Numbers 35

Updated
2001-05-26; 14:32:33utc

III. The Conquest and Division of Israel 31:1-36:13E. Special Cities in Canaan 35:1-34

The verses 1-8 of this chapter deal with the towns that were to be given to the Levites, six of which were to be set apart as cities of refuge. The remainder of the chapter regulates the use of these towns of refuge (verses 9-34). Both the allotment of cities to the Levites, spread out over the whole of the country, and the designation of some towns as cities of refuge, with the stipulations regarding their use, is full of spiritual significance.

The allotment of certain cities, within the territory of the other tribes, to be occupied by the tribe of Levi was the logical outcome of the fact that the Levites were not receiving any heritage in the land of Canaan. The Lord had said specifically to Aaron: "You will have no inheritance in their land, nor will you have any share among them; I am your share and your inheritance among the Israelites."[ 1 ] The Lord has extended this to the whole tribe of Levi. We read: "It is the Levites who are to do the work at the Tent of Meeting and bear the responsibility for offenses against it. This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. They will receive no inheritance among the Israelites."[ 2 ] Moses would later reiterate the status of the Levites, by emphasizing in a more beautiful way their task description, by saying: "At that time the LORD set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the ark of the covenant of the LORD, to stand before the LORD to minister and to pronounce blessings in his name, as they still do today. That is why the Levites have no share or inheritance among their brothers; the LORD is their inheritance, as the LORD your God told them."[ 3 ]

From The Pulpit Commentary we copy the following regarding the allotment given to the Levites in the promised land: "The dispersion of the Levites (however mysteriously connected with the prophecy of Gen. xlix. 5-7) was obviously designed to form a bond of unity for all Israel by diffusing the knowledge and love of the national religion, and by keeping up a constant communication between the future capital and all the provinces.… The priestly family was at present too small to be influential, but the Levites were numerous enough to have leavened the whole nation if they had walked worthy of their calling. They were gathered together in towns of their own, partly no doubt in order to avoid disputes, but partly that they might have a better opportunity of setting forth the true ideal of what Jewish life should be."

The prophecy, mentioned by The Pulpit Commentary was part of the curse Jacob put on his two sons Simeon and Levi, which read: "Simeon and Levi are brothers-- their swords are weapons of violence. Let me not enter their council, let me not join their assembly, for they have killed men in their anger and hamstrung oxen as they pleased. Cursed be their anger, so fierce, and their fury, so cruel! I will scatter them in Jacob and disperse them in Israel."[ 4 ] As far as Levi was concerned, God kept to the letter of Jacob's prophecy, but He changed the curse into one of the richest blessing that could befall the nation of Israel. The dispersion of this tribe throughout the land dotted the country with towns that could become havens of justice and spiritual refreshment.

The Levites did not only embody the service to God in the tabernacle, of which they were obviously a part, but they also administered justice in the various regions in which they resided. The Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary records: "Since the Levites were to have no territorial domain allocated to them, like the other tribes, on the conquest of Canaan [Num. 18:20], they were to be distributed throughout the land (cf. [Gen. 47:7]) in certain cities appropriated to their use; and these cities were to be surrounded by extensive suburbs. There is an apparent discrepancy between [Num. 35:4] and 5 with regard to the extent of the suburbs; but the statements in the two verses refer to totally different things-- the one to the extent of the suburbs from the walls of the city, the other to the space of 2,000 cubits from their extremity. In point of fact, there was an extent of ground, amounting to 3,000 cubits, measured from the wall of the city. One thousand were most probably occupied with out-houses for the accommodation of shepherds and other servants, with gardens, vineyards, or olive yards. And these which were portioned out to different families [1 Chr. 6:60] might be sold by one Levite to another, but not to any individual of another tribe [Jer. 32:7]. The other 2,000 cubits remained a common for the pasturing of cattle [Lev. 25:34]; and, considering their number, that space would be fully required."

Matthew Henry's Commentary writes about these cities: "The number allotted them was forty-eight in all, four out of each of the twelve tribes, one with another. Out of the united tribes of Simeon and Judah nine, out of Naphtali three, and four apiece out of the rest, as appears, Josh. 21. Thus were they blessed with a good ministry, and that ministry with a comfortable maintenance, not only in tithes, but in glebe-lands." These forty-eight cities were donated to the Levites by each of the other tribes, as appears from Matthew Henry's comment, in proportion to the size of the tribe.

Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary writes about these cities donated to the Levites: "48 cities assigned to the tribe of Levi. When the land of Canaan was divided among the tribes of Israel, each tribe, except Levi, received a specific region or territory for its inheritance. The tribe of Levi, however, was made up of priests who were to serve the religious and spiritual needs of the other tribes. Thus, instead of receiving a territory of their own, they were scattered throughout the entire land. [Numbers 35:1-8] sets forth a plan whereby the tribe of Levi was to live in 48 cities scattered throughout Palestine. (This plan was fulfilled according to assignments described in [Josh. 20--21] and [1 Chr. 6:54-81].) The 48 cities were apportioned in this way: the AARONITES, one of the families of the Kohathites, received 13 cities [Josh. 21:4,9-19; 1 Chr. 6:54-60]; the rest of the KOHATHITES received 10 cities [Josh. 21:5,20-26; 1 Chr. 6:61]. The GERSHONITES received 13 cities [Josh. 21:6,27-33; 1 Chr. 6:62], and the MERARITES received 12 cities [Josh. 21:7,34-40; 1 Chr. 6:63]. These 48 cities and their surrounding common-lands--pastures, fields, and vineyards-- were to be used exclusively by the Levites. Six of these Levitical cities were to be CITIES OF REFUGE [Num. 35:6,9-34; Josh. 20--21]. A person who caused the death of another could flee to one of these cities for protection from anyone who wanted to avenge the life of the person killed (see AVENGER OF BLOOD). The refugee thus was protected until he received a fair trial, or until the high priest of that particular city of refuge died (after which he was free to return home and claim the protection of the authorities). Three of the cities of refuge were east of the Jordan River: Bezer (in the tribe of Reuben), Ramoth in Gilead (in Gad), and Golan (in Manasseh; [Josh. 20:8]). The other three cities of refuge were west of the Jordan: Kedesh (in the tribe of Naphtali), Shechem (in Ephraim), and Kirjath Arba, also known as Hebron (in Judah; [Josh. 20:7]). According to this plan, the Levites were situated throughout the land and could assist the other Israelites in spiritual matters. As a practical matter, since six of these Levitical cities were cities of refuge, citizens living in every part of Palestine had a refuge that was relatively near their homes. A look at a map will demonstrate how carefully the cities were spaced out to facilitate ease of access. Some of the ancient Levitical cities, such as Bethel and Gilgal, became an important part of the religious system of Israel [1 Kin. 3:4; Hos. 4:15; 12:11; Amos 4:4-5]."

The apparent discrepancy between the 1500 feet, mentioned in vs. 4 and the 3000 feet in vs. 5 has caused a good deal of confusion among the scholars. We read in Adam Clarke's Commentary: [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.] Commentators have been much puzzled with the accounts in these two verses. In [Num. 35:4] the measure is said to be 1,000 cubits from the wall; in [Num. 35:5] the measure is said to be 2,000 from without the city. It is likely these two measures mean the same thing; at least so it was understood by the Septuagint and Coptic, who have dischilious pecheis, 2,000 cubits, in the fourth, as well as in the fifth verse, but this reading of the Septuagint and Coptic is not acknowledged by any other of the ancient versions, nor by any of the MSS. collated by Kennicott and De Rossi. We must seek therefore for some other method of reconciling this apparently contradictory account. Sundry modes have been proposed by commentators, which appear to me, in general, to require fully as much explanation as the text itself. Maimonides is the only one intelligible on the subject. 'The suburbs,' says he, 'of the cities are expressed in the law to be 3,000 cubits on every side from the wall of the city and outwards. The first thousand cubits are the suburbs, and the 2,000, which they measured without the suburbs, were for fields and vineyards.' " TLB compacts both verses in one phrase by saying: "Their gardens and vineyards shall extend 1500 feet out from the city walls in each direction, with an additional 1500 feet beyond that for pastureland."

The fact that the Lord, Himself, was the inheritance of the whole tribe of Levi did not mean that they would not be provided for on an earthly level. It did not reduce them to charity, at least not in the sense that we tend to interpret the word. The so called Protestant Work Ethics that have dominated Western society for centuries, was based upon Paul's statement: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."[ 5 ] But Paul also said: "Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel."[ 6 ] And, speaking to His disciples who campaigned in the cities of Israel, Jesus said: "When you enter a house, first say, 'Peace to this house.' If a man of peace is there, your peace will rest on him; if not, it will return to you. Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages."[ 7 ] If we consider the payment of the servants of the Lord to be hand-outs, like undeserved alms for those who do not labor in the sweat of their brows, we have turned God's truth upside-down.

Material sustenance is the image of a spiritual reality. Bread is a picture of the Word of God. That is why "man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD."[ 8 ] Treasures on earth are shadows of the real treasures in heaven. Jesus, therefore, advises us: "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."[ 9 ] If we understand this, we see the right relationship between that which we need on a temporary basis to live on earth, and the reality of life in eternity; and we put things in their right perspective.

The ministry of the Levites was of greater importance for the health of the nation of Israel than any other branch of work. Israel could weather periods of drought and hunger, but when the nation began to neglect the worship of YHWH, they ceased to exist as a nation. The Levites were to be the salt of the earth; their being spread out over the country would keep corruption in abeyance.

The second part of this chapter deals with the cities of refuge. The International Standard Bible Encylopaedia writes about these cities: "Six cities, three on each side of the Jordan, were set apart and placed in the hands of the Levites, to serve as places of asylum for such as might shed blood unwittingly. Location: On the East of the Jordan they were Bezer in the lot of Reuben, Ramoth-Gilead in the tribe of Gad, and Golan in the territory of Manasseh. On the West of the Jordan they were Hebron in Judah, Shechem in Mt. Ephraim, and Kedesh in Naphtali ([Num 35:6,14; Josh 20:2,7] ff.; [21:13,21,27,32,38]; Bezer is named in verse 36, but not described as a City of Refuge). … [Deut 19:2] speaks of three cities thus to be set apart, referring apparently to the land West of the Jordan."

The function of those cities of refuge was to give asylum to people who had committed manslaughter, and who would be subject to the revenge of the next of kin of the victim. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines manslaughter as: "the unlawful killing of a human being without express or implied malice."

In Exodus these cities of refuge were first hinted to when God said to Moses: "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death."[ 10 ] "A place I will designate" is, in the same sentence called "my altar." God considered the cities of refuge to have the same function as the altar at the tabernacle, that is the place where guilt was atoned for by substitutional death. It is also significant that accidental death in this verse is described with the words "God lets it happen." We will see the importance of this later on.

In order to comprehend the intent of this passage we have to understand the background and mentality of Israel in the Old Testament. None of this makes much sense to us in a society that is governed by a judicial system, based on the Pax Romana, which is exclusively in the hands of a central government. This was not the case in Israel at that time. They were in an in-between stage. There were judges and there was a judicial system, but there was also a tribal tradition in which the lives of the members of the clan were in the hands of the heads of clans. An illustration is found in the story of Judah and Tamar. We read in Genesis: "About three months later Judah was told, 'Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant.' Judah said, 'Bring her out and have her burned to death!' "[ 11 ]

We also have to understand that the Israelites were a hot-blooded race, who when provoked, would be liable to shoot first and ask questions later. That feature, more than anything else, created the need for the cities of refuge mentioned in this chapter. Revenge was in the hands of the next of kin, who is called ga'al in Hebrew. Strongs' defines the word as: "to redeem (according to the Oriental law of kinship), i.e. to be the next of kin (and as such to buy back a relative's property, marry his widow, etc.)."

The term is used both of God and of man. When God reveals Himself to Moses, for instance, He says: "I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment."[ 12 ] David uses the term for God in the Psalms, when he says: "May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer."[ 13 ] Isaiah calls God "ga'al" when he says: " 'In a surge of anger I hid my face from you for a moment, but with everlasting kindness I will have compassion on you,' says the LORD your Redeemer."[ 14 ] The most common use of the word is in connection with the right to redeem property. As such it is used several times in Leviticus, as for instance in: "If one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells some of his property, his nearest relative is to come and redeem what his countryman has sold."[ 15 ] And in the story of Ruth, Boaz is the ga'al who restores the property to Naomi and marries Ruth. We read: " 'The LORD bless him!' Naomi said to her daughter-in-law. 'He has not stopped showing his kindness to the living and the dead.' She added, 'That man is our close relative; he is one of our kinsman-redeemers.' "[ 16 ]

This variety of applications of the word shows that behind its use is the concept of justice. The root meaning of the word is a blood relation, and the positive aspect of this relationship comes out in redemption, but negatively it means revenge, which is also part of justice.

The New Unger's Bible Dictionary says about the avenger of blood: "(Heb. go'el haddam, lit., 'Redeemer of blood'). At the root of the enactments of the Mosaic penal code lies the principle of strict but righteous retribution, the purpose being to eradicate evil and produce reverence for the righteous God. This principle, however, was not first introduced by the law of Moses. It is much older and is found especially in the form of blood revenge among many ancient peoples. It appears almost everywhere where the state has not yet been formed or is still in the first stages of development, and consequently satisfaction for personal injury falls to private revenge. This custom of 'blood calling for blood' exists among Arabs of today. If a man is slain there can never be peace between the tribes again unless the man who killed him is slain by the avenger. By this custom the life, first of all, but after it also the property of the family, as its means of subsistence, was to be protected by the nearest of kin, called a redeemer. The following directions were given by Moses: (1) The willful murderer was to be put to death, without permission of compensation, by the nearest of kin. (2) The law of retaliation was not to extend beyond the immediate offender ([Deut. 24:16; 2 Kin. 14:6; 2 Chr. 25:4]; etc.). (3) If a man took the life of another without hatred, or without hostile intent, he was permitted to flee to one of the cities of refuge (which see). It is not known how long blood revenge was observed, although it would appear [2 Sam. 14:7-8] that David had influence in restraining the operation of the law. Jehoshaphat established a court at Jerusalem to decide such cases [2 Chr. 19:10]."

The first intent of the establishment of these cities of refuge was to give a man a chance for a fair trial. God did not want any lynching in Israel. We read in vs. 12: "so that a person accused of murder may not die before he stands trial before the assembly." This would include both murder and manslaughter. In a case of murder the offender had to be executed. We should not have too much of a problem in reconciling this part with our concept of justice.

A big difference between now and then is that execution of the guilty party had to be carried out by the next of kin. What differs even more in the concept of justice in our time, and in the days of Moses, is the case of a man who was guilty of manslaughter. The examples given in the verses 22 and 23 all deal with accidental death. Hostility and malice are excluded. We read: "But if without hostility someone suddenly shoves another or throws something at him unintentionally or, without seeing him, drops a stone on him that could kill him, and he dies, then since he was not his enemy and he did not intend to harm him.…" In the twentieth century in our western world, such a person would be declared "not guilty," and would be set free. Not so in Israel of old! He would be kept in the city of refuge to which he fled for protection, and be severely limited in his freedom. He was condemned to a form of house arrest for the remainder of his life, or till the death of the high priest. If the man ventured outside the city limits, he put himself in severe jeopardy, and if the avenger would kill him, he would not be deemed being guilty of murder. This all sounds rather strange to our ears.

Where our philosophy deviates from Israel's is on the point of accidents. We define an accident as something that is unrelated to design. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines "accident" as: "An event occurring by chance or unintentionally." Even if we call certain events "an act of God," we do not really mean that God has any place in what happened. But the Israelites saw the hand of God even in accidents. They may not have been able to establish a direct link between every event and moral condition, but they believed that the connection was there, although not visible to the human eye. The remarks of the disciples to Jesus about the man who was born blind is typical of this world view. We read in John's Gospel: "His disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?' "[ 17 ] One of the students at the Theological School in Nabire, Irian Jaya, Indonesia, a tribal Papua, told me once that he could not be bitten by a poisonous snake because he had never committed adultery. We consider such a view of life to be primitive. But our concept of what is an accident may not be realistic either because it leaves God completely out of the picture. And any picture from which God is excluded is not a representation of reality. The Israelite believed that the man who committed manslaughter was marked by God, although he might not be guilty of murder. The city of refuge with all its limitations was, therefore, meant to be an act of mercy: it gave protection from the law of the state by the law of grace. Next to the law that regulated the ceremonial sacrifices, those cities exemplified God's grace in the Old Testament.

Specifically, the mention of the death of the High Priest seems to us completely unrelated to the matter of guilt or the absence of it. The only connection seems to be that guilt was expiated, if not by the death of the guilty one, then by the High Priest who died in the place of those who were marked by death. Evidently, God accepted the death of the High Priest as a substitution for the guilty party. It is obvious what lesson the Holy Spirit wants us to draw from this. We are all set free from guilt in all its forms by the death of our Lord Jesus Christ.

In the background of all this is God's concept of death and guilt. Death, in all its forms, is a foreign element in God's thinking, and it is always tied up with guilt. Whether a man kills intentionally, or causes death without meaning to, it all reminds God of the fall. This is the argument Paul advances in his epistle to the Romans: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--."[ 18 ] And in God's eye death can only be blotted out by death: the death of him who committed the act, or the death of one who substitutes for him.

In the Old Testament order the sequence was turned around. The man who was guilty of man slaughter was protected by the life of the High Priest, and freed by his death. In the New Testament we are first of all freed by the death of Christ, and then protected by His life. Paul, again, says: "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!"[ 19 ]

The Adam Clarke Commentary agrees with this. We read: "[Until the death of the priest.] Probably intended to typify, that no sinner can be delivered from his banishment from God or recover his forfeited inheritance, till Jesus Christ, the great high priest, had died for his offenses, and risen again for his justification."

As we have seen above, God calls the place He designates for a person who is guilty of manslaughter as "My altar."[ 20 ] This characterizes the cities of refuge as places which foreshadow the cross on which our Savior died.

Matthew Henry's Commentary remarks: "We never read in the history of the Old Testament of any use made of these cities of refuge, any more than of other such institutions, which yet, no doubt, were made use of upon the occasions intended; only we read of those that, in dangerous cases, took hold of the horns of the altar [1 Kin. 1:50; 2:28]; for the altar, wherever that stood, was, as it were the capital city of refuge."

We must conclude that this chapter is full of spiritual significance. Whether the designated cities were actually used for the purpose for which they were set apart is evidently of less importance than the image of the New Testament reality they project. We may assume that the Levites occupied the cities that were set apart for them; whether their being spread out over the whole of the promised land had any bearing on the spiritual life of the nation as a whole is another question. God meant them to be the salt of the earth, but the salt must have lost its saltiness.[ 21 ] If the Levites had carried on an effective ministry throughout the ages, the people of Israel would never have gone into captivity.

Even if the cities of refuge were never used for the purpose for which God intended them, they still point us to the place of refuge to which we can flee with our guilt which we accumulated intentionally or unintentionally. The cities of refuge represented hope. About this hope the writer to the Hebrew says: "We who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged. We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."[ 22 ]

The chapter ends with an explanation as to why these measures had to be taken. The verses 30-34 tell us what happens to the land when blood is poured out upon it, without atonement: murder pollutes a land. God says: "Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it. Do not defile the land where you live and where I dwell, for I, the LORD, dwell among the Israelites."

This statement pertains, of course, primarily to Canaan, the land God promised to Israel, but the principle is applicable to our whole planet. When the first murder was committed God said to Cain: "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand." And Jesus held the generation of His time responsible for all the blood that was shed on earth. He said to the scribes and Pharisees: "And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar."[ 23 ]

We cannot take these words in a literal sense, of course, as if earth would be anything else but inert material, and blood would have spiritual meaning in itself. Shedding of blood means death, and death is connected with sin. Murder is sin that has grown to its ugly maturity. The words "pollute," and "defile" have spiritual significance. It is sin that defiles; it has to be atoned for in the presence of a holy God. Man cannot buy his way out. "The wages of sin is death."[ 24 ] And death can only be atoned for by death. The price for blood is blood. A ransom payment, in this case, would mean that a person with means could buy his way out, and pay off his responsibility for the sin he committed. This would make a mockery of the absolute justice of God.

One of the great clauses in the Mosaic law was that of the need of two witnesses for the conviction of any crime. The law stated: "One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses."[ 25 ] And particularly in case of murder, no one could be executed on the basis of the testimony of only one witness. "On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness."[ 26 ] The Apostle Paul applies this principle in general to the church of Jesus Christ by writing to Timothy: "Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses."[ 27 ]

This clause would greatly limit the number of legal executions in Israel. It would not happen too often that two people would be witnesses of a murder. It also seems to rule out anything that, in our modern court of law, would qualify as "circumstantial evidence."

The greatest truth of this chapter is the evidence of the presence of God in the land. The almighty God, Creator of heaven and earth, the one who redeemed Israel from slavery in Egypt, would live among His people in the land. The promised land is the land that is permeated with His presence. "Do not defile the land where you live and where I dwell, for I, the LORD, dwell among the Israelites." Most of Israel, however, would be born in Canaan, and die there, without ever knowing the presence of the Lord. They would never come to the discovery of their father Jacob, who said: "Surely the LORD is in this place, and I was not aware of it."[ 28 ]

But the greatest truth of all is that these verses are pointing toward the man who would be born in Bethlehem, who would be called Immanuel, God with us, and who would not be recognized as the Lord who dwelled among the Israelites. " He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him."[ 29 ]

[ 1 ] ch. 18:20

[ 2 ] ch. 18:23

[ 3 ] Deut. 10:8,9

[ 4 ] Gen. 49:5-7

[ 5 ] II Thes. 3:10

[ 6 ] I Cor. 9:13,14

[ 7 ] Luke 10:5-7

[ 8 ] Deut. 8:3

[ 9 ] Matt. 6:19-21

[ 10 ] Ex. 21:12-14

[ 11 ] Gen. 38:24

[ 12 ] Ex. 6:6

[ 13 ] Ps. 19:14

[ 14 ] Isa. 54:8

[ 15 ] Lev. 25:25

[ 16 ] Ruth 2:20

[ 17 ] John 9:2

[ 18 ] Rom. 5:12

[ 19 ] Rom. 5:8-10

[ 20 ] See Ex. 21:14

[ 21 ] See Matt. 5:13

[ 22 ] Heb. 6:18-20

[ 23 ] Matt. 23:35

[ 24 ] Rom. 6:23

[ 25 ] Deut. 19:15

[ 26 ] Deut. 17:6

[ 27 ] I Tim. 5:19

[ 28 ] Gen. 28:16

[ 29 ] John 1:10,11