BLOOD-REVENGE (bliid'--r8-ven1), or revenge for bloodshed, was regarded among the Jews, as among all the ancient and Asiatic nations, not only as a right, but even as a duty, which devolved upon the nearest relative of the murdered person, who on this account was called go-ale', the reclaimer of blood, or one who demands the resti tution of blood, similar to the Latin sanguinem repetere.
(1) The Mosaical law (Num. xxxv :31) ex pressly forbids the acceptance of a ransom the forfeited life of the murderer, although it might be saved by his seeking an asylum at the altar of the Tabernacle, in case the homicide was acci dentally committed (Exod. xxi :t3; 1 Kings i :5o; ii :28). When, however, in process of time, after Judaism had been fully developed, no other sanc tuary was tolerated but that of the Temple at Jerusalem, the chances of escape of such an homi cide from the hands of the avenger, ere he reached the gates of the Temple, became less in proportion to the distance of the spot where the murder was committed from Jerusalem. Six cities of refuge were in consequence appointed for the momentary safety of the murderer, in various parts of the kingdom, the roads to which were kept in good order to facilitate his escape (Deut.
xix :3). Thither the avenger durst not follow him, and there he lived in safety until a proper examination had taken place before the authori ties of the place (Josh. xx :6, 9), in order to as certain whether the murder was a wilful act or not. In the former case he was instantly deliv
ered up to the Goel, against whom not even the altar could protect him (Exod. xxi :lit ; I Kings ii :29) ; in the latter case, though he was not actually delivered into the hands of the Goel, he was, notwithstanding, not allowed to quit the precincts of the town, but was obliged to remain there all his lifetime, or until the death of the high-priest (Num. xxxv :6 ; Dent. xix :3 ; Josh.
xx :1-6), if he would not run the risk of falling into the hands of the avenger, and be slain by him with impunity (Num. xxxv :26 ; Deut. xix :6). That such a voluntary exile was considered more in the light of a punishment for manslaughter than a provision for the safe retreat of the Homi cide against the revengeful designs of the pur suer, is evident from Num. xxxv :32, where it is expressly forbidden to release him from ills confinement on any condition whatever.
(2) That such institutions re altogether at va riance with the spirit of Christianity may be judged from the fact that revenge, so far from being counted a right or duty, was condemned by Christ and his apostles as a vice and passion to be shunned (Acts vii :Go; Matt. v :44 ; Luke vi :28 ; Rom. xii :14, sq. Comp. Rom. xiii., where the power of executing revenge is vested in the authorities alone).