Three
Judicial Principles
Deuteronomy 4: 41-43 & 19: 1-21
The Great Covenant
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . Max
A Forsythe
Introduction:
One of the greatest attributes of the revelation record is the total
reality of comprehension stated in regard to man’s fallen state.
By this beginning, I mean to imply boldly that we should never equate the
biblical principles for societal structuring with the idyll dreams of that vast
number of utopian writers down through the ages, who have attempted to organize
humanity according to the favorite scheme of their generation. The Greek poets and philosophers dreamed of the perfect
world, so too did English and French philosophers as well as Marxist and
socialist propagandists in our day and time.
These are the fools who promise the perfection of mankind, no matter what
the cost, just so long as we are able to tolerate the persecution of those who
might complain against the perfectible standards for humanity being shilled from
any current public pulpits of humanism.
Two related issues stand out in
my mind from contemporary public educational administration. A once popular feminist announced that during her
administration, the word punishment would never ever be used when it came to
student management. Later, at a
psychobabble seminar, an expensive educational consultant proclaimed that every
administration had the absolute right to determine when to punish or not.
In fact, the premise was pushed further to idealize a more unpredictably
administrative orientation so that it would be less likely for any students or
staff to need or resort to any such review!
At least they got the last issue
right, during my last few years in the public sector, every sensible adult and
student avoided the management indecision-making process at whatever cost they
were willing to pay. In one case I
was involved in, the psychobabble totalitarianism of the administration
couldn’t be avoided. A rowdy
student had gotten into a shoving match with two of us adults.
Of course, we were admonished that we had over-reacted and the student
was empowered to continue his bullying methods any time his little heart
desired. A few weeks later,
the same student pushed a door and broke six hundred dollars worth of glass!
That was a much more serious infraction, and he and his friend got three
day suspensions.
The sheer number of public
employees, who are serving time in public educational institutions, can multiply
stories like this until you are sick of hearing them!
Another “mentally challenged student” who had no business being
released in a public setting – hit a teacher with a hammer. The solution, of course, was to hire a full-time adult tutor
to monitor that young person’s behavior every hour of every day.
But, I digress from our stated purpose today to consider a more civilized
and culturally realistic biblical administration of a covenant society.
Dr Brown summarizes the problems
addressed in this chapter in a particularly stunning analysis: “God’s realism is more
vividly portrayed in Deuteronomy than anywhere else in the Bible.
He makes careful provision for life as it is, not how some would like it
to be.”
Just as the American founding
fathers well understood the fallen nature of man, they also carefully applied
the lessons of governmental economy to carefully balance the powers granted and
then provided an even more carefully stated Bill of Rights to protect the people
from their own government.
Old
Covenant Milieu: In
our studies in Deuteronomy, we have already seen provisions for a locally
constituted judgeship and a viable legal appeals system.
However, just in case the local authorities are unable or perhaps even
unwilling to provide for a legitimate judicial process, this strange – but
interesting practice of establishing cities of refuge is set up.
This practice, Dr Craigie tells us, is related to a “simpler
law contained in Exodus 21: 12-14
where the altar (presumably that in the sanctuary of the Lord) offered
protection to the manslayer, but not to the murderer.”
This concept of “sanctuary”
was practiced by Churchmen in the Middle Ages in Europe and even revived by the
anti-war crowd during the Viet Nam Conflict.
The premise is that “in clinging to the
horns of the altar”, so to speak, the one charged with manslaughter or
refusal to go to war, may claim the innocence of his character under the
protection of the giver of life – God Himself.
Every country has folk tales of
blind vengeance, whereby tribes, clans or families held a blood grudge for
generations at a time. This human
characteristic, as well as the often familial clannish ties of local governments
and courts have demonstrated throughout history the necessity of what the legal
scholars would call a change of venue – which is nothing more than the trying
of a case in a place where legal logic may hold sway rather than mob hysteria!
My home county had just such a case well over a hundred years ago, when a
suspect was hanged from a tree before he could be taken to the county jail and
placed in the charge of the county court.
I would hope that everyone might
thus appreciate the sometime mob madness that can all too easily sweep even the
sanest of Christian communities. To
the glee of secular historians, the Puritan government of Massachusetts was once
diverted from proper jurisprudence during the so called “witch trials” of
Salem. The doctors of the law and
the church, who tried to hold back the scandalous charges, were even threatened
by the very low-life wretches who led the exceptionally popular revolt against
logical trial by law. We know now
that very many were affected by a fungus on the oat crop of that year, just as
the barely fungus in France fueled the blood lust of the French Revolution.
Had there been more cake flour, as Maria Antoinette had suggested, she
and the king may have well kept their pretty heads.
So given the proper analysis of
history, we can see the Divine wisdom in this establishment of the Israelite
cities of refuge. I looked at a map
in the back of my Bible and using my thumb as an imprecise guide, I noted that
the six named cities on the map were anywhere from twenty to fifty miles apart
in the tribal areas of Israel. Now,
we have to appreciate that biblical Israel, like the modern day state, was not
geographically large. A rough
measurement of historic Israel pictures the country about 150 miles long by 75
miles wide at the extreme points. Thus,
given the traditional means of travel – it would have been about the size of
six to eight of our counties. Since
colonial times in America – the counties were mapped out so that no one lived
more than fifteen or twenty-five miles from the county seat.
Given the geography of Israel – this method of distribution for these
cities of refuge is indeed quite similar. And
for most of the history of the American colonies and states – capital crimes
had to be tried, not in the villages, but in the county seat – for no other
reason than a fair and reasonable understanding of human nature and God’s
covenantal economy of providing fair and adequate justice for one and all.
Now, truthfully there is much
about the habit of Israel in this regard that we do not understand; yet from the
several passages on the subject we may see that three things are guaranteed.
a
means of holding court in an unbiased manner
a
refuge for those who needed a place for a new start in life
Even if presumed guilty of
manslaughter, the life of the one who caused the death of another is to be
protected. I recently read on the
internet a suggestion that Johnny Walker be set free in downtown New York City
at a time and place publicly announced. We
can all imagine, like the person who suggested it, what would likely happen.
Sorry, that cannot be done because if we claim to be civilized, than at
the very least we must accept the biblical injunction against mob tactics in
taking improper revenge.
There is a second and third issue
in this chapter that are often overlooked given the strangeness of the major
theme in these cities of refuge. The
second issue is highlighted in verse fourteen.
A small thing we may presume and yet all manner of court cases have been
absorbed with this minimal passage. Let
me share with you several examples that I gleaned for my government classes over
the last three decades.
A story is told about a case in
New England where a small stream changed its course during a heavy deluge of
water. Ten acres of land changed
sides as a result of the streams relocation.
The two farmers went to court over whose land the deed described.
The judge in question had to uphold the letter of the law because the
deed specifically cited the stream as a controlling boundary.
However, when the loser in the case asked to raise one more crop to pay
his court costs, the judge grasped at any means to spread a little justice over
the case. The loser promptly
planted white oak trees and contracted the crop to a local brewery when the
trees matured, so that barrels could be made!
On appeal, the reasonableness of the court’s decision was upheld!
Again, in my county an old man
had lived on the same property for sixty years or so, he had mowed all three
lots upon which his house was built. He
had also, for many of those years cared for the even older woman who lived next
door. As he grew older, he decided
that it would be nice to have a garage for his car, so he had one built.
The older lady passed away, and a new couple moved in.
Since they thought the plot for their home was awfully small for two
whole lots, they had the place surveyed only to discover that they could now
claim a garage as their rightful property.
Since, they had no desire to antagonize the neighborhood, they agreed to
let the old man use their garage as long as he lived.
Finally, I once knew of a case
where a farmer sold off five acres for a building site. Once the people who built the home moved on – a second
family moved in, then a third. I knew the third family and when I helped them
move in I suggested that their five acres was unusually small!
So they had a surveyor come out and mark out the boundaries.
The surveyor discovered that the friendly farmer had plowed a furrow or
two into the property every year over the years and had thus reclaimed almost
half of the property for his own use!
This is what we are talking about
in the verse before us! One corner
of my property is a little vague because a neighbor’s hired hand ran down and
then pried out, a metal post that marked the southwest corner.
Since the neighbor is an absentee landlord and has not visited the
property recently to my knowledge, the best we can do without spending a lot of
money is mark the edge of the field with a mowed path around our small farm.
Our third issue is of much
greater importance in our minds and that issue is one of a false witness in a
court of law. By now, I would hope
that you have guessed that three commandments are expounded upon in this brief
chapter? Thou shall not murder,
steal nor bear false witness are the three.
And of course as we well know, each of the Great Covenant principles has
been expanded upon in all cultures that would claim a biblical foundation for
their legal systems. A decade or
more ago, a Virginia university made the news when their morality code was
challenged in court. Simply put,
they required all students, faculty and employees to sign a statement that they
understood they could be dismissed if they lied, cheated or stole. Why, we would ask would such a reasonable code of conduct be
challenged? Because it was
biblically based of course, and in our modern age it was considered a bit of a
stretch for ethically challenged people to put up with.
Back to our third issue, whenever
and wherever the basis for conviction relates to the calling and examination of
witnesses, the verses before us take on an extreme importance.
Truth before the court is of paramount importance and while conviction
for a crime is extremely difficult when only one witness is willing and able to
testify, the courts are admonished here to proceed with great caution.
Perjury, as we know from presidential escapades is growing in popularity
in our day and the love, comprehension and ability to know, practice and tell
the truth is more and more difficult to sustain in a society cut loose from the
biblical principles established in the Great Covenant given to and through the
prophet Moses.
One last comment on the Old
Covenant application of the Great Covenant, look at the last verse for a
description of what principles were more common in other legal codes of
antiquity. Dr Brown describes the
proper understanding of the text: “The
familiar ‘eye for eye, tooth for tooth’ saying, with which the chapter
closes, sounds exceptionally harsh, but we need to note three things about
it.”
“in a day when
reprisals could be harsh and extreme, this saying imposed strict limitations
on the type of physical penalty which could be imposed.”
When
“Jesus quoted this saying in the Sermon on the
Mount”, it was not supposed to abolish an item of legal procedure,
but to disparage personal revenge.
New
Covenant Continuum:
In fact, as the New Covenant record clearly records, Jesus announced in Matthew
5: 17-18: “Do not think that I
came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I
did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For
assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle
will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”
Dr Vern Poythress describes a
very interesting comparison between the life of Christ recorded by Matthew in
the first fourth of his Gospel, and the life of Moses through the Exodus and the
giving of the Law at Mount Sinai. “All
four Gospels have an interest in showing that Jesus fulfills the Old Testament
promises regarding the coming of the Messiah.
But Matthew does so in unusual detail … .
Matthew begins with
a narrative of Jesus’ birth and early ministry …
[then records] the Sermon on the Mount.
… All in all” Dr Poythress declares several pages later; the
first four chapters of Matthew show “a host of
parallels with the events of the Exodus and Israel’s experiences in the
wilderness and sums up the significance of these parallels in the announcement
of the coming kingdom.” …
Matthew five through seven, “by contrast,
contains a large amount of teaching of Jesus.
It thereby shows most specifically Jesus’ fulfillment of the didactic
portions of the books of Moses.”
In particular, Matthew
5: 38-47 considers the principles of retribution specifically mentioned
in Deuteronomy 19:21 as well as in other related
passages. Two principles come
through in the teaching on the second Mountain:
a balanced recompense and an obligation to love your enemy.
Dr Poythress elaborates: “All
of the sections of the Sermon on the Mount deal in some way with abuses and
misunderstandings of the law that had arisen in Jesus’ day.
In particular, Jesus repeatedly stresses the significance of correct
motives. His focus on the heart
contrasts with the externality and legalism promoted by Pharisaic religion.
According to Jesus it is not enough to refrain from murder and adultery
in a merely external sense. One
must keep one’s heart from feelings of anger and lust.
Such feelings lead toward murder and adultery and already represent sins
of the heart.”
Contemporary
Application: We
may even go a step further, Dr Poythress encourages us:
“The coming of the kingdom of heaven means
a fundamental advance in the working out of God’s purposes. God’s promises
of His reign and His salvation, as given in the Old Testament, are being
accomplished. What the law
foreshadowed and embodied in symbols and shadows is now coming into realization.
What was earthly and preliminary in the function of the law is now
fulfilled in heavenly realities. … The law [as Jeremiah predicted] is
to be written on the hearts of His disciples.”
Calvin notes on the same words in
Jeremiah that God “is so farm from departing from
the former covenant, that, on the contrary, he declares, that is will be
confirmed and ratified, when it shall be succeeded by the new. This is also the meaning of Christ’s words, when he says,
that he came to fulfill the law: for he actually fulfilled it, by quickening,
with his Spirit, the dead letter, and then exhibiting, in reality, what had
hitherto appeared only in figures.”
Now what does all of this mean?
If the American experience since 1620 is to have any measurable meaning
in the context of history, it is in the fact that rightly understood – the law
of God when it is respected, understood and obeyed by the greater majority of
the population liberates the population from being bound arbitrarily by the laws
of the land. Simply put, if the
population is willing to obey God’s law, very few public laws are necessary
and the courts may languish for lack of business.
In one discussion some years ago,
the question was raised “If everyone obeyed the Ten Commandments, what would
society on earth be like?” The
answer – it would be like heaven itself!
This is the principle of behavior that we are getting at here in the
study of this chapter. Heaven on
earth, in so far as it is possible rests upon a general willingness to honor the
covenantal revelations of the Great Covenant, not only in the spiritual realm of
loving the Son of God, but also living as people of the Creator God ought to
live. May we all accept the
challenge of that calling day by day, until our Lord returns. Amen.
Resources Used: