THE CITY NEAREST TO THE SLAIN MAN
THE CITY NEAREST TO THE SLAIN MAN
The above passage has clearly a dispensational significance, “the slain man” referring to Christ as slain near Jerusalem, although the city is not charged with the guilt of His death, but rather in grace given an opportunity to clear itself. The remaining subjects in the chapter follow on the death of our Lord in regular order, bearing on the assembly and Israel as seen in the Acts. The “stubborn and rebellious son” is a type of the Jews as utterly disregardful of divine grace and authority in Christ presented to them in the gospel. He would “not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother”. Being brought to “the elders of his city” he is stoned to death by “all the men” of it. But verses 1 to 9 contain most important principles in relation to local ruptures, or other causes of uncertainty involving fellowship among the saints of the assembly.
First, as to general responsibility. “Thine elders and thy judges shall go forth”. This refers to the saints universally viewed in their responsibility as to any sin or division, the cause of which is unknown, but which must be investigated so that judgment according to God may be rendered. The next direction deals with proximity to the scene of the sin. The nearest city is determined by the measurement of those generally responsible, and this matter of proximity is in view throughout the instruction. The fact that the nearest city to the slain man has to clear itself rather than determine the murderer or murderers, does not set aside the importance of proximity as a principle. A divine principle is always valid. Scripture may confirm itself, but does not necessarily repeat. One scripture is enough to establish any point, as John 10: 35 shows. Some would make the Old Testament secondary, or a matter of detail, but the New Testament constantly insists on the equality of the Old Testament with itself. Throughout these verses 1 - 9, the mind is focussed on “the city that is nearest unto him that is slain”, “the elders of that city”, and “all the elders” of it being mentioned.
Then priesthood. “The priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them Jehovah thy God hath chosen to do service unto him, and to bless in the name of Jehovah; and according to their word shall be every controversy and every stroke”. They represent the spiritual elements; those who are spiritual, and so can “discern all things”. Note, they are not regarded as local, nor as belonging to the people: not “thy priests”. They are on God’s side, chosen of Him. But observe a very important fact, that as the sons of Levi are mentioned, the elders of the city nearest the slain man are again introduced and the priests are not mentioned again, while the elders of the nearest city speak to Jehovah. The onus of slaying the heifer was on them, and they wash their hands over her. Then they say, “Forgive thy people Israel ... and lay not innocent blood to the charge of thy people Israel”. They act as priests, and not simply for themselves but for all Israel. This as applied today, would mean that the meeting or meetings nearest to a locality in which division and consequent uncertainty as to the sin involved exist, as judging the matter in the light of the death of Christ and depending upon the Spirit, for the heifer had her neck broken in a “water-course”, show themselves to be spiritual, and so capable of discerning and judging according to God. A decision reached under these circumstances will be accepted by “Israel”, and morally binding.
Christian fellowship is general as well as local, and so if its practical expression in a locality ceases through division among the saints there, the general aspect is involved; in principle responsibility as to it belongs to all the gatherings. This is recognised in verse 2, “thy elders and thy judges”, but afterwards all rests with the nearest city and the priesthood, the elders of the former merging into the latter. Thus a local sorrow, such as we are contemplating, after general responsibility is accepted, resolves itself into proximity and priesthood. These must go together, and as they do, the nearest meeting will not act arbitrarily, or officially, but on moral grounds, recognising that what they have on hand is not in their own midst and for which they are responsible to the Lord only, but in another locality, and so coming within the range of all; but that wisdom and confidence in others would leave the service of adjustment with them as the nearest to the scene of sorrow.
While the unmanageable and rebellious son alludes to the Jews, as already said, verses 18 to 21 afford important instruction relative to the subject under consideration. He was to be brought “unto the elders of his city and unto the gates of his place”. This links with 1 Corinthians, and shows that when actual sin is in question, and determined, judgment of it must be where the guilty person resides. “All the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die”. This is done on adequate testimony, for his father and mother accuse him before the elders. In the light of this, as connected with the letters to Corinth, matters belonging to a given locality cannot be scripturally adjudicated upon in another locality.
Thus while responsibility as to the slain man is determined by measurement, his position is not presented exactly as a locality; the measurement is from him, not the field. Nor is the heifer slain there, but in the valley or watercourse, and expiation thereby made for Israel, although in professed innocence of the death of the man. But when sin is active, innocency no longer contemplated, the guilty person is regarded as of a city and his judgment is there. In truth as evil has to be met the two cities merge into one, for the principle established is that sin occurring in a local assembly must be dealt with there, although a nearby assembly may have responsibility as to it, because of division or inability otherwise in the former to deal with it. Leviticus 14: 33 - 53 governs this.
But the extension of fellowship by a nearby meeting to saints in a place where division has existed is not exactly the same as dealing with sin in it, although it may involve the judgment of some who cannot be recognised because of their conduct; it is a question of owning “the approved”. This action is as of one assembly to another, and so is done, so to speak, by the neighbour assembly in its own locality, after godly deliberation, based on full inquiry.
Referring again to verse 2 of our chapter, it is a grave mistake to assume that what is said of “thine elders and thy judges” warrants brethren from many gatherings, whether of a district or generally, coming together to judge of matters belonging to another locality. There is no scriptural warrant for such a procedure; indeed it would set aside the truth governing the local assembly taught in 1 and 2 Corinthians, which is that, as having the Holy Spirit, it has the character of the temple of God and the body of Christ, and so furnished with what is needed for its guidance and maintenance; gifts, as for the whole assembly, being also available.
The truth governing the assembly, as seen in local companies, taught especially as we have seen in 1 and 2 Corinthians and Deuteronomy 21, the disregard of which has caused widespread sorrow, needs to be constantly pressed, particularly in places where this sorrow was lightly experienced, where many of Israel have not known “all the wars of Canaan”.