we refer to so far both cases are talked about. The cases where murder is actual premeditated murder and the cases where it’s accidental or unintentional, I guess we’d call it manslaughter. And in Deuteronomy 19, it talks about the other side where people actually attempt to kill people. And very significantly, it tells us in verse 13 of Deuteronomy 19: “Your eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel that it may go well with thee.”

So in addition to asserting the need to have cities of refuge—that people that were not intentionally killing other people could go to—God decreed the specific very direct relevance of needing not to show pity upon somebody who intentionally slays another person. Again, that has to do not so much with the value of human life, but only in that human life is an image of God. And so the man who strikes out at man really is striking out at an image of God.

Numbers 35 is probably the longest section of scripture having to do with the cities of refuge and brings out some very significant points. In verse 12, for instance, in correlation to Joshua 20, Numbers 35:12 talks about how he has to stand before the congregation in judgment—the man who goes to a city of refuge. Verse 15 says that there are six cities of refuge for the children of Israel and for the stranger that was the last verse of Joshua 20. We read that these cities of refuge are not just for members of the covenant community. They’re for the strangers, the aliens who are living in the context of the land as well.

So Numbers 35 points that out. And then very significantly in verses 19 and following we read these verses—and you might want to turn to this in Numbers 35. Verses 19 and following: “The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer when he meets him, he shall slay him. But if he thrust him of hatred or hurl at him by lying of wait, or in enmity smite him with his hand that he may die, he that swore him shall surely be put to death. He is a murderer. The revenger of blood shall slay the murderer when he meeteth him. But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity or without having cast something upon him without lying in wait”—and talks about for instance a stone thrown upon him and killing him—”then he gets to go to these cities of refuge.”

Now at the end of Numbers 35, we really get to the key element in these cities of refuge and why they’re established. In verse 30, we read: “Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses. But one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die. Moreover, he shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murder which is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death. And you shall take no satisfaction for him that has fled to the city of refuge, that he should come again to dwell in the land unto the death of the high priest.

So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are. For blood it defileth the land, and the land cannot be cleansed of blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it. Defile not therefore the land which he shall inherit wherein I dwell. For I the Lord dwell among the children of Israel.”

Now what this says is the reason for the city of refuge being established in the book of Joshua. They’ve now gotten the land where God is dwelling with them. And that land cannot be defiled. And when it is defiled through the shedding of man’s blood—either accidentally or deliberately—the land is polluted and defiled. And God says the way to take care of this is—here’s the two options: You either kill the man who killed somebody, or if that’s an accident, that guy goes to the city of refuge. He has to stay in that city of refuge if he’s found to be worthy of the city of refuge by the congregation or the elders. He has to stay there until the death of the high priest. And only after that can he return to his home or to his family. Could be years.

Now the point of this is that the city of refuge then is linked to the cleansing of the land from the pollution or defilement of blood. Now, this is not stuff that 20th century Americans such as us are used to thinking in terms of—these categories of thought that God would have us think in terms of. And this really goes back (you probably already made some mental connections, some of you have) to the shedding of Abel’s blood by Cain. You remember what happened there when Abel’s blood was shed by Cain? The ground drank in the blood and the ground cried out to God. Abel’s blood cried out to God from the land itself against Cain. And so the land itself is seen as essentially part of God’s system of justice. It becomes defiled and it then cries out to God that the defilement of the land might be removed in some manner.

And so in the Old Testament, the picture given to us is one that blood defiles—whether it is done intentionally or unintentionally, accidentally or not accidentally, by beast or by man. And there is a required cleansing that must occur. Now death and the shedding of blood itself, of course, is related to the fall of man in the garden. Prior to the fall, we have no indication that these things would have happened. But the fall means that death is always linked back to the loss of righteousness and holiness before God and the defilement of the original sin. And so the city of refuge is the vehicle by which God makes provision for the cleansing of the land from the blood defilement of accidental homicide.

Now, it’s real interesting here. Several points of this are real interesting. One: the avenger of blood, according to these verses we’ve just read, he doesn’t really have the choice of whether he goes after the guy that killed his relative or not. He is compelled to. Now, what’s the reason for that? The reason why it is said that he shall not show pity, he must be the avenger of blood for the member of the family that has died, is that—remember—the primary crime here is not against that man’s family or that man. The primary crime of blood being shed is against the image of God born by man, but ultimately it’s the image of God himself that is being addressed here in these references.

And so the avenger of blood happens to be the vehicle whereby God in these particular historical times chose to execute the death penalty against murderers. But it’s ultimately not a familial or cultural crime involved. It is a crime against the person or image of God himself. And so the picture here is that if blood gets shed—I’m killing somebody, I either kill him accidentally or on purpose. His blood hits the ground. The ground then itself, the land, cries out for revenge from God. God sends the revenger of blood out to get me. And the revenger of blood is not determining here guilt or innocence of me in terms of whether I intended to do it or not. His sole job is to come and get me.

My job, if I think I’ve done this accidentally, is to get to a city of refuge that God has provided, make my case to the elders of that city in the congregation, and accept the refuge that God provides in the city of refuge—accept sanctuary there. So the avenger of blood, if he gets me before I get to the city, there’s no criminal sanctions against him. He’s in fact doing his job. He’s being obedient to God’s calling to avenge blood, whether it’s intentionally or unintentionally shed.

My job is to get to a city of refuge. The cities of refuge’s job is to discern whether I really intended to kill this fella or not. And God gives us various criteria here, doesn’t he? In Joshua 20, it has to be unwittingly engaged in this death. We have references to whether or not I hated the fella prior to the act—supposed accidental death. What’s my state of mind? Did I premeditate this? Did I plan that this rock would fall on this fella, that the axe head I’d get loose enough to where it would fly off and kill him? Is premeditation involved? What’s my motive? What’s my mental state?

You know, I used to—we used to watch Perry Mason quite a bit at lunchtime. And you know, it’s 90% of those episodes in the court scene, they say, “Well, now what did you say to so-and-so about the person that was actually killed or to the innocent party?” And the innocent party’s up there being cross-examined. And the innocent party says, “Well, I said that I was angry at so-and-so and that I would kill him, or else somebody else says they said they would kill him if that happened again.”

And I always wondered why are they always… and then the organ would play, or the piano, you know, it’d be like woo. Well, that’s an important part of these biblical laws. If you did have hatred against the person before time, then the determination usually would be: well, you say it’s an accident, but God’s word says if you hated him before time, then maybe you weren’t as careful with him as you might have been, and so you wouldn’t get the city of refuge provision.

So those things—the cities of refuge—the congregation rather determines. The elders of the congregation determine whether the person gets into the city of refuge or not. So these cities of refuge are provided for the sake of cleansing the land. The land is cleansed ultimately by the death of the high priest for those who have sinned in an unintentional fashion or who have killed a man in an unintentional fashion. The land is cleansed from the death of the man himself who does this in a premeditated fashion.

Ultimately, of course, it’s very important, as I said, to realize that God himself is essentially the avenger of blood. In Genesis 4:10, where we read of Cain and Abel, it says: “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood cries unto me from the ground.” That’s what God says.

So ultimately, the ground is seen, the brother’s blood is crying from the ground under the avenger of blood, who is ultimately God himself, avenging the shedding of the blood of the one who bears his image or mark. And God uses the secondary means in the Old Testament in the patriarchal times of the nearest family member to avenge that blood of the one who has done it in a high-handed or presumptuous fashion.

Okay. Now, that’s those are some of the—as I said, there’s lots of verses that speak to this. There’s lots of elements about this. This is an extremely important part of the scriptures for lots of reasons, and I just want to talk to seven or eight of them very quickly now in summary fashion.

We have in the provisions—in the case law provisions for the cities of refuge—an important element of our own historical legal tradition as a Christian nation, which has its roots in the English system of common law. We have even today, in the last 10 or 15 years, the concept of the church as a sanctuary being brought to a sense of consciousness on the part of the American population. You’ll notice the illegal aliens has been a question where several churches—usually liberal ones in their particular case—have brought people into the sanctuary of the church and taken them in as refugees, so to speak, from injustice.

And so the cities of refuge have an important part in determining our legal—much of our legal background, including the sanctuary idea that the church itself is a sanctuary. I thought about this on the way here this morning in a little different sense. But lots of problems out on the west side—our car—we had work done this week and the work wasn’t done correctly or something. So we couldn’t use it last night. We had to make provisions for some of our kids to ride with Cheryl. I think Victor’s car broke down. I think Thomas’s were having trouble with their cars. Lots of problems out there. Then we got a lot of ice out there this morning. I couldn’t get my door open in my little Ford Escort. I had to kind of crawl in the other door, try to start the engine, warm it up so I could get the door open.

And I was real happy to come to church and be in sanctuary from all that. You know, we’re here now. We’re safely assembled. And the church building, the structure itself, is referred to in our parlance as a sanctuary, and the concept of a church as a sanctuary goes back to these cities of refuge which were Levitical cities.

And they form an important part of our legal tradition—then in the Justinian Code, which was written in the 3rd and 4th century AD. The Justinian Code actually makes references to the churches as sanctuaries. They were legitimate sanctuaries for various parties. Now the specific reference has to say if a person is a debtor, he cannot receive sanctuary at the church. But the church was seen as a legitimate sanctuary.

And this provision of the church as a city of refuge for those who were fleeing from injustice on one hand or other legitimate use in terms of the original in case law use of refuge in terms of manslaughter. The concept of the city, the church as a city of refuge itself, existed then for over a thousand years in western legal tradition. And it wasn’t until 1697 that the concept of the church as a sanctuary was actually abolished in England by Parliament. It was done away with.

And so for most of the last 2,000 years in application of the cities of refuge, the church serves as a sanctuary for those who needed a hearing of their case to prevent their being killed or harmed in an inappropriate fashion by those outside of the sanctuary.

So the city of refuge is quite important. By the way, that Justinian Code—the way that developed was originally the church itself as the sanctuary. It then later became—within a few hundred years or within a few decades—the church courtyard was seen as sanctuary. If you got to the courtyard, it was okay. And then eventually, before it was abolished, the church actually had a one-mile radius around it that was seen as sanctuary, at least in England and other portions of Europe. And that one-mile perimeter was marked with crosses, an indication that this was sanctuary.

And so you can see here, as we’ll get to next week with the establishment of the cities of refuge—the Levitical cities which had boundaries around them—you can see a very direct correlation between the Levitical cities and particularly the Levitical cities of refuge and the churches themselves as they became scattered throughout the Christian world. And as the world was Christianized, the churches took the place of these Levitical cities of refuge.

So first of all, the cities of refuge has significance for us in our own particular legal history and will again in this country, Lord willing.

Secondly, the cities of refuge in the scriptures are Levitical cities. As I’ve been pointing out here, this is very important because Levitical cities are not simply a place of instruction in the word. Levitical cities here in their establishment are linked to the application of God’s law in very specific and judicial terms.

Now, what we’re reading about here in terms of these cities of refuge is referred to by some as case law. It takes a particular case—the primary case for theological reasons being the shedding of man’s blood. And yet the principle then is applied in a variety of other ways as I’ve talked about. In other words, if you’re being unjustly pursued, the sanctuary of these Levitical cities were also made use of by you then by way of application of the general principle of the Levitical cities and the cities of refuge.

So the cities of refuge were Levitical cities and are important for our own legal history. Very importantly, the fact that these cities of refuge were Levitical cities and are linked in the laws I’ve just read to the altar itself—this is extremely important because we see in the establishment of the Levitical cities and the cities of refuge and the final appeal of one who is being pursued by an avenger of blood or whether it is by somebody else, his final appeal is to a Levitical city, is to an altar city so to speak.

This is a very important foundation of western law: that the source of law is God and his word instead of the social arrangements of men. The highest appeal you can make of a particular law is to the source, or as close as you can get to the source of that law. And so for instance, in the United States, the highest appeal you can make is to the Supreme Court, and the case is then decided in terms of the ultimate law of the land, which is the Constitution.

So the source of law in America or the court system which mediates to us the constitutional provisions stands above all other law. It is the source of our law. To the degree that Constitution is Christian or non-Christian, the source of that law is either in God or in social contracts with men.

But here in the cities of refuge, very written in bold letters so to speak, is the idea that God himself, his law, his ministers—his Levitical priests in the case of their cities of refuge—that is the ultimate appeal where the ultimate appeal can be made, and therefore that is the source of all law in the theocratic republic. This is extremely important.

I mentioned the Justinian Code prior to it. References as churches as sanctuaries or cities of refuge, so to speak. The Justinian Code earlier to that referred to how men would take sanctuary at the statue of the emperor. So they would have these past emperor statues up and you could run to that statue and as long as you were there you couldn’t be touched. Okay, you were in sanctuary.

Pagan cultures—the concept of sanctuary or cities of refuge is replete in pagan cultures, but it’s a different sort. In that you go to the totem, for instance, in Indian cultures, or you go to a particular sacred place and that sanctuary is unconditional. Where we see that in the Levitical laws, it’s not unconditional sanctuary. The focus of the cities of refuge is that the sources of law is in God and his code, as opposed to man and his idols.

Two of the greatest theologians of our time, Francis Schaeffer and R.J. Rushdoony, refer to this in various articles in which they’ve written. Rushdoony, he has a chapter on the cities of refuge in his book on Christianity, the State, and he makes this point again, as I’ve said, that the last appeal is ultimately to the source of law. And so here we see the last appeal being to the source of law, which is God’s Levitical ministers.

Schaeffer talks about how again that the cities of refuge indicate that law is not a matter ultimately of social contract. It is not a sociological fact. Law rather involves the character of God and therefore is not relativistic as well. It doesn’t change because God’s character doesn’t change.

Schaeffer, of course, uses frequently the example of a painting that hung in the courts of justice in Lausanne in Switzerland. Where this painting—you’ve probably seen pictures of it—justice is pictured as a person standing there and has a sword that points down to the source of law. The judges look to the angel, the personification rather, of justice. Justice has a sword that points to a book, directing that there is where they will find justice, there is where they will find the source of law for their culture. And that book has plainly written upon it: the law of God.

So the cities of refuge establishes the ultimate authority for law in any culture, ultimately, but certainly here in the culture of Israel and God’s covenant people—the source of law is in God, and that law is founded in his word and in his Levitical ministers as they teach and apply that word in what they do and say.

Fourth, the cities of refuge talk of mercy and justice at the same time. They remind us of the need for justice, but they also show us the extension of mercy. A man has, even though unintentionally still killed another man, and he has brought great disruptions into that social sphere. He is not off scot-free. The refuge, while it is a refuge and an asylum, is at the same time a prison. He must stay there for the balance of his life or until the death of the high priest.

As I said, pagan sanctuaries were not like this. Pagan sanctuaries—you go to that emperor’s statue, you can stay there as long as you like. As long as you’re next to him, it’s holy ground. It’s totally separated from our existence here in this world. It’s like a jump or a flight from reality into a whole other sphere. But God’s city of refuge is linked. It links heaven’s model, heaven’s justice, heaven’s mercy to man’s walk on earth. And so determines that both mercy and justice is administered in context to the cities of refuge.

I said before that their ultimate significance lies in the altar. Joab, at the end of Joab’s life—for those of you who are around when I preach on the Seven Deadly Sins—you remember Joab, the picture of a failure to control himself, the picture of an angry man who, while greatly gifted by God, had no self-control, was a city without walls, and ultimately was executed by Solomon’s men. Joab himself sought refuge at the ultimate source of refuge, the altar itself. He went to the altar when he heard that David had given the order to Solomon to have him executed for his crimes. He grabbed a hold of the horns of the altar.

But Solomon had determined that Joab’s crimes were not accidental. He did have hatred, etc., and so they actually tore him away from the horns of the altar and killed him right there in the context of God’s worship center.

So God’s cities of refuge exhibit both mercy and justice. They’re based upon his character. These things have had tremendous significance. These facts, and then the specific details of the case law for the definitions of American jurisprudence—the definitions of crime. You can see, as I’ve said here before, the conditions that are applied to determine whether or not a man should get refuge at the city of refuge or whether he should be executed. Those same conditions, those same definitions of what criminal action is involving intent, premeditation, motive, etc., are part of our jurisprudence system to this very day.

We have here a model of justice. We’ve got the man who is fleeing from the avenger of blood. He comes, he’s accepted into the city. First of all, the elders hear his case summarily, but essentially he’s accepted in unless there’s predominant evidence that he’s completely—he’s given a presumption of innocence then on the part of the judicial system. And then a trial is held at some point in time later. The congregation hears the case, I think again through the elected elders of course, but a trial is held for that particular individual.

His presumption of innocence is determined by his entrance in, but then the trial procedure itself arrives at the administration of justice and mercy. That trial procedure involves the man himself defending himself. Of course he’s saying, “Well, I did this and I didn’t hate this guy.” He presents his case. Avenger of blood presents his case. And so you have right here in this case law from Joshua 20 and then the Pentateuchal references I’ve made reference to today, you have in a summary sense a picture of how administrative courts of justice should work, where you’ve got a prosecutor, you’ve got a defender, you’ve got a congregation then determining guilt or innocence on the basis of an objective standard found in God’s word.

And he gives them very objective qualifications on how to determine whether the person should get refuge or be slain. Did he hate him before? Was it premeditated? What was his intent? What was his motivation? etc. So we have here a model that really became much of our own jurisprudence system and remains to this day.

We also have in the cities of refuge and the related case laws or the related scriptures to them another very important concept. I’m just touching on each of these because that’s really all I can do. But another important concept that’s involved with cities of refuge is the whole idea of intentional versus non-intentional sin.

In Leviticus 4 and other places of the Pentateuch we have provisions made in the sacrificial system for sins which were unintentional sins as opposed to sins which are presumptuous sins or high-handed sins. What that tells us from God’s word is that there are sins we enter into which, while we have no volitional intent of rebelling against God’s law, are nonetheless sin, are nonetheless required to bring about a sense of guilt upon the one who enters into these actions, and nonetheless require some sort of sacrificial offering in terms of God’s system of justice.

So the whole count of unintentional sin versus intentional or presumptuous sins is really connected to the cities of refuge as well. We’re going to have communion in a little while, and we frequently pray a prayer that the church has prayed for 2,000 years. And that is that we thank God not as we ought but as we are able. That means that we have limitations in and of ourselves in our ability to thank God enough for what he’s accomplished for us in Jesus Christ.

We confess our sins, and when we confess our sins, we’re also confessing the sins that we have done against God unintentionally, without even knowing about it. We still sin against God. So this whole type of unintentional versus intentional sin is also related to the cities of refuge.

In addition to this, we also have the need for capital punishment clearly portrayed in these case laws from the cities of refuge. And I’ll talk more about that next week.

And then finally, if the basis of all this is God’s sovereignty, remember I read there that one of the definitions for the fellow who is going to go to the city of refuge is that God has delivered that person into his hand. It’s not an accident ultimately that the axe head flies off. The scriptures tell us that is a result of God delivering that man into the hand of the person who killed him—not intentionally, but nonetheless, it was the providence and sovereignty of God.

So there are many aspects that we could spend easily a week or two upon each of these aspects, but I wanted to just reference them in briefly and now go on to what I think is the central significance of the cities of refuge. And that is the theological fact: It is true the cities of refuge are a case law which establishes the need for sanctuary, establishes a historical precedent for the church’s sanctuary, establishes biblical patterns and models for criminal justice systems which we should apply and have applied for nearly 2,000 years in western culture. All that is true, but I think in many sense that is simply an outworking of the central theological fact that’s going on in terms of the cities of refuge, and that is that Jesus Christ is our city of refuge.

He is the one who is at the core of all these provisions, and it is he who ultimately makes provision as the true high priest who offers himself in his death on the cross, giving himself that we all might be freed from the consequences of our actions, whether intentional or not.

Francis Schaeffer thinks that Hebrews 6 and following is actually self-consciously modeled after the cities of refuge—a correlation between the cities of refuge and the work of Jesus Christ. Why don’t you turn to Hebrews 6 and we’ll read verses 16 and following.

Hebrews 6:16: “For men verily swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us, which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil, where the Forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made a high priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.”

Verse 18: “We have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us, which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil—the altar within the veil—where the Forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made a high priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.”

This portion of scripture tells us that we have run to that city of refuge. We have laid hold of the refuge that is available in the work of Jesus Christ. We have heard the warnings of God’s law that says that unintentionally or intentionally, or unintentionally even, we have sinned in what we have done, and we need refuge from God’s avengers of blood, from God’s wrath against us.

In the person and work in the Old Covenant, the avenger of blood and the person and work in the New Testament of various secondary means. We have been found guilty by God in some sense, and we flee to our city of refuge. We lay hold upon Jesus Christ. He has entered into that veil himself as our forerunner. He is the one ultimately who comes to the city of refuge as well, enters to the altar itself, and pays himself as the price for our sins.

Jesus Christ is the link between us, our sinfulness, our blood guiltiness before God, the cleansing we need, and the justice and mercy of God on the other side of that transaction. Jesus Christ is the ultimate example of the city of refuge, and I think clearly is what the cities of refuge point to.

It is interesting that commentators have seen this correlation in many ways. For instance, I’ll read from Spurgeon’s commentary on the cities of refuge. He says: “The manslayer left his house, his wife, his children, everything to flee away to the city of refuge. Just as the man does who flees to be saved by grace, he leaves everything he calls his own. He denounces all his rights and privileges which he thought he possessed by nature. Yay, he confesses to having lost his own natural right to live. He flees for life to the grace of God in Christ Jesus. No rights to anything except he was God’s guest within those enclosing walls. And so we relinquish heartily and thoroughly once and forever all ideas arising out of our supposed merits.

We hasten away from ourselves that Christ may be all in all in us.” A man blessed from his past sin—he flees rather from his past sin. He sees, he repents of it, and he flees to Jesus Christ.

The cities of refuge, historically in Jerusalem or in the land of Canaan rather, the way to them, as I said, had to be prepared. The way had to be kept free of any obstructions. The road had to have bridges on it so that you didn’t have to go down into a deep ravine and come up to get to the city of refuge. That’s because if you’re fleeing from the guy who was chasing after you, you want to go as fast as you can without encumbrance so that he might catch you and kill you. You want to get to that city of refuge.

There were signs that were posted, according to historical accounts, saying “This is the refuge way.” Big signs so that a guy running fast to get to the city of refuge could see them and flee to where he had to get to. Well, that’s what the gospel is to us. Jesus Christ is readily accessible to those who flee to him. The way is prepared by God. The church itself is a ministry of God to call out refuge, sanctuary to the ones who, having been aware of their own guiltiness before God, flee to refuge to the Lord Jesus Christ.

If the person who is guilty of slaying a person, while unintentionally, did not take advantage of the city of refuge, the avenger of blood could slay him. In fact, was commanded by God to slay him. So if he didn’t take that refuge that God had given to him at the city of refuge, it wasn’t made available to him. And so it is with us. Anyone who fails to flee to the atoning work of Jesus Christ, our great high priest, whose death secured our release ultimately from the penalties of sin, anyone who fails to flee to that city of refuge, upon his death falls of course into eternal punishment and damnation from God.

So the cities of refuge ultimately point to the work of Jesus Christ himself. I think that if we understand this, many of the verses we normally read and don’t think much about in terms of the scriptures point out for us over and over again this concept in the New Testament that Jesus Christ is this city.

In John 6:37, we read: “All that the Father hath given me, that is Jesus, shall come to him and him that comes to me, I will in no wise cast out.” When we flee for salvation to Jesus Christ, our true city of refuge, he will not cast us out. He will not turn us back over to the avenging blood of, or the avenger of blood, ultimately God himself, because he has secured peace with the ultimate avenger of blood, which is the person and work of God.

It’s interesting. If you do a concordance study of refuge in the Old Testament, you’ll find two very predominant uses of the word. One is to these specific cities of refuge in the case law. The second use of the term refuge throughout the scriptures and particularly in the Old Testament, for instance, is in God himself. For instance, Psalm 46:1: “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in time of trouble.”

Those are the two predominant uses of refuge. There’s only one use of the word that is here translated refuge in the Old Testament, and that is a reference in Isaiah to those who have lies for their refuge.

It’s interesting that we read the call to worship today from Jeremiah 7: “Do not trust in lies.” Anyone who seeks refuge from God and his avenging of the blood that we all shed in the work of Adam and in our original fall from grace. Anyone who rejects…