The sin of vigilantism
“Vigilantism is wrong, dangerous, and sinful. It is wrong because it operates outside of the law. It is dangerous because it often leads to violence. It is sinful because at its core it is contrary to how God designed government to work.” - Jesse Johnson
- 14 views
[Mark_Smith]If you want to talk about avenger of blood, please do so.
Keep in mind, during the week when we found out two fools hunted down a black man jogging down a street in the name of “justice” is not the time to do it.
Mark, glad to see your passion on this one, and I’d agree that something beyond idiocy and ignorance of the law by some good ‘ole boys is likely in play. I had the privilege of running with a young black man out of Flint in college, and I vividly remember that his response to aggressive dogs was very different than mine—as if he’d learned the hard way that some people trained them to respond a certain way to young black men. I’d confront the dog, but he’d be a quarter mile down the road before you could say “boo.”
But that noted, perhaps it is a good time to discuss things like this for the simple reason that people are interested in cases like this. Perhaps, if indeed Scripture bound the behavior of the “avenger of blood” fairly strictly (I’d assume he’d be liable, too, for wrongful killings in addition to needing to respect courts, city walls, the law of Moses, and the like), and the avenger of blood was not a vigilante policing all crimes including burglary, that we might be able to reduce the chances of this happening again.
Definitely use wisdom in the context and all that, but having had a profitable discussion with a BLM activist a few years back, I think it’s possible.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
The media does a lot of that. I don’t consider 2 guys, one of whom was a former police officer who worked for the DA for 30 years, and recently retired, who took it upon himself to go “citizen arrest” a black man in Georgia, and surprise, the guy resisted, so he and his son shot him. Then, the police “investigated” and found nothing wrong, along with two DAs passing the buck… “race-baiting.” It is a flair up of good ole boy southern bull hockey that needs to be eradicated from America.
The OT law allows a family member of a person murdered to get to be the one who kills a murderer who had fled to a city of refuge. If the murderer flees there, and the city the murdered is from calls for the murderer to be returned, then the murdered family may have an avenger in blood to kill the murderer.
Note the city the crime happened in calls to get the murderer back. That is a justice system.
Then, and only then, can the family member kill the murderer.
The avenger of blood is merely the executioner for a legal justice system. This is not vigilanteism.
NONE OF THIS has anything to do with the case at hand that the lead article is about.
[Mark_Smith]The OT law allows a family member of a person murdered to get to be the one who kills a murderer who had fled to a city of refuge. If the murderer flees there, and the city the murdered is from calls for the murderer to be returned, then the murdered family may have an avenger in blood to kill the murderer.
Note the city the crime happened in calls to get the murderer back. That is a justice system.
Then, and only then, can the family member kill the murderer.
The avenger of blood is merely the executioner for a legal justice system. This is not vigilanteism.
NONE OF THIS has anything to do with the case at hand that the lead article is about.
Mark, in case you missed it, the article isn’t about the “case at hand.” If it were, does a terrible job presenting information about it, merely providing three brief paragraphs at the outset.
Instead, using the incident as a springboard, the article propounds a discussion on a certain category of Biblical ethics.
Some of us who responded here, while agreeing that the case is an instance of wicked human behavior, noted that the article itself could do a better job in presenting a full-orbed discussion of what the Bible has to say on the topic of justice as practiced in the OT, commenting on an interesting omission.
That is all.
[Mark_Smith]The OT law allows a family member of a person murdered to get to be the one who kills a murderer who had fled to a city of refuge. If the murderer flees there, and the city the murdered is from calls for the murderer to be returned, then the murdered family may have an avenger in blood to kill the murderer.
Note the city the crime happened in calls to get the murderer back. That is a justice system.
Then, and only then, can the family member kill the murderer.
The avenger of blood is merely the executioner for a legal justice system. This is not vigilanteism.
Actually, Mark, according to Numbers 35 and Deuteronomy 19, the avenger of blood can exact revenge on the accused whether or not the congregation rules that his act was premeditated. The accused can be killed by the avenger of blood before he stands before the congregation for judgment if the accused is found outside a city of refuge. Once inside a city of refuge, if the congregation determines [this is the legal judgment] that the act was premeditated, they will turn the accused over to the avenger of blood. But, if the congregation determines that the act was not premeditated, the “manslayer” must still reside in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest. If he leaves for any reason, the avenger of blood can still kill him.
So, while the early Israelite justice system could get involved (i.e. standing before the congregation for judgment), the avenger of blood operated outside of due process and the judgment of the congregation in that he could exact revenge for the death of his near relative anytime the accused was found outside of a city of refuge before the death of the high priest.
[T Howard]So, while the early Israelite justice system could get involved (i.e. standing before the congregation for judgment), the avenger of blood operated outside of due process and the judgment of the congregation in that he could exact revenge for the death of his near relative anytime the accused was found outside of a city of refuge before the death of the high priest.
Given that scripture does (to a small extent) cover the actions of the “avenger of blood,” can we really say that this is “outside of due process,” or is it just a part of the system that we don’t have enough information to understand? From what we know of what scripture says elsewhere about the value of life and our approach to taking it, whether justly or unjustly, I’d have to conclude, given the lack of condemnation of the avenger of blood, that this form of justice/retribution was sanctioned by God in some way, even if we don’t have a good explanation of it. In my mind, at least, that would seem to put it firmly outside the concept of vigilantism as we normally understand it.
Dave Barnhart
[dcbii] Given that scripture does (to a small extent) cover the actions of the “avenger of blood,” can we really say that this is “outside of due process,” or is it just a part of the system that we don’t have enough information to understand? From what we know of what scripture says elsewhere about the value of life and our approach to taking it, whether justly or unjustly, I’d have to conclude, given the lack of condemnation of the avenger of blood, that this form of justice/retribution was sanctioned by God in some way, even if we don’t have a good explanation of it. In my mind, at least, that would seem to put it firmly outside the concept of vigilantism as we normally understand it.
I can’t make an argument based on what Scripture doesn’t tell us, but my point is that the avenger of blood was not “an agent of the court” like we think of today. He executed vengeance for his near relative outside of the official judicial process in place at the time. The avenger of blood was an accepted role in ANE cultures; however, that role was regulated in Israelite culture by the introduction of cities of refuge as laid out in the Torah.
So, what is the parallel of this practice today? If someone exacted vengeance outside of the judicial process for his slain relative today, he would be called … wait for it … a vigilante. The difference today is that the “avenger of blood” is no longer an accepted role within most civilized societies and has been more or less outlawed.
Is this theological discussion of an obscure OT topic, or is this something we are supposed to consider for today? Because if you are claiming any type of modern application, there is nothing in our western legal tradition to do this.
[Mark_Smith]Is this theological discussion of an obscure OT topic, or is this something we are supposed to consider for today? Because if you are claiming any type of modern application, there is nothing in our western legal tradition to do this.
both, and you’re wrong about “there is nothing in our western legal tradition to do this.” This was accepted practice in parts of the U.S. through the 19th Century. Some would argue that it was acceptable in Southern states up until the 1960s.
Discussion