Skip to main content

A Place of Refuge: Deuteronomy 19

In Summary:

Establishing the nation of Israel is no picnic. Deuteronomy 19 lays down principles for the judicial system. Both of the major concepts in this chapter related to slowing down the wheels of justice to ensure they don’t turn too fast and run over the innocent.

Two concepts are in view here. The first is the cities of refuge. This idea went hand-in-hand with the principle of personal retribution in the justice system. It was the right and responsibility of the near relatives of a murder victim to bring the murderer to justice. They were to bring him before the city elders and be the first hand to strike in execution—and if he would not be brought, then they could utilize appropriate force to bring him. This might lead to his death, but that was the nature of the situation.

Note that the above paragraph is a synthesis of my understanding of Deuteronomy and what I have read regarding social customs of the time. There is not specific chapter and verse for that exact sentiment.

Unfortunately, though, accidents happen. Sometimes those accidents cost people their lives. In a loved one’s anguish over the death of their father, brother, friend, one could expect an overreaction to these accidents. One could expect that people, in their frustration, might not be cautious in apprehending the killer or in making sure he returned to face justice alive. What should the accused do in that case?

This is where the cities of refuge came in: these were defined locations where an accused person could flee. Once within the walls of a city of refuge, they were safe until a trial could be conducted. If truly guilty, then justice was still fulfilled. If they were innocent, then justice was still fulfilled.

We also see the second concept: the importance of trustworthy witnesses. While the principle of “two or more witnesses” is abused by some today to escape justice for secret sin, it is still an important concept. One must examine the trustworthiness of witnesses before rendering a final judgment. This was established to prevent one person’s lies to cost another their life. Even so, accusations were still to be considered: justice required the guilty party be found. If a lying witness, then so be it. If a criminal, so be it.

In Focus:

In focus, look at Deuteronomy 18:8-10. These verses command the Israelites that the opportunity for justice and mercy should expand with their territory. Rather than locking into the confines of the original law, the Israelites were to recognize the principle behind that law and act on it. Instead of staying with three cities, they were to add three more. This is actually fulfilled in the occupation, as the Israelites set aside three on each side of the Jordan River.

In Practice:

What does this look like in practice for us?

First: justice, mercy, and truth go together. The principle here is that justice cannot be obtained based on lies. Further, that we must be merciful until there is a point of certainty regarding guilt. These three concepts go together. Are we living that way?

Second: individual justice and community righteousness go together. There is nothing here that supports visiting punishment on an innocent person because someone needs to pay for a bad thing. That’s not an option. The wicked must be punished, but the innocent also must not. Are we living that way? Are we pushing society to work in that way?

In Nerdiness:


A short note on Deuteronomy 19:14 for the nerds: how does not moving the ancient boundary stone apply today? Is it relevant in recognizing traditions or ideas passed on from prior generations?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Book Review: The Heart Mender by @andyandrews (Andy Andrews)

The Heart Mender: A Story of Second ChancesEver read a book that you just kind of wish is true?  That's my take on The Heart Mender by Andy Andrews.  It's a charming story of love and forgiveness, and it's woven into the historical setting of World War II America.  For the narrative alone, the book is worth the read, but the message it contains is well worth absorbing as well.However, let's drop back a minute.  This book was originally published under the title Island of Saints.  I read Island of Saints and enjoyed it greatly.  Now, Andrews has released it under a new title, with a few minor changes.  All of this is explained in the Author's Note at the beginning, but should be noted for purchaser's sake.  If you read Island of Saints, you're rereading when you read The Heart Mender.  Now, go ahead and reread it.  It will not hurt you one bit.Overall, the story is well-paced.  There are points where I'd like more detail, both in the history and the geog…

Abraham Lincoln Quoted by Jesus! Mark 3

Mark records a curious event in his third chapter (link). If you look at Mark 3:25, you'll see that Jesus quotes the sixteenth President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. After all, one of the highlights of the Lincoln years is his famous speech regarding slavery in the United States where he used the phrase that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." This speech was given in 1858 when he accepted the nomination to run against Stephen A. Douglas for Senate, but is still remembered as the defining speech regarding slaveholding in the United States. I recall being taught in school how brilliant and groundbreaking the speech was, how Lincoln had used such wise words to convey his thought. Yet the idea was not original to Lincoln. Rather, it was embedded in Lincoln from his time reading the Bible. Now, I have read varying reports about Lincoln's personal religious beliefs: some place him as a nearly completely committed Christian while others have him somewh…

Independence Day 2017

I don’t know if Thomas Paine will be aggrieved that I paste his thoughts from Common Sense here, from the electronic edition. It’s a Public Domain work at this point, so hopefully none will be bothered that I am not paying for it...I think there is value in seeing the underlying reasons of Independence. I find a couple of things noteworthy in his introduction:First, he speaks of those who disagree and, while calling those out, holds the strength of his affirmative argument will be enough to straighten them out. We could do well to think more like that.Second, his final sentence should be a required view: the influence of reason and principle. Not self-interest masquerading as principle. Not party propaganda disguised as reason.That being said, not everything Paine said is right. If he and I lived at the same time, we’d argue religion over a great deal. However, the idea of “natural rights of man” follows from the idea of humanity as a special creation—that all are created equal and en…