設立庇護城
（民35‧9－28；書20‧1－9）
1「耶和華－你神將列國之民剪除的時候，耶和華－你神也將他們的地賜給你，你接着住他們的城邑並他們的房屋， 2就要在耶和華－你神所賜你為業的地上分定三座城。 3要將耶和華－你神使你承受為業的地分為三段；又要預備道路，使誤殺人的，都可以逃到那裏去。
4「誤殺人的逃到那裏可以存活，定例乃是這樣：凡素無仇恨，無心殺了人的， 5就如人與鄰舍同入樹林砍伐樹木，手拿斧子一砍，本想砍下樹木，不料，斧頭脫了把，飛落在鄰舍身上，以致於死，這人逃到那些城的一座城，就可以存活， 6免得報血仇的，心中火熱追趕他，因路遠就追上，將他殺死；其實他不該死，因為他與被殺的素無仇恨。 7所以我吩咐你說，要分定三座城。 8耶和華－你神若照他向你列祖所起的誓擴張你的境界，將所應許賜你列祖的地全然給你， 9你若謹守遵行我今日所吩咐的這一切誡命，愛耶和華－你的神，常常遵行他的道，就要在這三座城之外，再添三座城， 10免得無辜之人的血流在耶和華－你神所賜你為業的地上，流血的罪就歸於你。
11「若有人恨他的鄰舍，埋伏着起來擊殺他，以致於死，便逃到這些城的一座城， 12本城的長老就要打發人去，從那裏帶出他來，交在報血仇的手中，將他治死。 13你眼不可顧惜他，卻要從以色列中除掉流無辜血的罪，使你可以得福。」
舊地界
14「在耶和華－你神所賜你承受為業之地，不可挪移你鄰舍的地界，那是先人所定的。」
有關證人的條例
15「人無論犯甚麼罪，作甚麼惡，不可憑一個人的口作見證，總要憑兩三個人的口作見證才可定案。 16若有凶惡的見證人起來，見證某人作惡， 17這兩個爭訟的人就要站在耶和華面前，和當時的祭司，並審判官面前， 18審判官要細細地查究，若見證人果然是作假見證的，以假見證陷害弟兄， 19你們就要待他如同他想要待的弟兄。這樣，就把那惡從你們中間除掉。 20別人聽見都要害怕，就不敢在你們中間再行這樣的惡了。 21你眼不可顧惜，要以命償命，以眼還眼，以牙還牙，以手還手，以腳還腳。」
各位弟兄姊妹平安。今天我們讀的是《申命記》第19章，一整章都在談論關於當時的法律對待殺人、謀殺以及命案的一些處理方式。
首先，在整個章節中我們不斷看到一句話，就是「耶和華你神」。這句話不斷地提醒著我們，這一切是神主導的，是神所安排的，是上帝所賜予的。這些土地，這些計畫，都是上帝所主導和帶領的。上帝不斷地在提醒以色列人，主導者是祂，祂必鑒察這一切。因此，當我們明白上帝在上鑒察這一切時，我們所做的每一個決定都會向祂交帳。在這個前提下，我們在做決定要格外謹慎和小心，不能隨意妄為，也不能隨意做任何評斷。這是法律執行者的首要要求，不能只向人交賬，而是要向上帝交賬。
在這裡，我們看到了法律和人情之間的一個平衡。在這裡提到了兩種情況都是關於殺人案的。一個是無心致死，聖經很貼切地描述了一個情況，斧頭意外飛出去打死人，這樣的事情在現代生活中也很常見，意外可能發生在很多場合，兩個人之間未必有仇恨，但卻發生了導致某人死亡的意外。可能發生在車禍、工地意外中，以及各種其他情況下。在這種情況下，法律的原則是不要報復，因為沒有人故意要害死人，沒有仇恨的原因存在，只是真的有人不小心或者是出現了一些狀況。這個時候，逃城的條例就是讓這些無意間造成他人死亡的人能夠找到地方躲藏，不要讓被害人的家屬追殺他們，可以暫停無意義的報復。
另外一個情況則是，如果真的有人是刻意殺人，是因為恨意而蓄意將他人殺死，這樣的人即使逃到逃城，也必須被抓出來，交給被害人的家屬去行使應有的處理。刻意殺人的罪行，逃城是不會庇護的。
在這段經文中確實有許多爭議點。我稍微回答一下可能會引起爭議的觀點。
首先，有人可能會說這樣不公平啊，這個人還是殺了人，那個倒霉被斧頭砸到的人還是死了，那他的家屬怎麼辦呢？
是的，的確，當意外發生導致死亡時，造成的悲劇無法改變。但即使抓回這個人並處罰他，也無法讓這一切變得更好，也無法使死者復活。因此，在這種情況下，懲罰似乎變得毫無意義。而且，這個無心殺人的人正在承擔著良心的譴責，他一生都會記得這件事。所以，與其再用法律去懲罰他，不如想辦法讓這件事以和平的方式解決。比如，這個無心殺人的人可以去繼續撫養意外死者的後代，作為一種補償。這或許會比直接把他殺死，造成更多家庭的破碎要稍微好一些。
再來，也會有人說，這樣要是有人故意營造 “無心殺人”的謀殺案怎麼辦呢？哈哈。這就是人性，我們本能性地會去想要鑽法律的漏洞，或是嘗試去對法律做出對自己有利的解釋。就像是19章末段所講的，作假見證的假證人。有沒有人可能老奸巨猾，用一些“看似無心”的手法完成謀殺的結局呢？
當然有，所以接下來的原則，不能僅憑一個人的口供就定罪，必須有兩到三個人同時做見證，才能定罪。這個見證人的原則在今天的法院也是很常被使用的。如果有親眼目睹的、當場的見證人，這些人的口供和說法必定會有一定程度的契合，不可能完全前後不一致。因此，剩下的原則就是不能僅靠一個人的陳述來定罪，而是需要多人的證明才能作為參考。 在我們剛剛讀完的馬可福音中我們就看見，耶穌被多個所謂的見證人指控時，卻發生了這些人前言不對後語，亂七八糟的陳述。耶穌只是默然不語，不回應這些指控，因為這些見證人本身就是虛假的，他們的陳述是不可信的，只是胡說八道一番。要知道串證本身是很困難的事情，要讓幾個人一起編假故事，還編得有理有據前後相呼應，是極高難度的一件事情。
然後，就算是見證人所講的內容，也只是作為參考，因為接下來還有審判官需要仔細考察一切證據。所以，就算在法院中，也不能僅僅因為一個見證人的陳述或者幾個見證人的說法就直接定罪，仍然需要查證證據，參考其他事情，最終才能得出一個結論。
最後有人說那是舊約的事情，新約裡面我們要用慈愛待人，所以無論如何我們都應該原諒。耶穌不是叫我們說被打左臉，連右臉也給人打嗎？所以這個是屬於舊約的規矩，在新約不可以用以眼還眼，以牙還牙。
是的，這的確是耶穌的教導我們在新約之中要用慈愛待人，因為我們已被慈愛相待。他是用愛來還我我們的債，我們也應當用愛去還別人的債，所以這種被冒犯的時候我們盡我們所能的去寬恕，去原諒，去讓別人佔便宜。我們有更多的愛心去包容，去寬恕別人。
但有一個很重要的原因，就是你不能夠默然的忽略法律。 舉一個稍微極端的例子，如果你都已經被人搶了，你都已經被人打了，你都已經要被人殺害了，你這個時候還說我寬恕你，你殺我吧，這個只能說阿Q精神，而不是真正的寬恕跟慈愛，現代社會裡面依然有法律存在的必要。你可以想像一下，如果哪一個國家沒有法律的約束的時候，會發生什麼事情嗎？你能夠想像一下如果沒有法律去制裁罪犯的時候，這個社會又會變成什麼樣子嗎？
當時候我們特別必須要提一下一個馬丁路德提出的重要的神學觀念叫做 "Law and Gospel"，即律法與福音。有人認為基督教只提福音，不提律法，因為那是舊約的事情，那就錯了。
律法的存在有三個重要的必須性。首先是使人認識罪。一個人如果沒有律法，就不知道什麼是罪，就像保羅在羅馬書裡面所說的：「若沒有律法，我就不知何為罪。」一個不知罪的人就不能夠悔改認罪，這是律法的第一個功效。
第二個功效是讓人被框在律法之中，不至於不斷犯罪。我們之前提過，法律的存在並不是讓人成為好人，而是盡量維護道德的底線。因為如果沒有法律的時候，罪人的本性就會完全顯露出來，造成整個社會、整個人類世界的動亂。這是律法的第二個重要功用。
第三個功效是律法成為我們一生道德的指引。我們能夠有一個根據，有一條路能夠盡可能地跟隨，盡量不要走在這條路之外。雖然我們都是軟弱，但是我們能夠盡可能有一個指引的方向。
因此到今天，法律仍然具有它真正的功效，而且懲罰也是有重要性的。懲罰的含義不僅僅是為了報復，而是要讓人明白公義仍然存在，故意做錯事情就必須要受到相應的代價。就如我們教訓孩子，不可以只有愛，同時也必須要有原則。懲罰不是為了報復，而是為了讓人能產生悔改的信，和敬畏的心。
因此，在律法之中必須要有懲罰的行為，以實現「以牙還牙」的原則。懲罰的目的並不僅僅是要傷害犯罪者，而是要讓人明白犯罪有嚴重的後果，對犯罪有一個害怕。你可以想像一下，如果偷竊不需要受到處罰的時候會發生什麼事情呢？如果你了解一下加州現在的法律，你就會明白這個情況。在加州2014年立了一個法律，只要你不拿超過950美金的東西，警察就會以輕罪判定，不懲罰。因此產生了叫做「零元購」，很多人就此開始到處偷竊，造成當地店家的極大困擾（目前是2024年，後來會不會改不知道），導致了該地區犯罪率的大幅上升，造成了更多混亂的情況。
人性本是罪惡的，如果沒有法律的約束，這個社會必然會敗壞。所以當我們在談論愛的同時，法律的存在性是必要的。因為當我們使用法律時，是對社會和眾人的一個公告和警告，代表上帝的公義也在世界上，上帝仍然會懲罰罪惡。但我們也要善用法律的懲罰，我們必須謹慎。
最後，我們必須明白，完美的世界只存在於天上不存在於地上，在地上的每一天，律法就有存在的必要性。這一段經文讓我們看見，上帝從一開始立法的時候，就把人性和公義都考慮進去，到今天，聖經裡的原則仍然是許多法律體系建立的基礎。
感謝各位的聆聽，明天我們談一個更為嚴肅的話題，戰爭的原則。
Deuteronomy 19
Cities of Refuge
When the Lord your God has destroyed the nations whose land he is giving you, and when you have driven them out and settled in their towns and houses,
then set aside for yourselves three cities in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess.
Determine the distances involved and divide into three parts the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, so that a person who kills someone may flee for refuge to one of these cities.
This is the rule concerning anyone who kills a person and flees there for safety—anyone who kills a neighbor unintentionally, without malice aforethought.
For instance, a man may go into the forest with his neighbor to cut wood, and as he swings his ax to fell a tree, the head may fly off and hit his neighbor and kill him. That man may flee to one of these cities and save his life.
Otherwise, the avenger of blood might pursue him in a rage, overtake him if the distance is too great, and kill him even though he is not deserving of death, since he did it to his neighbor without malice aforethought.
This is why I command you to set aside for yourselves three cities.
If the Lord your God enlarges your territory, as he promised on oath to your ancestors, and gives you the whole land he promised them,
because you carefully follow all these laws I command you today—to love the Lord your God and to walk always in obedience to him—then you are to set aside three more cities.
Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land, which the Lord your God is giving you as your inheritance, and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed.
But if out of hate someone lies in wait, assaults and kills a neighbor, and then flees to one of these cities,
the killer shall be sent for by the town elders, be brought back from the city, and be handed over to the avenger of blood to die.
Show no pity. You must purge from Israel the guilt of shedding innocent blood, so that it may go well with you.
Do not move your neighbor’s boundary stone set up by your predecessors in the inheritance you receive in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess.
Witnesses
One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.
If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse someone of a crime,
the two people involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the Lord before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time.
The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite,
then do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party. You must purge the evil from among you.
The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you.
Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
Dear brothers and sisters, peace be with you. Today, we are reading Deuteronomy chapter 19, which discusses various aspects of how the law dealt with cases of murder and manslaughter at that time.
Firstly, throughout the entire chapter, we continuously encounter the phrase "the Lord your God." This phrase serves as a reminder that everything is orchestrated by God, arranged by Him, and given by God. The lands, the plans—all are led and guided by God. God constantly reminds the Israelites that He is the one in charge, and He will oversee everything. Therefore, when we understand that God is scrutinizing everything, every decision we make must be held accountable to Him. With this premise in mind, we must be extra cautious and careful in our decisions, avoiding making judgments arbitrarily. This is the primary requirement for those who enforce the law—to be accountable not only to humans but also to God.
Here, we see a balance between the law and compassion. Two scenarios regarding murder cases are mentioned. One is unintentional manslaughter, as aptly described in the Bible—a situation where an axe accidentally flies out and kills someone. Such occurrences are common in modern life, where accidents may happen in various situations, such as car accidents, accidents at construction sites, and others. In such cases, the principle of the law is not retaliation, because there is no malicious intent or hatred involved; it is merely an accident. The purpose of the city of refuge ordinance is to provide a place for those who unintentionally caused someone's death to seek refuge, to prevent the deceased's family from seeking vengeance, thereby avoiding meaningless retaliation.
On the other hand, if someone deliberately commits murder out of hatred, even if they flee to a city of refuge, they must be brought out and handed over to the victim's family for proper handling. The city of refuge does not offer protection for intentional murderers.
In this passage, there are indeed many points of controversy. Allow me to briefly address some potential contentious issues.
Firstly, some may argue that this is unfair. After all, someone still died, even if it was an accident. So, what about the victim's family?
Indeed, the tragedy caused by an accident cannot be reversed. However, even if we apprehend and punish the person responsible, it does not make the situation any better, nor can it bring the deceased back to life. Therefore, in such cases, punishment seems meaningless. Moreover, the person who unintentionally caused someone's death carries the burden of conscience, and they will remember this incident for the rest of their lives. Hence, instead of resorting to legal punishment, it may be better to seek a peaceful resolution. For example, the unintentional perpetrator could continue to support the deceased's family as a form of compensation. This may be a slightly better solution than simply executing them, which would further shatter two families.
Furthermore, one might ask, what if someone intentionally orchestrates a "seemingly accidental" murder case? Ha ha. This is human nature. We instinctively seek loopholes in the law or attempt to interpret the law in our favor. As mentioned in the latter part of chapter 19, false witnesses may fabricate evidence. Is it possible for someone to be cunning enough to manipulate the situation to appear as an "accidental" murder?
Of course, it is. Therefore, the next principle is that a person cannot be convicted based solely on one person's testimony; there must be two or three witnesses to corroborate the accusation. This principle of witnesses is also commonly used in today's courts. If there are eyewitnesses present at the scene, their testimonies will inevitably have a certain degree of consistency; they cannot be completely inconsistent. Therefore, the remaining principle is that one cannot be convicted based solely on one person's statement; multiple testimonies are required as evidence. In the Gospel of Mark, we see Jesus being accused by multiple so-called witnesses, yet their testimonies were inconsistent and chaotic. Jesus remained silent, not responding to these accusations because these witnesses themselves were false; their testimonies were unreliable, merely baseless accusations. It's worth noting that fabricating evidence is very difficult; it's a challenging task to get several people to collaborate on a false story and make it seem credible with consistent details.
Dear brothers and sisters, peace be with you. Today, we're reading Deuteronomy chapter 19, which discusses various aspects of how the law dealt with cases of murder and manslaughter at that time.
Firstly, throughout the entire chapter, we continuously encounter the phrase "the Lord your God." This phrase serves as a reminder that everything is orchestrated by God, arranged by Him, and given by God. The lands, the plans—all are led and guided by God. God constantly reminds the Israelites that He is the one in charge, and He will oversee everything. Therefore, when we understand that God is scrutinizing everything, every decision we make must be held accountable to Him. With this premise in mind, we must be extra cautious and careful in our decisions, avoiding making judgments arbitrarily. This is the primary requirement for those who enforce the law—to be accountable not only to humans but also to God.
Here, we see a balance between the law and compassion. Two scenarios regarding murder cases are mentioned. One is unintentional manslaughter, as aptly described in the Bible—a situation where an axe accidentally flies out and kills someone. Such occurrences are common in modern life, where accidents may happen in various situations, such as car accidents, accidents at construction sites, and others. In such cases, the principle of the law is not retaliation, because there is no malicious intent or hatred involved; it is merely an accident. The purpose of the city of refuge ordinance is to provide a place for those who unintentionally caused someone's death to seek refuge, to prevent the deceased's family from seeking vengeance, thereby avoiding meaningless retaliation.
On the other hand, if someone deliberately commits murder out of hatred, even if they flee to a city of refuge, they must be brought out and handed over to the victim's family for proper handling. The city of refuge does not offer protection for intentional murderers.
In this passage, there are indeed many points of controversy. Allow me to briefly address some potential contentious issues.
Firstly, some may argue that this is unfair. After all, someone still died, even if it was an accident. So, what about the victim's family?
Indeed, the tragedy caused by an accident cannot be reversed. However, even if we apprehend and punish the person responsible, it does not make the situation any better, nor can it bring the deceased back to life. Therefore, in such cases, punishment seems meaningless. Moreover, the person who unintentionally caused someone's death carries the burden of conscience, and they will remember this incident for the rest of their lives. Hence, instead of resorting to legal punishment, it may be better to seek a peaceful resolution. For example, the unintentional perpetrator could continue to support the deceased's family as a form of compensation. This may be a slightly better solution than simply executing them, which would further shatter two families.
Furthermore, one might ask, what if someone intentionally orchestrates a "seemingly accidental" murder case? Ha ha. This is human nature. We instinctively seek loopholes in the law or attempt to interpret the law in our favor. As mentioned in the latter part of chapter 19, false witnesses may fabricate evidence. Is it possible for someone to be cunning enough to manipulate the situation to appear as an "accidental" murder?
Of course, it is. Therefore, the next principle is that a person cannot be convicted based solely on one person's testimony; there must be two or three witnesses to corroborate the accusation. This principle of witnesses is also commonly used in today's courts. If there are eyewitnesses present at the scene, their testimonies will inevitably have a certain degree of consistency; they cannot be completely inconsistent. Therefore, the remaining principle is that one cannot be convicted based solely on one person's statement; multiple testimonies are required as evidence. In the Gospel of Mark, we see Jesus being accused by multiple so-called witnesses, yet their testimonies were inconsistent and chaotic. Jesus remained silent, not responding to these accusations because these witnesses themselves were false; their testimonies were unreliable, merely baseless accusations. It's worth noting that fabricating evidence is very difficult; it's a challenging task to get several people to collaborate on a false story and make it seem credible with consistent details.
And even if the testimony of witnesses is provided, it is only considered as reference, as there are judges who need to carefully examine all the evidence. Therefore, even in court, one cannot be convicted solely based on one witness's statement or the testimonies of several witnesses. Evidence must still be verified, other matters must be considered, and ultimately, a conclusion must be reached.
Finally, some may argue that this is an Old Testament matter, and in the New Testament, we should treat others with love, so we should forgive regardless. Didn't Jesus teach us to turn the other cheek and offer the other as well? So, isn't "an eye for an eye" a rule of the Old Testament and not applicable in the New Testament?
Yes, indeed, this is Jesus' teaching; in the New Testament, we are to treat others with love because we have been treated with love. He paid our debt with love, and we should also repay others' debts with love. Therefore, when we are offended, we should forgive to the best of our ability, extend forgiveness, and let others take advantage of us. We have more love to accommodate, forgive others.
But there's an important reason—you cannot silently ignore the law. To give a slightly extreme example, if someone has already robbed you, beaten you, and is about to kill you, and you say, "I forgive you, go ahead and kill me," that can only be described as a "spirit of Ah Q," not genuine forgiveness and love. In modern society, the existence of law is still necessary. You can imagine what would happen if there were no laws to restrain people in a country? Can you imagine what would happen if there were no laws to punish criminals, and society would descend into chaos?
Therefore, when we talk about love, the existence of law is necessary. Because when we use the law, it serves as a declaration and warning to society and everyone, representing the justice of God still exists in the world, and God will still punish evil. But we must also make good use of the punishment of the law, we must be careful.
Lastly, we must understand that a perfect world only exists in heaven, not on earth. Every day on earth, the necessity of law exists. This passage of scripture allows us to see that when God established laws from the beginning, He considered both human nature and justice. Even today, the principles in the Bible still serve as the foundation for many legal systems.
Thank you for listening. Tomorrow, we'll discuss a more serious topic—the principles of war.
Comments