Lesson #13 - Cities of REFUGE

Here is the link to the lesson study and discussion material for the thirteen and final lesson of this fourth and final quarter of 2009:

http://ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/09d/less13.html

What are cities of refuge all about?

Murderers could run to one of the cities of refuge and be protected by law from retribution. However, I don't understand how the guy desiring revenge is any less a sinner.

The cities of refuge were among the cities of the Levites. I hadn't paid attention to that fact.

Núm 35:6 And among the cities which you shall give to the Levites there shall be six cities for refuge, which you shall appoint for the manslayer, so that he may flee there. And you shall add forty-two cities to them.

Some questions for reflection made by Joyce Griffith:

God's system of justice. How does God condemn sin today? Have you ever felt the consequences of a bad choice you made? Or the rewards of obedience? At this point in the story, God's people are about to enter an age of slaughter and battle on a grand scale. Why did God set up such a complicated method of dealing with an occasional murder or accidental killing? With all the death they are about to witness first hand, why does God ask the Israelites to distinguish between accidental and deliberate killing? Did the cities of refuge provide comfort and rescue for sinners and non-sinners alike? How eager should our church be today to welcome sinners to worship with us? Should we strive to be a place of refuge for the accused? Are you sure?

Bad and good people in church. Does God have a system for dealing with sinners in His church today? In what ways does God offer us refuge from the penalties of sin? Have you ever known a "bad" person who insisted on coming to church? What if that person was caught touching a youngster in an inappropriate way? Do you as a member have a responsibility to protect our members from bad people? What about drug users? Do you take the time and effort to be sure that all members who work with children in your church are free from the practice of child molestation? Or is it so embarrassing to think about such predators in the church that you do nothing? If God expected the children of Israel to take an active role in exercising judgment, do you think he expects at least as much of us? Or not? Discuss.

It wasn't a case of desiring revenge. It was a duty which had to be performed.

Núm 35:15 These six cities shall be a refuge for the sons of Israel, and for the stranger, and for anyone who stays among them, so that everyone who kills any person through error may flee there.
Núm 35:16 And if he strikes him with an instrument of iron, so that he dies, he is a murderer. The murderer shall surely be put to death.
Núm 35:17 And if he strikes him by throwing a stone, with which he may die, and if he dies, he is a murderer. The murderer shall surely be put to death.
Núm 35:18 Or if he strikes him with a hand weapon of wood, with which he may die, and if he dies, he is a murderer. The murderer shall surely be put to death.
Núm 35:19 The revenger of blood himself shall kill the murderer. When he meets him, he shall kill him.
Núm 35:20 And if he stabs him from hatred, or hurls at him by lying in wait, so that he dies,
Núm 35:21 or in hatred strikes him with his hand so that he dies, he who struck him shall surely be put to death. He is a murderer. The revenger of blood will kill the murderer when he meets him.

From reading those verses, it seems that it is OK for the revenger to kill the murderer.

In other words, if somebody killed your spouse, you could kill the person who killed your spouse.

I would say, you should kill the person. It was your sacred duty to do so. There was a death penalty for murder as there was a death penalty for adultery. The difference was that the adulterer should be stoned by the whole congregation, while the murderer should be killed by the nearest of kin of the person murdered.

Num 35:33 So you shall not defile the land in which you are. For blood defiles the land. And the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of him that shed it.
Num 35:34 So do not defile the land which you shall inhabit, in which I dwell. For I Jehovah dwell among the sons of Israel.

A rule of law comes in here that no man shall be put to death upon the testimony of one witness, but it was necessary that there should be two (Num. 35:30); this law is settled in all capital cases (Deut. 17:6; Deut. 19:15).

If he intentionally murders someone, then, yes, the law requires the avenger, after due process, to execute him. But the part that sounds weird to me is the avenger can kill him without due process if he catches him before he makes it to a city of refuge or if he leaves the city of refuge before the high priest dies. Plus he is not to take satisfaction in it.

Mike,

It's not weird. It's actually quite sensible. It was this form of "justice" which enforced the jail sentence upon the murderer--for that is effectively what the cities of refuge were. They were a form of prison, in which their walls stood as the boundary, and in which the prisoner must abide until the end of his sentence (the death of the high priest). Once the high priest's death had occasioned the prisoners' release, the avengers of blood could no longer avenge the murder if the murderer came outside the walls of his incarceration. If it were not for the fear of their own lives, the murderers would have wandered free (i.e. "escaped") without having served their full sentence.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

But if a trial determined it was an accident, why should he be treated as guilty?

I think the word for unintentional death is manslaughter, which resulted in a different penalty, but a penalty nevertheless.

But subject to death at the hands of an avenger?

A lot of the laws of Israel had symbolic value.

The wages of sin is death.
All have sinned.
Thus all have the death sentence upon themselves.

BUT

God has given us a "city of refuge" in Jesus.
Flee to Him for He has the gift of life.

Now in the type, a defiant sinner was turned away.
We must come in contrition and longing to stop sinning.

As long as we abide in Christ, in His forgiveness and His righteousness we are safe.
Should we wander out of His care we expose ourselves to the attack of the enemy and unless we get right back into that city of refuge we will lose out on eternal life.

Some things are hard to understand. I guess that's why people like Tom try to explain these more difficult passages in ways other than what the plain words say.

The laws of "kinsmen" were rather strong in Bible times.
This included laws like the "redeeming" of a kinsman's lands or even his person from slavery.
But it also included executing judgment against someone who sinned against one's kinsman.
It was the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life rule. The punishment was not to exceed the crime.

But I can understand the questioning --
One wonders how many "avengers" after they put the murderer to death, then had to flee to a city of refuge because a kinsman of the murderer now sought to avenge the death of the murderer.

The avenge system was very much a part of the culture back then and fueds often continued for generations -- and the punishment usually far exceeded the crime. God's cities of refuge were a provision to bring a level of fairness into that system. God's directions was that the punishment was NOT to exceed the crime.

Thanx, Dedication.