'The Lord also spake unto Joshua, saying, 2. Speak to the children of
Israel, saying, Appoint out for you cities of refuge, whereof I spake
unto you by the hand of Moses: 3. That the slayer that killeth any
person unawares and unwittingly may flee thither: and they shall be
your refuge from the avenger of blood. 4. And when he that doth flee
unto one of those cities shall stand at the entering of the gate of the
city, and shall declare his cause in the ears of the elders of that
city, they shall take him into the city unto them, and give him a
place, that he may dwell among them. 5. And if the avenger of blood
pursue after him, then they shall not deliver the slayer up into his
hand; because he smote his neighbour unwittingly, and hated him not
beforetime. 6. And he shall dwell in that city, until he stand before
the congregation for judgment, and until the death of the high priest
that shall be in those days: then shall the slayer return, and come
unto his own city, and unto his own house, unto the city from whence he
fled. 7. And they appointed Kedesh in Galilee in mount Naphtali, and
Shechem in mount Ephraim, and Kirjath-arba, which is Hebron, in the
mountain of Judah. 8. And on the other side Jordan by Jericho eastward,
they assigned Bezer in the wilderness upon the plain out of the tribe
of Reuben, and Ramoth in Gilead out of the tribe of Gad, and Golan in
Bashan out of the tribe of Manasseh. 9. These were the cities appointed
for all the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth
among them, that whosoever killeth any person at unawares might flee
thither, and not die by the hand of the avenger of blood, until he
stood before the congregation.'--JOSHUA xx. 1-9.
Our Lord has taught us that parts of the Mosaic legislation were given
because of the 'hardness' of the people's hearts. The moral and
religious condition of the recipients of revelation determines and is
taken into account in the form and contents of revelation. That is
strikingly obvious in this institution of the 'cities of refuge.' They
have no typical meaning, though they may illustrate Christian truth.
But their true significance is that they are instances of revelation
permitting, and, while permitting, checking, a custom for the abolition
of which Israel was not ready.
I. Cities of refuge were needed, because the 'avenger of blood' was
recognised as performing an imperative duty. 'Blood for blood' was the
law for the then stage of civilisation. The weaker the central
authority, the more need for supplementing it with the wild justice of
personal avenging. Neither Israel nor surrounding nations were fit for
the higher commandment of the Sermon on the Mount. 'An eye for an eye,
and a tooth for a tooth,' corresponded to their stage of progress; and
to have hurried them forward to 'I say unto you, Resist not evil,'
would only have led to weakening the restraint on evil, and would have
had no response in the hearers' consciences. It is a commonplace that
legislation which is too far ahead of public opinion is useless, except
to make hypocrites. And the divine law was shaped in accordance with
that truth. Therefore the _goel_, or kinsman-avenger of blood, was not
only permitted but enjoined by Moses.
But the evils inherent in his existence were great. Blood feuds were
handed down through generations, involving an ever-increasing number of
innocent people, and finally leading to more murders than they
prevented. But the thing could not be abolished. Therefore it was
checked by this institution. The lessons taught by it are the gracious
forbearance of God with the imperfections attaching to each stage of
His people's moral and religious progress; the uselessness of violent
changes forced on people who are not ready for them; the presence of a
temporary element in the Old Testament law and ethics.
No doubt many things in the present institutions of so-called Christian
nations and in the churches are destined to drop away, as the
principles of Christianity become more clearly discerned and more
honestly applied to social and national life. But the good shepherd
does not overdrive his flock, but, like Jacob, 'leads on softly,
according to the pace of the cattle that is before' him. We must be
content to bring the world gradually to the Christian ideal. To abolish
or to impose institutions or customs by force is useless. Revolutions
made by violence never last. To fell the upas-tree maybe very heroic,
but what is the use of doing it, if the soil is full of seeds of
others, and the climate and conditions favourable to their growth?
Change the elevation of the land, and the `flora' will change itself.
Institutions are the outcome of the whole mental and moral state of a
nation, and when that changes, and not till then, do they change. The
New Testament in its treatment of slavery and war shows us the
Christian way of destroying evils; namely, by establishing the
principles which will make them impossible. It is better to girdle the
tree and leave it to die than to fell it.
II. Another striking lesson from the cities of refuge is the now
well-worn truth that the same act, when done from different motives, is
not the same. The kinsman-avenger took no heed of the motive of the
slaying. His duty was to slay, whatever the slayer's intention had
been. The asylum of the city of refuge was open for the unintentional
homicide, and for him only, Deliberate murder had no escape thither. So
the lesson was taught that motive is of supreme importance in
determining the nature of an act. In God's sight, a deed is done when
it is determined on, and it is not done, though done, when it was not
meant by the doer. 'Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer,' and he
that killeth his brother unawares is none. We suppose ourselves to have
learned that so thoroughly that it is trivial to repeat the lesson.
What, then, of our thoughts and desires which never come to light in
acts? Do we recognise our criminality in regard to these as vividly as
we should? Do we regulate the hidden man of the heart accordingly? A
man may break all the commandments sitting in an easy-chair and doing
nothing. Von Moltke fought the Austro-Prussian war in his cabinet in
Berlin, bending over maps. The soldiers on the field were but pawns in
the dreadful game. So our battles are waged, and we are beaten or
conquerors, on the field of our inner desires and purposes. 'Keep thy
heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.'
III. The elaborately careful specification of cases which gave the
fugitive a right to shelter in the city is set forth at length in
Numbers xxxv. 15-24, and Deuteronomy xix. 4-13. The broad principle is
there laid down that the cities were open for one who slew a man
'unwittingly.' But the plea of not intending to slay was held to be
negatived, not only if intention could be otherwise shown but if the
weapon used was such as would probably kill; such, for instance, as 'an
instrument of iron,' or a stone, or a 'weapon of wood, whereby a man
may die.' If we do what is likely to have a given result, we are
responsible for that result, should it come about, even though we did
not consciously seek to bring it. That is plain common sense. 'I never
thought the house would catch fire' is no defence from the guilt of
burning it down, if we fired a revolver into a powder barrel. Further,
if the fatal blow was struck in 'hatred,' or if the slayer had lain in
ambush to catch his victim, he was not allowed shelter. These careful
definitions freed the cities from becoming nests of desperate
criminals, as the 'sanctuaries' of the Middle Ages in Europe became.
They were not harbours for the guilty, but asylums for the innocent.
IV. The procedure by which the fugitive secured protection is described
at length in the passages cited, with which the briefer account here
should be compared. It is not quite free from obscurity, but probably
the process was as follows. Suppose the poor hunted man arrived panting
at the limits of the city, perhaps with the avenger's sword within half
a foot of his neck; he was safe for the time. But before he could enter
the city, a preliminary inquiry was held 'at the gate' by the city
elders. That could only be of a rough-and-ready kind; most frequently
there would be no evidence available but the man's own word. It,
however, secured _interim_ protection. A fuller investigation followed,
and, as would appear, was held in another place,--perhaps at the scene
of the accident. 'The congregation' was the judge in this second
examination, where the whole facts would be fully gone into, probably
in the presence of the avenger. If the plea of non-intention was
sustained, the fugitive was 'restored to his city of refuge,' and there
remained safely till the death of the high-priest, when he was at
liberty to return to his home, and to stay there without fear.
Attempts have been made to find a spiritual significance in this last
provision of the law, and to make out a lame parallel between the death
of the high-priest, which cancelled the crime of the fugitive, and the
death of Christ, which takes away our sins. But--to say nothing of the
fact that the fugitive was where he was just because he had done no
crime--the parallel breaks down at other points. It is more probable
that the death of one high-priest and the accession of another were
regarded simply as closing one epoch and beginning another, just as a
king's accession is often attended with an amnesty. It was natural to
begin a new era with a clean sheet, as it were.
V. The selection of the cities brings out a difference between the
Jewish right of asylum and the somewhat similar right in heathen and
mediaeval times. The temples or churches were usually the sanctuaries
in these. But not the Tabernacle or Temple, but the priestly cities,
were chosen here. Their inhabitants represented God to Israel, and as
such were the fit persons to cast a shield over the fugitives; while
yet their cities were less sacred than the Temple, and in them the
innocent man-slayer could live for long years. The sanctity of the
Temple was preserved intact, the necessary provision for possibly
protracted stay was made, evils attendant on the use of the place of
worship as a refuge were avoided.
Another reason--namely, accessibility swiftly from all parts of the
land--dictated the choice of the cities, and also their number and
locality. There were three on each side of Jordan, though the
population was scantier on the east than on the west side, for the
extent of country was about the same. They stood, roughly speaking,
opposite each other,--Kedesh and Golan in the north, Shechem and Ramoth
central, Hebron and Bezer in the south. So, wherever a fugitive was, he
had no long distance between himself and safety.
We too have a 'strong city' to which we may 'continually resort.' The
Israelite had right to enter only if his act had been inadvertent, but
we have the right to hide ourselves in Christ just because we have
sinned wilfully. The hurried, eager flight of the man who heard the
tread of the avenger behind him, and dreaded every moment to be struck
to the heart by his sword, may well set forth what should be the
earnestness of our flight to 'lay hold on the hope set before us in the
gospel.' His safety, as soon as he was within the gate, and could turn
round and look calmly at the pursuer shaking his useless spear and
grinding his teeth in disappointment, is but a feeble shadow of the
security of those who rest in Christ's love, and are sheltered by His
work for sinners. 'I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never
perish, and no one shall pluck them out of My hand.'