It's interesting to note that whereas we do read of the Levites living in their cities, we do not read
(I think), of the Cities of Refuge being used.  Does this point to the fact that before Christ came sin was not taken away.  Then, when "The High Priest" (Jesus) died, God's love and mercy shone through, and repentant sinners are forgiven.

35:2      Amidst the joy of receiving their inheritance Moses is concerned to remind the people of their responsibilities to the Levites.  It is so easy, when  things are going well for us, to forget the needs of others.

V.2 As the Levites were to have no territorial domain allocated to them like the other tribes, once they conquerd the Land of Cannon. They were to be distributed through out the land certain cities, and these cities were to be surrounded by extensive suberbs (green areas). It would appear that this land would have been a common area for the pasturing of the cattle 

35:2 The words ‘suburbs’ <04054> is always translated this way. However we should not draw the conclusion that it means what we tend to think of suburbs – an area of houses around a town or city. The word from which it is derived is often translated ‘drive out’ so we see that the word is descriptive of an area, which by implication, is devoid of things. The ‘suburbs’ then would have been areas for farming – keeping of cattle and growing of crops. Now actually this is obvious from the next verse however it is valuable to establish a Biblical use of a word when the English into which it is translated carries a different meaning form that which the original language carries.

35:15 The city of refuge points to the freedom from the consequence of sin through belief in Jesus. The way that the provision was ‘both for the children of Israel, and for the stranger, and for the sojourner among them’ highlighted to Israel that God’s offer of salvation is for all, whether Jew of non Jew.

Vs.4,5 seem contradictory.  They are both valid depending upon their applications.  A fool is essentially one who is not practising God's laws.  Whether to respond to such a person depends upon the attitude of that person. For example:

Jesus did not respond to the high priest (Matt 26:62,63) because He knew that the high priest was oppositional to the Truth and did not desire to change.

On the other hand, Paul challenged the foolishness of Peter's actions (Gal 2:14) because Peter was interested in serving the Lord but needed to be corrected.

"I could do that job"
"If I were running this company, I'd make a better job of it!"
"If I were him, I wouldn't do it that way!"
"If only they'd let me do [such and such], I'd show them a thing or two!"

In verse 16 we have described for us yet another problem with the lazy man. The problem is that he is wise in his own eyes. In fact, he is wiser than 7 people who actually answer wisely! Why is that? Why does Solomon link folly with laziness in this way? The statements above are typical of the comments we may make ourselves, or hear others making. There is a consistent problem with those statements, which is in common with the problem of the lazy man.

So what is it? Well, the problem is that the people saying those things actually have no intention of doing what they say. They are pulling down someone elses wisdom with statements that they could do better, yet will never get round to proving it. This position is a very safe one for a fool. He may believe in his own mind that he is capable of doing all sorts of things. He may believe he is extremely wise, or very skilled at something, and as long as he doesn't actually try to put this into practice, he'll never have to believe otherwise!

The attitude of this lazy, foolish man, can often be traced back to his own low self esteem. In verses 13-16 we have a scathing and laughable description of his incompetence, lack of wisdom, and lack of effort, yet amazingly it ends up in his own pride in himself! How is this possibly explained, except when we look at it in the terms of his self esteem? This man is so low that he's not able to get out of bed (v14). He's so depressed that he can't get out of the house (v13). Even when he manages to put some effort into his life, he can't actually bring himself to finish it because he believes himself incapable(v15). The human being, faced with such a picture of itself, will usually compensate for this by inflating its ego (v16). The process of comparing onesself with the flaws in others is the way that this is achieved. We persuade ourselves that if only we were to have the oportunity, we could be quite great!

The lesson for us is to notice this tendency in ourselves. When we are in this state we ought not to listen to our own ego or inflated self esteem. We should judge ourselves by our actions, rather than by what we hope to do, plan to do, or think we are able to do. When we realise that we are actually just being lazy, then we can quickly rectify the situation by getting up and DOING something. Even doing something menial is better than sitting around dreaming about great things!

Farmers neither expect nor appreciate unseasonable weather.  Prov 26:1 says that just as rain will put a real hindrance on the harvest, and thereby endanger the food supply for the coming year, so honour is not seemly for a fool.  We must be very careful whom we applaud.

26:15 We are here presented with the picture of the slothful – he is so idle that he dies of starvation! Are we so slothful in our attitude to reading Scripture?

26:6 Whilst the folly of sending a message by a fool is clear we are liable to do jus the same. The wise man is counselling us to always use people to perform tasks who are appropriate for the task.

26:3 Each of the items spoken of in this verse is for exercising control. However the ‘fool’ will not respond to the ‘rod’ He simply passes on uncorrected. The sad thing about the ‘fool’ is that he does not even recognise his folly. That is why the chastening hand of God is of no value to the ‘fool’ We must take care that we are ‘exercised’ – Heb 12:11 - by God’s chastening or we will be fools also.

27:4-6 These seemingly contradictory proverbs are not contradicting each other at all. Firstly we must remember that there is a spiritual significance in all the Proverbs. They are not simply a collection of pithy sayings with an immediate surface meaning. Like Jesus’ parables they need to be ‘searched out’. There are three other occasions – all in Proverbs – where fool and folly occur together. Prov 13:16, 17:12 , 26:11 from which we can see that associating with a fools is unwise. Against this background we understand that ‘answering a fool according to his folly’ is tantamount to agreeing with him so he will see you as supporting his ideas. And answering him ‘not according to his folly’ is designed to show the fool that you are not supporting his folly. Fools will not listen so there is no benefit in trying to change his opinion. Rather one’s answer should be designed to highlight our position.

Michael Parry and Peter Forbes in previous comments explained the paradox of Prov 26:4-5. The KJV translates almost cryptically, "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Perhaps the New English Bible captures the sense better, "Do not answer a stupid man in the language of his folly, or you will grow like him. Answer a stupid man as his folly deserves or he will think himself a wise man." - 1Pet 3:9;1Pet 2:21-23;1Tim 4:16;Col 4:6.

The above was gleaned from Balancing The Book (p.1-4) by Len Richardson.

26:7,9 The word ‘parable’ <04912> is the word translated ‘proverb’ Parables – Proverbs – are for wise men. Not for fools. Foolishness is not some mental weakness. Rather it shows a lack of spiritual perception. That is a parable separates between those who want to understand the things of God from those who do not – those who are blind. This is how Jesus explains why he told parables – proverbs. Matt 13:14-15

:6 The issue of Jesus writing on the ground has exercised the minds of Bible students for years. What did he write? We often ask. Well, like many before me I do not know either. However there are a number of interesting links with Jeremiah 17

So an investigation of that chapter will instruct us as to what Jesus wanted his antagonists to learn which is far more instructive than speculating about what he wrote.

8:1       In saying that Jesus ‘went to the mount of Olives’ we are expected to see a contrast with 7:53 where every man when home. Jesus did not have a home in that sense.

8:33 In claiming to be ‘Abraham’s seed’ they were doing exactly what John Baptist – Matt 3:9 - had warned them against.

8:12     Jesus’ words ‘walk in darkness’ are picked up again by John – 1John 1:6– as part of his teaching about light and darkness and walking in truth.

Notice the similarity between v9-10 and v46. Only Jesus is free from sin so that he can judge others. So if he ommits to judge us, we are free too. This is how our salvation comes about (v36 and v11).

8:21 ‘whither I go ye cannot come’ puzzled the leaders and at least one disciple. It is phrase that Jesus has used before – John 7:34 and will use again - John 13:33 and is speaking of his glorification which those who are faithful will follow afterwards 13:36. May we be amongst those, like Peter, who will follow.

8:20 In saying ‘his hour was not yet come’ were part way through a theme using this phrase. It starts in John 7:20 and after being seen here we see that his hour finally came – John 12:23and we see it is all to do with the glorification of the son.