From: 	 heb_roots_chr@mail.geocities.com
Sent: 	 Friday, September 19, 1997 12:04 AM
To: 	 Hebraic Heritage Newsgroup
Subject: High Priest and the Cities of Refuge

From:          Philip Nowland 
Subject:       Death of the high priest
To:            "heb_roots_chr@geocities.com" <heb_roots_chr@geocities.com>

Shalom

I think that it is essential to note Numbers 35 fits into the context of
the reason for and the establishing of the Cities of Refuge.

In general the Cities of Refuge were established to ensure that there was a
right degree of justice in the case of serious judgements that should be
made. Numbers 35 cites the example of accidental killing and describes how
the a person who accidentally kills his neighbour could flee to the City of
Refuge to guarantee that his case could be heard before revenge would have
been carried out by the avenger of blood.

One assumes that his case would have been heard in the safety of the City
of Refuge and once it had been established that he was not guilty of murder
or manslaughter, but that he was actually innocent of the blood of the one
deceased, he could then reside in the safety of the City of Refuge. As long
as the High Priest was alive this person safety within the City of Refuge
was assured.

This safe refuge would have continued until such time as the High Priest
died and at that point he would have been free to leave the city, and the
avenger of blood would be bound by the Law not to pursue revenge further.

While the reference to the High Priest in Numbers 35 serves as an admirable
type picture of Yeshua, who is seen in New Testament theology to be the
Great High Priest, it is unlikely that the death of the High Priest
described in Numbers 35 carried "atonement value".

You see, it was not the death of the High Priest that arranged that he was
free from the dictate of the Law, regarding murder, but the simple fact
that he had been found innocent of it.

Had he been found guilty of murder, it is unlikely that he would have been
allowed to reside in the City of Refuge, but it would have been essential
that the dictates of the Law regarding murder would have to be carried out.
The City of Refuge was not a haven for those guilty of murder, but a place
of justice for those who were not guilty of murder, but who had been
involved in a case of accedental death.

Furthermore, atonement value was not just by death (even the death of the
High Priest), but it was the shedding of blood bought remision of sin. That
is an important distinction.

I trust that this helps

Yours in Yeshua's name

Philip Nowland

************************************************************************