Hasty Judgment (Joshua 22:15-20)

Joshua 22

King James Version (KJV)

15 And they came unto the children of Reuben, and to the children of Gad, and to the half tribe of Manasseh, unto the land of Gilead, and they spake with them, saying,

16 Thus saith the whole congregation of the Lord, What trespass is this that ye have committed against the God of Israel, to turn away this day from following the Lord, in that ye have builded you an altar, that ye might rebel this day against the Lord?

17 Is the iniquity of Peor too little for us, from which we are not cleansed until this day, although there was a plague in the congregation of the Lord,

18 But that ye must turn away this day from following the Lord? and it will be, seeing ye rebel to day against the Lord, that to morrow he will be wroth with the whole congregation of Israel.

19 Notwithstanding, if the land of your possession be unclean, then pass ye over unto the land of the possession of the Lord, wherein the Lord's tabernacle dwelleth, and take possession among us: but rebel not against the Lord, nor rebel against us, in building you an altar beside the altar of the Lord our God.

20 Did not Achan the son of Zerah commit a trespass in the accursed thing, and wrath fell on all the congregation of Israel? and that man perished not alone in his iniquity.

Comments:

While the tribes of Israel rightfully sought to discuss the matter of the altar with their kinsmen before waging war with them, they still wrongfully assumed their guilt before giving them a hearing.

In civil matters, before judgement is made the accused should be given an opportunity to speak in his own defense (Deuteronomy 1:16, 17; Joshua 20:4; 1 Kings 3:16-28; Proverbs 18:17; John 7:51; Acts 7; 23:1-6; 24:10-21; 25:8-11; 26:1-26; cf. Deuteronomy 25:1). In this situation, the Israelites did in fact go on to allow their kinsmen to speak in their defense (which would clarify matters and show their innocence), but prior to this they judged their brethren prematurely.

In life, what is often the case is that things are not what they initially seem. And so "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him" (Proverbs 18:17, ESV). How often do unnecessary wars and the punishment of the innocent occur because of a failure to carefully hear what the accused has to say in his defense? "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him" (Proverbs 18:13).   

  

Dealing with Manslaughter (Joshua 20:4-6)

Joshua 20:4-6

King James Version (KJV)

4 And when he that doth flee unto one of those cities shall stand at the entering of the gate of the city, and shall declare his cause in the ears of the elders of that city, they shall take him into the city unto them, and give him a place, that he may dwell among them.

5 And if the avenger of blood pursue after him, then they shall not deliver the slayer up into his hand; because he smote his neighbour unwittingly, and hated him not beforetime.

6 And he shall dwell in that city, until he stand before the congregation for judgment, and until the death of the high priest that shall be in those days: then shall the slayer return, and come unto his own city, and unto his own house, unto the city from whence he fled.

Comments:

The manslayer is granted a hearing with the elders of the city to defend his innocence. Note two important principles of application: the accused should always be allowed to speak on his own behalf (something that oppressive states don't necessarily permit), and his defense is considered by more than one person ("elders"). These elders are not women, but men; and one would expect them to be wise and discerning.

If the elders permit him to dwell among them, they are to provide him with a place to live. Perhaps then as we consider how to apply the equity of this law today, state-funded dwellings would be appropriate in similar circumstances. Note the freedom here—the manslayer is not to be kept in jail pending trial. 

The manslayer is to be protected, and not to be handed over to the avenger of blood. He is presumed innocent prior to trial. Note, then, that handing over an innocent man to appease a lynch mob is unbiblical. Jesus—Who was completely innocent of any sin whatsoever—was sinfully allowed by Pilate to be murdered to satisfy an angry crowd.

The manslayer dwells in the city "until he stand before the congregation for judgment." What is meant by "congregation"? We plan to address this in the future. 

Finally, the manslayer must dwell in that city "until the death of the high priest that shall be in those days: then shall the slayer return, and come unto his own city, and unto his own house, unto the city from whence he fled."

Even accidental manslaughter requires some degree of punishment. Sometimes, if not most of the time, accidental manslaughter is due to negligence. Here, the punishment requires the manslayer to live apart from his hometown until the death of the high priest.

While applying the punishment for accidental manslaughter cannot be the same of that of Israel (since the office of priest is no longer biblical), perhaps at least the manslayer should endure some sort of confinement to a local jurisdiction. That is, he could have freedom of movement within a certain jurisdiction (say, the size of a city), but could not go beyond the borders. (That the manslayer was not permitted to leave the city of refuge before the high priest's death is seen in Numbers 35:26-28.) This, by the way, is much more freedom of movement than house arrest.

Perhaps, too, the manslayer's dwelling/area of confinement should be some other location than his hometown. Joshua 20 assumes a scenario where the manslayer flees from his hometown "unto one of those cities." The punishment is certainly greater when one is confined to an area not his hometown. But it is also true that the possibility of blood feuds between the manslayer and the family of the slain are reduced when they live far apart.

Finally, how do we apply the death of the priest to today's circumstances? The earthly, Jewish priesthood is abolished in the New Covenant era. If remaining in the city until the death of the high priest has some equity, perhaps we can roughly estimate the average number of years a manslayer would have lived in a city of refuge by factoring in the age that one became a high priest, and the average life of an Israelite during those days.

Not sure if the Bible speaks to the former, but at least the latter would take historical research. (We stress calculating an average number of years since it was possible for the high priest to die anywhere between the very day of the manslayer's confinement, to decades from then.) If an average can be determined, then perhaps that number of years can be the sentence for manslaughter today.