Cities of refuge

[Scrobulous]

In the law of Moses the issue of cities of refuge are mentioned several times. Deut chapter 19, for example tells us what these cities are for. They are places where a man can flee if he accidently kills someone.
It makes sense, after a fashion, but to me at least, it seems very odd that this should happen often enough to be an issue. Were Israelities particularly accident prone?
Why does the perpetrator of an accident have to flee? Could not instead a law be made forbidding the avenger of blood from behaving lawlessly and simply bring the matter before the judges?
I suspect there may be some deeper truth that I am missing here.
Any ideas from the wise on this forum?

 

[Deade]

In the law of Moses the issue of cities of refuge are mentioned several times. Deut chapter 19, for example tells us what these cities are for. They are places where a man can flee if he accidently kills someone.
It makes sense, after a fashion, but to me at least, it seems very odd that this should happen often enough to be an issue. Were Israelities particularly accident prone?
Why does the perpetrator of an accident have to flee? Could not instead a law be made forbidding the avenger of blood from behaving lawlessly and simply bring the matter before the judges?
I suspect there may be some deeper truth that I am missing here.
Any ideas from the wise on this forum?

In my first book, I addressed how a God-like country might be ran according to the Old Testament ideal. True, the cities of refuge would be a place to harbor those guilty of negligent manslaughter where the death were not premeditated. Which I think over simplifies the issue.

Let us address just what they are. They are the only thing they had that resembles a prison system. You need some kind of place to keep track of society's undesirables, so you need these. Notice, no one gets free room and board. If one wants to eat, he must work. How about the common thieves? What if they refused to pay restitution? These cities could be utilized to place them in a job and force them to pay. With the cities built on the honor system, I am not sure what you could use to hold them there. But restitution calls for them to be sold into slavery after confiscating all their possessions. At least the city might be an alternative to slavery. If they left, you could catch them and then make them slaves.

We couldn't implement an all round perfect solution, but this model would keep us from our current burdensome prison systems that drain our tax reserves. Any kind of financial crime could be covered like the restitution example above. At least we would not be rewarding people with free room and board just for being amoral. Of course, the death penalty would have to be implemented in the associated crimes and that carried out swiftly.

 

[Lanolin]

In the law of Moses the issue of cities of refuge are mentioned several times. Deut chapter 19, for example tells us what these cities are for. They are places where a man can flee if he accidently kills someone.
It makes sense, after a fashion, but to me at least, it seems very odd that this should happen often enough to be an issue. Were Israelities particularly accident prone?
Why does the perpetrator of an accident have to flee? Could not instead a law be made forbidding the avenger of blood from behaving lawlessly and simply bring the matter before the judges?
I suspect there may be some deeper truth that I am missing here.
Any ideas from the wise on this forum?

Im not going to say Im wise, but God is...and Hes shown that if you look in Genesis, even with Cain. Cain killed his brother Abel, it wasnt even by accident, although he was probably ignorant of the consequences of his actions. Back then of course there were no prisons, but what did God do? He put a mark on Cain and sent him away to the land of Nod. Cain fled because he was afraid that people would avenge his death...well we know the only people at the time he knew on earth were his parents! God effectively protected Cain from vengeance but he had to become a vagabond. This shows what a merciful God we have even when we dont deserve it. GOd could have judged and destroyed Cain right there and then. but He let him live and even raise a family of his own.

 

[WalkingTree]

Could not instead a law be made forbidding the avenger of blood from behaving lawlessly and simply bring the matter before the judges?

Ah, but was it against the law? Deut 19:18-21 states that God instructed that the sentence for being guilty was to do to them what they desired to do to the other. The command was eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. This was God's design for purging the evil from among the people. So when the 'avenger of the blood' kills the murderer he is actually following the law. And to show mercy on his situation he is not guilty in kind because it was not on his heart previously to kill that person. God distinguishes the sin by the heart intent of the person. He is not acting lawlessly, but becoming bound by the law to do such a thing.

It parallels Jesus act of sacrifice and why non-believing Jews can't get past his 'own bodily' offering. To them it's as lawless as can be. But the law was actually a pattern of this very thing. The life death and resurrection of Jesus. He eluded to this when he mentioned how David ate the holy bread but was not breaking the law by doing so. As well as in Hebrews where it describes the functions of the priest on the sabbath, who appear as though they break the very sabbath. But remain holy. Because it was commanded of them by God.

 

[Scrobulous]

Ah, but was it against the law? Deut 19:18-21 states that God instructed that the sentence for being guilty was to do to them what they desired to do to the other. The command was eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. This was God's design for purging the evil from among the people. So when the 'avenger of the blood' kills the murderer he is actually following the law. And to show mercy on his situation he is not guilty in kind because it was not on his heart previously to kill that person. God distinguishes the sin by the heart intent of the person. He is not acting lawlessly, but becoming bound by the law to do such a thing.

It parallels Jesus act of sacrifice and why non-believing Jews can't get past his 'own bodily' offering. To them it's as lawless as can be. But the law was actually a pattern of this very thing. The life death and resurrection of Jesus. He eluded to this when he mentioned how David ate the holy bread but was not breaking the law by doing so. As well as in Hebrews where it describes the functions of the priest on the sabbath, who appear as though they break the very sabbath. But remain holy. Because it was commanded of them by God.

Point taken. But this is the problem when one asks hypothetical questions. IF the law said that cases of accidental murder should be investigated by the judges and that the avenger should not unilaterally take revenge, then he would not be obeying the law by killing and the cities of refuge would not be needed!

 

[crossnote]

In the law of Moses the issue of cities of refuge are mentioned several times. Deut chapter 19, for example tells us what these cities are for. They are places where a man can flee if he accidently kills someone.
It makes sense, after a fashion, but to me at least, it seems very odd that this should happen often enough to be an issue. Were Israelities particularly accident prone?
Why does the perpetrator of an accident have to flee? Could not instead a law be made forbidding the avenger of blood from behaving lawlessly and simply bring the matter before the judges?
I suspect there may be some deeper truth that I am missing here.
Any ideas from the wise on this forum?

Seems to me a big purpose was to protect against rage...

Deu 19:6
(6) lest the avenger of blood in hot anger pursue the manslayer and overtake him, because the way is long, and strike him fatally, though the man did not deserve to die, since he had not hated his neighbor in the past.

I don't believe Israelites were any less prone to rage as anyone else. An act of rage could easily snuff out a life that was not guilty of 1st degree murder.

 

[Sipsey]

It would seem even the “eye for eye” and “tooth for tooth” was a limit placed upon justice that went “beyond” the actual crime committed, and mercy was demonstrated in the garden and even in the angelic conflict that preceded it.

 

[Laish]

In the law of Moses the issue of cities of refuge are mentioned several times. Deut chapter 19, for example tells us what these cities are for. They are places where a man can flee if he accidently kills someone.
It makes sense, after a fashion, but to me at least, it seems very odd that this should happen often enough to be an issue. Were Israelities particularly accident prone?
Why does the perpetrator of an accident have to flee? Could not instead a law be made forbidding the avenger of blood from behaving lawlessly and simply bring the matter before the judges?
I suspect there may be some deeper truth that I am missing here.
Any ideas from the wise on this forum?

This is how I see it . The cities were not just for someone that accidentally kills someone but for anyone that has killed another person. The cities were a place that a person will receive a trial for what has been done. Take a look at Numbers 35
Numbers 35 :12The cities shall be to you as a refuge from the avenger, so that the manslayer will not die until he stands before the congregation for trial. 13The cities which you are to give shall be your six cities of refuge. 14You shall give three cities across the Jordan and three cities in the land of Canaan; they are to be cities of refuge. 15These six cities shall be for refuge for the sons of Israel, and for the alien and for the sojourner among them; that anyone who kills a person unintentionally may flee there.

It’s was a place for a trial . Even if it’s determined that it was by accident. The manslayer still is banished to this city until the death of the current high priest . Also these cities were for not just Israelites they were for anyone that may have killed someone in the Promise Land . The refuge cities were put in place to that justice was not perverted .
Also I don’t believe the Israelites were accident prone . If you look at the censuses taken before the crossing of the Jordan of the men . Then add wives and children you could easily get a population approaching 2 million. . That is a large number of people that need laws in place for such a serious matter.

Blessings
Bill

 

[garee]

In my first book, I addressed how a God-like country might be ran according to the Old Testament ideal. True, the cities of refuge would be a place to harbor those guilty of negligent manslaughter where the death were not premeditated. Which I think over simplifies the issue.

Let us address just what they are. They are the only thing they had that resembles a prison system. You need some kind of place to keep track of society's undesirables, so you need these. Notice, no one gets free room and board. If one wants to eat, he must work. How about the common thieves? What if they refused to pay restitution? These cities could be utilized to place them in a job and force them to pay. With the cities built on the honor system, I am not sure what you could use to hold them there. But restitution calls for them to be sold into slavery after confiscating all their possessions. At least the city might be an alternative to slavery. If they left, you could catch them and then make them slaves.

We couldn't implement an all round perfect solution, but this model would keep us from our current burdensome prison systems that drain our tax reserves. Any kind of financial crime could be covered like the restitution example above. At least we would not be rewarding people with free room and board just for being amoral. Of course, the death penalty would have to be implemented in the associated crimes and that carried out swiftly.

The city of refuge is Christ who calls us Christians, a word when defined that means "residents of the city of Christ" named after her founder Christ A place we can find rest from the accusers of the brethren accusing them day and night.


Psalm 9:9The Lord also will be a refuge for the oppressed, a refuge in times of trouble.

Although the death pentallity is appropriate for some crimes. The place of refuge can also be a place to protect the person
from a punishment of perhaps the easy way out the death penalty rather that suffering a living hell with no rest that could come from believing God .

The death penalty suffering without rest was more than Cain could bear as restless wanderer, All the days of His life on earth he had no sabbath rest that some enjoy when they do mix faith in what they hear.

The mark of Cain, (666) as a restless wanderer or called a fugitive and a vagabond did not mark him to be killed but a mark that others were not to interfere with the living hell the person was experiencing without any place of rest or refuge.

And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear.Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.genesis 4:11-16

The final trial on the last day when the second death and the suffering of hell will be cast into the lake of fire.