The cities of refuge.
The appointment of cities of refuge by Moses is of great interest, as yielding a study in Jehovah's ways of educating his people, and of giving light and truth to men. We will see—
I. THE PLACE THIS INSTITUTION OCCUPIES IN HISTORY. £ So far as we are aware, there is nothing just now existing among civilized nations with which it is altogether analogous. The most recent regulations which seem to be a kind of reflection of it from afar, are those in the mediaeval Church, called "the right of sanctuary." Ecclesiastical historians inform us that the right of refuge in churches began as early as the days of Constantine; that at first only the altar and the interior of the Church was the place of refuge, but that afterwards any portion of the sacred precincts availed. This privilege was "not intended to patronize wickedness, but to give a place of shelter for the innocent, or, in doubtful cases, to give men protection till they could have a hearing, and to give bishops an opportunity of pleading for criminals." These refuges allowed thirty days' respite, though under the Anglo-Saxon law of King Alfred but three days were granted. It speaks but little for the advance of opinion then that the right of refuge was denied, not only to the openly wicked, but to heretics, apostates, and runaway slaves. In after times this right of sanctuary was granted even to notorious criminals, not excepting such as were guilty of treason. In early ages there were asyla among the Germans. Before that, among the Romans. In founding Rome, Romulus made it a place of refuge for criminals from other states, for the purpose of peopling the city. Further back, in the Greek states, the temples, altars, sacred groves, and statues of the gods possessed the privilege of protecting slaves, debtors, and criminals. And, if we go back further still, we find among Oriental peoples a custom known by the uncouth term, "blood-revenge," according to which, if a murder had been committed, the nearest of kin to the murdered man had a right to pursue the murderer and take vengeance on him. It is said that among the Arabs this right exists to the present day. In what form it existed among the ancient Egyptians we are able to infer from Mr. Lane's statement that it exists in almost savage wildness among the moderns. And we might gather, from the way in which Moses uses the term "avenger of blood," that the Hebrews may have been familiar with it, as having seen it practiced in Egypt, or as having received the custom from the nations among whom their fathers dwelt prior to going down into Egypt. This right of the nearest of kin to avenge a murder in a family is called goelism, from the word "goel," which has the two apparently incompatible meanings of "next of kin" and "avenger of blood." So that there are actually two institutions known of, in the light of which we have to look at these cities of refuge. One, goelism; the other, the right of sanctuary. Each of them was open to abuse. If the former had unrestricted sway, private revenge might bear very hardly on one who had accidentally killed another. Supposing the second to be left without guard, it might become the means of screening from justice criminals of the worst type. The first abuse was common among Oriental nations; the second, amongst Greeks, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, and the mediaeval sanctuaries of Europe. And it is only as we set the Mosaic institution in the double light of the earlier ones out of which it came, and of the later ones which came out of it, that its real value can be seen. Hence we see—
II. THE PURPOSE IT SERVED IN THE MOSAIC LEGISLATION. There is one fundamental principle on which the Mosaic civil code is based, i.e. the value of patient culture. Moses found certain abuses existing. He did not sweep them away at once, but aimed at educating the people out of them. With regard to this right of revenge, he established such a remarkable system of checks and counter-checks as surely only a superhuman wisdom could, in that age, have devised. Our space will only allow us to indicate these very briefly.
1. Moses recognizes the sacredness of human life, both to God and to man.
2. He provides that, when a wrong is done to society, it should be in some way recognized, and that society should have its own safeguard against the repetition thereof.
3. A great step would be gained if such reparation for the wrong as is needed for the sake of security could be gained without any peril of the wild play of private revenge (Deuteronomy 19:6; Numbers 35:24).
4. A broad distinction is to be made between wrongs (Numbers 35:25).
5. The examination of the case and the decision upon it were put into the hands of the people through their elders and judges.
6. The cities of refuge were selected where justice was most likely to be done; even from the cities of the Levites.
7. All this was doubly fenced from abuse. For
8. The reason is given in Numbers 35:33, Numbers 35:34. Now, when we know that all legislation has to be tested, not by the question, "What is absolutely the test?' but by "What is the best the people can bear?"—surely these laws give indications of a guidance and wisdom not less than Divine.
III. THE TYPICAL FORESHADOWINGS IN THIS INSTITUTION ARE NOTEWORTHY. They are many. The preacher may well luxuriate in working them out.
1. Outraged right requires vindication.
2. In vindicating the right and avenging the wrong, equity and kindness are to be studiously guarded. Grace is to reign through righteousness.
3. God, in his kindness, provides a refuge from the haste or excesses of private revenge.
4. God gives special directions concerning them. There was to be one in each district, so that the fleeing one might not have too far to go. The place was to be accessible; good roads thither were to be made. The Jews caught the spirit of the directions, and had direction-posts put at the corners of roads, with the words "Refuge! Refuge!" plainly put thereon. The same rule for a Hebrew applied to the stranger and foreigner. The refuge did not avail if a man did not rice thither. And there were sins for which it did not avail at all (see Numbers 35:11,Numbers 35:12, and Numbers 35:29-34); and where the refuge did avail it was only the death of the high priest which set a homicide entirely free from the consequences of his blood-shedding.
IV. THERE ARE SOME RELATED TRUTHS IN THE GOVERNMENT OF GOD WHICH ARE NOT FORESHADOWED IN THESE CITIES OF REFUGE. Two of these there are, and those so remarkable, that it is not surprising if some do not regard the cities of refuge as being typical at all.
1. Though the manslayer was to flee to the city, yet he was to flee from the goel. The opposite is the case under the gospel. We said that the word "goel" had two meanings, viz. that of "nearest of kin" and "avenger of blood," because the nearest of kin was the avenger of blood. But as the student traces the Bible use of this word, lo, it has a third meaning, even that of redeemer (Isaiah 41:14; Isaiah 43:14; Isaiah 44:24; Isaiah 48:17; Isaiah 54:5, Isaiah 54:8; Isaiah 60:16). Jehovah is the Goel. The Lord Jesus Christ is our next of kin, the avenger of wrong, the Redeemer. He has vindicated the majesty of Law by bearing the stroke, that it may not be inflicted on the penitent. He is at once our City of Refuge and our Goel. We flee to him, not from him.
2. The refuge was provided for the delay of judgment till the case was examined. Here, refuge is for the penitent, that he may never come into judgment at all He may say and sing—
"Should storms of sevenfold thunder roll,
And shake the globe from pole to pole,
No flaming bolt shall daunt my face,
For Jesus is my Hiding-place."
HOMILIES BY J. ORR.