In Numbers 35 and Joshua 20 we are told about the six cities of refuge provided by God for the person who slays another to flee to until a proper trial. In this chapter they are told that when they enter the land, they were to appoint three cities. Three had already been appointed on the east side of the Jordan, before they crossed over to the land, for those who were to occupy the land on the east side, Reuben, Gad and half tribe of Manasseh. They were to prepare roads and set up these cities in three areas which would be accessible for the people (v1-3).
The purpose of these cities is outlined in v 4-7. The manslayer may flee there and live. If someone kills his neighbour unintentionally, without hatred, and by accident, he could flee there so that the avenger of blood could not put him to death. The cities were for their protection. The avenger of blood was responsible for the punishment of the murderer according to Genesis 9:6.
An example is given – if man and his neighbour go to cut down trees and his hand slips from the handle of his axe and it hits him, and he dies. There was no evidence of hatred, he must flee to the city of refuge for protection.
God provided for them getting a bigger population and area of territory as they progressively took the land promised to them if they kept His commandments to love The LORD and walk in is ways. In that case they were to add three more cities of refuge to prevent shedding innocent blood (v8-10).
God was totally just and did not permit them to allow the guilty to go scot free. He said that if anyone hated his neighbour, lie in wait and strike him that he dies and he flees to the city of refuge. The elders of his city, finding that he was guilty, were to hand him over to the avenger of blood. They were not to show pity (v11-13).
From my visiting prison it would be easy to see that some would protest their innocence even though they were guilty. The elders of the city were responsible for determining their guilt or innocence and whether they should have the protection of the city of refuge. God, in His absolute justice, was and is concerned for the punishment of the guilty just as much as the protection and vindication of the innocent.
It seems that in our world we are more concerned for the guilty being unpunished. We often meet those who want to let them off with petty punishments, which, in many cases, are no punishment at all. We are ready to make excuses for them. God is absolute in His justice and so should we aim to be. He is by no means cruel and neither should we be, but we need to be firm. By all means protect the innocent but mete out suitable punishment for the guilty. It should not be barbaric, vicious, or cruel. God has no joy in the shedding of innocent blood.
What a privilege we have as Christians. Our ‘refuge’ is The Lord Jesus Christ – We are no longer under condemnation if we are ‘in Christ Jesus’ Romans 8:1.
God’s commands cover all aspects of everyday life and here (v14) we have instructions regarding the right to private property and that others were not permitted to take it unlawfully.
Once again God stresses the importance of witnesses and that they tell the truth (v15-20). Again, the importance of two or three witnesses is stated for any allegation. Coming to the present day, the question arises about forensic evidence, fingerprints, blood samples and such like. It would seem that these are independent witnesses and should be acceptable as valid evidence.
If a false witness rises against any man, both the witness and the accused were to be brought before The LORD, the priests and judges and the judges were to make diligent inquiry. If the false witness is found to be false, the same shall be done to him as he sought to do to the accused. This was so that the people would hear of it and fear and be deterred from doing such things. Unlike many in the modern world who would say to the contrary, The Bible states very clearly that effective punishment is a deterrent to crime.
In v21 we have a phrase commonly used today, ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’. We need to look carefully at the context of this as it is usually quoted as a way of revenge, which it is certainly not. It is stated here in the context of the punishment for a false witness. It was nothing to do with revenge, rather, it was for the judges to do to the false witness what he wanted done to the accused, nothing more.
