DISCUSS
1...did they not encorage lack of self-control and vengeance
2..how long did they stay
3..did manslayer take family with him
4..could you choose not ot go
CITIES OF REFUGE
by tijkmo 10 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
bronzefist
Answer to Questions 2,4
Legal
Procedure. Upon reaching a city of refuge, the fugitive was to state his case to the older men at the city gate and was to be received hospitably. To prevent willful murderers from taking cover under this provision, the fleeing one, after entering the city of refuge, had to stand trial at the city gates in the city having jurisdiction where the killing occurred, in order to prove his innocence. If found innocent, he was returned to the city of refuge. However, his safety could be guaranteed only if he remained in the city the rest of his life or until the death of the high priest. No ransom could be accepted to alter these terms. (Nu 35:22-29, 32; Jos 20:4-6) Insight Volume #1Life
in the City of Refuge15
An unintentional manslayer had to remain in the refuge city or within a distance of 1,000 cubits (about 1,450 feet) outside its walls. (Numbers 35:2-4) If he wandered beyond that point, he might encounter the avenger of blood. Under those circumstances, the avenger could with impunity put the manslayer to death. 95 WT
-
Narkissos
Erm... imo the whole system of "cities of refuge" (Numbers 35; Joshua 20) belongs to the category of fictitious priestly laws (just as the sabbatical years or jubilees) which were never meant to be applied (actually all the named cities of refuge were never under the control of Israel at the same time).
What historically lies behind is the right of sanctuary originally granted to threatened people, whatever their crime, in the precincts of most temples in the Ancient Near East (cf. Exodus 20:13f; 1 Kings 1:50-53; 2:28-31; Nehemiah 6:10-11; 1 Maccabees 10:43; 2 Maccabees 4:33-35). Perhaps the idea of "being safe in the temple" (Psalms 27:2-5; 61:4f) is related to this practice.
In the Bible the customary right of sanctuary is actually restricted in a number of ways: by the kings who do not accept such an easy way of escape for their political adversaries (as appears in the stories about "Solomon"), by the centralisation of worship in Jerusalem which bans all other sanctuaries (whence a limited number of cities instead of the many sanctuaries all over the country), by moral legislation which doesn't admit that a willful murderer escapes punishment ("you shall take the killer from my altar")...
However, the original arrangement (making the sacred place above political and civil law) is quite interesting imo.
-
BrendaCloutier
Just an FYI. The Island of Hawaii had 2 cities of refuge. One on the W side south of Kailua, Kona, and one in the NE in the Waipio Valley. (I don't know if there are/were any on the other islands.)
Hawaiian laws were harsh, and immediate death was often carried out. If a person made it to the city, they had sanctuary while the priests sorted things out.
-
tijkmo
thats interesting brenda...i have some thoughts but will post 2moro cos its way past my bedtime
-
peacefulpete
The very law of Goelism (obligation of nearest male relative to avenge a death by killing in turn) is disgusting and barbaric. We read today how in the Arab world many still practice it giving us a close up look at the cycle of killing it produces. The practice is very ancient and according to references practiced by many peoples in antiquity. narkissos has pointed out that the cities of refuge were a fictional story cast into the past, I suggest it may have been an effort to control the bloodlust by introducing the idea of priestly intervention.
-
tijkmo
my thoughts on cities of refuge
1...i think they encouraged vengeance...dont forget they were for accidental death...murder carried the death penalty but so did manslaughter..(murder 2)...if your bull gored someone to death or you hadnt fixed your roof and someone died..then so did you...so why would anyone want to kill someone who had accidently killed someone else through no fault of their own...and who in their right mind would have as a priority avenging the dead as opposed to comforting the living who had lost a loved one
2..how long did they have to stay....till the death of the high priest...so if a new one had just been installed that was probably for the rest of your life...but if the high priest died the next day then you were free and the avenger of blood could do nothing...except control his anger and desire for vengeance..so why if he had to control it then could he not have controlled it the day before
3.. did they take family....otherwise it was no more than a prison sentence for a crime you did not commit..yet the bible makes no mention of taking family...and if they couldnt then what was the point of living anyway
4..let me put to you this scenario...you and your best friend and your son are doing some building work and a hammer flies out of your best friends hand and hits your son and kills him...devastated as you are who do you want to help you through your grief...your best friend right...but no- you are supposed to down tools, forget about your son..ignore your crying wife and chase your best friend and if you catch him then you are to kill him not by accident but deliberately...so could you say to your friend..dont run..i have no intention of killing you ..i want you to stay and help..i dont want to lose both my son and my best friend on the same day....i dont think you would be allowed to because that would undermine the whole israelite arrangement and would set a precedent for choosing which laws you obeyed and which you ignored
and the modern day equivolent of the c.o.r. (wt95 15 nov) is going out on the fs so as not to be bloodguilty
-
Carmel
4. I chose to refuse
carmelb
-
mkr32208
The good thing about living back then would have been that if you were bad enough you could do whatever you wanted whenever you wanted! There were no guns to level the playing field if you had a sword and all your friends had swords and you were really really good with them you just did whatever you felt like!
Case in point look at david and his mighty men these dudes were bad news David killed people stole their wifes did whatever he wanted when ever he wanted he never ran to a city of refuge he just killed the heck out of anyone who argued with him!
-
tijkmo
David killed people stole their wifes did whatever he wanted when ever he wanted he never ran to a city of refuge he just killed the heck out of anyone who argued with him!
thats an interesting point...ive never thought about that before...strictly speaking david didnt qualify for refuge cos it wasnt accidental death....but what if someone in authority say a priest or king or prophet did kill someone by accident would they have to run...or would the avenger of blood be deemed as striking the appointed of jah