One of the many hot-button issues of this election cycle is “Sanctuary Cities” and whether they should be legal according to United States laws. Churches have now waded into this divisive topic.
The Bible addresses the issue of sanctuary cities but calls them “Cities of Refuge.” Numbers 35:9-34 gives the construct for these cities. The reader is encouraged to read the whole passage but main points will be given in this article.
In this passage, there were six cities to which a person who had accidentally killed someone could seek refuge. Three were on the east side of the Jordan River and three were on the west side in the early days of the nation of Israel.
The key verse and the main reason for the cities of refuge and laws associated with them is found in verse 34. “You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell, for I the LORD dwell in the midst of the people of Israel.” God ruled and reigned in the land of Israel and the people were His subjects and, as such should reflect His holy character.
Another of the key verses is 15, “These six cities shall be for refuge for the people of Israel, and for the stranger and for the sojourner among them, that anyone who kills any person without intent may flee there.” The cities of refuge were for citizens, “the people of Israel,” and for those who were not citizens of Israel.
The “stranger” received most of the rights of the Israelites in the land and was protected by the laws of the land with the expectation that they would abide by the laws of God the same as the Israelites. “Sojourners,” on the other hand, “are temporary visitors,” as Cheryl Chumley accurately defines in “The Devil in DC: Winning Back the Country from the Beast in Washington” (WND books, 2016, p. 56). Sojourners did not have the same rights as the stranger and were not covered by the same laws.
These cities of refuge were for the individual who killed another without intent, in order that he or she might flee for safety “until he stands before the congregation for judgment” (Numbers 35:12). The procedure was that a close relative of the person who was killed would come to the city of refuge and attempt to determine whether the manslayer killed out of intent. If it was determined that there was no intent, the manslayer was safe from the death penalty of the relative.
However, there are some major differences between the Biblical idea of cities of refuge and our modern day sanctuary cities. Most notable is the fact that Israel was a theocracy, in which God was the government and His laws prevailed because they were perfect and reflected His many attributes.
This naturally leads to the second major difference in that we no longer have a “High Priest” who represents the national people before God. However, we are subject to man’s laws as we live upon earth, but must remember that man is known to be wrong when compared to God.
Third is that the death of another was to be without intent, as determined by a hearing of their peers. This is similar to a trial court today which guarantees a fair and speedy trial.
Finally, if the manslayer left a city of refuge, he was fair game. If the closest family member to the one killed found him, he could exact vengeance without penalty.
As in all cases there were to be two or three witnesses to the slaying. If there was only one, then there was no precedence for a trial because the motive behind the one witness could not be truly known. All parties involved were to be given fair and just treatment according to God’s perfect laws.
In modern times, can there be justification for sanctuary cities? Not according to Biblical standards because of the significant differences already stated.
Author Chumley makes powerful points in the chapter on immigration in her most recent book, The Devil in DC, beginning with a verse from the Proverbs: “Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law strive against them. Even men do not understand justice, but those who seek the LORD understand it completely” (Proverbs 28:4-5).
How are Christians today to view the housing of criminals in these sanctuary cities when they have broken the laws of the land? This nation is open and welcoming to all people from every nation under heaven as long as they assimilate and abide by the laws of this country. If they break the law, they are to be properly prosecuted, as we all should be, and given the appropriate sentence.
Chumley shares verses from the Bible that seem to have tripped up some professors of theology, who use them as justification for their acceptance of sanctuary cities. “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.” (Leviticus 19:33-34)
“You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 22:21)
“Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.” (Hebrews 13:2)
Later she accurately states, “it’s hard to believe in a morality that teaches that breaking the law is okay.” (p. 55)
If Kate Steinle had been killed by a United States citizen, the killer would have been charged with murder. Why is it that the murderer, who was deported numerous times because of felonies, was able to come back to this nation and then receive protection by the authorities after he committed such a heinous crime? As Chumley poignantly asks, “How can it possibly be godly to give a free pass of amnesty to those who break the law to be here?” (ibid, p. 55)
The sanctuary cities here in the United States have no relation to the cities of refuge, so we, as Christians, must be careful to avoid using the Biblical cities of refuge as their justification. And since our laws in the U.S. are based on Biblical principles, we must ask ourselves, “Do we desire our land to be defiled in which we live?”
We cannot have one set of laws for citizens and another lenient set of laws for non-citizens. As a moral people, we must insist that all people in this country, even the sojourners, abide by the laws of the land. If we do not, we can only descend into a state of anarchy and chaos.
Let us return to the laws that originally governed our land, the U. S. Constitution and especially, the principles of the Bible. If we do, our nation will not be defiled and maybe, just maybe, we will see revival begin in the land.