CITIES OF REFUGE (עָרֵ֥י מִקְלָ֖ט, LXX Πόλεις τῶν Φυγαδευτηρίων). Among many ancient Near Eastern people there was long a custom of understanding that specified shrines were places where criminals could seek safety, and could not be apprehended for their crimes.

In Israel six Levitical cities were set aside as cities of refuge, but only for those who killed another person accidentally. Criminals were not protected in these cities.

The cities of refuge served to modify the harshness of an impersonal application of the law of retribution which demanded punishment equal to the crime committed (e.g., Gen 9:6; Exod 21:12-14; Lev 24:17; Ezek 18:20). An adjunct of this law was the duty of a relative of the dead man to kill the murderer. No consideration was given to the nature of the act, whether deliberate or accidental.

The descriptions of the cities of refuge are found in the OT (Num 35:5-34; Deut 4:41-43; 19:1-13; and Josh 20:1-9). Passing references to these cities are found in Joshua 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 38; and in 1 Chronicles 6:57, 67.

There were six cities of refuge named by Joshua (20:7, 8): (1) Kedesh, which is located about fifteen m. N of the Sea of Galilee in the mountains which border the W side of the Hula Valley, in the territory assigned to the tribe of Naphtali; (2) Shechem, which was located at the E end of the V-shaped valley which runs on a W-E line between Mt. Ebal and Mt. Gerizim, in the range called the hills of Ephraim and within the territory given to the tribe of Ephraim; (3) Hebron, also known as Kiriath-arba, which was located in Judah about twenty m. S of Jerusalem; (4) Bezer was located in the highland E of the Jordan River’s entrance into the Dead Sea, which was in the territory of the tribe of Reuben; (5) Ramoth was about fifty m. farther N in the highlands of Gilead which had been assigned to the tribe of Gad; (6) Golan was somewhere in the highlands E of the Sea of Galilee within the tribe of Manasseh, but its exact location is presently unknown.

According to Exodus 21:14 a murderer could not find sanctuary at the altar. The implication is that the person who killed another accidentally could find temporary asylum at the altar. In Exodus 21:13 there is a vague promise that a place would be provided for a more adequate asylum.

The promise for asylum in a “place” is presented with some detail in Numbers 35:9-34. Actually, there was to be more than one place for the man who killed another accidentally. In fact, there were to be six cities, three on the E side of the Jordan River and three on the W side, which would serve as cities of refuge. This arrangement would remove the responsibility for avenging the accidental death of a man from his family to the larger context of the congregation.

With some detail, this passage makes a sharp distinction between willful murder and accidental death. In the latter instance, the congregation, presumably the people who lived in the home town of the man who killed accidentally and did not belong to the dead man’s family, intervened, made an investigation and judgment on the matter, and delivered the unfortunate man to the nearest city of refuge.

The city of refuge was to serve as an asylum from the wrath of the avenger. It was also to be a modified form of expiation from blood-guiltiness. Since the Israelite religious law did not provide for any sacrificial or ritualistic removal of guilt for the manslayer, the guilt of the man who killed accidentally was removed by the natural death of the high priest. Whether this man was the national high priest, the chief priest of the man’s home town, or the chief priest of the city of refuge is not clarified in the text. After the death of the priest the man was free to leave his “prison” without the burden of the accident resting on him. Paying a fine or ransom could not free him sooner.

The short passage in Deuteronomy 4:41-43 is concerned only with the designation of the three cities of refuge on the E side of the Jordan. On the other hand, Deuteronomy 19:1-13 points to the three cities to be set up on the W bank of the Jordan, with the possibility that three more might be added later. Mention is made that roads leading to the cities must be kept in good repair. Qualifications for obtaining refuge are given in some detail; the elders of the congregation were designated to take charge of the investigation and to decide concerning the worth of each case.

It was only during the United Kingdom period that all six of the cities of refuge were actually under the control of the Hebrews so that they could function. During the remainder of independent Heb. history, only Shechem and Hebron had continuous Heb. control until they were destroyed in 722 and 587 b.c. respectively. Curiously, there are no stories in the OT which illustrate the functioning of these cities as places of refuge.