Before they entered the Promised Land, God established places later known as “cities of refuge” to serve as safe havens for individuals who had accidentally killed someone.
“Whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put to death. If it was not premeditated but came about by an act of God, then I will appoint for you a place to which the killer may flee” (Exodus 21:12-13).
Their primary purpose was to protect from the “avenger of blood,” a close relative of the deceased who had the right and duty to seek retribution.
Throughout the Old Testament, we will discover instances where justice is tempered with mercy. The places of refuge are one among many instances of this representation of God’s character.
When the Israelites were established in the land, the cities of refuge allowed a due process of law. As the offending party reached a city of refuge, they would present their case to the elders at the city gate. This process ensured that a proper investigation and trial took place before any retribution could occur.
As Rudy Ross notes in today’s YouTube video, there were six cities of refuge strategically located throughout the land of Israel—three on the east side of the Jordan River and three on the west—to ensure that no one was too far from a place of safety.
Later, Jerusalem would be denoted as a city of refuge, because of the high priest’s presence in Jerusalem.
In addition to the legal aspect of accidental death, the cities of refuge also have a spiritual meaning. They represent God’s provision of grace and protection through Jesus for those who seek Him.
An Eye for an Eye
You are probably familiar with the expression an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exodus 21:23-25).
In this particular situation, the requirements are spoken concerning a woman who is pregnant and, in the middle of a fight, loses her child.
When many people first encounter “eye for an eye” legislation, they often perceive it as advocating cruel revenge. However, a closer examination reveals that it differs significantly from such an interpretation for a couple of key reasons.
(1) Limit Retaliation: Let’s consider the global conflicts currently unfolding. Often, the stronger parties involved do not exhibit proportional responses against weaker warring factions. Instead, a single act by one side is met with a vastly more devastating act by the other.
If responses were limited to proportional measures, the conflicts would be more equitable. That’s precisely the underlying purpose of the “eye for an eye” principle both for individuals and nations.
(2) Justice and Equity: You are familiar with the expression, “the punishment should fit the crime.”
That is precisely what is being conveyed in this instance. An injury inflicted upon a poor person should incur the same consequence as an injury to a rich person, thereby ensuring equal justice for all under the law.
(3) Guide Judges, Not Individuals: This law was primarily a guideline for judges in a court of law, not an endorsement of personal vengeance.
Individuals were not meant to take justice into their own hands. The emphasis was on the legal system delivering a just and measured consequence.
(4) Deterrence: The type of justice represented by the “eye for an eye” principle is retributive.
It’s designed to deter crime because a person who commits an offense knows they will face a consequence equal to the harm they inflicted upon their victim.
Creative Justice
A friend of mine was sentenced to nine years in federal prison for a crime. I wrote a letter to the judge detailing his conversion and the quality of an individual he had become after finding faith.
The judge told him, “I’m glad for your new life, and I’m not judging you for who you are now, but for what you did in your past.” His prison sentence was retributive justice for those past actions.
Praise God that His creative justice made my friend a new person and forgave all his past, as well as his future.
YouTube Discussion
Rudy Ross, Bruce Kirby, and I discussed this passage on YouTube today.
Real Voices 