so that anyone who kills another unintentionally or accidentallyThis phrase refers to the provision made for those who commit manslaughter, distinguishing between intentional murder and accidental killing. In ancient Israelite society, the distinction was crucial for maintaining justice and order. The cities of refuge were established to protect those who killed without premeditation or malice, as outlined in
Numbers 35:9-15 and
Deuteronomy 19:1-13. This reflects God's justice and mercy, recognizing human fallibility and the need for a fair trial. The concept underscores the value of human life and the importance of intent in moral and legal judgments.
may flee there
The act of fleeing to a city of refuge was a legal right and a necessary step for protection. It highlights the urgency and desperation of the situation for the manslayer, who needed immediate sanctuary to avoid retribution. The cities were strategically located throughout Israel to be accessible, as seen inJoshua 20:7-9. This accessibility ensured that justice was not only a matter of law but also of practical application. Theologically, this can be seen as a precursor to the refuge found in Christ, who offers protection and salvation to those who seek Him.
These will be your refuge
The cities of refuge served as a physical and legal sanctuary, providing safety from the avenger of blood until a fair trial could be conducted. This system reflects God's provision for justice and mercy, ensuring that the accused had a chance to be heard. The term "refuge" is significant throughout Scripture, often used metaphorically to describe God's protection (e.g.,Psalm 46:1). In a broader sense, these cities symbolize the ultimate refuge found in God, who is a shelter for the oppressed and a stronghold in times of trouble.
from the avenger of blood
The "avenger of blood" was typically a close relative of the deceased, responsible for avenging the death according to ancient Near Eastern customs. This role was part of the kinship obligations and was intended to uphold family honor and justice. However, the cities of refuge provided a means to prevent the cycle of vengeance and bloodshed, allowing for due process. This system points to the need for a higher form of justice, one that transcends personal retribution. In the New Testament, Jesus is seen as the ultimate avenger of injustice, yet He also embodies mercy and forgiveness, fulfilling the law and offering grace.
Persons / Places / Events
1.
Cities of RefugeDesignated places where individuals who committed manslaughter could seek asylum to avoid retribution from the "avenger of blood" until a fair trial could be conducted.
2.
Avenger of BloodA family member of the deceased who had the cultural duty to avenge the death, often by killing the person responsible for the death.
3.
Unintentional ManslayerAn individual who killed another person accidentally or without premeditation, who could seek refuge in these cities.
4.
JoshuaThe leader of Israel at the time, responsible for implementing God's instructions regarding the cities of refuge.
5.
IsraelitesThe people of God who were given these laws to ensure justice and mercy within their community.
Teaching Points
God's Justice and MercyThe cities of refuge illustrate God's perfect balance of justice and mercy. While justice demands accountability, mercy provides protection and a chance for a fair trial.
The Sanctity of LifeThe provision for cities of refuge underscores the value God places on human life, ensuring that even accidental death is taken seriously and addressed appropriately.
Christ as Our RefugeJust as the cities of refuge provided safety for the manslayer, Christ offers refuge for sinners. Believers can find safety and forgiveness in Him.
Community ResponsibilityThe establishment of these cities highlights the community's role in upholding justice and protecting the innocent, a principle that applies to the church today.
Intentionality in ActionsThe distinction between intentional and unintentional actions calls believers to be mindful of their actions and the impact they have on others.
Bible Study Questions and Answers
1.What is the meaning of Joshua 20:3?
2.How does Joshua 20:3 emphasize God's provision for justice and mercy?
3.What role do cities of refuge play in God's plan for Israel's society?
4.How does Joshua 20:3 connect with the concept of sanctuary in Exodus 21:13?
5.In what ways can we implement principles of refuge and justice today?
6.How does the provision in Joshua 20:3 reflect God's character of compassion and fairness?
7.What is the significance of cities of refuge in Joshua 20:3 for justice and mercy?
8.How does Joshua 20:3 reflect God's view on accidental versus intentional sin?
9.Why were cities of refuge necessary in the context of ancient Israelite society?
10.What are the top 10 Lessons from Joshua 20?
11.How can the compassionate approach to accidental killers in Joshua 20 be reconciled with the violent conquests described earlier, such as in Joshua 6?
12.Why would a just God need these specific cities of refuge in Joshua 20 if He could prevent unjust killings in the first place?
13.Deuteronomy 19:2-3: Is there any archaeological evidence of Israel establishing and maintaining these cities of refuge as described?
14.Deuteronomy 19:6: Why would God allow a 'blood avenger' to pursue someone innocent of intentional murder, and where is this justice in historical context?What Does Joshua 20:3 Mean
Anyone who kills another• God’s instruction begins with the stark reality of a human death.Genesis 9:6 affirms that life is precious because people are made in God’s image, so any loss of life must be taken seriously.
•Numbers 35:16–18 distinguishes willful murder from manslaughter, showing that Scripture always calls for careful fact-finding rather than hasty judgments.
• This opening phrase reminds the community that the person in question is not automatically condemned; investigation must follow.
Unintentionally or accidentally•Exodus 21:13: “If, however, he did not lie in wait, but God let it happen, I will appoint you a place to which he may flee.”
•Deuteronomy 19:4–5 describes the classic example—an axe head flying off its handle. Such accidents reveal no malice, only misfortune.
• By emphasizing lack of intent, God protects ordinary people from being treated like murderers, while still respecting the sanctity of life that has been lost.
May flee there• The verb “flee” paints a vivid scene: a breathless run to safety.Psalm 46:1 calls the LORD “our refuge and strength,” and these cities embodied that promise in concrete form.
• Flight to a city of refuge did not nullify accountability; it granted time for elders to hear testimony (Numbers 35:24–25).
• This provision upheld due process centuries before modern legal systems articulated it.
These will be your refuge• Six specific cities (Joshua 20:7–8) were sprinkled north to south so no Israelite lived far from protection.
• Refuge was not open-ended: the manslayer stayed until the death of the high priest (Joshua 20:6), a gracious limit that balanced mercy with closure.
• Spiritually, these sanctuaries foreshadow Christ, in whom believers “have fled for refuge to seize the hope set before us” (Hebrews 6:18).
From the avenger of blood• The “avenger” (goel) was usually a close relative obligated to defend family honor (Deuteronomy 19:6).
• Without cities of refuge, personal vengeance could spiral into endless blood feuds—something God curbed by channeling justice through impartial elders.
•Romans 12:19 echoes the principle: “Beloved, do not avenge yourselves… for it is written: ‘Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, says the Lord.’”
summaryJoshua 20:3 shows God weaving justice and mercy together. He values every human life, differentiates accidental death from murder, grants safe haven for the innocent, institutes fair trials, and restrains revenge. Ultimately, the cities point to Jesus, the perfect Refuge where repentant sinners find protection from judgment and the hope of restored life.
Verse 3. -
Unawares and unwittingly. Literally,
in error, in not knowing.Numbers 35:16-18 and
Deuteronomy 19:5, give a clear explanation of what is here meant. Knobel notices that the first of these expressions is found in
Leviticus 4:2, and the second in
Deuteronomy 4:42. The latter is "superfluous," and therefore a "filling up of the Deuteronomist." The "Deuteronomist" must have been very active in his "filling up." If he were really so lynx-eyed in a matter of style, it is a wonder that he was so careless, as we are told he is, in matters of fact. To more ordinary minds it would seem as if the author, familiar with the books of Moses, was quoting Deuteronomy for the precept, and Leviticus for the nature of the offence.
The avenger of blood. The Hebrew word is worthy of notice. It is Goel; that is, literally,
redeemer, one who buys back at the appointed price what has fallen into other hands, as a farm, a field, a slave, or anything consecrated to God. Hence, since the duly of such redemption, on the death of the owner, devolved upon the nearest relative, it came to mean "blood relation." Thus Boaz (
Ruth 4:1, 6, 8) is called the Goel of Elimelech and his widow. In the present passage, the phrase "the redeemer (LXX.
ἀγχιστεύων next of kin) of the blood" signifies the exactor of the only penalty which can satisfy justice, namely, the death of the murderer. So we are taught in
Genesis 9:6;
Exodus 21:12, 14;
Leviticus 24:17, 21. This duty, which in civilised society belongs to the government, in uncivilised tribes is usually left to the relatives of the murdered man. Hence the terrible blood feuds which have raged between families for generations, and which are not only to be found among savage nations, but even in countries which lay claim to civilisation. In Ireland, for instance, it is not so long ago since one of these blood feuds in the county Tipperary had acquired such formidable proportions that the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church there were compelled to resort to a mission in order to put an end to it. A man had been killed nearly a century before in an affray which commenced about the age of a colt. His relatives felt bound to avenge the murder, and their vengeance was again deemed to require fresh vengeance, until faction fights between the "Three-Year-Olds" and the "Four-Year-Olds" had grown almost into petty wars. A thrilling story written by the late Prosper Merimee turns upon the Corsican
vendetta, and so true is this story to life that in the very year (1879) in which these words were written an occurrence precisely similar, save in its termination, was reported in the daily journals to have taken place in that island. The only way in which the feud could be terminated was by summoning the representatives of the two families before the authorities and exacting an oath from them that they would cease their strife. It is no small corroboration of the Divine origin of the Mosaic law that we find here a provision for mitigating the evils of this rude code, and for at least delivering the accidental homicide from the penalty of this law of retaliation. Yet for the offence of wilful murder the penalties enjoined by the Jewish law were terribly severe. A deliberate violation of the sanctity of human life was an offence for which no palliation could be pleaded. No right of sanctuary was to be granted to him who had wantonly slain a fellow creature. "No satisfaction" was to be taken for his life (
Numbers 35:31). "The land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, save by the blood of him that shed it" (ver. 33). Such provisions might be expected of a lawgiver who had laid down as the fundamental principle of humanity that man was created "in the image of God," after His likeness; that God had "breathed the breath of life" into him, and man had thus "become a living soul" (
Genesis 1:27;
Genesis 2:7). Such inward harmony is there between Moses' inspired revelations concerning God's purpose in creation, and the precepts he was commanded to deliver to the children of Israel.
Parallel Commentaries ...
Hebrew
so that anyoneרוֹצֵ֔חַ(rō·w·ṣê·aḥ)Verb - Qal - Participle - masculine singular
Strong's 7523:To dash in pieces, kill, to murderwho killsמַכֵּה־(mak·kêh-)Verb - Hifil - Participle - masculine singular construct
Strong's 5221:To strikeanotherנֶ֥פֶשׁ(ne·p̄eš)Noun - feminine singular
Strong's 5315:A soul, living being, life, self, person, desire, passion, appetite, emotionunintentionallyבִּשְׁגָגָ֖ה(biš·ḡā·ḡāh)Preposition-b | Noun - feminine singular
Strong's 7684:A mistake, inadvertent transgressionor accidentallyבִּבְלִי־(biḇ·lî-)Preposition-b | Adverb
Strong's 1097:Failure, nothing, destruction, without, not yet, because not, as long asmay fleeלָנ֥וּס(lā·nūs)Preposition-l | Verb - Qal - Infinitive construct
Strong's 5127:To flit, vanish awaythere.שָׁ֙מָּה֙(šām·māh)Adverb | third person feminine singular
Strong's 8033:There, then, thitherThese will beוְהָי֤וּ(wə·hā·yū)Conjunctive waw | Verb - Qal - Conjunctive perfect - third person common plural
Strong's 1961:To fall out, come to pass, become, beyour refugeלְמִקְלָ֔ט(lə·miq·lāṭ)Preposition-l | Noun - masculine singular
Strong's 4733:Refuge, asylumfrom the avengerמִגֹּאֵ֖ל(mig·gō·’êl)Preposition-m | Verb - Qal - Participle - masculine singular construct
Strong's 1350:To redeem, act as kinsmanof blood.הַדָּֽם׃(had·dām)Article | Noun - masculine singular
Strong's 1818:Blood, of man, an animal, the juice of the grape, bloodshed
Links
Joshua 20:3 NIVJoshua 20:3 NLTJoshua 20:3 ESVJoshua 20:3 NASBJoshua 20:3 KJV
Joshua 20:3 BibleApps.comJoshua 20:3 Biblia ParalelaJoshua 20:3 Chinese BibleJoshua 20:3 French BibleJoshua 20:3 Catholic Bible
OT History: Joshua 20:3 That the manslayer who kills any person (Josh. Jos) 
