Every state has certain “branches of government”—a ruler, a court, police, a council of elders, and so on. At first glance, Israel is no different from other states: it too has its leaders, judges, and elders. But God's people are organized not like a state machine but as a community, a prototype of the Church. The ministries in this community are given by God. God entrusts His prerogatives—judgment, authority, counsel, and others—to the people, just as in the early Church the Spirit distributed among the faithful the gifts needed for the community's life and ministry. Both then and now, God's ministries differ from secular service in that God's people must carry them out in constant contact with God, listening to His will and fulfilling His commandments. By replacing ministry in the Church with a merely formal discharge of our duties, we risk finding ourselves outside the bounds of God's people.

The question of cities of refuge is raised more than once in the Torah, and evidently it is extremely important. This is no surprise: the matter concerns killing and the punishment for it. The Torah, and Deuteronomy in particular, treats the question of crime and punishment, and of the investigation of crime, with extreme seriousness. Every accusation must be proven and supported by witness testimony, and when the crime is punishable by death, the testimony of at least two witnesses is needed, and preferably, for reliability, three.

The point here is not only that one witness is easier to bribe or intimidate than two or three. It is also that cross-testimony always reconstructs a more objective picture of what happened, if only because it allows the same events to be seen through the eyes of different people, and therefore from different sides and different points of view. The picture of what happened becomes three-dimensional and many-sided. All this was especially important in investigating a crime such as murder. In a traditional clan-based society, the mechanisms of blood revenge usually came into play here, and behind them stood a powerful layer of the most ancient, semi-magical beliefs.

Murder, the shedding of blood, was considered defilement in itself, regardless of whether the killing was a violation of the law or not. Even the killing of an enemy in war defiled the killer; it was not considered a crime, but it still required purification. This was even more the case when the killing of an innocent person was involved: such a killing required cleansing by blood, the blood of the murderer. Not to avenge spilled blood meant becoming an indirect accomplice to murder, if, of course, vengeance was possible.

It is precisely this magical way of thinking that Deuteronomy commands people to leave behind when investigating murder. Traditional ideas had to be set aside, and attention had to be paid only to whether the killing was accidental or intentional, deliberate or spontaneous. This is understandable: a person's actions matter to God, but the intentions behind them matter no less. Everything else is unimportant to Him, and the Torah commands attention only to what is important to God.

As we see, the Torah takes very seriously any accusation of man in the prohibition of the law, asking that such accusation be thoroughly founded. There is nothing surprising here: because the principle of the presumption of innocence is known by the Torah as good as the Roman law. That is why any accusation must be substantiated and justified. It goes without saying that in the time, when appeared to the world the text of the Book of Deuteronomy, the major and at in fact, the only proof was the testimonial statement. In such a situation, we asked naturally for a particularly thorough verification of every witness, and the tool for such verification could be only another witness confirming the already received witness.

But the presumption of innocence reflected in the Torah, has not only a legal dimension expressing itself in the fact that any testimonial statement in the support of the raised accusation must be verified and re-verified. It has another spiritual dimension, which does not catch the eyes immediately, and is not less important than the legal dimension. It is particularly well noticed in particular in the request of at least two, and in the case of a more serious accusation, three witnesses.

Indeed: severe crimes are rarely achieved publicly, more than two witnesses can appear for a serious crime, in fact, only in condition that such crime will be openly committed or if the perpetrator of the crime will be taken red handed in the place of the crime. It would seem, in the conditions, when there was no technical means for the fixation of what takes place, such an approach sharply had to reduce the possibilities of the investigation and lower the chances of detection of the crimes, including the grave. And nevertheless the Torah asks in particular for such an extremely careful approach in the formation of the basis of the proofs of the accusation.

Maybe even at the price of certain number of crimes that remain undisclosed: because in the general sense of the law reflected in the Torah, an unproved accusation is not imputed to the accused, an unproved crime is not considered as such, and any doubt on the authenticity of the proof of the guilty is interpreted on the benefit of the accused (in much the same as the norms of the modern law suggested in most cases). Indeed, it was clear to every normal judge judging by virtue of the Torah, as every believer yahviste or Jewish: the earthly judgment is preliminary; the final decision will be given by God Himself in His judgment.

And if somebody of the criminals remains unpunished on the earth because there was no sufficient number of witnesses, he will receive his in the day of this Judgment, which awaits everyone, and for the judge who did not condemn such a criminal without having the necessary proofs, will not be culprit before God. And here is if the same judge, basing himself on insufficiently serious proofs of guiltiness, condemns an innocent, if he makes a mistake, of which he could have been able to and could avoid, having in more all the possibilities, it will be necessary for him to answer on the Judgment, for each, of whom he condemned thoughtlessly and gullibility.