Numbers 35
THE LEVITICAL CITIES,
AND CITIES OF REFUGE (vs. 1-15)
1 “And the
LORD spake unto Moses in the
plains of
Jericho, saying, 2
Command the children of Israel, that they give unto the
Levites of the inheritance of their
possession cities to dwell in;” - This
legislation forms the natural sequel and complement of the Divine
decrees already
promulgated concerning the Levites. Separated from the rest of the
tribes from the
time of the first census (ch.1:49), excluded from any tribal inheritance
(ch.18:20), but
endowed with tithes and offerings for their maintenance (Ibid.
v.21), it was also
necessary that they should be provided with homes for themselves and
their cattle.
They might indeed have been left to exist as they could,
and where they could, upon
the
provision made for them in the law. But, on the one hand, that provision was
itself precarious, depending as it did upon the piety and good
feeling of the people
(which must often have been found
wanting: compare Nehemiah 13:10; Malachi 3:8-9);
and,
on the other, it is evident that the Levites were intended, as far as their
family and
social life was concerned, to share the ordinary comforts and
enjoyments of Israelites.
Nothing could have been more foreign to the Mosaic ideal
than a ministry celibate,
ascetic, and detached from this world’s wealth, such as readily enough sprang up
(whether intended or not) under
the teaching of the gospel (Luke 10:4; 12:33;
Acts 20:34-35; I Corinthians 7:7, 25-26; 9:18, 27; II
Corinthians 6:10; II Timothy
2:4) - “and
ye shall give also unto the Levites suburbs” - The
Hebrew word
vr;g]mi
undoubtedly means here a pasture, or a
paddock, an enclosed place outside
the
town into which the cattle were driven by day to feed. It is possible that the
Authorized Version may have used the word “suburbs’’ in that sense. To keep
cattle to some extent was not only a universal custom, but was
well-nigh a necessity
of
life in that age - “for the
cities round about them.”
3 “And the
cities shall they have to dwell in; and the suburbs of them
shall be for their cattle,” - μT;m]h,b]li, “for their great cattle,” i.e., oxen,
camels, and any other beasts of draught or burden -“and for their goods,” -
“For their
possessions,” which in
this connection would mean their ordinary
“livestock,” chiefly
sheep and goats; the word itself (μv;Wkr]li) is indeterminate –
“and for all their
beasts.” - μt;Y;j"AlkOl]
an expression which apparently only
sums up what has previously been mentioned.
4 “And the
suburbs of the cities, which ye shall give unto the Levites, shall
reach from the wall of the city and outward a
thousand cubits round about.”
5 “And ye
shall measure from without the city” - (ry[il;
xWjmi — e]xw
th~v po>lewv – exo taes poleos
– outside the city) - “on the east side two
thousand cubits, and on the south side two thousand
cubits, and on
the west side two thousand cubits, and on the
north side two thousand cubits;” –
These directions are very obscure. Some have held that the country for 1000
cubits
beyond the walls was
reserved for pasture (according to v. 4), and for
another 1000
cubits for fields and vineyards, so that the Levitical
lands extended 2000 cubits in all
directions. This is reasonable in itself, since 2000 cubits is only
half a mile, and rather
more than a square mile of land would not seem too much for pastures,
gardens, etc.,
for
a town with at least 1000 inhabitants. The smallest tribe territories seem to
have
comprised some 300 square miles of country; and if we take the Levitical towns as
averaging 1000 cubits square, their forty-eight cities would only
give them seventy-three
square miles of territory. There is, however, no notice of
anything being given to
the
Levites except their “suburbs,” so
that this explanation must be at best
very doubtful. Others have argued for a plan according to which each outer
boundary, drawn at 1000 cubits’ distance from the wall, would
measure
2000 cubits, plus the length of the town wall; but this is
far too artificial,
and
could only be considered possible as long as it was confined to a paper
sketch, for it presupposes that each city lay four-square, and
faced the four
points of the compass. If the first explanation be untenable, the
only
alternative sufficiently simple and natural is to suppose that, in
order to
avoid irregularities of measurement, each outer boundary was to
be drawn
at
an approximate distance of 1000 cubits from the wall, and each of an
approximate length of 2000 cubits; at the angles the lines would have
to be
joined as best they might. In Leviticus 25:32-34 certain
regulations are
inserted in favor of the Levites. Their houses might be redeemed at
any
time, and not only within the full year allowed to others; moreover, they
returned to them (contrary to the general rule) at the year of
Jubilee. Their
property in the “suburbs”
they could not sell at all, for it was inalienable. It
is
difficult to believe that these regulations were really made at Mount
Sinai, presupposing, as they do, the legislation of this
chapter; but if they
were actually made at this time, on the eve of the conquest, it is easy to
see
why
they were subsequently inserted in the chapter which deals generally
with the powers of sale and redemption -“and the city shall be in the midst:
this shall be to them the suburbs of the cities.”
6 “And
among the cities” - Rather, “and the cities.” μyr[;h,
ta,w]
— kai<
ta<v po>leiv – kai tas poleis – the cities which - The construction is broken,
or
rather is continuous throughout vs. 6-8, the accusative being repeated - “which ye
shall give unto the Levites there shall be six
cities for refuge,” - See below on
v. 11 -
“which ye shall appoint for the manslayer, that he may flee thither: and
to them ye shall add forty and two
cities.”
7 “So all
the cities which ye shall give to the Levites shall be forty and
eight cities:” -
The Levites numbered nearly 50,000 souls
(see on ch. 26:62), so
that each Levitical city would have an average
population of about 1000 to start with.
There seems no sufficient reason for supposing that they
shared their towns with men
of
the surrounding tribe. Even if the provision made for their habitation was
excessive
at
first (which does not appear), yet their rate of increase should have been
exceptionally high, inasmuch as they were not liable to military
service. It is possible
that mystical reasons led to the selection of the number forty-eight (12 x
4, both typical
of
universality), but it is at least equally probable that it was determined by
the actual
numbers of the tribe -
“them shall ye give with their suburbs.”
8 “And the
cities which ye shall give shall be of the possession of the children
of
have few ye shall give few: every one shall
give of his cities unto the Levites
according to his inheritance which he inheriteth.” And the cities which ye shall
give shall be, - Rather, “And as to the cities
which ye shall give from the possession
of
the children of
decrease.” What seems to be a
general rule of proportionate giving
is laid
down here, but it was not carried out, and it is not easy to see how it
could
have been. From the large combined
cities were indeed surrendered (Joshua 21), but all the rest,
great and small,
gave up four apiece, except Naphtali, which gave up three only. As the
was
probably for no other reason than that the tribe stood last on the list.
Every one. Hebrew, vyai.
It was in fact each tribe that surrendered so
many cities, but since the tribal inheritance was the joint property of all
the
tribesmen, every man felt that he was a party to the gift. No doubt
it was
the Divine
intention to foster in the tribes as far as possible this local
feeling of interest and
property in the Levites who dwelt among them
(compare the expression “their scribes and Pharisees” in Luke
5:30).
The dispersion of the Levites (however mysteriously
connected with the
prophecy of Genesis 49:5-7) was obviously designed to form a bond
of
unity for all
religion, and by keeping up a constant communication between the
future
capital and all the provinces. According to the Divine ideal
whole was hJ ejklogh> - hae eklogae - the election - from
all the earth, the Levites
were the ejklogh>
of
family was at present too small to be influential, but the
Levites were numerous
enough to have leavened the whole nation if they had walked worthy of their
calling. They were
gathered together in towns of their own, partly no doubt in
order to avoid disputes, but partly that they might have a
better opportunity of
setting forth the true ideal of what Jewish life should be.
9 “And the
LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 10
Speak unto the children
of
of
God had already announced that He would appoint a place
whither one guilty of
unpremeditated manslaughter might flee for safety (Exodus 21:13). The
expression
there used does not point to more than one “place,” but it is not inconsistent with
several. Probably the right of sanctuary has been recognized from the earliest times
in
which any local appropriation of places
to sacred purposes has been made. It is
an
instinct of religion to look upon one
who has escaped into a sacred enclosure as
being under the personal
protection of the presiding deity. It is certain that the right
was largely
recognized in
ambitious; and this is no doubt the reason (humanly speaking) for
the promise in
(Ibid.), and for the command in the
following verse. Inasmuch as the whole of
but
it was obviously suitable that they should be Levitical
cities; the Divine prerogative
of
mercy could nowhere be better exercised, nor would any citizens be better
qualified
to
pronounce and to uphold the rightful decision in each case - “that the slayer may
flee thither, which killeth
any person at unawares.”
12 “And
they shall be unto you cities for refuge from the avenger;” - Hebrew,
laegO. Septuagint, apo ajgcisteuontov to< ai=ma – apo agchisteuontos
to aima -
from the avenger of blood. In all other
passages (twelve in number) where the word
occurs in this sense it is qualified by the addition “of blood.”
Standing by itself, it
is
everywhere else translated “kinsman,”
or (more properly) “redeemer,”
and
is constantly applied in that sense to GOD
OUR SAVIOUR (Job 19:25;
Isaiah 63:16). The two ideas, however, which seem to us so
distinct, and even
so
opposed, are in their origin one. To the men of the primitive age, when public
justice was not, and when might was right, the only protector was
one who could
and
would avenge them of their wrongs, and by
avenging prevent their repetition.
This champion of the injured individual, or rather family,
— for rights and wrongs
were thought of as belonging to families rather than to individuals, was
their goel,
who
had their peace, their safety, above all, their honor, in his charge. For no
sentiments spring up quicker, and none exercise a more tyrannous
sway, than the
sentiment of honor, which in its various and often strangely
distorted forms has
always perhaps outweighed all other considerations in the minds
of men. Now the
earliest form in which the sentiment of honor asserted itself was
in the blood-feud.
If one member of a family was slain, an intolerable shame
and sense of contumely
rested upon the family until blood had been avenged by blood,
until “satisfaction”
had
been done by the death of the manslayer. He who freed the family from this
intolerable pain and humiliation — who enabled it to hold up its head,
and to
breathe freely once more — was the goel; and in the natural order of things he
was
the nearest “kinsman” of the slain
who could and would take the duty upon
him.
To these natural feelings was added in many cases a religious sentiment which
regarded homicide as a sin against the higher Powers for which they
too demanded
the
blood of the guilty. Such was the feeling among the Greeks, and probably among
the
Egyptians, while among the Hebrews it could plead Divine sanction, given in the
most comprehensive terms: “Your blood of
your lives will I require, at the hand
of every
beast will I require it; and at the hand of man;… whoso sheddeth
man’s
blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Genesis
9:5-6). The moral
difficulties of this
proclamation need not here be considered; it is enough to take note
that the Divine law itself recognized the duty as well as the lawfulness of
private
blood-revenge when public justice could not be depended
on. The
goel, therefore, was
not merely the natural champion of his family, nor only
the
deliverer who satisfied the imperious demands of an artificial code of
honor; he was a minister of God, in whose patient efforts to
hunt down
his
victim the thirst for vengeance was to some extent at least superseded
by,
or rather transmuted into, the longing to glorify God (compare the
difficult case of Revelation 6:10). It
was not merely human feelings of
great
reach and tenacity which were outraged by the immunity of the
manslayer; it was still more the justice of God which received a
grievous
wound.
Just because, however, God had made the cause
of the slain man
His own, and had sanctioned the avenging mission of the goel, He could
therefore regulate the course of vengeance so as to make it run as
even as
possible with true justice. It was not indeed possible to
distinguish ab initio
between the homicide which deserved and that which did not deserve
capital punishment. Such distinction, difficult under any
circumstances, was
impossible when vengeance was in private hands. But while the goel could
not
be restrained from immediate pursuit unhindered by investigation or
compunction (lest his whole usefulness be paralyzed), the manslayer might
have opportunity to escape, and to be sheltered under the
Divine mercy
until he could establish (if
that were possible) his innocence. No better
instance can be found of the way in which the King of Israel
adopted the
sentiments and institutions of a semi-barbarous age, added to them
the
sanctions of religion, and so modified them as to secure the maximum
of
practical good consistent with the social state and moral feelings of
the
people. No doubt many an individual was overtaken and slain by
the goel
who
did. not deserve to die according to our ideas; but
where perfection
was
unattainable, this error was far less dangerous
to that age than the
opposite error of diminishing the sanctity of human life and the
awfulness of Divine justice.
(This is something that those against capital
punishment and are pro-choice, need to contemplate BEFORE THE GREAT
DAY OF JUDGMENT! – CY – 2012) - “that the manslayer die not, until he
stand before the congregation in judgment.” The
congregation. Hebrew, hd;[e.
This word is used frequently from Exodus 12:3 to the end
of this chapter, and again in
Joshua and the last two chapters of
Judges. It is not found in Deuteronomy,
nor often
in
the later books. In every case apparently eydah
signifies the whole nation as gathered
together, e.g., as represented by all who had an
acknowledged right to appear, for of
course 600,000 men could not gather together in any one place.
The force of the word
may
be understood by reference to its use in Judges 20:1; 21:10, 13, 16. Another word
(lh;q;) is also used, less frequently in Leviticus and Numbers,
but more frequently in the
later books, for the general
assembly of the people of
meaning can be drawn between the two words, and it cannot, therefore, be maintained
that the“congregation” of this verse means
the local elders of Joshua 20:4. The
regulations there laid down are not inconsistent with the present law,
but are quite
independent of it. They refer to a preliminary hearing of the case as
stated by the fugitive
alone in order to determine his right to shelter in the mean
time; which right, if accorded,
was
without prejudice to the future judgment of the “congregation” on the whole facts
of
the case (see below on v. 25).
13 “And of
these cities which ye shall give six cities shall ye have for refuge.”
Six cities. See on Deuteronomy
19:8-9, where three more are apparently ordered to
be
set aside upon a certain contingency:
14 “Ye
shall give three cities on this side Jordan,” - According
to Deuteronomy
4:41-43, Moses himself severed these three cities, Bezer of the Reubenites, Ramoth
of
the Gadites, and Golan of the Manassites. Those verses, however, seem to be an
evident interpolation where they stand, and are hardly consistent
with previous statements
if
taken literally. It is tolerably clear
that the two tribes had only formed temporally
settlements hitherto, and that their boundaries were not defined as
yet; also that the
Levitical cities (to which the cities of refuge were to belong) were
not separated until
after the conquest. It is likely that the passage in Deuteronomy
is a fragment, the real
meaning of which is that Moses ordered the severance of three
cities on that side
afterwards selected -
“and three cities shall ye give in the
which shall be cities of refuge. 15 “These
six cities shall be a refuge, both
for the children of
them: that every one that killeth
any person unawares may flee thither.”
LAWS CONCERNING HOMICIDE (vs. 16-34).
16 “And if
he smite him with an instrument of iron,” - There is no reasonable
Doubt that ly,r]B" has here (as elsewhere) its proper meaning of iron. The
expression must be held to include both weapons and other
instruments; the former
may
have been mostly made of bronze, but where iron is used at all it is sure to be
employed in war -“so
that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely
be put to death.” (“the murderer shall surely be put to death” - Perhaps if
this phrase was incorporated in modern sitcoms at every opportunity, much like
subliminal references to sex, drugs, and anti-capital punishment is infused into so
called entertainment today, “the murderer shall surely be put to
death” - if
these words were subtlety woven into game show
questions like those
about sex, drugs, abortion and other progressive
causes, “the murderer
shall surely be put to
death” - if crossword puzzles
contained this
reference, then, perhaps, our culture would be
influenced to DO
NOT SO
WICKEDLY AGAINST GOD, and Biblical thinking would be more prevalent
in our society, the way it was when television first came on the scene. Perhaps
the American public would be brainwashed into correct thinking, much like
they are hoodwinked now by constant and repetitious placing of secular ideas
before them today.
Perhaps this is awkwardly stated but YOU KNOW
WHAT I MEAN! - CY – 2012)
17 “And if
he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die,”
Literally, “with a
stone of the hand, by which one may die,” i.e., a stone
which is suitable for striking or throwing, and apt to inflict a
mortal wound -
“and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be
put to death.”
(
incorporate this idea in repetitiously, BUT
GOD’S WORD DOES! “THE
MURDERER SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH! –
CY – 2012)
18 “Or if
he smite him with an hand weapon of wood,” - A club, or other
such
formidable instrument - “wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer:
the murderer shall surely be put to
death. (HE IS A
MURDERER: THE
MURDERER SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH! Perhaps I can
put this in terms modern man can understand. THIS IS A
THREE-PEAT!
For
the third verse in a row, the Bible says:
THE MURDERER SHALL
SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH! - People today have to know what they
are doing when they go against God so BLATANTLY! – CY – 2012)
19
The revenger of
blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he
meeteth him,” - i.e.,
outside a city of refuge - “he shall slay him.”
20
But if” - Rather,
“and if” (μaiw]). The consideration of willful murder is
continued in these two verses, although chiefly with reference to
the motive. It is to
be
understood that the deliberate intent was present in the former cases, and a
new
case is added, viz., if he smite him with his fist with fatal consequences -“he thrust
him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of
wait, that he die; 21
“Or in enmity
smite him with his hand, that he die: he that
smote him shall surely be put to
death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer,
when he meeteth him.”
22 “But if
he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon
him any thing without laying of wait,” - Without enmity.… without laying
of wait. These expressions
seem intended to limit mercy to cases of pure accident,
such as that quoted in Deuteronomy 19:5. Neither provocation nor any other
“extenuating circumstances” are
taken into account, nor what we now speak of as
absence of premeditation. The want of these finer distinctions, as
well as the short
and
simple list of farm injuries given, show the rudeness of the age for which
these
regulations were made.
23 “Or
with any stone, wherewith a man may die, seeing him not, and
cast it upon him, that he die, and was not his
enemy, neither sought
his harm:
24 Then the congregation shall judge
between the slayer and
the revenger of
blood according to these judgments:”
25 “And
the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the
revenger of blood, and the congregation (hd;[e) shall
restore him to the
city of his refuge,” - It is perfectly plain from this (and from Joshua 20:6) that
the
general assembly of all
before them with their witnesses, and, if they found the accused
innocent,
were to send him back under safe escort to the city in which he had taken
refuge - “whither he
was fled: and he shall abide in it unto the death of
the high priest,” - No doubt his
family might join him in his exile, and his life might
be
fairly happy as well as safe within certain narrow limits; but under ordinary
circumstances he must forfeit much and risk more by his enforced absence
from
home and land. It is not easy to see why the death of the high priest should
have set
the
fugitive free from the law of vengeance, except
as FORESHADOWING
THE OF CHRIST! No similar significance is anywhere else attributed to the
death of the high priest; and it was rather in its unbroken
continuance than
in
its recurring interruption that the priesthood of Aaron typified that of the
Redeemer. To see anything of a vicarious or satisfactory character
in the
death of the high priest seems to be introducing an element
quite foreign to
the
symbolism of the Old Testament. The stress, however, which is laid
upon the fact of his decease (compare v. 28), and the solemn notice of his
having been anointed with the holy oil, seem to point
unmistakably to
something in his official and consecrated character which made it
right that
the
rigor of the law should die with him. What the Jubilee was to the
debtor who had lost his property, that the death of the high
priest was to
the
slayer who had lost his liberty. If it was the case, as commonly
believed, that all blood feuds were absolutely terminated
by the death of
the high
priest, might this not be because the
high priest, as chief minister
of
the law of God, was himself the goel of the whole
nation? When he died
all
processes of’ vengeance lapsed, because they had really been commenced
in
his name - “which was anointed
with the holy oil.”
26 “But if
the slayer shall at any time come without the border of the
city of his refuge, whither he was fled;” - i.e., no doubt beyond its “suburbs.”
27 And the
revenger of blood find him
without the borders of the city
of his refuge, and the revenger
of blood kill the slayer; he shall not
be guilty of blood: 28 Because he
should have remained in the city of
his refuge until the death of the high priest:
but after the death of the
high priest the slayer shall return into the
land of his possession.
29 So
these things shall be for a statute of judgment unto you
throughout your generations in all your dwellings.”
30 “Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by
the
mouth of witnesses:” - i.e., of two at least (compare Deuteronomy 17:6) -
“but one witness shall not testify against any person to
cause him to die.”
31 “Moreover
ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer,
which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely
put to death.”
Ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer. The passion for
vengeance
is
both bad and good, and is therefore to be carefully purified and restrained;
but
when the
desire for vengeance can be appeased by a money payment, it has
become wholly bad, and is only a despicable form of covetousness
which
insults the justice it pretends to invoke. Such payments or “ransoms”
are
permitted by the Koran, and have been common among most semi-civilized
peoples, notably amongst our old English ancestors.
32 “And ye
shall take no satisfaction for him that is fled to the city of
his refuge, that he should come again to dwell
in the land,” - No one
might buy off the enmity of the avenger before the appointed time, for
that
would give an unjust
advantage to wealth, and would make the WHOLE
MATTER MERCENARY AND VULGAR! – (One of the shortcomings
of the present penal system in the
rich to escape their crime while the poor always seem to suffer! – CY – 2012) -
“until the death of the priest.”
33 “So ye
shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth
the land: and the land cannot be cleansed” - Literally, “there is no expiation
(rp"kuy]) for the land.”
Septuagint, oujc ejx ilasqh>setai
hJ gh~ - ouch ex
ilasthaesetai hae gae – no expiation can be made for the land - By these
expressions the Lord places the sin of murder in its true light, as a sin
against
Himself. The land, His land, is
defiled with the blood of the slain, and nothing
can
do away with the guilt which cleaves to it but THE STRICT EXECUTION
OF DIVINE JUSTICE UPON THE MURDERER! Money might
satisfy
The relatives of the slain, BUT CANNOT SATISFY HIS MAKER! -
“of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him
that shed it.”
34 “Defile
not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I
dwell: for I the LORD dwell among the children
of
the
murderer’s hand is raised against me; THE BLOOD
OF THE SLAIN
IS EVER BEFORE MY EYES; ITS CRY FOR VENGEANCE EVER
IN MY EARS! (“THE
VOICE OF THY BROTHER’S BLOOD
CRIETH UNTO ME FROM THE GROUND” - Genesis 4:10;
Matthew 23:35; Revelation 6:10).
WHY THE MURDERER MUST BE PUT TO DEATH (vs.
30-34)
This passage brings up a subject not often discussed in the
pulpit. Yet it surely is a
subject which comes home to the business of us all. In a country
like ours the
administration of justice, the execution of vengeance on evildoers, is a
duty in which
every one has to bear a part. We may not all be officers of
justice, but we must all act
as
informers, or witnesses, or jurymen. It is of
high importance, therefore, that
EVERY MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY should be well instructed regarding
the
principles which lie at the foundation of the criminal law, and, in particular,
should
know
why and on what
authority the community lays hold upon evil-doers and inflicts
on them the punishment of their crimes.
appendix to the law regarding the cities of refuge. That law was
designed
to shield the involuntary slayer from the avenger of blood.
The intention
was good; but good intentions do not always prevent dangerous
mistakes.
It often happens that good men
in laboring to cast out one evil open the
door to a greater evil. Proponents of prison reform may so
press the duty of
humanity towards prisoners as to
deprive the prison of its deterrent power.
So in
of blood from touching the involuntary manslayer might have the effect of
DEADENING THE PUBLIC
SENSE OF THE ENORMITY OF
MURDER and weakening men’s resentment against the murderer. The
design of the statute before us is to prevent so mischievous a
result.
Ø The ancient law
which condemned the murderer to death is
solemnly reaffirmed (v.30; compare with
vs. 16-21 and Genesis
9:6). To be
sure, the extreme penalty ought not to be executed
without extreme circumspection. The unsupported testimony of
one witness is not to be held sufficient to sustain a
charge of murder.
Nevertheless, if there is sufficient
evidence, the sword must strike,
the murderer must not be suffered to go free.
Ø
The death penalty MAY NOT be commuted into a fine (v. 31).
In regard to this point the
Mosaic law differs from many, perhaps from
most other primitive codes; for they suffered the murderer to
compound
with the kinsmen of his victim by paying a fine in cattle or in
money. The
law of Moses suffered no such composition. The murderer must be
put to death. Even the restraint to which the law subjected the
involuntary
manslayer was not
suffered to be relaxed by a money payment. In all cases
affecting the sanctity of
life pecuniary compositions are utterly
forbidden.
The reason lies in these
three principles:
Ø
“Blood defileth the land” (compare “the
land was polluted with
blood.” Psalm 106:38). That sin defiles the sinner, that murder
especially
defiles the conscience of the murderer —these are facts patent to
all. It is
not so often observed that crime perpetrated in a city DEFILES
THE
the remarkable law laid down in Deuteronomy 21:1-9 for the
expiation of
an uncertain murder.
Ø
The proper expiation of murder is by the death of the
murderer.
“The land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed
therein but
by the blood of him that shed it.” Justice is
satisfied, the honor of
the law vindicated,
when the murderer is put to death, and
not
otherwise. To
accept a pecuniary
payment for blood is simply to
“pollute the land.”
Ø In this whole matter the
paramount consideration ought
to be THE
HONOR OF GOD! Murder is
criminal beyond all other offences,
because it is the defacement of
the image of God in man. Murder
must not go unavenged, because it
defiles the land before God. Let these
principles be carefully weighed. They set in a clear light the true
and
adequate reason for inflicting punishment on evil-doers. The true
reason
is neither the reformation of the criminal (for the sword
must strike although
there should be no hope of reformation) nor the protection of
society. These
are important objects, and not to be overlooked; but the proper reason of
punishment is THE VINDICATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, the
executing of vengeance on the man who doeth evil (Romans 13:4).
ON THE ATONEMENT OF OUR
BLESSED LORD? The death of
Christ for our sins accomplished
many great and precious purposes. It was
an affecting proof of His sympathy with us. It was a
revelation of the
Father’s love. But these purposes do not contain the proper and adequate
reason of our Lord’s sufferings. He
died for our sins. It was necessary
that
our sins should be cleansed, that expiation or atonement
should be made
for them. (The same Hebrew word, commonly translated atonement elsewhere
in the Old Testament, which in this passage is translated cleansing in the text and
expiation
in the margin.) By a blessed exchange Christ has become sin for us;
(II Corinthians 5:21); He has borne our sins and
made atonement for them.
This was the end
of His sufferings — to satisfy the
justice of the Father for
our sins, so that His righteousness might not be dishonored although WE
SHOULD GO FREE!
"Excerpted text Copyright AGES
Library, LLC. All
rights reserved.
Materials are reproduced by
permission."
This material can be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com
If this exposition is helpful, please share
with others.