THE CITIES OF REFUGE
Numbers 35; Numbers 36
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 Joshua 21. 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 {Num 35:2,
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 Jdg 17:7
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 manslayer 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
goel, 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 goel 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 elicted. 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 Num 35:16 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 Jos 20:4 the statute runs that the
manslayer 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," Num 35:24, 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 Num 35:30 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
manslayer 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 goal’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 manta 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" (Num 35:25). 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 manslayer 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 fellowmen,
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 mystical 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.
|