20
Joshua
Cities of Refuge Established
Joshua 20:1-9
Key words in this passage
Cross-references
Study notes
The command reaches Joshua right after the land divisions are settled, requiring him to activate cities already designated through Moses. These places shelter anyone who kills without prior intent or hatred, shielding him from the avenger of blood until elders at the gate admit him and the congregation later judges the case. Residence lasts until the current high priest dies, after which the man returns home. Six towns, three on each side of the Jordan and drawn from different tribes, make the provision geographically accessible. The final verse extends the same safeguard to the sojourner, showing that the distinction between accidental and deliberate killing applies to all who live in the land rather than to tribal members alone.
What is Cities of Refuge Established about?
After the tribes receive their territories, the LORD speaks directly to Joshua and tells him to assign the cities of refuge that Moses had already named. The purpose is straightforward: a person who kills another without prior intent or longstanding hatred must have a place to go so that the avenger of blood cannot simply execute him on the spot. The man must reach one of these cities, stand at the gate, and present his case to the elders, who then take him in and give him a place to live.
The arrangement protects him from immediate retaliation while the matter awaits a formal hearing before the congregation. He remains there until the high priest who holds office at the time dies, at which point he may return to his own town without further threat. The cities themselves are named in two groups, three west of the Jordan and three east, drawn from different tribes so that no region is left without access.
These verses therefore turn an earlier legal provision into a concrete reality once the land has been divided. They address the practical question of how justice and mercy will operate among the people now living in their allotted portions.
Where does this passage sit in Joshua?
After the final notice that the tribal heads had finished dividing the land by lot, the LORD addresses Joshua with a command that draws directly on earlier instructions given through Moses. The cities now to be set apart already belong to the tribes whose boundaries were fixed in chapters 13 through 19. Kedesh lies inside Naphtali’s hill country, Shechem inside Ephraim’s, and Hebron inside Judah’s; on the east side the same pattern holds for Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh. By naming these six places immediately after the allotments, the narrative shows the refuge system taking shape inside territory that has just been secured rather than in some future or contested region.
The transition is abrupt and functional. No battle or survey intervenes between 19:51 and 20:1. The text simply records that the division is complete and then turns to the practical need for places where an unintentional killer may live under the elders’ protection until the high priest dies. That detail about the high priest’s death appears here for the first time in the book, yet it is presented as already known procedure, not as new legislation.
The same chapter closes by repeating the purpose clause that opened the command, now extended to the sojourner as well as the native Israelite. This repetition frames the six cities as a single, finished provision that belongs to the settled life of all who dwell in the land. The next chapter will assign cities to the Levites from the same tribal holdings, but the refuge cities are designated first, before any priestly portions are listed.
How is the passage structured?
The section opens with a direct divine command in 20:1-2 that shifts attention from the completed tribal allotments to a specific task Joshua must carry out. The LORD instructs him to designate the cities of refuge already named through Moses, and the remainder of the chapter unfolds as an expansion of that single directive.
Verses 3 through 6 then supply the operative rules in a single sustained address. The conditions for admission appear first, followed by the required actions at the city gate, the elders' obligation to receive the man, the prohibition against handing him over, and the two-stage limit on his stay: the hearing before the congregation and the death of the high priest then in office. This block of instructions moves from immediate protection to long-term residency and eventual release without any intervening narrative interruption.
The next two verses execute the command by naming the six locations. Verse 7 lists the three western sites with their regional and tribal associations, while verse 8 supplies the three eastern sites in similar fashion. The shift from prescription to concrete assignment is marked only by the change from second-person address to third-person report of what "they" gave.
Verse 9 closes the chapter by restating the purpose in summary form, now extending the provision explicitly to the sojourner as well as to the sons of Israel. The final clause returns to the central safeguard, that the unintentional manslayer may reach safety before standing before the congregation, thereby framing the entire chapter between the initial command and this inclusive confirmation.
What is the historical background?
The arrangement in these verses rests on the established custom that the nearest male kinsman, called the avenger of blood, held the duty to pursue and kill anyone who took the life of a relative. This practice operated within a tribal society where formal courts were not always immediately available, and where blood vengeance served as the primary mechanism for addressing homicide. The law distinguishes between intentional killing driven by prior hatred and an unintentional act that occurred without prior knowledge or malice, directing the latter offender to flee rather than face immediate retaliation.
Cities of refuge functioned as designated sanctuaries within this kinship system. A man who struck another unintentionally would reach one of the six towns, stand at the city gate, and present his account to the elders who sat there as local authorities. The elders then admitted him and shielded him from the avenger until a formal hearing could occur before the congregation. The gate setting reflects ordinary ancient practice in which elders conducted public business and heard disputes at the main entrance to the settlement.
The release tied to the death of the high priest who held office at the time of the incident marks a fixed term rather than an indefinite stay. This provision appears only in the legal instructions given through Moses and assumes a functioning priesthood centered at the central sanctuary. The six cities themselves—Kedesh, Shechem, and Kiriath-arba west of the Jordan, together with Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan on the east—were chosen from different tribal territories so that no region lay more than a day’s journey from a place of safety. The inclusion of the sojourner alongside native Israelites indicates that the protection extended to resident foreigners living under the same legal customs.
These towns had already been named in Numbers and Deuteronomy; the present text records their actual assignment after the land allotments were complete. The geographic spread across hill country and plain, and across both sides of the Jordan, shows an effort to make the refuge accessible within the newly settled tribal structure.
What does this passage teach about God?
The LORD's command to designate the cities begins with a direct address to Joshua that recalls the earlier word given through Moses. This continuity presents God as the one who orders Israel's life in the land according to promises already spoken, extending the same distinction between deliberate and unintentional killing into the settled territories. The refuge exists specifically for the one who strikes a soul without knowledge and without prior hatred, so that the avenger of blood cannot act immediately. In this way the provision reveals a God who values life yet refuses to equate every death with murder.
Human responsibility surfaces in the requirement that the man reach the city gate, state his case to the elders, and remain until the congregation renders judgment. The elders must refuse to surrender him when the facts show no longstanding enmity, which assumes that communities can examine evidence and restrain private retaliation. The sojourner receives the same access to these cities, indicating that the rule attaches to the nature of the act rather than to tribal descent alone.
The limit of residence until the high priest dies ties the period of protection to an office of mediation. Once that priest dies, the man returns to his own house and town. This boundary keeps the refuge from becoming permanent exile while still requiring a season of separation. The arrangement therefore holds together mercy that prevents hasty execution and judgment that eventually restores the man to his place, all under the same divine instruction that first named the cities.
What are the interpretive difficulties?
The verses leave the precise standard for determining unintentional killing largely with the congregation itself. Verse 5 states that protection holds because the man struck his neighbor without knowledge and was not hating him from yesterday or three days ago, yet nothing specifies what testimony or witnesses the elders at the gate or the later assembly must weigh. The initial reception at the city gate therefore functions as temporary shelter rather than a final ruling.
The release that follows the death of the high priest receives no rationale in the text. Verse 6 simply fixes the term of residence until that death occurs, after which the man returns to his own city and house. Readers receive no indication whether this event carries atoning significance, removes a particular claim, or merely marks the end of one priestly tenure and the start of another.
Verse 9 extends the cities to the sojourner who sojourns among them on the same terms as the sons of Israel. The provision stands without further comment on how disputes involving a resident alien would be heard or whether the avenger of blood in such cases would belong to the same clan structures assumed elsewhere.
The account also remains silent on the outcome if the congregation determines that the killing was not unintentional. Nothing here describes extradition, execution, or continued refuge under those circumstances. The focus stays on securing access to the cities and the basic condition for safe return rather than on every possible verdict the assembly might reach.
Movement by movement
The Command to Designate Cities20:1-3
The LORD spoke to Joshua with a direct command that points back to words already delivered through Moses. Joshua must tell the sons of Israel to set apart the cities of refuge so that a murderer who strikes a soul unintentionally, without knowledge, may flee there. The phrasing keeps the focus on the act itself rather than on any later judgment: the man has killed without prior awareness or malice, and the cities exist to shield him from the avenger of blood. This instruction arrives immediately after the tribal allotments are complete, so the places now to be named already lie inside boundaries fixed by lot. The LORD’s wording treats the refuge system as an established provision that Joshua is now to activate in the land, not as a new idea. The distinction between unintentional killing and deliberate murder is stated plainly in the command itself, leaving the elders and congregation to apply that line when a man arrives at the gate.
Arrival and Initial Protection20:4-5
When the man reaches one of the designated cities he must stand at the entrance of the gate and speak his words in the ears of the elders. The elders then gather him into the city, give him a place, and allow him to dwell among them. This first encounter at the gate supplies immediate shelter without requiring a full hearing of witnesses or a verdict from the larger assembly. The arrangement assumes the elders can recognize the claim of unintentional killing on the basis of the man’s own account and the absence of evident prior malice. If the avenger of blood later arrives, the same elders are forbidden to hand the man over, because he struck his neighbor without knowledge and was not hating him from yesterday or three days ago. The protection therefore rests on the stated conditions of the act itself rather than on any formal judgment rendered at the gate. The elders’ duty at this stage is simply to keep the man inside the city until the congregation can examine the case more thoroughly.
Conditions of Residence and Release20:6
He shall dwell in that city until he stands before the congregation for judgment, until the death of the high priest who shall be in those days. The verse sets two successive limits on the man's stay. The first requires him to appear before the congregation so that body can decide whether his killing of his neighbor occurred without knowledge and without prior hatred. Until that assembly meets, the elders who took him in at the gate continue to shield him. The second limit extends his residence further, tying his departure to the death of the current high priest. Only after both events does the text permit return: then the murderer shall return and come to his city and to his house, to the city from which he fled.' No reason is supplied for linking release to the high priest's death. The rule simply fixes that moment as the point when the man may leave the refuge city and resume his former life without the avenger of blood having further claim.
The Six Cities Named20:7-8
Kedesh in the hill country of Naphtali, Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim, and Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron) in the hill country of Judah receive consecration on the west side of the Jordan. The three sites sit inside territories already allotted to those tribes in the preceding chapters. East of the Jordan the same pattern appears: Bezer in the wilderness on the plain from Reuben, Ramoth in Gilead from Gad, and Golan in Bashan from Manasseh. Each location is drawn from one of the three tribes that settled beyond the river. The text records the action as completed without further comment on the choice of sites or the process of selection. By naming one city from each of the six tribes, the account shows the refuge provision distributed evenly across both sides of the Jordan and across the full range of tribal holdings. The elders who will later receive a fugitive at the gate now belong to communities already identified by name and region. The high priest whose death will later end the period of refuge remains unnamed, leaving the duration of protection tied to an office rather than to any single individual.
Scope for All Residents20:9
Verse 9 states that the six cities were designated for all the sons of Israel and for the sojourner who sojourns among them. The same refuge therefore stands open to the resident foreigner who strikes a soul unintentionally. The purpose remains unchanged from the earlier instructions: the man may flee there and not die by the hand of the avenger of blood until he stands before the congregation. The elders at the gate still receive him on the basis that he acted without knowledge and without prior hatred, yet the final determination waits for the larger assembly. By naming both groups together at the close of the chapter, the text shows that the protection does not depend on tribal membership or inherited land rights. A sojourner who reaches one of these cities receives the same place to dwell and the same delay of vengeance that an Israelite receives. The arrangement thus places every unintentional killer, regardless of origin, under the congregation’s judgment rather than under immediate retaliation.
Notes accompany the Anselm Project Bible, an AI translation from the original languages. Tap any verse above for the committee's word-level decisions.
Tap a verse