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
Jesse’s article really does an injustice to what the OT law says about the “avenger of blood.” The avenger of blood was a form of vigilantism condoned by Scripture.
The difference lies in that the avenger of blood was part of that legal system. It is not a form of vigilantism because it did not go outside the law.
[Nord Zootman]The difference lies in that the avenger of blood was part of that legal system. It is not a form of vigilantism because it did not go outside the law.
Yes, but the article is making the claim that vigilantism is a sin. Full stop. Not that it is a sin merely because it is illegal, but because “at its core it is contrary to how God designed government to work.”
Going 60mph in a 55 might be illegal, but it is not inherently “a sin” purely because “that’s how God designed roads to work.”
The avenger of blood is NOT a vigilante. One has to take law into their own hands to be a vigilante and the avenger of blood was not doing that.
[Nord Zootman]”Take the law into your own hands: to do something illegal and often violent in order to punish someone because you know the law will not punish that person:”The avenger of blood is NOT a vigilante. One has to take law into their own hands to be a vigilante and the avenger of blood was not doing that.
So vigilantism is wrong because it is illegal, in other words.
That reduces the argument of the article to a tautology: i.e., “It’s not just wrong [sin] because it’s illegal; it’s sin because it’s taking the law into one’s own hands [illegal].”
But we already knew that something is sin if it is illegal. Because it’s disobeying the government.
Again, that doesn’t speak to anything inherent to vigilantism. In this case, all the author’s verbiage would boil down to “vigilantism is wrong because it’s illegal.”
Not saying this is an easy area, but I think it definitely requires a more careful and nuanced treatment than given here.
No, you are not focusing on the definition of vigilantism. I might add that in this instance there was no avenging going on. I think it is a serious mistake to say that the avenger of blood was a vigilante.
I know the OT mentions the existence and operation of the “avenger of blood” a few times. Does it ever really flesh out how he was chosen, and under what conditions he operated? We have a slight parallel, perhaps, in those who are “bounty hunters” in the U.S.; people who, for a portion of the posted bond, track people down who skip trial. Noteworthy; their operation is seriously bounded by law today.
We might start by guessing that since it is an “avenger of blood”, that he would only operate in cases that had serious spilled blood or a capital crime (e.g. rape) involved. We also know he had to respect the gates of the sanctuary cities, and the decision of a council in that city that determined guilt or innocence. What else do we really know from Scripture, for for that matter, contemporaneous sources?
(could we even find contemporary Jewish sources of that day, given the destruction that repeatedly wrought havoc in Israel? Keep in mind as well that the pagan nations may have had somewhat different regulations on their “avengers of blood”—given modern Middle Eastern culture, I’d be surprised if the ancient Edomites and such didn’t have them!)
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Going out on a bit of a limb, I’m guessing that our ancient avengers of blood would have either worked for pay—making them work only on the biggest cases, or those of the most well connected people—and the assumption might have been made “if they’re willing to leave their home over this case, that is their punishment.” Keep in mind that leaving your home also meant leaving your land and your relatives, so this is really a fairly serious consequence for misdeeds. You couldn’t just give them a call or send them an email.
Food for thought, no? I’m just a bit uneasy at the notion of coming down hard on either side of the question of whether the “avenger of blood” was a vigilante, or whether he would have been almost akin to the Texas Rangers. I’m open to being persuaded, but I just don’t know how much we know, or really even how much we can reasonably infer.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Who knew you couldn’t get in a truck and chase down with a .357 and a shot gun someone that you think might have been robbing your neighbors? Then, you confront him in the street and blow him away…
I had no idea.
Please spare me any justification for this. It has nothing to do with “avenger of blood.” This is pure good ole boy idiocy.
[Mark_Smith] Please spare me any justification for this. It has nothing to do with “avenger of blood.” This is pure good ole boy idiocy.
Mark, my initial comment was not to justify what happened in Georgia but to critique the article’s poor handling of what Scripture says about the “avenger of blood.”
The avenger of blood was a near relative who would seek vengeance on behalf of the victim. He wasn’t an officer of the court because Scripture speaks of him pursuing the accused and overtaking him in hot anger (Deut 19:6). The “avenger of blood” concept is similar to other ANE cultures; however, the inclusion of the cities of refuge where the accused could seek sanctuary is unique to Israel.
These cities served as both a sanctuary as well as a form of “house arrest.” If the avenger of blood caught the accused, guilty or not of premeditated murder, outside of the city prior to the death of the high priest, he could still avenge the death of his relative.
So, in one sense, the avenger of blood did operate outside of the official judicial system of early Israel and executed personal vengeance on the accused. In another sense, the avenger of blood operated within the guidelines established by the mosiac law.
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_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.
I was only marginally aware of this event prior to reading the article. It was just one awful item among many on my news feed.
Someone associated with my organization just died in plane crash in Papua yesterday. You probably didn’t know, or it left little impact if you did.
Keep in mind, not all SI readers orient themselves with constant reference to America’s obsessive, race-baiting media cycle.
[Andrew K]Keep in mind, not all SI readers orient themselves with constant reference to America’s obsessive, race-baiting media cycle.
Yeah. Not even all Americans orient themselves with reference to race-baiting stories in the media.
Dave Barnhart
Discussion