Chapter11: The Cities Of Refuge
AS WE HAVE SEEN, the Levites were given special cities scattered throughout the other tribes’ portions. It was at Shiloh that the Levites came forward to claim that inheritance, referring, as we have seen the Jews so frequently do, to the Pentateuch as an authoritative canon that should be consciously obeyed.
Then came near the heads of the fathers of the Levites unto Eleazar the priest, and unto Joshua the son of Nun, and unto the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel; and they spake unto them at Shiloh in the land of Canaan, saying, The LORD commanded by the hand of Moses to give us cities to dwell in, with the suburbs thereof for our cattle. And the children of Israel gave unto the Levites out of their inheritance, at the commandment of the LORD, these cities and their suburbs. (Josh. 21:1-3)
Numbers 35 records the command to which the Levites referred Eleazar and Joshua:
And the LORD spake unto Moses in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho, saying, Command the children of Israel, that they give unto the Levites of the inheritance of their possession cities to dwell in; and ye shall give also unto the Levites suburbs for the cities round about them. And the cities shall they have to dwell in; and the suburbs of them shall be for their cattle, and for their goods, and for all their beasts. (Num. 35:1-3)
Moses himself followed this command when he was dividing the land on the east side of the Jordan: “Only unto the tribe of Levi he gave none inheritance; the sacrifices of the LORD God of Israel made by fire are their inheritance, as he said unto them” (Josh. 13:14; see also 13:33). Speaking of the division of the land at Shiloh, Joshua said, “But the Levites have no part among you; for the priesthood of the LORD is their inheritance” (Josh. 18:7). God had spoken: The Levites were to be a special case.
We saw that Simeon and Levi were given no normal inheritance because of their sin. Simeon was scattered in the midst of Judah. On the other hand, Levi’s faithfulness at the time of the golden calf turned his scattering from a confusion into a blessing. At that moment, the Levites became the servants of God. They had no separate territory, but they had cities throughout the land.
The Levites’ allotment, of course, raises a question. People need not only a place to live, but also food to eat. The economy of the Israelites was rooted in agriculture, which meant that land was crucial. Having land gave a person his basic economic possibilities. The Levites, therefore, had no such possibilities because while they had villages, they did not have an extensive territory upon which to grow crops or raise sheep and cattle. Where were they going to get their food? The answer is that they did not need a regular portion because they were to receive the tithes of the rest of the Jews. While other people had large territories for sheep, cows, or grain as a paying crop, the basic income for the Levites was the tithes that the others gave.
When the Lord said to Aaron, “Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shalt thou have any part among them: I am thy part and thine inheritance among the children of Israel” (Num. 18:20), he did not mean that only Aaron was to stand in a special relationship to him, but that Aaron and the Levites were to be recipients of the gifts made to God. God commanded, “Thus speak unto the Levites, and say unto them, When ye take of the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for the LORD, even a tenth part of the tithe” (Num. 18:26). The Levites’ tithes were then passed on to Aaron and the other priests (Num. 18:28). It was a double tithe: The people tithed and gave to the Levites, and the Levites tithed and gave to the priests.
This continuity of the tithe, which began at least with Abraham and continued in the story of Jericho, Achan, and Ai, came down to the Israelites in the land; and the command of proportional giving passed on eventually into the New Testament. Paul wrote to the Corinthian Christians, “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him” (1 Cor. 16:2). So the command to the church is the same as the command to God’s people in the Old Testament—proportional giving. Giving to God proportionately is not optional. God specifically commands it.
THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE LEVITES’ CITIES
How were the Levites’ cities distributed? The distribution was based on the fact that Levi, the son of Jacob, had three sons: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari (Gen. 46:11). Each of the sons was consistently dealt with as a unit throughout the centuries that followed. For example, when the people made camp during the wilderness wanderings, the Levites were always divided into three sections. The Gershonites pitched their tents “behind the tabernacle westward” (Num. 3:23), and this one family had a special task: “And the charge of the sons of Gershon in the tabernacle of the congregation shall be the tabernacle, and the tent, the covering thereof, and the hanging for the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and the hangings of the court, and the curtain for the door of the court, which is by the tabernacle, and by the altar round about, and the cords of it for all the service thereof” (Num. 3:25-26). In other words, they had charge of the tent itself. When the Israelites broke camp, the Gershonites carried this material with them.
The family of Kohath pitched “on the side of the tabernacle southward” (Num. 3:29). They, too, had a special task: They dealt with all the instruments of worship that were used outside the Holy of Holies (Num. 3:31). (The priests themselves took care of the instruments of worship within the Holy of Holies.)
Finally the third family, the family of Merari, pitched “on the side of the tabernacle northward” (Num. 3:35). They dealt with the hardware of the tabernacle—the wooden frames, the bars, the sockets of metal, and so forth (Num. 3:36-37). Moses and the priests, incidentally, pitched on the east side of the tabernacle (the side to which the opening of the tabernacle faced), thus completing the square.
We should not be at all surprised, therefore, that the Levites’ cities were allotted on the basis of these three family units. The Kohathites got the first lot. The priests themselves (the children of Aaron who belonged to this family) received thirteen cities (Josh. 21:19). The rest of this family received ten cities (Josh. 21:26). Gershon then received thirteen cities (Josh. 21:33), and Merari twelve (Josh. 21:40). All in all, forty-eight cities out of the land were given to the tribe of Levi (Josh. 21:41). God had commanded through Moses, “So all the cities which ye shall give to the Levites shall be forty and eight cities: them shall ye give with their suburbs” (Num. 35:7). Joshua’s generation carried this out perfectly in the flow of continuity. To tamper with the unity of the Old Testament is to deal with it unfairly, not according to its own claims. The result is to make it intellectually meaningless.
THE CITIES OF REFUGE
The Levites’ cities were divided into two parts: Six of the forty-eight cities were cities of refuge. God had commanded in the Pentateuch, “Among the cities which ye shall give unto the Levites there shall be six cities for refuge, which ye shall appoint for the manslayer, that he may flee thither: and to them ye shall add forty and two cities” (Num. 35:6). “The LORD also spake unto Joshua, saying, Speak to the children of Israel, saying, Appoint out for you cities of refuge, whereof I spake unto you by the hand of Moses” (Josh. 20:1-2). So Joshua set up the cities of refuge when he divided the land.
On Mount Sinai God gave the moral law. “God spoke all these words . . .” and then came the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:1-17). Immediately after this the civil law was given. As the race became a nation they needed a civil law; so God gave them one. The civil law for the Jews was based as much on the command of God as was the moral law.
One of the civil laws God gave was this: “He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee” (Ex. 21:12-13). If a man was a real murderer, he was to die; but a system was to be set up whereby a man who had slain somebody by mistake would not be put to death, but would have a place of escape.
These cities of refuge are next mentioned in Numbers 35, to which I will return in a moment, and then in Deuteronomy 4:41-43, which names the three cities of refuge Moses established on the east side of Jordan. The next mention is in Deuteronomy 19. Since there is an interplay between Deuteronomy 19 and Joshua 20, I want to cite first some verses from that chapter of Joshua.
The LORD also spake unto Joshua, saying, Speak to the children of Israel, saying, 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 flee thither: and they shall be your refuge from the avenger of blood. And when he that doth flee unto one of those cities shall stand at the entering of the gate of the city, and shall declare his cause 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 smote his neighbor unwittingly, and hated him not beforetime. 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 whence he fled. . . . These were the cities appointed for all the children of Israel, and for the stranger who sojourneth among them, that whosoever killeth any person at unawares might flee thither, and not die by the hand of the avenger of blood, until he stood before the congregation. (Josh. 20:1-6, 9)
This section obviously takes a lot for granted. If we only had Joshua 20, we would wonder about much of the detail. Why didn’t God tell Joshua to give the people more information? He did not have to because the people knew
Deuteronomy 19, and there the details are enumerated with great clarity and care:
When the LORD thy God hath cut off the nations, whose land the LORD thy God giveth thee, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their cities, and in their houses; thou shalt separate three cities for thee in the midst of thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it. Thou shalt prepare thee a way [that is, you shall build a road], and divide the coasts of thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee to inherit, into three parts, that every slayer may flee thither.
And this is the case of the slayer, which shall flee thither, that he may live: whoso killeth his neighbor ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past; as when a man goeth into the wood with his neighbour to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his neighbour, that he die; he shall flee unto one of those cities, and live: lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him; whereas he was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past. Wherefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt separate three cities for thee. And if the LORD thy God enlarge thy coast, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, and give thee all the land which he promised to give unto thy fathers; if thou shalt keep all these commandments to do them, which I command thee this day, to love the LORD thy God, and to walk ever in his ways; then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, beside these three: that innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and so blood be upon thee.
But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee. (Deut. 19:1-13)
The cities of refuge did not help a real murderer. They pertained only to the man who had, unhappily, killed someone unintentionally. They were to aid the one who had committed an accidental homicide—and no one else. The text tells us why such a man had to flee. The state didn’t kill in the case of a homicide; it was the dead man’s family who killed. The Bedouins follow the same practice to this day. If somebody kills a member of a family, someone is appointed by the family to be the avenger of blood. It is his right to go out and take the other man’s life. But when a man has committed an accidental murder, and another man is coming to take his life, what shall he do? He shall run to a city of refuge. The city of refuge was for the accidental killer fleeing from the avenger of blood.
Now we turn back to Numbers 35:
And the suburbs of the cities, which ye shall give unto the Levites, shall reach from the wall of the city and outward a thousand cubits round about. And ye shall measure from without the city on the east side two thousand cubits, and on the south side two thousand cubits, and on the west side two thousand cubits, and on the north side two thousand cubits; and the city shall be in the midst: this shall be to them the suburbs of the cities. . . .
These six cities shall be a refuge, both for the children of Israel, and for the stranger, and for the sojourner among them: that every one who killeth any person unawares may flee thither. And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. Or if he smite him with an hand weapon of wood, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him.
But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait, that he die; or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for 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 have cast upon him anything without laying of wait, or with any stone, wherewith a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it upon him, that he die, and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm: then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the revenger of blood according to these judgments. And the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled: and he shall abide in it unto the death of the high priest, which was anointed with the holy oil. But if the slayer shall at any time come without the border of the city of his refuge, whither he was fled; and the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood: because he should have remained in the city of his refuge until the death of the high priest: but after the death of the high priest the slayer shall return into the land of his possession.
So these things shall be for a statute of judgment unto you throughout your generations in all your dwellings. 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. (Num. 35:4-5, 15-30)
It is really beautiful that the cities were available not only for the children of Israel, but also for both the non-Israelites who were living permanently in the land and those who were merely passing through. This was entirely new to the heathen world. Here was real justice—a universal civil code that pertained equally to the citizen and the stranger. This justice was not rooted in the notion of a superior people, but in the character of God; therefore, it pertained to all men.
Moses told how to distinguish between an intentional murderer and an unwitting killer. A deliberate homicide involved a prepared instrument, a clear intent, and a clear motive. Such a murderer had no place of refuge. But if a man thrust a victim “suddenly without enmity” or “cast any thing upon him without lying in wait,” he had a place. For example, if a man was prying out a big rock, and it accidentally fell on somebody coming along the path, this was not murder. It was without preparation and without motive.
In our jurisprudence, we follow in general the same procedure. In considering whether a person is guilty, our trials take into account the same questions. Moses clearly outlined the procedure. If a man killed somebody without premeditation, he was to run to a city of refuge! He was kept there until the facts were gathered (more than one witness was needed), and then he was tried, as in our jury system, by his peers. Not some great person but the assembled congregation decided whether he had committed murder or not. If he had, he was pushed outside the city where the avenger of blood could take his life. If he had not, he was returned to the city of refuge. He then had to remain in the city until the death of the current high priest; otherwise the protection was gone.
LAWINA POST-CHRISTIAN CULTURE
We can now begin to understand why it may be emphasized that in Reformation countries, the Old Testament civil law has been the basis of our civil law. We are not a theocracy, it is true; nevertheless, when Reformation Christianity provided the consensus, men naturally looked back to the civil law that God gave Israel, not to carry it out in every detail, but to see it as a pattern and a base.
But we have changed, of course. We are no longer a Christian culture, and because of that we are seeing a change in our concept of law. The differences between past and present fall into two areas.
The first difference involves the foundation of law. The cities of refuge were Levitical cities—that is, they had something to do with God. The person taking refuge had to stay in the city until the death of the high priest; in that way he would be reminded that the civil laws were related to God. They did not just exist in a sociological vacuum. Unlike modern man, the people of the Old Testament and of Christian communities after the Reformation did not view civil law as basically sociological. To them, it was not founded primarily on a social contract. Civil law was related to society, but not only to society. It was ultimately related to the existence and character of God. This is important. Law that comes from God can provide something fixed. Today’s sociological law is relativistic.
The moral law is rooted in the fact of the existence and character of God. It has validity because God is there. “And God spake all these words, saying, I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Ex. 20:13). The civil law is also based upon the reality of God’s existence; so it, too, has an absolute base. Reformation law was like this—one can think of Samuel Rutherford’s Lex Rex—and so was in total contrast to the post-Christian, sociological law developing in the Western world.
Paul Robert, who lived at the end of the nineteenth century, was a wonderful Christian and a great Swiss painter of his era. He painted huge murals, one of which is on the stairwell of the old supreme court building in Lausanne, Switzerland. Paul Robert placed it there so the justices would never forget the basis of law. He knew what he was doing in every detail, including the title, Justice Instructing the Judges. We may not completely like his technique because it is marked by the conventions of the period, but the mural has a strong thrust. Several litigants stand in the foreground of the painting: wife against husband, builder against architect. The question is, on what basis are the judges able to judge? Justice points with her sword so that the judges can follow it and see what should be the basis—a book on which Robert has carefully lettered the phrase, The Law of God. That is tremendous! There was a foundation for civil law fixed in the existence and character of God and his revelation of that character to us.
The second difference between the civil law of the theocracy and the law of the post-Christian world is the former’s emphasis on the seriousness of murder. God commanded, “He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death” (Ex. 21:12). Nothing could change this. No bribe or satisfaction— common practices in those days—could be taken for the murderer (Num. 35:31-32). As far back as the covenant with Noah, God said, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man” (Gen. 9:6). The Bible says that though human beings are fallen, they are still the image-bearers of God. Human worth does not rest on the fact that people can breed with others of the same biological species. Rather, it rests on the fact that humans are unique; they are made in the image of God.
A human being is a significant creature. He or she is not part of the machinery. And this has many implications. One that society must understand is that murder isn’t trivial but extremely serious. Murder is not merely a breach of social custom or mores, something that upsets society. The Bible’s great outcry against the murderer is, “You have slain an image
bearer of God.” When a person deliberately murders an image-bearer of God, he has done a serious thing indeed.
Because God exists and because he has a character, we live in a true moral universe. Murder breaks the law of the universe. This means that the murderer has true moral guilt before God— something our modern generation knows nothing or little about—and this guilt must be taken seriously.
We must keep saying to our generation that people are guilty with true moral guilt before a holy God, for the existential theologians who now control the theological thinking among both progressive Roman Catholics and liberal Protestants have no real sense of the importance of God’s being there and his giving of propositional truth in the Bible.
We must, therefore, respond forcefully that everything hangs not upon “God words” but upon the fact that God is really there and really has a character. He is really a holy God. Therefore, when I sin, my guilt is real. And because God is infinite, and infinitely holy, my guilt when I sin is total. The value of the guilt does not rest upon my value, but upon the value of the one against whom I have sinned. Therefore, because I have sinned against the one who is infinitely holy, my guilt comes up to this level. True moral guilt has nothing to do with our finitude. If we see the tension as modern theologians and philosophers do between man (finite) and God (infinite), we can never derive true moral guilt. The law does not stand behind God, because the final thing is God. It is God’s character that is the law of the universe.
CHRIST AND THE CITIES OF REFUGE
If we begin to tamper with the truth about true moral guilt, we will not be able to understand the death of Christ any more than we can understand the cities of refuge. In fact, we will understand it less. We would not want to take the cities of refuge as a type, but they certainly are a strong illustration of the work of Christ. It seems to me that the New Testament itself relates the work of Christ to these cities. Hebrews says:
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; whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek. (Heb. 6:16-20, emphasis added)
In our study of the Gibeonites, we discussed this passage’s teaching about how seriously God takes an oath given in his name and about the surety of our safety in Christ. Now I would like us to consider the phrase, “who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us.” In my opinion, although there is no way to be final about it, the writer of Hebrews, who is writing to Jews and is constantly referring to the Old Testament, refers here to the cities of refuge and parallels them to Christ’s work.
Let us notice some facts about the cities of refuge. First, they were in central places on both sides of the Jordan; so they were easy to reach from any place in the country. God expressly commanded that roads were to be made to these cities (Deut. 19:3). From nonbiblical sources we can add some further detail about the highways. They were carefully repaired every spring after the rains and bad weather of winter. Further, bridges were built where needed so that travelers did not have to run down into a ravine but could go straight across, taking the shortest possible route to the city. At every crossroad were special signs that said, “Refuge!” and pointed in the direction of the city. They had to be large enough so that a person running hard could easily read them.
We can picture a man coming up the road. Another man is pursuing him, sword out. The first man, having no time to use a magnifying glass, approaches the sign and sees the big words, “Refuge!” He runs to the city and is safe.
Second, the cities of refuge were open to all—to the Israelite, the stranger, and the sojourner.
Third, from nonbiblical sources we hear that the great doors of these cities were never locked. We can see why. Otherwise a man might die while beating on the door.
Fourth, these sources also tell us that each city of refuge was stocked with food. It was a sufficient refuge, then, not only providing legal protection but also meeting a man’s needs once he was inside.
Fifth, we know from the Bible itself, of course, that if a killer did not flee to a city of refuge, there was no help for him.
The similarities between the cities of refuge and Christ, our refuge, are striking. We can compare them point for point. First, Christ is easy to reach. We may cast ourselves upon him at any time, in any place. The church is to be the teller of this good news. The church is to cry, “Refuge! Refuge!” to the lost world. This emphasis is made at the very end of the Bible in the book of Revelation: “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” (Rev. 22:17).
Second, Christ is open to all—the Jew and the Gentile, the Greek and the barbarian—to all people.
Third, Christ never locks his gates. There is no need to wake him. He is infinite; he is God; he is never asleep. We do not have to beat upon the door and die because he does not open it. Many times I have stood by a deathbed and seen people believe in the last moments of life. It is good that there is no gate to unlock and that one can enter quickly.
Fourth, Christ is a totally sufficient refuge. Christ’s death in space-time history is completely adequate to meet our need for refuge from the true moral guilt that we have. It is final because of who he is. He is the infinite second person of the Trinity; therefore, his death has infinite value. Furthermore, the cities of refuge were not only a legal protection, but also they had a supply of food. So Christ not only makes a Christian legally safe through his propitiatory death, but he supplies the believer with great riches. God the Father is now his Father, and the Holy Spirit indwells him and is the agent by which the whole Trinity produces Christ’s fruit through him.
Fifth, if we do not flee to the refuge God has given to us at such a great price, there is no help for us. Hebrews relates this negative emphasis to the Old Testament: “He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” (Heb. 10:28-29). There isn’t a one of us who does not stand in that situation. We have heard the gospel, and if in the Old Testament ignoring God’s law brought death, what about us if we despise the work of Christ and the grace he showers upon us?
But there are differences between the cities of refuge and Christ our refuge. The biggest difference is that the cities protected only the innocent. They were only for the person who killed by mistake. Christ died for the guilty, for the deliberate sinner. Who is that deliberate sinner? Every one of us can say, “It is I!”
How is it possible that the holy God would accept those who are guilty? It is not by giving up his holiness. He does not devalue that, or we would have no moral absolute in the universe. Rather, the reason Christ is able to be our Redeemer is that he is a high priest and the sacrifice he gave was his own death. A man stayed in a city of refuge until the death of the high priest. Christ is our high priest. He has died once for all, and he lives forever. So though we are legally guilty before the God who is there, when we cast ourselves upon him, we are free forever. Hebrews says this strongly:
And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: but this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. (Heb. 7:23-27)
Hebrews also speaks of Christ as “the forerunner [who] is for us entered” (Heb. 6:20). That means that he has entered into God’s presence and that we can enter, too. When do we enter this refuge? I would suggest we enter at three different times. First, we enter in once for all at the moment we cast ourselves upon Christ and accept him as our Savior. We are declared justified by God the judge on the basis of Christ’s finished work. In Romans
5:11 Paul uses the aorist tense, indicating that our justification is a past thing, completed forever. If we are saved, we are saved. Second, we enter into this refuge as Christians in every existential moment when we claim the blood of Christ to cover a specific sin. Third, at that great moment when we die or when the Lord returns, we will enter in perfectly and completely.
The second difference between Christ and a city of refuge is that, happily, Christ is nearer than any city of refuge. A runner could fall, but a person who looks to Christ can never fail. The Bible makes a specific promise: “Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (John 6:37). In fact, Jesus says, “I stand at the door and knock” (Rev. 3:20). He himself seeks us.
We are not like a man who runs to a city of refuge and is acquitted after a trial because he is innocent. We are guilty. If you are still a non-Christian, run to Christ, for God’s own promises say, “Refuge! Refuge!” If we are Christians, we should take Christ as our sufficient refuge in bringing specific sins under the work of Christ and in all the vicissitudes of life, this moment and moment by moment, through the whole of our lives.