Joshua 20:1-9

The cities of refuge.

The institution of these cities was intended to put bounds to revenge, while providing for the punishment of crime. As Lange remarks, the Mosaic law found the principle of vengeance at the hand of the nearest relative of the deceased already recognised, and desired to direct and restrain it. Three considerations suggest themselves on this point.

I. THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE . The most serious crime one man could commit against another (offences against God or one's own parents are not included in this estimate), according to the Mosaic, and even the pre-Mosaic code, was to take his life. The sanctity of human life was ever rated high in the Old Testament. Nothing could compensate for it but the death of him who violated it. The duty had always been incumbent on the nearest blood relative, and Moses did not think it necessary to institute any other law in its place. He only placed the restriction upon the avenger of blood, that in case the murderer should reach a city of refuge, he should have a fair trial before he was given into the hands of his adversary, in ease it should prove that, instead of murder, the deed was simply homicide by misadventure. It has been strongly urged that capital punishment, even for murder, is opposed to the gentler spirit of Christianity. Without presuming to decide the question, this much is clear, that God in His law has always regarded human life as a most sacred thing, and any attempt to take it away as a most awful crime. It may be observed, moreover, that in Switzerland, where the punishment was abolished, it has had in several cantons to be reimposed. It is also a curious fact, and one somewhat difficult to explain, that a higher value is set, as a rule, upon human life in Protestant than in Roman Catholic communities. There can be no doubt that the severer view is in accordance with the Old Testament Scriptures, and we may see why. The evil effect of other crimes may, in a measure, be repaired, but life once taken away can never be restored. Man, moreover, is the image of God, and life His greatest gift. To deface the Divine image, to take away finally and irrevocably, so far as the natural man can see, what God has given, is surely the highest of crimes.

II. VENGEANCE MUST BE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE LAW . The rule for Christians as individuals is, never to take vengeance at all, but to submit to the most grievous wrongs in silence. But there are times when a Christian is bound to regard himself as a member of a community, and in the interests of that community to punish wrong doers. We learn a useful lesson from the chapter before us. We may not take the law into our own hands. We are not the best judges in our own cause. The punishment we inflict is likely to be disproportionate to the offence. We are bidden, if our neighbour will not listen to us ( Matthew 18:15-17 ) to take others with us to support us in our complaint, and if that be in vain, to bring the matter before the assembly of the faithful, who take the place in the Christian dispensation of the elders of Israel. But in all cases the decision must not rest with ourselves. It would be well if every one, before bringing an action or prosecution at law against another, would submit the matter to some perfectly disinterested persons before doing so. It would be well if the Christian congregations exercised more frequently the power of arbitration, which was clearly committed to them by Christ. It should be the city of refuge to which the offender should betake himself, and he should be free from all penalties until the "elders of that city" declare that he has deserved them.

III. WHERE WE CANNOT ABOLISH AN EVIL CUSTOM , WE MAY AT LEAST MITIGATE ITS EVIL EFFECTS . It must often happen to the Christian to find laws and customs in existence which we feel to be opposed to the spirit of Christianity. Two courses are open to us, to denounce and resist them, or to accept them and try to reduce the amount of evil they produce. There are, of course, some customs and laws against which a Christian must set his face. But there are many more in which it would be fanaticism, not Christianity, to do so. Such a spirit was displayed by the Montanists of old (as in the case of Tertullian, in his celebrated treatise 'De Corona'), who frequently reviled and struck down the images of the gods. Such a spirit is often displayed by Christians of more zeal than discretion now. A remarkable instance of the opposite spirit is shown by the attitude of Christ's apostles towards slavery. Slavery is alien to the first principles of Christianity. And yet the Christians were not forced to manumit their slaves, but were only enjoined to treat them gently and kindly. Such was obviously the best course, so long as Christianity was a persecuted and forbidden religion. It is often our duty so to deal with customs which are undesirable in themselves, but which, as individuals, we have no power to put down. So long as we have it in our power to remove from them, in our own case, what is objectionable or sinful, it is our duty to conform to them, at the same time hoping and praying for better times.

HOMILIES BY R. GLOVER