space for the discipline of life, is often not used and therefore
not enjoyed. When people will not accept the inevitable fixed limits
within which their time and vigour can be occupied to the best
advantage, when they look covetously to districts of experience not
meant for them, as Israel did at certain periods of her history,
their life is spoiled. Discontent begins, envy follows. Where in
seeking and reaching moral gains, purity, courage, love, there would
have been a continual sense of adequate result and encouraging
prospect, there is now no gain, no pleasure. The appointed lot is
despised, and all it can yield held in contempt. How many there are
who, with a full river of Divine bounty on one side their life, and
the great ocean of the Divine faithfulness ebbing and flowing on
the other, with the pastures and olive-groves of the Word of God to
nourish their soul, with access to His city and sanctuary, and an
outlook from summits like Tabor and Hermon to a transfigured life
in the new heavens and earth, speak nevertheless with scorn and
bitterness of their heritage! They might be reaching "the measure
of the stature of the fulness of Christ," but they remain graceless
and discontented to the end. Israel, understanding its destiny and
using its opportunities aright, might well say--and so may every one
who knows the truth as it is in Jesus Christ--"the lines are fallen
unto me in pleasant places; yea, I have a goodly heritage." But this
gladness of heart has its root in believing content. The restricted
land is full of God's promise: "Thou maintainest my lot." The
security of Jehovah's word encompasses the man of faith.
XXVI
_THE CITIES OF REFUGE_
NUMBERS xxxv., xxxvi
1. THE INHERITANCE OF THE LEVITES. The order relating to the
Levitical cities may be said to describe an ideal settlement. We
have, at all events, no evidence that the command was ever fully
carried out. It was to the effect that in forty-eight cities,
scattered throughout the whole of the tribes in proportion to their
population, dwellings were to be allotted to the Levites, who were
also to have the suburbs of those cities; that is to say, the fields
lying immediately about them, "for their cattle, and for their
substance, and for all their beasts." It is assumed that closely
surrounding each of the cities there shall be pasturage, and that a
regular or fairly regular boundary can be made at the distance of one
thousand cubits from the city. Singularly, nothing whatever is said
as to the duties of the Levites thus distributed throughout the land
on both sides Jordan, from Kedesh Naphtali in the north, to Debir in
the south, according to Josh. xxi. It is not said that they were to
perform any ecclesiastical functions or instruct the people in the
Divine Law. Yet something of the kind must have been intended, since
many of them were at a great and inconvenient distance from Shiloh
and other places at which the ark was stationed.
According to this statute, there is, for one thing, to be no
seclusion of the Levites from the rest of the people. If clergy and
laity, as we say, are distinguished, the distinction is made as small
as possible. From the terms of the present order (xxxv. 2, ff.) it
might appear that the towns given to the Levites were to be occupied
by them exclusively. In parallel passages, however, it is clear that
the Levites dwelt along with others in the cities; and in this way,
as well as by engaging in pastoral work, they were kept closely in
touch with the men of the tribes. The land allotted to them was not
sufficient for farms; but the tithes and offerings were to a large
extent for their support. And the arrangement thus sketched is held
with some reason to be an ideal for every order of men called to
similar duty. The Levites, indeed, were not at first spiritual.
Neither the nature of their work at the sanctuary, nor the conditions
of their life, implied any special consecration of heart. But the
general tone of a religious ministry advances; and even in David's
time there were Levites who served God in no mere routine, but with
earnest mind, with a measure of inspiration. The ordinance here is in
behalf of a consecrated order devoted to the service of God.
The suburbs, or pasture lands about the cities, are measured a
thousand cubits broad, and are to be two thousand cubits along
each of the four boundaries. If the figures given are correct it
would seem that, although the wall of the city is spoken of, the
measurement must really have begun in the centre of the city;
otherwise there could never have been a square of land, cities not
taking that form; nor could a boundary of two thousand cubits on each
aspect, north, south, east, and west, be made out. The cities must
often have been small, a cluster of poor huts built of clay or rude
brick, with a wall of similar material. We need imagine no stately
dwellings or fine pleasure grounds when we read here of the provision
for the Levites. Within the wall they had their bare, mean cottages;
outside, there might be a breadth of perhaps four hundred yards of
poor enough ground which they could claim. But as the tithes were
not always paid, so the dwellings and the pasturage may not always
have been allotted. There is not much reason to wonder that in a
short time after the settlement in Canaan the Levites, finding no
special work at the sanctuary, and obtaining little support from the
offerings, gradually became part of the tribes in which they happened
to have their abode. Hence we read in Judges (xvii. 7) of "a young
man out of Bethlehem-judah, of the family of Judah, who was a Levite."
The main purpose of the present statute, so far as it refers to the
dwellings of the Levites, would appear to have been economic, not
religious. It was that all the tribes might have their share of
maintaining the servants of the sanctuary. But it seems likely that a
class half priestly would, in lack of other duty, attach itself to the
high places, and set up a worship not contemplated by the law. And if
this is to be regarded as a misfortune, the choice of the Levitical
cities is in some cases difficult to account for. Kedesh in Naphtali
had been a famous holy place of the Canaanites; so probably were
others, as Gibeon, Shechem, Gath-rimmon. The special symbol of Jehovah
was the ark; and where the ark was the principal national rites were
always performed. But in a time of pioneer work and constant alarms the
central sanctuary could not always be visited, and the Levites appear
to have lent themselves to worship of a local kind.
An ecclesiastical order needs great faithfulness if it is not to
become irreligious through poverty, or proud and domineering through
assumption of power with God. To live poorly as those Levites were
expected to live, without the opportunity of earthly gain, while
often the share of national support which was due fell to a very low
and wholly inadequate amount, would try the fidelity of the best
of them. No large claim need be made in behalf of men specially
engaged in the work of the Christian Church; and great wealth seems
inappropriate to those who represent Christ. But what is their due
should at least be paid cheerfully, and the more so if they give
earnest minds to the service of God and man. With all faults that
have at various periods of the Church's history stained the character
of the clergy, they have maintained a testimony on behalf of the
higher life, and the sacredness of duty to God. A materialistic age
will make light of that service, and point to ecclesiastical pride
and covetousness as more than counterbalancing any good that is done.
But a broad and fair survey of the course of events will show that
the witness-bearing of a special class to religious ideas has kept
alive that reverence on which morality depends. True, the ideal of
a theocracy would dispense with an order set apart to teach the law
of God and to enforce His claims on men. But for the times that now
are, even in the most Christian country, the witness-bearing of a
gospel ministry is absolutely needful. And we may take the statute
before us as anticipating a general necessity, that necessity which
the apostles of our Lord met when they ordained presbyters in every
Church, and gave them commission to feed the flock of God.
2. THE CITIES OF REFUGE. Among the forty-eight cities that provide
dwellings for the Levites, six are to be cities of refuge, "that the
man-slayer which killeth any person unwittingly may flee thither."
Three of these cities are to be on the east and three on the west
side of Jordan. According to other enactments they are to be
distributed so as to be reached quite easily from all parts of the
country. They were sanctuaries for any one fleeing from the "avenger
of blood"; but the protection found in them was not by any means
absolute. Only if there appeared to be good cause for admitting
a fugitive was he afforded refuge even for a time, and his trial
followed as soon as possible. The laws of protection and judgment are
here laid down not fully, though with some detail.
We notice first that the statutes regarding the man-slayer are frankly
based on the primitive practice of blood revenge. It was the duty of
the nearest male relation of one who had been slain to seek the blood
of the man who slew him. The duty was held to be one which he owed
to his brother, to the community, and to God; and the principle of
retribution in such cases was embodied in the saying, "Whoso sheddeth
man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." The goël, or redeemer,
whose part it was to recover for a family land that had been alienated,
or a member of the family who had fallen into slavery, had it also laid
on him to seek justice on behalf of the family when one belonging to
it had been killed. The evils of this method of punishing crime are
very evident. All the heat of personal affection for the man put to
death, the keen desire to maintain the honour of family or clan, and
the bitter hatred of the tribe to which the homicide belonged, made the
pursuit of the criminal swift and the stroke fierce and unrelenting. A
goël put on a false track might easily strike to the ground an innocent
person; and he would feel himself bound to incur all risks in avenging
his kinsman. Often whole tribes of Arabs are involved in the blood feud
beginning in a single stroke, and wherever the custom prevails there is
the gravest danger of wide and sanguinary strife. The enactments of our
passage are intended to counteract in part these abuses and dangers.
We may wonder that the Hebrew law, enlightened on many points, did
not wholly abolish the practice of blood revenge. Justice is not
the private affair of any man, even the nearest kinsman of one who
has been injured. We have learned that the administration of law,
especially in cases of murder or supposed murder, is best taken
out of the hands of a private avenger, whose aim is to strike as
soon and as effectually as possible. It remains of course for those
whose friend has died by violence to institute inquiries and do
their utmost to bring the criminal to justice. But even when a man's
guilt seems clear his trial is before an impartial judge by whom all
relevant facts are elicited. In Hebrew law there was no complete
provision for such an administration of justice. The ancient custom
could not be easily set aside, for one thing; the passionate oriental
nature would cling to it. And for another, there was no organisation
for repressing disorder and dealing with crime. A certain risk had
to be run, in order that the sanctity of human life might be clearly
kept before a people too ready to strike as well as to curse. But if
the man-slayer was able to reach a city of refuge he had his trial.
The old custom was checked by the right of the fugitive to claim
sanctuary and to have his case investigated.
As for the sanctuary cities, there may also have been some imperfect
custom which anticipated them. In Egypt there certainly was; and
the Canaanites, who had learned not a little from Egypt, may have
had sacred places that afforded protection to the fugitive. But
the Mosaic law prevented abuse of the means of evading justice.
He who had killed another was a criminal before God. The blood of
the brother he had slain defiled the land and cried to Heaven. No
sanctuary must protect a man who had with homicidal purpose struck
another. There was to be neither priestly protection, nor sanctuary,
nor ransom for him. The Divine principle of justice took up the cause.
In vv. 16 ff. there are examples of cases which are adjudged to be
murder. To smite one with an instrument of iron, or with a stone
grasped in the hand presumably large enough to kill, or with a weapon
of wood, a heavy club or bar, is adjudged to be deliberate homicide.
Then if hatred can be proved, and one known to have cherished enmity
towards another is shown to have thrust him down, or hurled at him,
lying in wait, or to have smitten him with the hand, such a one is to
be allowed no sanctuary. On the other hand, the cases of inadvertent
homicide are defined: "if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or
hurled upon him anything without lying in wait, or with any stone,
whereby a man may die, seeing him not." These, of course, are simply
instances, not exhaustive categories.
It is not here stated, but in Josh. xx. 4 the statute runs that
the man-slayer who fled to a sanctuary city was to state his cause
before the elders, no doubt at the gate. Their preliminary decision
had to be given in his favour before he could be admitted. But
the real trial was by the "congregation," Numb. xxxv. 24, some
assembly representing the tribe within whose territory the crime
has been committed, or more likely a gathering of headmen of the
whole nation. Further, at ver. 30 it is enacted that the charge
of the avenger of blood against any one must be substantiated by
two witnesses at least. These provisions form the basis of a sound
judicial method. The rights of refuge and of revenge stand opposed
to each other, and between the two a large and authoritative court
gives judgment. It will be observed, moreover, that the judiciary was
not ecclesiastical. Where power was to be exercised in the name of
God, the priests were not to wield it, but the people. The form of
government is far nearer a democracy than a hierocracy.
A singular point in the law is the term during which the unwitting
man-slayer who had been acquitted by the court of justice must remain
in sanctuary. He is in danger of being put to death by the avenger of
blood until the acting high priest dies. Till that event he must keep
within the border of his city of refuge. And here the idea seems to be
that the official memory of the crime which had ceremonially defiled
the land rested with the high priest. He was supposed to keep in mind,
on God's behalf, the bloodshed which even though unintentional was
still polluting. His death accordingly obliterated the recollection
that kept the man-slayer under peril of the goël's revenge. The high
priest had no power to acquit or condemn a criminal, nor to enforce
against him the punishment of his fault. But he was the guardian of the
sacredness of the land in the midst of which Jehovah dwelt.
With regard to the symbolical meaning of the cities of refuge, it
is needful to exercise great care at every point. The man-slayer,
for instance, fleeing from the avenger of blood, is not a type of
the sinner fleeing for his life from the justice of God. If guilty
of murder, a man could find no safety even in the city of refuge. It
was only if he was not guilty of premeditated crime that he found
sanctuary. The refuge cities, however, represented Divine justice
as in contrast to the justice or rather the vengeance of man--that
Divine justice which Christ came to reveal, giving Himself for
us upon the cross. Human righteousness errs sometimes by excess,
sometimes by defect. Certain offences it would never condemn, others
it would passionately and remorselessly punish. The sanctuary cities
show a higher idea of justice. But all men are guilty before God. And
there is mercy with Him not only for the unwitting transgressor, but
for the man who has to confess deliberate sin, the forfeiture of his
life to Divine law.
The singular opinion has been expressed that the death of the high
priest was expiatory. This is said to be "unmistakably evident" from
the addition of the clause, "who has been anointed with the holy
oil" (ver. 25). The argument is that as the high priest's life and
work "acquired a representative signification through this anointing
with the Holy Ghost, his death might also be regarded as a death for
the sins of the people by virtue of the Holy Ghost imparted to him,
through which the unintentional man-slayer received the benefits of
the propitiation for his sins before God, so that he could return
cleansed to his native town without further exposure to the vengeance
of the avenger of blood." And thus, it is said, "The death of the
earthly high priest became a type of that of the heavenly One, who
through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, that
we might be redeemed from our transgressions." But although many of
the Rabbins and fathers held this view as to the expiatory nature of
the high priest's death, there is absolutely nothing in Scripture or
reason to support it. All the expiation, moreover, which the Mosaic
law provided for was ceremonial. If the death of the high priest was
efficacious only so far as his functions were, then there could be
no atonement or appearance of atonement for moral guilt, even that
of culpable homicide for instance. The death of the high priest
was therefore in no sense a type of the death of Christ, the whole
meaning of which lies in relation to moral, not ceremonial, offences.
While it cannot be said that "light is thrown by the provisions
regarding cities of refuge on the atonement of Christ"--for that
would be the morning star shedding light on the sun--still there are
some points of illustration; and one of these may be noted. As the
protection of the sanctuary city extended only to the boundaries or
precincts belonging to it, so the defence the sinner has in Christ
can be enjoyed only so far as life is brought within the range of
the influence and commands of Christ. He who would be safe must be
a Christian. It is not mere profession of faith--"Lord, Lord, have
we not prophesied in Thy name?"--but hearty obedience to the laws of
duty coming from Christ that gives safety. "Who shall lay any thing
to the charge of God's elect?"--and the elect are those who yield the
fruit of the Spirit, who are lovers of God and their fellow-men, who
show their faith by their works. It is a misrepresentation of the
whole teaching of Scripture to declare that salvation can be had,
apart from life and practice, in some mythical relation with Christ
which is hardly even to be stated in words.
3. TRIBAL INHERITANCE. Already we have heard the appeal of the
daughters of Zelophehad to be allowed an inheritance as representing
their father. Now a question which has arisen regarding them must be
solved. The five women have not cared to undertake the work of the
upland farm allotted to them, somewhere about the head waters of the
Yarmuk. They have, in fact, as heiresses been somewhat in request among
the young men of different tribes; and they are almost on the point of
giving their hands to husbands of their choice. But the chiefs of the
family of Manasseh to which they belong find a danger here. The young
women may perhaps choose men of Gad, or men of Judah. Then their land,
which is part of the land of Manasseh, will go over to the tribes of
the husbands. There will be a few acres of Judah or of Gad in the north
of Manasseh's land. And if other young women throughout the tribes, who
happen to be heiresses, marry according to their own liking, by-and-by
the tribe territories will be all confused. Is this to be allowed? If
not, how is the evil to be prevented?
The national centre and general unity of Israel could not in the
early period be expected to suffice. Without tribal coherence and
a sense of corporate life in each family the Israelites would be
lost among the people of the land. Especially would this tend to
take place on the eastern side of Jordan and in the far north. Now
the clan unity went with the land. It was as those dwelling in a
certain district the descendants of one progenitor realised their
brotherhood. Hence there was good reason for the appeal of the
Manassites and the legislation that followed. Women who succeeded
to land were to marry within the families of their fathers. Men were
apparently not forbidden to marry women of another tribe if they were
not heiresses. But the possession of land by women carried with it a
responsibility and deprived them of a certain part of freedom. Every
daughter who had an inheritance was to be wife to one of her near
kin; so should no inheritance remove from one family to another; the
tribes should cleave every one to his own inheritance.
The exigencies of the early settlement appear to have required
this law; and it was maintained as far as possible, so that he who
lived in a certain region might know himself not only a Reubenite
or a Benjamite as the case might be, but a son of Hanoch of the
Reubenites, or a son of Ard among the Benjamites. But we may doubt
whether the unity of the nation was not delayed by the means used
to keep the land for each tribe and each tribe on its own land. The
arrangement was perhaps inevitable; yet it certainly belonged to a
primitive social order. The homogeneity of the people would have been
helped and the tribes held more closely together by interchange of
land. In every law made at an early stage of a people's development
there is involved something unsuitable to after periods. And
perhaps one error made by the Israelites was to cling too long and
too closely to tribal descent and make too much of genealogy. The
enactment regarding the marriage of heiresses within their own
families was an old one, bearing the authority of Moses. There came
a time when it should have been revoked and everything done that
was possible to weld the tribes together. But the old customs held;
and what was the result? The tribes east of Jordan, as well as Dan
and Asher, were well-nigh lost to the Confederacy at an early date.
Subsequently a division began between the northern and southern
peoples. We cannot doubt that partly for want of family alliances
between Judah and Ephraim, and subordination of tribal to national
sentiment, there came the separation into two kingdoms.
For the tribe idea and the other of making inheritance of land a
governing matter, the Israelites would seem to have paid dearly.
And there is danger still in the attempt to make a nation cohere
on any mere territorial basis. It is the spirit, the fidelity to a
common purpose, and the pervasive enthusiasm that give real unity.
If these are wanting, or if the general aim is low and material, the
security of families in the soil may be exceedingly mischievous.
At the same time the old feeling is proved to have a deep root in
fact. Territorial solidarity is indispensable to a nation; and the
exclusion of a people from large portions of its land is an evil
intolerable. Christianity has not done its work where the Church,
the teacher of righteousness, is unconcerned for this great matter.
How can religion flourish where brotherhood fails? And how can
brotherhood survive in a nation when the right of occupying the soil
is practically denied? First among the economic questions which claim
Christian settlement is that of land tenure, land right. Christianity
carries forward the principles of the Mosaic law into higher ranges,
where justice is not less, but more--where brotherhood has a nobler
purpose, a finer motive.
INDEX
Aaron, 16;
character of, 29;
and his sons, 32;
complains of Moses' marriage, 137;
rod of, 198, 207;
intercession of, 207;
close of his life, 235.
Aaronites, support of, 215.
Abstinence, pledge of, 60.
Agag, 307.
Alliances with Christianity, 114.
Amalekites, 312.
Amorites, 157, 253;
defeat of, by Israel, 255.
Anak, sons of, 157.
Angel of the Lord, 281.
Arabah, Wady, 244.
Arad, King of, 178, 243.
Ark, the, 44;
borne before the host, 116.
Arnold, Matthew, 304.
Art, claimed for God, 95.
Assemblies, calling of, 96.
Atonement, for omissions, 184;
great day of, 356.
Azazel, 355.
Baal-peor, festival of, 314.
Baals, the, 295.