9
The Avenger
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.
For there is no power but of God: the powers that
be are ordained of God (Romans 13:1).
As we saw in the last chapter, divorce has long been a perplexing
subject. This chapter is not about divorce, but the discussion about
divorce opens a door to understanding another, very different, issue:
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come
to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath
found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of
divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his
house (Deuteronomy 24:1).
The meaning of this seems obvious to me, but there has been an
incredible range of interpretation ranging from the severe to the
absurd. I have read are some tortuous explanations of this verse, but
there really is no question what Moses meant by this. It does not
mean that if the man finds his wife doesn’t wash often enough or
keeps a dirty house, he can divorce her. What it does mean is that, if
a man finds his wife has been adulterous, he can legally put her away.
Furthermore, once she has been another man’s wife, he can never take
her back.
Of special interest is the expression, “you shall not cause the land
to sin” (v. 4). This means that there is a societal interest in keeping
marriage sacred.
The law is first and foremost for the sake of the
children. Society has a vested interest in protecting children, because
they are the future of the society. Sexual relationships were regulated
because unbridled sex can bring an entire country to the brink of ruin.
There is, however, one major objection to the interpretation I have
offered here. It arises from another law on adultery:
If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband,
then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with
the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from
Israel (Deuteronomy 22:22).
So, what is this thing about divorce for sexual uncleanness? If the
woman was guilty of adultery, why was she not stoned? A common
assumption is that the law was inexorably and always applied in the
letter. That does not appear to be the case for two reasons. One is that
there may not be the two witnesses that are required. The other is that
there may be no one who wants the death penalty carried out.
Consider these two related passages. One we have discussed, the
other we have not.
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and
a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall
bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall
stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she
cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath
humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil
from among you (vv. 23-24).
Couple that with this:
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his
mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came
together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then
Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to
make her a public example, was minded to put her away
privily (Matthew 1:18-19).
There are some important things here to think about. Joseph was
not a scofflaw. He was a just man. He could have made her an
example but decided not to, and thus arises an insight into the law:
Mercy was allowed. Joseph would have been deemed the offended
party. It was his call, and no one else’s. Now let’s add one more
insight.
Jesus came to the temple early one morning and immediately
drew a crowd. He sat down and began to teach. While he was talking,
there was a disturbance and the scribes and Pharisees entered,
dragging a woman with them. They stood her in the middle of the
crowd and said to Jesus: “Master, this woman was taken in adultery,
in the very act” (John 8:4).
That the woman was caught in the act was important. Witnesses
were required in all capital cases.
Guesswork was not permitted and
they knew it. Her accusers went on:
Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be
stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him,
that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down,
and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard
them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up
himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among
you, let him first cast a stone at her (vv. 8:5-7).
The motive of the Pharisees in bringing this case had nothing to
do with justice or the law. They were looking for a cause to accuse
Jesus, but he wasn’t biting. Now they had to deal, not with Jesus, but
with the law. While the whole crowd could participate in stoning,
under the law the witnesses had to go first. What came at issue here
was mercy. Sinners, if they are not in denial about their own sins, can
be the most merciful of people. Jesus stripped away all denial. All
that was left was mercy.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own con-science, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even
unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman
standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and
saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are
those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said,
No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn
thee: go, and sin no more (vv. 9-11).
This is crucial in understanding issues of the law. The
condemnation of the poor sinner was a matter of choice. God himself
does not routinely kill adulterers, or we would have suffered massive
depopulation by now. One of the most evil approaches to the law of
God is to remove the mercy option. To be sure, there are some crimes
where mercy is simply not possible.
But to make the law automatic
and inexorable is to make God into someone entirely different from
who he is.
Not a few struggle with this issue. One approach is to divide the
law into various compartments—this law is in effect and that one is
not—playing hopscotch through the law. There are, though, two
significant divisions in what is called, “The Law of Moses.” The
divisions are commonly called moral and civil. The division is
problematic because some conclude that the civil law is abolished
while the moral law remains. The problem is that the civil law is
written, and Jesus said the written law would continue as long as
heaven and earth remained. What people are describing by the term
“civil law” is administrative law—the laws describing who is to
administer and enforce the law, and how they are to go about it.
There is in the Bible a basic law that differentiates between right
and wrong, and applies to man, whenever and wherever he finds
himself. The obedience to this law is personal and between a man and
his God. For example, consider this promise made to Isaac.
And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven,
and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed
shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; Because that
Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my
commandments, my statutes, and my laws (Genesis 26:4-5).
Long before Moses, there was a complete system of law, but there
appears to have been no civil administration of that law. There is
another set of laws that became necessary for men to live together in
a community or society. These laws were administrative.
For example, we have in this country a basic law that condemns
murder. Then there is another set of laws controlling how we deal
with the murderer. In our society, these are familiar: Trial by jury, due
process, laws of discovery, chain of evidence, etc. These laws can
actually vary from state to state. If you have ever sat on a jury, you
have seen these laws applied by the court.
Now take this back in time to Israel in the days of the judges.
Living in the land of Israel, an adulterous relationship occurs. Say,
Baroc ben Ephraim learns that his wife has been sleeping with Juda
ben Mannaseh down the road. By law, Baroc could gather the elders,
establish the case, cast the first stone and have them both executed.
Now let’s move the case to Alexandria and Egyptian law. The
underlying moral law is still very much in effect. Adultery is wrong.
Baroc can divorce his wife. But Egyptian administrative law may
have had no provision for capital punishment for this offense. This
underlines a major source of misunderstanding. An assumption is
made that the administrative law, sometimes called the civil law, was
abolished in Christ. Problem is, the administrative law was part and
parcel of the written law—that part of the law that Jesus said would
last as long as heaven and earth remain.
But the administrative law may not be enforceable if there is no
administration. The law remains, but it can only serve as a precedent
for the will of God in a given time and place. A man or a woman may
commit adultery and escape the death penalty, but the law remains to
teach us how truly damaging the act is to human relationships. And
in that way, it suggests a call for forgiveness and mercy, and it reveals
why the call for mercy is needed.
Of what I have said so far, this is the sum: Old Testament law is
not nearly as inflexible as many seem to think. There were judges,
priests, elders, and an entire administration. Some penalties were at
the discretion of these people and there could be extenuating
circumstances.
I was discussing this with a group and someone pointed to the
example of David and Bathsheba. Should they not have been
executed for their crime? One obvious reason why they were not is
that David was the head of state. There was no one above the king
who could sit in judgment of him and call for his execution. God
could have killed him, of course, but God had delegated judgment to
a civil administration and was not willing to take it back. I think there
is something very important in that simple fact. Even when civil
government is corrupt, it is still the authority which has been
authorized to judge. Paul faced this issue in an altogether different
time and place:
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities,
for there is no authority except that which God has
established. The authorities that exist have been established
by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is
rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do
so will bring judgment on themselves (Romans 13:1-2).
And what was the governing authority when Paul wrote these
words? Since he was writing the churches in Rome, it would seem
that it was Roman authority he was describing as God’s servant, the
bearer of the sword, and an “agent of wrath to bring punishment on
the wrongdoer” (v. 4). The agent is, in the Greek, the ekdikos,
literally, the executor of justice. In Old Testament terms, he was “the
avenger.”
This raises an interesting distinction, not unlike our two Israelites
living in Alexandria. Adultery was still a sin against God and
neighbor, but Egyptian law controlled in matters of execution. So,
living in the Roman empire, the state became the avenger.
Who, in Mosaic Law, was the avenger? By the time of the
monarchy, the state was the avenger, but in the period between Joshua
and Samuel, it was different. Here is what the law required in these,
the freest of times:
Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When
ye be come over Jordan into the land of Canaan; Then ye shall
appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you; that the slayer
may flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares. And
they shall be unto you cities for refuge from the avenger; that
the manslayer die not, until he stand before the congregation
in judgment. And of these cities which ye shall give six cities
shall ye have for refuge (Numbers 35:10-13).
This is an early example of due process. Intentional murder was
one thing. Manslaughter something else. But of special interest in
this passage is the word “avenger.” In Hebrew, the word means
“redeemer.” It is the same word in the familiar, “For I know that my
redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the
earth.”
The “redeemer” is a synonym for the next of kin who has the right
to redeem his brother from slavery, or in this case to redeem his blood
from the man who took it. It is revealing of what lies behind the death
penalty under Moses’ law—a sharp distinction between vengeance
and retribution.
When Paul uses the term “avenger,” good Hebrew that he was, it
was used it in the sense of the redeemer, of the balancer of the books.
In Rome, the state was the avenger of blood, and there were no cities
of refuge. In the time of the judges, it was different. Under that
administration, there were cities designated as cities of refuge. If you
accidently killed a man, you were guilty of manslaughter. If you went
to one of the cities of refuge without delay, the avenger could not take
your life. The cities were to be conveniently placed:
Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his
heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and
slay him; whereas he was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he
hated him not in time past (Deuteronomy 19:6).
In other words, the killing was accidental, not premeditated. What
is interesting here is that person with the legal right to redeem could
legally take the life of a killer. It is not mere vengeance. It is
retribution. A balancing of the books. Furthermore, you had to have
the legal right of next of kin to do the deed. This is the Israelite law
of manslaughter. It had a penalty short of death. He had to stay in that
city of refuge until the death of the High Priest. Only then could he
leave. But what if it was not manslaughter? What if it was
premeditated murder? It was dealt with according to due process.
But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and
rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and
fleeth into one of these cities: Then the elders of his city shall
send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of
the avenger of blood, that he may die (vv. 11-12).
Mercy was not an option for the elders of the city. Theoretically,
the avenger might extend that mercy, but not the civil administration.
There is one more thing about this. As in our Constitution, no man
could be deprived of life or liberty without due process. And at least
two witnesses were required.
Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death
by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify
against any person to cause him to die. Moreover ye shall take
no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of
death: but he shall be surely put to death. And ye shall take no
satisfaction for him that is fled to the city of his refuge, that he
should come again to dwell in the land, until the death of the
priest. So ye shall not pollute the land
wherein ye are: for
blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of
the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that
shed it (Numbers 35:30-33).
There are some interesting things about this law. One is that you
couldn’t pay off the elders to get them to let you go. Another very
important issue is that a minimum of two witnesses was mandatory.
One was not enough. Therefore, judicial execution was probably
infrequent in those days. Did they allow circumstantial evidence into
court? Probably not to the extent that courts do today. It is doubtful
if O.J. Simpson would have been convicted under the law of Moses,
just as he wasn’t under United States law. It may be that Scott
Peterson, convicted of the murder of his wife and unborn son, would
not have been found guilty under Israelite law.
Our Constitution requires that no man should be deprived of life
or liberty without due process of law. The same was true in Israelite
law. I worry a bit about our system these days. I think the office of the
prosecutor is the weak link. In the time of the Judges of Israel, there
was one very important difference. When a crime came to trial, the
judges were to make diligent enquiry. If witnesses or accusers had
testified falsely, the penalty they had sought to impose would be
carried out on the accuser.
This should have a chilling effect on
authorities who are tempted to plant false evidence to get a
conviction. It is an unfortunate truth that the authorities have, on
occasion, cooked the evidence to get a man they were sure was guilty.
In such a case, then the District Attorney or the officers guilty of that
should go to jail for the same term they were trying to pull off for a
criminal. If you are ever called to serve on a Grand Jury or a Petit
Jury, hold the prosecutor’s feet to the fire and be sure he has proved
his case. Scott Peterson may well have killed his wife and unborn
child. But he should not be convicted of murder merely because he is
a proven louse, or because the jury has been led to hate him as a result
of prosecutorial manipulation.
So, let me take my summary a bit further. There is much about
Old Testament law that we do not understand. We know that not one
word of it has been abolished. We also know that we have to draw a
line at the point of administration, and thus the enforcement, of the
law. The enforcement of the law has not been abolished, but the
authority to enforce has been given to the state.
Now I want to get a little closer to the original language of
something Paul wrote. Peter observed that Paul was hard enough to
understand, even by those who read Greek. That difficulty is
magnified for us, and nowhere more so, than in his letters to Corinth.
But the struggle is essential in dealing with the topic at hand.
Consider this, for example:
And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: Not that
we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of
ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made
us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of
the spirit: for the letter kills, but the spirit giveth life (2
Corinthians 3:4-6).
The word for “ministers” in this passage is the Greek, diakonos.
It is closely related to diakonia, which is usually rendered “ministry.”
The root of both words is diokos, “to pursue.” A deacon is a servant,
but not necessarily a menial servant. He may have the duty of
pursuing justice, for example, as a “civil servant.” He may be an
administrator, one who executes public affairs, as distinguished from
a policy maker or legislator.
In this context, I think Paul’s use of diakonia would be better
rendered, “administration.” Look at it this way:
But if the administration of death, written and engraven in
stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not
stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his
countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall
not the administration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if
the administration of condemnation be glory, much more doth
the administration of righteousness exceed in glory (vv. 7-9).
The glory in Moses’ face would fade over time. And the
administration of death would also be replaced by the administration
of the Spirit. Paul and the other apostles were able administrators of
the new covenant.
What I think is too often overlooked in Paul’s writing is his
rejection of the diakonia, the administration, of the Jewish
establishment. Their administration was corrupt. Moses’
administration was glorious, and adequate for the governance of a
nation, but was not intended to govern the heart of man.
All this comes together to shed light on a widely misunderstood
teaching of Jesus. On two separate occasions, he told his disciples, “I
tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in
heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”
(Matthew 18:18). This is the moment when Jesus replaces the Jewish
administration of the assembly of God’s people. In its place, for the
church, he creates a new administration based on the apostles:
“Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you
ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two
or three come together in my name, there am I with them” (vv. 19-20).
Thus, unilateral administration of the church is set aside. It takes
two or three leaders to judge a matter. What we are seeing is a change
of administration.
|