# Application of Cities of Refuge: NL2K and Deuteronomy 19:1-13



## Shawn Mathis (Feb 21, 2012)

With the Natural Law/Two Kingdom debate in Presbyterian circles, I am curious how ministers out there would apply and preach Deut. 19 on the Cities of Refuge? It seems like a good case study.

thanks,


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 21, 2012)

Soteriologically and Eschatalogically-speaking the High Priest points to Christ, who's death alone can deal with the sin and guilt of the sinner. Without the death of the High Priest and our fleeing for protection to Him, we are still in danger, from God's vengeance.

Usually sin and guilt could only be dealt with, typologically, by the death of a sacrificial animal. But if the OT High Priest's death can deal even with blood-guiltiness, Christ's (the true High Priest's) death can deal with anything.

Ecclesiastically-speaking, murder and culpable homicide/manslaughter are sanctionable offenses. But if someone is truly not culpable for a death he is not to be sanctioned and is to be protected as much as possible from any maliciousness against him from those in the visible Church.

Regarding civic-righteousness, murderers and those who kill with the requisite intent (_mens rea_), recklessly and carelessly enough, are to be executed if a very high standard of evidence is met.

Those who are involved in a killing without the requisite _mens rea_ should have the protection of the state.


----------



## Shawn Mathis (Feb 22, 2012)

Do you believe that the cities of refuge are just a reflection of Natural Law?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 22, 2012)

Offhand, I would think the relation between the Cities of Refuge and now/today, under Christ, the pastor might preach that:

1) all of us are somehow or another guilty of blood
2) the Avenger of Blood would be just to arrest us, and slay us
3) but we flee to Christ, our Refuge. He protects us not only from the evil men who seek our destruction, but also the man armed with a warrant against us
4) further, Christ is our High Priest, who never dies



But perhaps the question has otherwise to do. Is it a question about "general equity"?

It seems to me, that in order to find a _direct_ relation between justice in that former-age, and _that form_ of justice today, one would need a social order that included *the office* of "avenger of blood." It would appear to me utterly incredible (as in: not-to-be-believed) that "any-ole-body" in those days was entrusted with said vengeance--unless one is prepared to believe that OT Israel was endlessly riven with across-the-spectrum feuds of the "Hatfield/McCoy" variety. The very existence of the title "avenger of blood," as well as the presence of "cities of refuge," indicates to me that potential feuds were subverted by a law-order represented by those entities.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 22, 2012)

> Do you believe that the cities of refuge are just a reflection of Natural Law?



The important thing, at the civil level, is to preserve the moral principle that those who innocently kill be spared and those who kill with intent or maliciously, recklessly or carelessly face justice, not that we have Cities of Refuge. 

The Cities of refuge and the death of the High Priest point to Christ as our refuge from the Lord's hot wrath. God's just wrath can only be propiritaiated by the death of the High Priest.

When we truly embrace Christ as our High Priest we become citizens of the Heavenly Jerusalem, outside of which there is no safety or salvation.

*International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:*


> Refuge, Cities Of:
> ‘are ha-miqlaT; poleis ton phugadeuterion (compare 1 Macc 10:28), and other forms):
> 
> 1. Location:
> ...



If there was still some suspicion on the avenger of blood's part that the man had taken the life of his kinsman unlawfully, or if the avenger of blood's wrath had not abated, and the individual went furth of the city of refuge, he took his life in his hands.



> So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, *we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. *We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, where *Jesus* has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, *having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.* (Heb 6:17-20, ESV)



I don't know if the above allusion in Hebrews is to the Cities of Refuge or to running to the altar to take hold of its horns, which was also a way of seeking asylum.

None of the above owes anything in particular to NLR2K, but I don't see how it could be objectionable to any Reformed person, unless he was against the spiritual application of OT typology and against the death penalty for murder.


----------



## Shawn Mathis (Feb 22, 2012)

"None of the above owes anything in particular to NLR2K"

Well, that was what I was trying to grasp. I've not had much opportunity to read up on it besides a few posts online here and there. I have read Van Drunen's A Biblical Case for Natural Law.

---------- Post added at 11:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:49 AM ----------




Contra_Mundum said:


> But perhaps the question has otherwise to do. Is it a question about "general equity"?
> It seems to me, that in order to find a direct relation between justice in that former-age, and that form of justice today, one would need a social order that included the office of "avenger of blood."



Mr. Buchanan,

Yes, that is my question. I am not convinced that the "avenger of blood" has to be accounted for to use the passage for the question of general equity (if I understand you aright) but then I do not believe their is a "direct relation" (if I understand your language?). Calvin did not. Being positive law expressing the Sixth Commandment's view on preserving life, I see it as giving a snap-shot of how to apply that aspect of the Commandment to civil issues. Although a wild, west mentality is missing today people may still need protection from angry people or even angry governments trying to appease the blood-lust of angry citizens against terrorists for example.

A related question is the first part of your answer: would a good sermon have to make this allusion to Christ (in particular Duet. 19 does not mention the priest; Num. 35 does mention the priest)

I have Calvin's sermons on Deut. And he does not make such a Christological sermon but a civil and societal sermon. He applies the law to his day.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 22, 2012)

> "None of the above owes anything in particular to NLR2K"
> 
> Well, that was what I was trying to grasp. I've not had much opportunity to read up on it besides a few posts online here and there. I have read Van Drunen's A Biblical Case for Natural Law.



Some of Mosaic law is "dense" in that there are lessons at various levels. The High Priest, like the sacrifices, was an eminient type or pointer to Christ for the Israelite who had faith.



> All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (II Tim 3:16-17,ESV)



Christopher J.H. Wright in his books has shown that these laws often have eschatalogical, ecclesiastical, and wider societal and civil/political lessons. Like Calvin, he is neither a theonomist nor a R2K, but is trying to understand and apply correctly these portions of God's Word.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_tc_2...83&sr=1-2-ent&field-contributor_id=B001H6QNY8

An R2K approach would be happy with the spiritual lessons to be gleaned from the Cities of Refuge/Avenger of Blood passages, would maybe be happy with ecclesiastical lessons on when or when not to apply church sanctions, but would be unhappy with a congregation or denomination or minister in his capacity as minister making pronouncements about political or civil matters based on these passages, but these guys need to speak for themselves, if there are any on the PB.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 22, 2012)

Mr. Mathis,

I have to view Mr. Calvin in light of his circumstances, speaking for myself. He lived in a city-state; most of us (in USA) do not--not even close. Our local-jurisdictions have almost disappeared as far as law-creation and enforcement, except for zoning regulation. Concerning the population, I find myself basically in the position of being a preacher to serfs, even those who are involved in such local-government as remains--people who are many times removed from actual halls of power.

"God bless the Tsar... many miles from here." _Tevye_

Calvin was preaching to a society that still resembled Medieval Christendom. He was preaching to magistrates in the very pews before him, men of the Council who made laws and had the power of life and death over people. How many of us ministers do the same today?

Preaching out of the law. Does such preaching entail "laying down the law" in fine detail? It seems obvious that it _may;_ I'm not sure that it _must._ I don't think that all preachers are in the position which would make a peculiarly *legal* sort of application especially useful to one or another congregation. If I'm not skilled in legal-derivation, then am I deficient? More likely, I may not the right minister for the church in the State Capital. The application of the law will be quite different in a rural setting like mine, I suspect. But also, I'm a "Minister of the gospel," that being my unique calling.

My interest in the Law of God is especially how it shall be made to serve my ends of getting to the gospel-Word. Calvin, I'm sure, got to the gospel. If I'm not mistaken, Calvin preached Deuteronomy sermons on weekdays (I don't have THL Parker's book on Calvin's preaching right next to me). He could preach the law for SIX DAYS running, and crown it all with the gospel on Sunday. Not everyone _can do_ what he did; others of us would be preaching to an empty room six days a week. I have to preach the Gospel. I WILL preach the Gospel, and I will make the connection to the Cities of Refuge, even if Calvin (as much as I love him) did not on his occasional sermon. He had the luxury of a returning audience the very next day.

Moreover, a detailed legal analysis of such a passage might be quite useless to a bunch of farmers. Would not a sermon that contented itself with a description of the meaning of the law in its context, its connection to the 6th commandment, and thereby its connection to the lives of these people today--the first part of the sermon--followed by the offer of Christ in the gospel as the remedy for our neglect; be of greatest use? This sort of sermon could be preached to anyone, anywhere, and never be out of place.



I agree that the details of the Cities of Refuge have an obvious and direct reference to the 6th commandment. I like and appreciate the connection you make to how the equity in this law speaks against the natural tendency in everyone (even the serfs) for individual or mob-violence, and the propriety of "sanctuary" (don't like that word, but the idea).

I just don't know how valuable it is in _any or every age_ to preach on how much better off we would be to have, or how blessed we are to have, a particular social-order or construction. It would seem fantastical to me, if I thought of Paul (for instance) preaching to slaves, or even senators, in Rome, on Dt.19 or Num.35, _in particular_of a requisite "re-shape" of that present society just along the lines of OT Israel. I do not get that sense of his preaching emphasis from what we have from him in either Acts or the Epistles; or from Hebrews if it has anything to do with him. I don't find that interest _anywhere_ in the NT.

I also recognize that Calvin lived in a very different society than Paul. And our society at present is different from either Paul or Calvin. I guess, what I mean is that I could read/preach Calvin's sermon on this subject, and I doubt it would do anyone before me (or those I wish were before me) much eternal good today. That's my honest assessment. But if I only preach that law-text and let it lead me unerringly to the gospel-Word--which is simply being faithful to my calling--then in some after-generation maybe some new-Calvin will have the luxury of preaching another week-day sermon on a righteous interest in the justice of the principle of "sanctuary" to another room full of magistrates and commoners.


----------



## Shawn Mathis (Feb 22, 2012)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I'm not sure that it must. I don't think that all preachers are in the position which would make a peculiarly legal sort of application especially useful to one or another congregation.



Mr. Buchanan, I agree. And I agree it depends on the audience and situation. 

I do know of people who would never (or feel squeamish?) preach it as Calvin did. When I do preach out of Deuteronomy I typically make a point about the Gospel, especially the warning that politics and law will not fix things.

---------- Post added at 05:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:09 PM ----------




Peairtach said:


> Christopher J.H. Wright in his books has shown that these laws often have eschatalogical, ecclesiastical, and wider societal and civil/political lessons. Like Calvin, he is neither a theonomist nor a R2K, but is trying to understand and apply correctly these portions of God's Word.



I have that commentary. I'll have to look around the PB to find the threads on "not-theonomy or R2K" to see other approaches.


----------



## MW (Feb 22, 2012)

We should guard against reading our own justice system into these laws. It can sometimes be the case that general equity is found this way, and it only serves to obscure the original meaning and intention of the laws. It seems that tribal justice is basic to the concept of the cities of refuge. If that is the case there can be no parallel to our present system in which all penalties are meted out by the justice system of the State.

For what it's worth, Calvin's sermons on Deuteronomy are full of the gospel. I doubt he ever would have seen himself as preaching law for six days and gospel on the seventh.


----------



## Shawn Mathis (Feb 22, 2012)

FYI on the reason for Calvin preaching through Deuteronomy: 

"From Calvin's Perspective, the Jews who received this second edition of the law were a perfect analogue to the recently reformed populace of Geneva. Just as the Jews had gone through a long period of trial, so the church had been under the captivity of corrupt clergy, second-race pastoral care, deviant doctrine, a tyrannical church hierarchy and pervasive superstition."

_The school of God: pedagogy and rhetoric in Calvin's interpretation of Deuteronomy_, Blacketer, p.90


----------



## MW (Feb 22, 2012)

Here is just one of numerous examples of Calvin's gospel-centred preaching through Deuteronomy:

"So then let us have this stedfast assuredness with us, that God auoweth us for his children, and consequently that we be heires of eternall life. Howbeit, let us alwayes take that assuredness out of the Gospell, accordingly as we see that Moses leadeth the Iewes thither."


----------



## Shawn Mathis (Feb 23, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> We should guard against reading our own justice system into these laws



I agree.




armourbearer said:


> For what it's worth, Calvin's sermons on Deuteronomy are full of the gospel. I doubt he ever would have seen himself as preaching law for six days and gospel on the seventh.



I think that is true. However, Mr. Buchanan was responding to my question earlier: "would a good sermon have to make this allusion to Christ"

The question is imprecise. Certainly Calvin references Christ, God or gospel in many of the sermons on Deut. (I've read half the book so far). But the question is better thus: should the main point of the sermon be Christ when preaching out of this passage? I think myself and Mr. Buchanan were understanding the question in that sense.


----------



## Shawn Mathis (Feb 23, 2012)

Mr. Winzer,

What is your take on Deut. 19?


----------



## MW (Feb 23, 2012)

Shawn Mathis said:


> What is your take on Deut. 19?



I think the tribal element is clear in the role assigned the goel. As we know from the law relative to redemption, the goel's role was unique. He functioned as the guardian of the family's right within Israel and secured its perpetual inheritance. There is much here that is illustrative of the principles of justice in the work of redemption. Insofar as a society has no role for tribal justice I do not see how judicial equity can be drawn from the institution. It may well be that principles we also recognise to be just are illustrated in the institution, e.g., a distinction between accidental and intentional killing; but then I imagine unjust principles could also be drawn from it, e.g., the church as a sanctuary for lawbreakers. It is one thing to use the text as an illustration of an already established principle and quite another thing to draw an abiding principle of equity from it.


----------



## Shawn Mathis (Feb 24, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> It is one thing to use the text as an illustration of an already established principle and quite another thing to draw an abiding principle of equity from it.



For clarity, where exactly would you say the principle of manslaughter is established? 

thanks,


----------



## MW (Feb 24, 2012)

Shawn Mathis said:


> For clarity, where exactly would you say the principle of manslaughter is established?



First, in the anthropological framework of one's ethical system. Some concept must be inherent in the system which allows one to establish intent. Secondly, in the moral law, where to "kill" a man without justification and with intent is prohibited. Thirdly, in the case laws, which regularly make a difference between actions in terms of intent. On the last point, the Lord indicates that He would appoint a place for the man to flee. This shows that the provision of "refuge" was a positive application of the law rather than something essential to it.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 24, 2012)

Shawn Mathis said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > It is one thing to use the text as an illustration of an already established principle and quite another thing to draw an abiding principle of equity from it.
> ...



In England "manslaughter" is killing with some moral culpability but deemed to be short of murder. In Scots Law it is called "culpable homicide".

The examples given in the Pentateuch in connection with the cities of refuge, are cases of completely accidental killing without any culpability whatsoever.

If some degree of culpability without explicit intent was deemed to be the case by the courts, it would be a moot point whether the offender would have been permitted to stay in the city of refuge, or whether some penalty would be imposed:



> But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. If a ransom is imposed on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is imposed on him. (Ex 21:29-30,ESV)



In the case of culpable killing short of murder, above, the owner of the ox had to pay a ransom instead of his life.


----------



## Shawn Mathis (Feb 28, 2012)

Rev. Winzer,



armourbearer said:


> First, in the anthropological framework of one's ethical system. Some concept must be inherent in the system which allows one to establish intent. Secondly, in the moral law, where to "kill" a man without justification and with intent is prohibited. Thirdly, in the case laws, which regularly make a difference between actions in terms of intent. On the last point, the Lord indicates that He would appoint a place for the man to flee. This shows that the provision of "refuge" was a positive application of the law rather than something essential to it.



This is a nice summary of the matter. But I think there is another category that you partially indicate with respect to the positive law of the cities of refuge (having a city _per se _is not commanded today) that such a law can still indicate matters similar such as the need (as circumstances warrant it) to avoid occasions of sin, the positive part of the Sixth Commandment. So, LCQ 99.4, 6, the latter of which specifies "that under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are forbidden or commanded; together with all the causes, means, occasions, and appearances thereof, and 
provocations thereunto."

So I see God commanding means (cities and even roads) to fulfill the Sixth Commandment by preserving life and creating a means to preserve it in the context of a "wild, west" mentality. 

This seems to be Calvin's thinking, as he states in his sermon after stating that civil laws are not "to bring men to perfection" (then the avenger of death would be admonished) but..
"But when he makes a positive law, he thinks it enough to say that men should have an eye to the inconveniences that may ensue, and prevent them, and not tarry till the harm be done, but eschew it beforehand, and shut the door against all occasions." (p.687)

Just some thoughts...


----------

