Chapter 19
Cities of Refuge.
4 "This is the provision for the manslayer, who by fleeing there may save his life. If anyone kills his neighbor unintentionally without having hated him in the past-- 5 as when someone goes into the forest with his neighbor to cut wood, and his hand swings the axe to cut down a tree, and the head slips from the handle and strikes his neighbor so that he dies--he may flee to one of these cities and live, 6 lest the avenger of blood in hot anger pursue the manslayer and overtake him, because the way is long, and strike him fatally, though the man did not deserve to die, since he had not hated his neighbor in the past. [Deu 19:4-6 ESV]
2021 - The cities were to be chosen so that the distance to them was minimized in the whole region. The longer the distance, the more likely the manslayer was to be caught by the avenger, who would kill him when he really shouldn't, because it was an unintentional thing. The cities couldn't all be over on one side. Interesting also that "killers" were to be scattered around and not all concentrated in one region.
So the test was whether or not the killer had hated his victim, or had words with him, or had some other motive to kill the victim. Imagine that today in light of the kinds of serial killers we have, where the killer never knows his victim, but kills almost for sport. Under this rule, serial killers could seek refuge and be safe, so long as they stayed put. These serial killers we have today are not like anything seen in those days. Where did they come from, when did serial killing strangers begin, what and where are its roots? (This paragraph is from the first time I made notes, and I see now that it just isn't correct. Cities of refuge were only for those who killed entirely and completely by accident with no intention at all to do so. Serial killers most certainly do NOT fall into that category. Further, as discussed in a previous chapter, the one who fled to the City of Refuge still had to go on trial to determine if the death was truly an accident. If it was determined to be murder, the CoR would give him up to the avenger of blood. If it was an accident, entirely, the person still had to stay in the CoR until the high priest at the time of the crime had died. There were serious repercussions even for those who accidentally caused another's death.
The idea of the Cities of Refuge was that the killer by accident had no guilt, so if "the avenger of blood" killed him, then innocent blood was spilled. This verse summarizes:
10 lest innocent blood be shed in your land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance, and so the guilt of bloodshed be upon you. [Deu 19:10 ESV]
God eventually avenges innocent blood. It cries out to Him from the ground. First seen in the case of Cain and Abel, but mentioned again several times. (Where, exactly?) Abortion most certainly spills innocent blood, and it will eventually be avenged by God. Hmm...or it would have been under Mosaic Law. But we are not under that...Perhaps now, God's justice must wait for death sometimes. (8/13/20 Cain and Abel were not under Mosaic Law and the blood cried out from the ground. This still applies.) This seems very unfair, to let the very obviously guilty live a rich life, killing children and selling their organs, and then they just die of old age. No apparent consequences to them, or to those like them. But we know their fate, even though we may not see it in their lifetimes. Hmm...so we have to make up our minds here. Do we prefer a system where worshiping any god but God results in stoning at the gate of the city, or a system where people live out their lives, whether good or bad, or beyond bad, and justice is only guaranteed postmortem? Surely our modern sanitary way of doing things rebels against either system. Today, we'd consider the first system fanatical and the second system unjust. We want justice now, today, except for ourselves and our loved ones, in which case we want mercy and leniency and a second chance. That last is, in fact, the New Covenant, where repentance and salvation and eternity in paradise is available to all right up to the very second of death. That's why we don't stone people at the gate. It is so they have a chance to repent of their sin, and so once dead, have no excuse whatever. None can ever say "I would have repented tomorrow if I had just received a little bit of mercy."
2024 - This verse:
15 "A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. [Deu 19:15 ESV]. This would have been a dangerous time to live. Assassins are rarely seen. At the same time, in this day, there were no snipers either. To kill someone, you had to get up close. But a requirement that multiple people witness the crime before one could be committed was a pretty high bar and seems aimed more at preventing revenge by accusation and lies than at preventing the crime in the first place. More to protect the innocent until proven guilty. Now try and fit forensic evidence into this verse. Two DNA experts must agree? Two ballistics experts must agree? How often does someone go to prison because of one forensic witness and no eyewitnesses at all. The bar is lower if science is one of the witnesses. Science never lies, right?
Witnesses who lie:
18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. [Deu 19:18-19 ESV]
Imagine the effect this would have on frivolous lawsuits. Hmm...or would it have any at all? They are usually brought by attorneys hoping to get 65% of anything awarded, right or wrong. The one suing gets very little, and wouldn't have nearly as much to pay if they lose. So should one only be able to bring a suit for as much as they can pay if they lose? And should their law firm have to pay if their client cannot? That would certainly cut down on ambulance chasers. But it seems like the rich could bring a lot of tyranny on the poor if that was the rule also. It would have to be pretty blatant for attorneys to bring suit in that case.
In criminal cases though...You wouldn't want to accuse someone of murder falsely, if you knew you would be executed if they were proven innocent.
This section ends this way:
21 Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. [Deu 19:21 ESV]
Pretty clear that lying under oath was not to be tolerated. In today's terms, if a person claiming he got cancer from a chemical produced by a big company actually wins that lawsuit, the company pays money. But it isn't money the one who is suing lost. It is his life. So wouldn't someone from that company have to pay with his life? Things would be a lot different if we did things this way. Perhaps it should be the lawyer defending the company that dies if he loses. And if the one who brings the suit is shown to be lying about the cause of his disease - knowingly lying - then he's the one that has to pay all.
2023 - Every traffic stop ever made was a case of conviction by a single witness...well, it was unless there were two cops in the same car which is hardly ever the case any more. Under Mosaic Law, there would be no tickets when there was only one cop in the car. Wow. Think about that. Think how many more people would be speeding, and they would only "get caught" if they caused an accident. Only those who didn't recognize their own limitations wold end up in trouble. But think of the collateral damage that would accrue if we did things that way. Still, an interesting idea.