Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Deuteronomy 19:1
When the LORD thy God hath cut off the nations, whose land the LORD thy God giveth thee, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their cities, and in their houses;
1 3 contain several formulas. On shall cut off, etc., see Deu 12:29; on whose land the Lord thy God is to give thee and giveth thee to possess it, see Deu 18:9; on succeed (dispossess), see Deu 12:29; on causeth thee to inherit, see Deu 1:38.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
This and the next two chapters contain enactments designed to protect human life, and to impress its sanctity on Israel.
In Deu 19:1-13 the directions respecting the preparation of the roads to the cities of refuge, the provision of additional cities in case of an extension of territory, and the intervention of the elders as representing the congregation, are unique to Deuteronomy and supplementary to the laws on the same subject given in the earlier books (compare the marginal reference).
Deu 19:1, Deu 19:2
The three cities of refuge for the district east of Jordan had been already named. Moses now directs that when the territory on the west of Jordan had been conquered, a like allotment of three other cities in it should be made. This was accordingly done; compare Jos 20:1 ff,
Deu 19:3
Thou shalt prepare thee a way – It was the duty of the Senate to repair the roads that led to the cities of refuge annually, and remove every obstruction. No hillock was left, no river over which there was not a bridge; and the road was at least 32 cubits broad. At cross-roads there were posts bearing the words Refuge, Refuge, to guide the fugitive in his flight. It seems as if in Isa 40:3 ff the imagery were borrowed from the preparation of the ways to the cities of refuge.
Deu 19:5
With the axe – literally, with the iron. Note the employment of iron for tools, and compare Deu 3:11 note.
Deu 19:8, Deu 19:9
Provision is here made for the anticipated enlargement of the borders of Israel to the utmost limits promised by God, from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates (Gen 15:18, note; Exo 23:31, note). This promise, owing to the sins of the people, did not receive its fulfillment until after David had conquered the Philistines, Syrians, etc.; and this but a transient one, for many of the conquered peoples regained independence on the dissolution of Solomons empire.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Deu 19:1-13
That every slayer may flee thither.
Cities of refuge
I. There are many, besides the murderer of Uriah, who have need to cry with him, deliver me from blood guiltiness, O God.
1. And, first, since a preacher must address his own conscience, as well as those of the hearers, I cannot forget the fearful applicability which this charge of blood guiltiness may have to Christian ministers. If ministers neglect to warn the wicked, if they keep back from the people any part of the counsel of God, either doctrinal or practical, and do not declare it; if they omit in their teaching either repentance towards God, which is the beginning of the Gospel, or faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the body and substance of it–blood lieth at their door, the angel of Divine vengeance is abroad in pursuit of them: blood for blood, life for life, this is His legal requirement; His eye shall not pity, neither shall it spare; the manslayers life–not the life of his body, but the life of the soul–is justly forfeit, unless, indeed, there be, under the economy of grace, some spiritual city of refuge appointed for him, into which he may flee and be safe.
2. Consider, then, I pray you, that subtle, undefinable thing, conveyed in a single remark, or in a single glance, or even sometimes in a single gesture, called influence. Consider how it propagates itself, and runs along like beacon fires–how alarmingly contagious and infectious its nature is.
3. But the influence which all people professing religion exercise on society at large, and claim to exercise, is too important to go without some remark.
II. The sinners spiritual refuge, I need not tell you, is Jesus Christ, who represents also the merciful elders and the anointed high priest; and the road by which we flee to Christ spiritually is the road of faith.
1. First, he must fly to Christ, as if for his life, as a man flies from a falling house or a beleaguered town–as righteous Lot was directed to flee from the cities of the plain.
2. As impediments were removed out of the manslayers way, and the road was made as easy and obvious to him as possible, so it is a very simple thing to believe in Christ, and thus to flee to our spiritual City of Refuge–so much so, that its extreme simplicity sometimes puzzles us, and makes us look with distrust upon faith, as if so very obvious a thing could not be the appointed way of coming to God.
3. When the merciful Elder, Jesus Christ, comes to the gate of the city of refuge, what have we to plead with Him? We have nothing to plead but our own sin and misery, and the Divine covenant which was ratified by His blood–the Divine assurance that He is able to save to the uttermost those who come unto God by Him. We must insist upon our right to receive a strong consolation for our troubled conscience, even because we have in Gods appointed way Cried for a refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us in Him. And surely the merciful Elder will receive and comfort us, and give us a place that we may dwell with Him.
4. Again, the manslayer was to abide in the city of his refuge–and so must we abide in ours, if we would be safe. The justice of God may arrest us the moment we are out of Christ.
III. Such, then, are some of the points of analogy between the Jewish city of refuge and its New Testament Antitype. There are two points of glorious contrast.
1. The city of refuge was permanently available only to such manslayers as had acted without any evil intent. Not so our City of Refuge! Christ is able to save to the uttermost.
2. The manslayer was to remain in the city until the high priest died. But our High Priest never dies. He ever liveth to make intercession for us.
IV. Do we wish to know whether we are abiding in this City of Refuge, under the wing of the merciful Elder, under the auspices of the Great High Priest? There is only one safe test of this, and it is very easily applied. He that saith he abideth in Him ought himself also so to walk even as He walked; and again, Whosoever abideth in Him, sinneth not; and again, He that keepeth His commandments dwelleth in Him. As the evidence of our being in Christ at all is our bearing fruit, so the evidence of our abiding in Him is our bearing much fruit; He that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit. And the fruit is this: love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance, against which there is no law. (Dean Goulburn.)
Deliver him into the hand of the avenger.
No refuge for a man hater
The universe was not constituted to give security to murderers: there is no shelter for a man hater. He may get into a city of refuge, but he is to be dragged out of it: the evil-doer may make a profession of religion, but his cloak, though of velvet and gold braided, must be torn from his shoulders. The universe has no lodgment for the man of malicious heart and murderous spirit; the city of refuge in Israel was not built for him; he has no right in it; to pity him is to despise the law; to pity the murderer is to forget the murdered. The eyes of justice are fixed upon both points in the case. It is an evil sentiment that spares the wrong-doer and forgets the wrong-endurer, the sufferer of wrong. There is one place appointed for the murderer. Who is the murderer? Not the shedder of blood:–whoso hateth his brother without a cause is a murderer. This is the great law, not of Israel only, but of the Church of Christ in all ages. Beware of malice! It does not always begin in its broadest form, or leap at once in all its intensity into human action: it begins in little frets and spites and jealousies; it starts out of a root of criticism, of fault finding, and investigations into consistency; it may begin as a clever action, showing the spirit of judgment, and proving itself to be equal to the analysis of the most hidden motive; but it grows; disappointed, it begins to justify itself; foiled in its attempts to succeed, it retires that it may increase the supposed evidence that is at command; then it returns to the onslaught; it grows by what it feeds on; at last, philanthropy–love of man–dies, and misanthropy–hatred of man–takes its place. Then is the soul a murderer; and, thank God, there is no city of refuge for the murderer of life, of hope, of love, of trust!–open the door and thrust ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness!–the sun will not spare a beam to bless the murderer. Christ is not a refuge in the sense of a criminal being able to outrun justice. The picture in Israel was the picture of a man fleeing for refuge and an avenger fleeing after him; and if the avenger were swifter of foot, the man slayer might be killed outside the city. There is no such picture in Christianity. In Christ we do not outrun justice: justice itself, by a mystery we can neither understand nor explain, has been satisfied by Christ. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER XIX
Three cities of refuge to be appointed in the midst of the
promised land; the land being divided into three parts, a city
is to be placed in each, a proper way to which is to be
prepared, 1-3.
In what cases of manslaughter the benefit of those cities may be
claimed, 4-6.
Three cities more to be added should the Lord enlarge their
coasts, and the reasons why, 7-10.
The intentional murderer shall have no benefit from these
cities, 11-13.
The landmark is not to be shifted, 14.
One witness shall not be deemed sufficient to convict a man, 15.
How a false witness shall be dealt with-he shall bear the
punishment which he designed should have been inflicted on his
neighbour, 16-20.
Another command to establish the lex talionis, 21.
NOTES ON CHAP. XIX
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
When the Lord thy God hath cut off the nations whose land the Lord thy God giveth thee,…. The seven nations of the land of Canaan, whose destruction was of the Lord for their sins, and whose land was a gift of him that had a right to dispose of it to the children of Israel; see De 12:29
and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their cities, and in their houses; should possess their land in their stead, by virtue of the gift of it to them by the Lord, and inhabit their cities and houses built by them.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The laws concerning the Cities of Refuge for Unintentional Manslayers are not a mere repetition of the laws given in Num 35:9-34, but rather an admonition to carry out those laws, with special reference to the future extension of the boundaries of the land.
Deu 19:1-9 As Moses had already set apart the cities of refuge for the land on the east of the Jordan (Deu 4:41.), he is speaking here simply of the land on the west, which Israel was to take possession of before long; and supplements the instructions in Num 35:14, with directions to maintain the roads to the cities of refuge which were to be set apart in Canaan itself, and to divide the land into three parts, viz., for the purpose of setting apart these cities, so that one city might be chosen for the purpose in every third of the land. For further remarks on this point, as well as with regard to the use of these cities (Deu 19:4-7), see at Num 35:11. – In Deu 19:8-10 there follow the fresh instructions, that if the Lord should extend the borders of Israel, according to His promise given to the patriarchs, and should give them the whole land from the Nile to the Euphrates, according to Gen 15:18, they were to add three other cities of refuge to these three, for the purpose of preventing the shedding of innocent blood. The three new cities of refuge cannot be the three appointed in Num 35:14 for the land on this side of the Jordan, nor the three mentioned in Num 35:7 on the other side of Jordan, as Knobel and others suppose. Nor can we adopt Hengstenberg’s view, that the three new ones are the same as the three mentioned in Deu 19:2 and Deu 19:7, since they are expressly distinguished from “ these three.” The meaning is altogether a different one. The circumstances supposed by Moses never existed, since the Israelites did not fulfil the conditions laid down in Deu 19:9, viz., that they should keep the law faithfully, and love the Lord their God (cf. Deu 4:6; Deu 6:5, etc.). The extension of the power of Israel to the Euphrates under David and Solomon, did not bring the land as far as this river into their actual possession, since the conquered kingdoms of Aram were still inhabited by the Aramaeans, who, though conquered, were only rendered tributary. And the Tyrians and Phoenicians, who belonged to the Canaanitish population, were not even attacked by David.
Deu 19:10 Innocent blood would be shed if the unintentional manslayer was not protected against the avenger of blood, by the erection of cities of refuge in every part of the land. If Israel neglected this duty, it would bring blood-guiltiness upon itself (“ and so blood be upon thee ”), because it had not done what was requisite to prevent the shedding of innocent blood.
Deu 19:11-13 But whatever care was to be taken by means of free cities to prevent the shedding of blood, the cities of refuge were not to be asyla for criminals who were deserving of death, nor to afford protection to those who had slain a neighbour out of hatred. If such murderers should flee to the free city, the elders (magistrates) of his own town were to fetch him out, and deliver him up to the avenger of blood, that he might die. The law laid down in Num 35:16-21 is here still more minutely defined; but this does not transfer to the elders the duty of instituting a judicial inquiry, and deciding the matter, as Riehm follows Vater and De Wette in maintaining, for the purpose of proving that there is a discrepancy between Deuteronomy and the previous legislation. They are simply commanded to perform the duty devolving upon them as magistrates and administrators of local affairs. (On Deu 19:13, see Deu 8:8 and Deu 8:5.)
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Cities of Refuge. | B. C. 1451. |
1 When the LORD thy God hath cut off the nations, whose land the LORD thy God giveth thee, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their cities, and in their houses; 2 Thou shalt separate three cities for thee in the midst of thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it. 3 Thou shalt prepare thee a way, and divide the coasts of thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee to inherit, into three parts, that every slayer may flee thither. 4 And this is the case of the slayer, which shall flee thither, that he may live: Whoso killeth his neighbour ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past; 5 As when a man goeth into the wood with his neighbour to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his neighbour, that he die; he shall flee unto one of those cities, and live: 6 Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him; whereas he was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past. 7 Wherefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt separate three cities for thee. 8 And if the LORD thy God enlarge thy coast, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, and give thee all the land which he promised to give unto thy fathers; 9 If thou shalt keep all these commandments to do them, which I command thee this day, to love the LORD thy God, and to walk ever in his ways; then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, beside these three: 10 That innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and so blood be upon thee. 11 But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: 12 Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. 13 Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee.
It was one of the precepts given to the sons of Noah that whoso sheddeth man’s blood by man shall his blood be shed, that is, by the avenger of blood, Gen. ix. 6. Now here we have the law settled between blood and blood, between the blood of the murdered and the blood of the murderer, and effectual provision made,
I. That the cities of refuge should be a protection to him that slew another casually, so that he should not die for that as a crime which was not his voluntary act, but only his unhappiness. The appointment of these cities of refuge we had before (Exod. xxi. 13), and the law laid down concerning them at large, Num. xxxv. 10, c. It is here repeated, and direction is given concerning three things:–
1. The appointing of three cities in Canaan for this purpose. Moses had already appointed three on that side Jordan which he saw the conquest of and now he bids them, when they should be settled in the other part of the country, to appoint three more, Deu 19:1-3; Deu 19:7. The country was to be divided into three districts, as near by as might be equal, and a city of refuge in the centre of each so that every corner of the land might have one within reach. Thus Christ is not a refuge at a distance, which we must ascend to heaven or go down to the deep for, but the word is nigh us, and Christ in the word, Rom. x. 8. The gospel brings salvation to our door, and there it knocks for admission. To make the flight of the delinquent the more easy, the way must be prepared that led to the city of refuge. Probably they had causeways or street-ways leading to those cities, and the Jews say that the magistrates of Israel, upon one certain day in the year, sent out messengers to see that those roads were in good repair, and they were to remove stumbling-blocks, mend bridges that were broken, and, where two ways met, they were to set up a Mercurial post, with a finger to point the right way, on which was engraven in great letters, Miklat, Miklat–Refuge, Refuge. In allusion to this, gospel ministers are to show people the way to Christ, and to assist and direct them in flying by faith to him for refuge. They must be ready to remove their prejudices, and help them over their difficulties. And, blessed be God, the way of holiness, to all that seek it faithfully, is a highway so plain that the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.
2. The use to be made of these cities, v. 4-6. (1.) It is supposed that it might so happen that a man might be the death of his neighbour without any design upon him either from a sudden passion or malice prepense, but purely by accident, as by the flying off of an axe-head, which is the instance here given, with which every case of this kind was to be compared, and by it adjudged. See how human life lies exposed daily, and what deaths we are often in, and what need therefore we have to be always ready, our souls being continually in our hands. How are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falls suddenly upon them! Eccl. ix. 12. An evil time indeed it is when this happens not only to the slain but to the slayer. (2.) It is supposed that the relations of the person slain would be forward to avenge the blood, in affection to their friend and in zeal for public justice. Though the law did not allow the avenging of any other affront or injury with death, yet the avenger of blood, the blood of a relation, shall have great allowances made for the heat of his heart upon such a provocation as that, and his killing only, should not be accounted murder if he did it before he got to the city of refuge, though it is owned he was not worthy of death. Thus would God possess people with a great horror and dread of the sin of murder: if mere chance-medley did thus expose a man, surely he that wilfully does violence to the blood of any person, whether from an old grudge or upon a sudden provocation, must flee to the pit, and let no man stay him (Prov. xxviii. 17); yet the New Testament represents the sin of murder as more heinous and more dangerous than even this law does. 1 John iii. 15, You know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. (3.) It is provided that, if an avenger of blood should be so unreasonable as to demand satisfaction for blood shed by accident only, then the city of refuge should protect the slayer. Sins of ignorance indeed do expose us to the wrath of God, but there is relief provided, if by faith and repentance we make use of it. Paul that had been a persecutor obtained mercy, because he did it ignorantly; and Christ prayed for his crucifiers, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.
3. The appointing of three cities more for this use in case God should hereafter enlarge their territories and the dominion of their religion, that all those places which came under the government of the law of Moses in other instances might enjoy the benefit of that law in this instance, v. 8-10. Here is, (1.) An intimation of God’s gracious intention to enlarge their coast, as he had promised to their fathers, if they did not by their disobedience forfeit the promise, the condition of which is here carefully repeated, that, if it were not performed, the reproach might lie upon them, and not on God. He promised to give it, if thou shalt keep all these commandments; not otherwise. (2.) A direction to them to appoint three cities more in their new conquests, which, the number intimates, should be as large as their first conquests were; wherever the border of Israel went this privilege must attend it, that innocent blood be not shed, v. 10. Though God is the saviour and preserver of all men, and has a tender regard to all lives, yet the blood of Israelites is in a particular manner precious to him, Ps. lxxii. 14. The learned Ainsworth observes that the Jewish writers themselves own that, the condition not being performed, the promise of the enlarging of their coast was never fulfilled; so that there was no occasion for ever adding these three cities of refuge; yet the holy blessed God (say they) did not command it in vain, for in the days of Messiah the prince three other cities shall be added to these six: they expect it to be fulfilled in the letter, but we know that in Christ it has its spiritual accomplishment, for the borders of the gospel Israel are enlarged according to the promise, and in Christ, the Lord our righteousness, refuge is provided for those that by faith flee to him.
II. It is provided that the cities of refuge should be no sanctuary or shelter to a wilful murderer, but even thence he should be fetched, and delivered to the avenger of blood, v. 11-13. 1. This shows that wilful murder must never be protected by the civil magistrate; he bears the sword of justice in vain if he suffers those to escape the edge of it that lie under the guilt of blood, which he by office is the avenger of. During the dominion of the papacy in our own land, before the Reformation, there were some churches and religious houses (as they called them) that were made sanctuaries for the protection of all sorts of criminals that fled to them, wilful murderers not excepted, so that (as Stamford says, in his Pleas of the Crown, lib. II. c. xxxviii.) the government follows not Moses but Romulus, and it was not till about the latter end of Henry VIII’s time that this privilege of sanctuary for wilful murder was taken away, when in that, as in other cases, the word of God came to be regarded more than the dictates of the see of Rome. And some have thought it would be a completing of that instance of reformation if the benefit of clergy were taken away for man-slaughter, that is, the killing of a man upon a small provocation, since this law allowed refuge only in case of that which our law calls chance-medley. 2. It may be alluded to to show that in Jesus Christ there is no refuge for presumptuous sinners, that go on still in their trespasses. If we thus sin wilfully, sin and go on in it, there remains no sacrifice, Heb. x. 26. Those that flee to Christ from their sins shall be safe in him, but not those that expect to be sheltered by him in their sins. Salvation itself cannot save such: divine justice will fetch them even from the city of refuge, the protection of which they are not entitled to.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
DEUTERONOMY – CHAPTER NINETEEN
Verses 1-3:
This text was to implement the instructions God had given from Mount Horeb, regarding a place of safety for one charged with manslaughter, until his guilt or innocence could be determined, Exo 21:13.
Moses had earlier delivered the law of the manslayer and the Cities of Refuge, and had designated three cities on the east of Jordan for this purpose, Num 35:9-15. These three cities are named in Deu 4:41-43.
This text instructs Israel to implement the plan already given by designating three cities on the west of Jordan These were Hebron in Judah, Shechem in Ephraim, and Kedesh in Naphtali, Jos 20:7-8. They were named in keeping with the instructions, that the Land would be divided into three districts, and the cities located as nearly as possible so that regardless of where one was in the Land, he would never be more than one day’s journey (about thirty miles) from a City of Refuge.
The “way” refers to a well-maintained road leading to the cities. The roads were to be kept open and clear of obstructions, and plainly marked.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
1. When the Lord thy God hath cut off the nations. Moses repeats the same precepts which we have just been considering, that, in regard to murders, the people should distinguish between inadvertency and crime. With this view, he assigns six cities, wherein those who have proved their innocence before the judges should rest in peace and concealment. In one word, however, he defines who is to be exempt from punishment, viz., he who has killed his neighbor ignorantly, as we have previously seen; and this is just, because the will is the sole source and cause of criminality, and therefore, where there is no malicious feeling, there is no crime. But, lest under the pretext of inadvertency those who are actually guilty should escape, a mark of distinction is added, i.e., that no hatred should have preceded; and of this an instance is given, if two friends should have gone out together into a wood, and, without any quarrel or wrangling, the head of the axe should slip out of the hand of one of them, and strike the other. God, therefore, justly commands that the motive of the crime should be investigated, and shows how it is to be ascertained, viz., if there had been any previous animosity, or if any contention should have arisen. For it is incredible that any one should be so wicked as gratuitously to rush into so abominable a sin. It must be observed, however, that there was no room for this conjecture, except in a doubtful matter; for if any should stab his neighbor with a drawn sword, or should hurl a dart into his bosom, the inquiry would be superfluous, because the guilty intention would be abundantly manifest.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
THE RECAPITULATION OF THE LAW
Deu 5:1 to Deu 26:19 record for us a recapitulation of the Law. The study of this section sets out clearly certain fundamental truths.
The Decalog is repeated with significant variations. Chapter 5, fundamental to all the laws of God is the Decalog. In Exodus, Moses delivered the same as he brought it from the tip of the fingers Divine. In Deuteronomy, the Law is given again. From the first to the tenth commandment, the very language of Exodus is employed, save in the instance of the fourth. Here, the reason assigned to the Jew for keeping the Sabbath, is strangely and significantly changed, namely, from because the Lord in six days made heaven and earth and rested on the seventh day, to Remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm; therefore, the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day (Deu 5:15).
This change is so strange and so unexpected that it arrests immediate attention and demands adequate explanation. Why did God shift the reason for keeping the Sabbath from the finished creation to a completed redemption? The answer is not difficult. In the Divine plan, redemption is a far greater event than creation; the soul of man exceeds the weight of the world; for that matter, of all worlds. The Law was given by Moses, but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ. The Law was given for Jews; the Gentiles were never in bondage to it, and above all, believing Gentiles are not bound by it. To them, the Law is not a great external or outside force created for practices of restraint. Its spirit is transcribed to their souls rather; they walk at liberty while seeking Divine precepts. This is not to inveigh against the Law. The Law is just, and true and good, but by Law no man has ever been redeemed. It is to exalt Grace, which God hath revealed through Jesus Christ, in whom men have redemption from sin. If I only love my father and mother because the Law commands it, I do not love them at all; if I refrain from making images and bowing down before them because this is the demand of the Law, my heart may yet be as full of idolatry as a heathen temple. Redemption is not by the Law; it is by Grace in Jesus Christ!
The early Church was shortly called upon to settle this question of salvation by Law or Grace, and in the Jerusalem Conference Peter rose up and said unto them,
Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the Word of the Gospel, and believe.
And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as He did unto us;
And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (Act 15:7-10).
Later he said, We believe that through the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ (not by Law) we shall be saved, even as they (Act 15:7-11). Mark you, in that very sentence, Peter, the Apostle, proves his realization of the fact that the Law had failed as a savior and the very Jew himself had hope alone in grace. How strange, then, for men of the Twentieth Century to turn back to Law and proclaim the Law as though it were a redeemer, and protest that men who ignore the Jewish Saturday as the Sabbath will plunge themselves into the pit thereby, when the Law never saved! The keeping of the Sabbath was the one Law that contained in itself no ethical demand. The Law to worship, the Law to honor father and mother, the Law against killing, stealing and covetousnessthese are all questions of right and wrong; but to tithe time by the keeping of the Sabbath was a command solely in the interest of mans physical life. When, therefore, by the pen of inspiration the reason for it was shifted from a finished creation to a finished redemption, the act was lifted at once to a high spiritual level and became a symbol of the day when Christ, risen from the grave, should have completed redemptions plan. That great fortune to mankind fell out on the first day of the week, creating not so much a Christian Sabbath as making forever a memorial day for redemption itself, for the eighth day, or the first day of the week, clearly indicated the new order of things, or the new creation through Christ.
We have no sympathy whatever with secularizing each one of the seven days; but we would have the first day of the week kept in the spirit of rejoicing as redemptions memorial. On that day our Lord rose from the dead; on that day He met his disciples again and again; on that day the brethren at Troas assembled with the Apostles and broke bread; on that day the Christians laid aside their offerings; on that day they met for prayer and breaking of breadthe fellowship of the saints; on that day John was caught up in the spirit and witnessed the marvels recorded in his apocalyptic vision. Oh, what a day! No legal bondage, for what have we to do with holy days, sabbaths and new moons; but salvations memorial, a day of special service to the Son of God, our Saviour, a day for the souls rejoicing in Jesus. Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
But as we pass on in the study of this section of Scripture, we find Moses defends the Decalog in character and consequence. He reminds them of the glory out of which the voice spake (Deu 5:24). He reminds them of the obligation in the words themselves (Deu 5:32). He reminds them of the relationship of the possession of the land to obedience of the precepts. He pleads with them as a father, Hear, therefore, O Israel (Deu 6:4). He anticipates the day of prophecy and begs that these words have place in their hearts (Deu 6:6), to be diligently taught to their children (Deu 6:7); bound for a sign upon their hands and frontlets between their eyes, lest they be forgotten (Deu 6:8); written upon the posts of the house and on the gates, where they could not be unobserved (Deu 6:9). Moses knew the relationship of law-keeping to national living. It is doubtful if modernists now have or will ever again entertain the same sacred reverence for Law that characterized the ancients, even the heathen of far-off days.
We cannot forget how Socrates, when he was sentenced to death and, after an imprisonment of thirty days, was to drink the juice of the hemlock, spent his time preparing for the end; friends conceived and executed plans for his escape and earnestly endeavored to prevail upon him to avail himself of the opportunity, but he answered, That would be a crime to violate the law even when the sentence is unjust. I would rather die than do evil. If a heathen philosopher could treat unjust laws with such reverence, Moses was justified in pleading with his people to regard the laws that were true and just and good, and such were the mandates of Deuteronomy.
It is easy enough for one to pick out some one of these precepts and, by detaching it from its context, create the impression that it was foolish or superficial or even utterly unjust; but when one reads the whole Book, he sees the effectual relationship of laws, general and particular, to the life Israel was leading, and for that matter, catches the supreme spiritual significance of the same as they interpret themselves in the light of New Testament teaching. There is not a warning that was not needed, nor an exhortation which, if heeded, would have failed to profit the people. It all came to one conclusion for Israel.
What doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all His ways, and to love Him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul (Deu 10:12)?
And as there was not a law in the Old Testament but was fitted for the profit of Israel, so there is not a command in the New Testament but looks to the conquest of the Christian soul.
Among these enactments were personal and significant suggestions. They gave dietary and sanitary suggestions (Deuteronomy 14); they established the Sabbatic year (Deuteronomy 13); they fixed the time of the Passover (Deuteronomy 16); they set forth the character of the offerings (Deuteronomy 17); they determined the duties of the Levites (Deuteronomy 18); they gave direction concerning the cities of refuge (Deuteronomy 19); they determined the way of righteous warfare (chap. 20); they established a court of inquest (Deuteronomy 21); they announced the law of brotherhood (Deuteronomy 22); they descended to the minute instances of social life and regulations of the same (Deuteronomy 23); they dealt with the great and difficult question of divorce (Deuteronomy 24); they ended (Deuteronomy 23) in an almost unlimited series of regulations concerning the social life of the people knowing a wilderness experience, including the law of the first fruits (Deuteronomy 26).
It is interesting to study not alone the laws enacted here, but the penalties declared, including the blessings and curses from Ebal to Gerizim. There is about them all an innate righteousness that has been unknown to those purely human codes for which God never assumed responsibility. From the curse against bribery to the curse against brutal murder to this day the sentences are justified in the judgment of the worlds most thoughtful men.
In all they contrast the injustice and inordinately severe punishments often afflicted by godless governments. Plutarch, in writing about Solon, tells us that he repealed the laws of Draco except those concerning murder. Such was the severity of their punishments in proportion to the offense that we are amazed as we read them. If one was convicted of idleness, death was the penalty. If one stole a few apples or potherbs, he must surely die, and by as ignominious a method as did the murderer. And out of that grew the saying of Demades that Draco wrote his laws, not with ink but with blood. And when Draco was asked why such severe penalties, he answered, Small ones deserve it, and I can find no greater for the most heinous. Such were human laws in contrast to these laws Divine.
But a further study of these laws involves a third lesson.
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
CRITICAL NOTES.This and the next two chapters contain enactments designed to protect human life, and to impress its sanctity on Israel.Speak. Com.
With Deu. 19:1-10 cf. Exo. 21:13, and Num. 35:9-34. The laws concerning cities of refuge are not mere repetitions, but an admonition to carry out former laws with reference to future extension of boundaries in the land of Canaan. Cities of refuge had already been set apart on the east of Jordan. Directions are given concerning land on the west. Three Cities more were separated cf. Joshua 20.
Deu. 19:3. Prepare. The Senate made good roads two or three cubits widenot mere tracks for animalsbridged over rivers and removed barriers. This done generally in the month Adar. Every facility was given to the fugitive (Isa. 40:3). Ignorantly, without premeditationaccidentally, as Deu. 19:5. Avenger. Whose duty it was to avenge the rights and redeem the property of kinsmen. Not with sudden excitement or burning desire to revenge.
Deu. 19:8-9, In case they should possess the whole land promised by God to the fathers for faithful obedience; then they were to add three more cities and have nine altogether. This command was not carried out because extension of country was never fully or permanently realised.
Deu. 19:10-13. Innocent blood would be shed if the unintentional manslayer was not protected Israel would be guilty. Blood upon thee, if this duty was neglected. But the cities were not to be asylums for criminals. If a real murderer should flee for refuge, the (elders) magistrates of his own town were to fetch him back and deliver him to the avenger to be put to death.
Deu. 19:14. Landmarks. Not only is human life sacred, but the means of sustaining it must be held sacredhence this prohibition. Gardens were enclosed, but fields were left open, or marked off, by a small trench, a little cain or single stones easily removed.
Deu. 19:15-21. False witness. The rule concerning capital charges (Deu. 17:6) is extended to all accusations before a court of justice. A single witness was not sufficient to convict a man of any civil or criminal offence. Wrong, lit., falling away, apostacy (Deu. 13:5); here any kind of crime worthy of capital punishment (Deu. 19:19). The accused and the witness were to come before Jehovah, viz, before the priests and judges, at the sanctuary and not before the local court.Keil. If the witness had lied they were to act towards him as he intended towards his brother (cf. Pro. 19:5-9; Dan. 6:24. The lextalionis was applied without reserve (Exo. 21:23; Lev. 24:20).Keil. Observed in principle, not in letter, by the Jewish courts.Speak. Com.
CITIES OF REFUGE.Deu. 19:1-10
Places of refuge where the guilty and unfortunate could find shelter were not unknown in heathen nations. Greece and Rome had their temples and groves. The jus asyli, the right of shelter was ever considered sacred. Cities of Refuge are some of the most delightful types of O. T. economy and may be considered in many ways (cf. Deu. 4:41-43). Look at them
I. As institutions promoting a spirit of humanity. They would act beneficially in ages when violence and revenge predominated and when fixed habitations were few. They were founded with a view to abate evils springing from the old-established rights of the blood avenger, and thus created a mild and gentle spirit; gave proof of the superior wisdom and benignant design of the Jewish laws. Impartial trial was given. Love of justice and regard for truth were to overrule sentiment. Revenge was checked, innocent blood was not lightly shed, and human life was considered sacred.
II. As institutions typical of Gospel truths. They exhibit the only method of safety, into which if the sinner once enters he will be free from peril.
1. The manslayer was in danger. He was pursued by the avenger, and might lose his life. The sinner has broken the law, is exposed to its curse and condemnationChrist the refuge set before him in the gospel. Should the law reach him before he flees for safety he is undone for ever.
2. Refuge was easy of access. The cities were conveniently fixed, and could often be seen. Christ is not a distant refuge, inaccessible or closed against us. The word is nigh thee, not in heaven above, nor in the depth beneath (Rom. 10:7-8).
3. The way was prepared. Prepare thee a way. Every river was bridged, every hillock levelled, and every obstruction that might hurt or hinder taken away. Guides or posts were fixed in every turning and cross road, with the words refuge, refuge, to direct the unhappy man in flight. The way of salvation is simple and plain, warfaring men, though fools, need not err therein. Ministers of the gospel are sent to urge, to direct the sinner to the Saviour. Prepare ye the way of the Lord (Isa. 40:3).
4. Restoration was made at the death of the high priest. The fugitive remained in the city beyond the pursuers reach, gratuitously housed and taught until this event happened. Then he was released, restored to his relatives and the land of his possession. In Christ we are restored to the inheritance forfeited by sin, adopted children, and made joint heirs of mansions which He has gone to prepare for those who love Him. Our salvation depends upon exclusive reliance in His merits and atoning death. There is none other name under heaven (Act. 4:12).
FLIGHT WITHOUT SAFETY.Deu. 19:11-13
There was a difference between accidental and intentional murder. The murderer might flee, but he was not protected in the city of refuge. He was delivered up to be put to death. A fearful picture of disappointed hope.
I. Flight through atrocious wickedness. Murder was a sin for which the law provided no remedy. Ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer (Num. 35:31). To murder is to disregard the sanctity of life, resist the claims of our neighbour and demonstrate our hatred to God. Man is encircled by grandeur through his own immortality and his relation to the Infinite Majesty. Whoso sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made He man.
II. Flight without safety. The elders of the city send and fetch him. The murderer is pursued, brought back, and suffers. There is no escape from transgression. The law is broad, exceeding broad (Psa. 119:96) observes us in all we do, and goes where we go. God and conscience are omnipresent. Memory is alive and retribution is certain. Murder will out and guilt hath no holiday, says Bacon.
III. Flight ending in ruin. That he may dieconcealment was impossible. The avenger, the priests and the people, were all concerned in the detection and punishment of the criminal.
1. Ruin without pity. Thine eye shall not pity him.
2. Ruin without remedy. He that killeth a man shall surely be put to death (Lev. 24:17).
Murder may pass unpunished for a time,
But tardy justice will oertake the crime.Dryden.
UNFULFILLED PROMISES.Deu. 19:8-10
God promised that their dominion should extend from the Nile to the Euphrates (Gen. 15:18; Exo. 23:31). This promise was never really fulfilled. Hence learn that
I. Gods promises express benevolent purpose. Enlarge thy coast (Deu. 19:8). They reach far into our future, mark out, define and offer before-hand. They are accompanied by an oath and express the good pleasure of God.
II. The fulfilment of Gods promises is conditional. If the Lord thy God enlargeGod does not work independently of means and agencies. He is Sovereign and Absolute, but we must co-operate with Him. Nothing is left to chance. Humanly speaking all depends upon us. If thou shalt keep.
III. This fulfilment is not always realised. There is no change in God, but human conditions are wanting.
1. There is delay. This strengthens and fortifies the enemy. When Hanibal could have taken Rome he would not, and when he wished, he was unable.
2. There is sin. Disobedience hinders. Unbelief excludes from the land. Israels enlargement was transient through the sins of the people; conquered nations regained independence, and Solomons empire was dissolved.
HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Deu. 19:1-6. Cities.
1. Cities of refuge divinely appointed.
2. Cities of refuge a protection for innocent blood.
3. Cities of refuge a proof of stringent laworiginal law not modifiedspecial provision made for accidental manslaughter.
4. Cities of refuge a type of deliverance in Jesus. The atonement is not a violation or suspension of law, yet mercy and deliverance from penalty are given to him who flees to Christ. The reason of these institutions seems to be this:First of all, their appointment arose from a great law. Secondly, they were instituted to be an expressive foreshadow or type of a grand and precious shelter for all the people of God.Cumming.
Deu. 19:3. Prepare. Every facility to flee.
1. The word nigh.
2. Ministers direct.
3. The Holy Spirit helps.
Deu. 19:5. That he die.
1. Human life taken by trifling accidents. What need for preparation. The sons of men are snared in an evil time, when it falls suddenly upon them (Ecc. 9:12).
2. Human life safeguarded by Divine institutions. The law forbids murder. If this happens unintentionally cities are built for refuge. Life is hedged about by law, justice, humanity, and providence.
Deu. 19:11-13. The cities were no shelter for wilful murder.
1. Mark the origin of the crime. Hate his neighbour. Cain hated his brother, could not speak peaceably to him, and then killed him. Whose hateth his brother is a murderer (1Jn. 3:15).
2. Notice the plot to carry out the design. Lie in wait for him. Men who thirst for blood hate the upright, and seek to destroy them. Saul sought to murder David, the Jews the Saviour and Paul. Malice will plot. The words and aims of the wicked are to lie in wait for blood (Pro. 12:6).
Deu. 19:13. Pity.
1. Without pity, lest crime should be encouraged, the criminal protected, and society injured.
2. Without pity lest the ends of justice be frustrated and the law of God broken.
3. Without pity, to warn and deter others from the danger.
ANCIENT LANDMARKS REMOVED.Deu. 19:14
Stones indicating boundaries might easily be removed. Ditches could be secretly levelled. This would materially affect property, and be a great evil in a land where territory was distributed by lot. Removal would be
I. To disregard ancient custom. They of old have set, with care and justice. Custom is held as law. Fixed law and fixed boundaries should be respected. But many scorn ancient landmarks as relics of bygone days. Impatient of restraint, they seek wider range of thought and action, indulge in novelties, and cry, down with temples, and away with creeds and the Bible!
II. To violate the law of God. Heathen nations held every landmark as sacred; honoured every stone and staple as a god without whose aid every field would be subject to contention and strife. God as the proprietor of all the earth sets bounds for Israel, allotted their lands which they held in trust, and bound them in terms imposed by His will (Deu. 27:17). Hence removal of landmarks is violation of His command, and direct insult to His authority.
III. To defraud our neighbour. Landmarks were memorials and witnesses of the rights of each man. Removal was selfish and unjust invasion of property. To enlarge your own estate at the expense of your neighbours is theft. Each one should know his own, and not defraud another by concealment, forgery, or robbery. Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him (Lev. 19:13; Mar. 10:19; 1Th. 4:6).
IV. To expose to a dreadful curse. The execration of men is something, but who can bear the curse of God. The field of the fatherless is under Almighty protection. None can arm themselves against Him by entering it. The poor may seem helpless, but special warning is given against their oppression. Remove not the old landmark, and enter not into the fields of the fatherless (by acts of violence or removal of boundaries) for their Redeemer is mighty, to vindicate outraged innocence (Pro. 23:10-11). This in aftertimes was the great affront of national provocation. The princes of Judah were like them that remove the bounds, therefore I will pour out my wrath upon them like water (Hos. 5:10).
I. Landmarks, an indication of Divine care. Nothing is too insignificant for Gods notice. The cities with their roads, the fields with their boundaries, the minute and the vast are under his guardianship. He sets bounds to sea and land and controls each element in its limit (Job. 38:10-11). II. Landmarks, a vindication of the rights of property. Fields and gardens must be cultivated and held as personal estate. Land is not to be indiscriminately portioned out. God gives allotments to men, and personal property is needful for daily employment and healthy life. III. Landmarks, a check to fraud and rapacity. They warned against deceitful and unjust actions. We must neither touch nor covet our neighbours property. The avaricious and envious are checked by the order of society and the laws of nature. IV. Landmarks, a motive to neighbourly kindness. To remove them would injure our neighbour and disturb the community. We are not to sow discord nor create strife and law-suits, but to live peaceably together. Strive not with a man without cause. V. Landmarks, symbols of fixed spiritual truths There are certain fundamental and established doctrines which must not be removed, which can never be shaken. Rome may remove landmarks of Scripture by her traditions. Impatience of restraint, independence of spirit, and resistance to Divine authority may characterise the age. But the chief landmarks of faith stand solid and impregnable as a rock. The foundation of God standeth sure.
THE TRIAL OF CAPITAL OFFENCES.Deu. 19:15-21
The wrong in Deu. 19:16 is not merely falling into idolatry, but any kind of crime worthy of capital punishment (Deu. 19:19). One witness even was tested and punished if proved false. Judges were to investigate most carefully and administer justice most rigidly
I. The testimony of one witness was not enough to condemn (Deu. 17:6) He might be prejudiced, interested or unable to judge rightly. Individuals are not always truthful and cannot be trusted. Hence it is wise, as proved by history and human experience, that the life of an innocent man should not depend upon the testimony of one witness. What a dishonour cast upon man-kind by the law! suspected of unfaithfulness! and what a check to accusers of men!
II. The accuser and the accused were to stand before God. Both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord (Deu. 19:17). All sin is committed against God. He cannot permit evil to go unpunished. He will expose and visit it with condemnation.
1. Before the priests and the judges, who represent Him.
2. In the sanctuary, the residence of His glory. This is a picture of future trial, when the sinner will stand before the judgment seat and all iniquity be punished.
III. If the witness was false the punishment was severe. No sentimentalism nor misplaced compassion must be shown to a false witness. The law was inflexible, and one guilty of perjury was doomed to suffer penalty.
1. Punishment in kind. Do unto him as he had thought to have done unto his brother (Deu. 19:19). The lex talionis is applied, a person receives to himself what he gives to another; a law of retribution, which is Gods law to warn the transgressor.
2. Punishment without reserve. No indifference in the search, diligent inquisition;no hesitation in executing the law; no pity whatever for the criminal. Thine eye shall not pity one who had no pity for another. A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape (Pro. 19:5).
A FALSE WITNESS.Deu. 19:16
Society cannot exist without laws, and laws cannot be administered without testimony. False witness or perjury therefore is the most obnoxious of crimes, and as such deserves the severest condemnation.
I. A false witness is offensive to God. God is represented as a God of truth, and without iniquity (Deu. 3:2; Deu. 3:4); a God that cannot lie (Job. 1:2). The perjurer takes His name in vain; dishonours His attributes, and defies His law. When we prevaricate, conceal truth, or speak lies, we insult the God of heaven, the faithful and true witness.
II. A false witness is injurious to society. In his heart he is uncharitable and envious towards his fellow-men. In his actions he is mischievous to society. He destroys its confidence, breaks its bonds, and becomes an agent of the devil, the father of lies (1Ki. 21:13). The slanderer, says Archbishop Leighton, wounds three at once; himself, him he speaks of, and him that hears. His cruelty and malice are set forth by three murderous instrumentsweapons of death. A man that beareth false witness against his neighbour is a maul, and a sword, and a sharp arrow (Pro. 25:18).
III. A false witness should be put down by every possible means. So shalt thou put the evil away (Deu. 19:19). Everyone is interested in the suppression of crime. Priests, judges, and peoplesociety, and the Christian Church are concerned. All should love truth and put down deceit (Col. 3:9; Rom. 3:13). That shalt not raise (marg. receive) a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness (Exo. 23:1).
Dare to be true, nothing can need a lie;
The fault that needs it most grows two thereby.
THE LAW OF RETALIATION.Deu. 19:19-21
Among the Israelites and in all nations where slavery existed, or where owners had the power of punishment in their own hands, the exercise of absolute authority was liable to be abused. Hence the importance and place of this law.
I. Its use in the Old Testament. It is probable that the law existed before the time of Moses, and was accepted by him as tolerable. It would be suitable
1. As an elementary principle of justice. Theoretically it seems exact and right. It was accepted by magistrates as a rule in civil law. It is found in the code of primitive nations, recognised by the laws of Solon, by ancient Indians, and by the Thurians (cf. Speak. Com.; Exo. 21:22-25). It is the first lesson of civilization and public justice. Thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, etc. (Exo. 21:23; Lev. 24:20).
2. As a foundation of public morality. Power is often abused. Men forget and break the golden rule. Human life must be respected, wrong rectified, and laws administered. There must be no connivance in guilt. Hand for hand, foot for foot.
3. As a check to private revenge. Revenge is sweet, and men like to take law into their own hands. The law of the eternal must be asserted and vindictive tempers subdued. He that studieth revenge keepeth his wounds open.Bacon. Vengeance is mine; I will repay saith the Lord.
II. Its exposition in the New Testament. The scribes took their stand on the letter, disregarded the design and spirit of the law, and expounded in the wrong direction. Their popular casuistry made it one of private retaliation and not of judicial action. But the disciple of Christ, in suffering wrong, must cherish no desire to retaliate and accuse. He must be prepared in word and act to show the spirit of his master. The letter may not bind, but the principle should be the law of life. We are not to revenge, but cultivate the habit of non-resistance to evil (cf. Mat. 5:38-42). The law of the New Testament is not contradictory to that of the Old Testament. It is more than a civil enactment. It is forbearance with those who wrong us, well-doing to those who hate us, the characteristic and image of Gods children (Mat. 5:48).
And earthly power doth then show likest Gods
When mercy seasons justice.
The law of requital.
1. A doctrine of scripture. As I have done, so God hath requited me (Jud. 1:7). The Lord of recompenses shall surely requite. With what measure ye mete, etc. A false witness shall not be unpunished (Pro. 19:5-9).
2. A law of providence. Men may deny and disregard it; but they cannot destroy, cannot escape this righteous and holy law. Be not deceived, God is not mocked. He that speaketh lies shall not escape.
3. A reason for submission to God. Indulge in no passion. Fret not because of evil doers. It costs more to revenge injuries than to bear them. Events are not under the control of wicked men. Say not, then, I will recompense evil; but wait on the Lord and He shall save thee.
HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Deu. 19:11-21. Learn.
1. Great wickedness often found among menmurder, fraud, perjury. Oppressive to society, insulting to God, and abounding even in Christian countries.
2. Divine methods of overcoming this wickedness. By religious laws and social restraints, by functions of state and spiritual institutions. What a debt we owe to the gospel which renews and controls man, elevates and purifies society!
Deu. 19:16-19. False witness.
1. God is a God of truth, promotes it in the world and seeks it in His people.
2. Truth should be sacred to us in all circumstances of life.
3. The danger of lying.
4. The necessity of grace and prayer.
Deu. 19:19. Retribution.
1. An appointment of God in social and civil, in national and individual life.
2. A warning to others. Sir W. Raleigh, challenged by a hot-headed youth, refused to fight. The young man spat in his face in public. Thinking of the consequences, Sir W. calmly wiped his face and replied, Young man, if I could as easily wipe your blood from my conscience as I can this injury from my face, I would this moment take away your life.
Deu. 19:20. Hear. Others woes should be our warnings, others sufferings our sermons (1Co. 10:5-12). Gods house of correction is the school of instruction.Trapp.
Deu. 19:19-21. Pity and justice.
1. Justice from the highest source of the land. The presence and the representatives of God.
2. Justice without pity. Right better than pity.
3. Justice for public good. Those which remain hear and commit no more evil. Life often sacrificed for the welfare of the community. True patriotism displayed in the suppression of crime.
ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 19
Deu. 19:1-10 Cities. A party of travellers in the desert were overtaken by the fierce simoon. Like blinding snow driven by the winds of March came the hot sands. Before the simoon had reached its height they came suddenly upon a rude building of stone, well protected with roof and doors, which the hand of charity had erected there in the desert for shelter. With joy they rushed into it, closed the doors, and were safe.
The wonders of life and gladness,
All the wonders of hope and fear;
The wonders of death and sadness,
All the wonders of time are there.
Bonar.
Deu. 19:11. Hate. Whoever hates kills the soul.Vinet. A true man hates no one.Napoleon I. From envy, hatred and malice, etc.
Deu. 19:12. Deliver him. By the conviction and execution of a murderer, humanity is not extinguished but enlarged; it is individual compassion overcome by a regard to the general good.A. Fuller.
Deu. 19:14. Landmarks removed. Covetousness, by a greediness of getting more, deprives itself of the true end of getting it; it loses the enjoyment of what it has got.Sprat. Desire of having is the sin of covetousness.Shakespeare.
Deu. 19:18. False witness.
Sworn on every slight pretence,
Till perjuries are common as bad pence;
While thousands, careless of the dawning sin,
Kiss the books outside, who neer look within.
Cowper.
Deu. 19:19-21. Not pity. Most just it is that he who breweth mischief should have the first draught of it himself.Jemmat.
Revenge at first, though sweet,
Bitter ere long back on itself recoils.
Milton.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
LESSON FIFTEEN Deu. 19:1-21; Deu. 21:1-9
f. THE SANCTITY OF LIFE AND PROPERTY (Deu. 19:1-21; Deu. 21:1-9)
(1) CONCERNING MURDER (Deu. 19:1-13; Deu. 21:1-9)
(a) The Cities of Refuge (Deu. 19:1-13)
When Jehovah thy God shall cut off the nations, whose land Jehovah thy God giveth thee, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their cities, and in their houses; 2 thou shalt set apart three cities for thee in the midst of thy land, which Jehovah thy God giveth thee to possess it. 3 Thou shalt prepare thee the way, and divide the borders of thy land, which Jehovah thy God causeth thee to inherit, into three parts, that every manslayer may flee thither.
4 And this is the case of the manslayer, that shall flee thither and live: whoso killeth his neighbor unawares, and hated him not in time past; 5 as when a man goeth into the forest with his neighbor to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his neighbor, so that he dieth; he shall flee unto one of these cities and live: 6 lest the avenger of blood pursue the manslayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and smite him mortally; whereas he was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past. 7 Wherefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt set apart three cities for thee. 8 And if Jehovah thy God enlarge thy border, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, and give thee all the land which he promised to give unto thy fathers; 9 if thou shalt keep all this commandment to do it, which I command thee this day, to love Jehovah thy God, and to walk ever in his ways; then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, besides these three: 10 that innocent blood be not shed in the midst of thy land, which Jehovah thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and so blood be upon thee.
11 But if any man hate his neighbor, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally so that he dieth, and he flee into one of these cities; 12 then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. 13 Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 19:113
311.
Note the strong element of specific faith in Deu. 19:1-2. What example is in this for us?
312.
Suppose the avenger of blood was not of the temperament to take vengeance?
313.
In the example given, why would there be a problem if the nearest of kin knew it was only an accident?
314.
What three cities were involved in the description here? What three were added later?
315.
First degree murder was always punished. Why?
AMPLIFIED TRANSLATION 19:113
When the Lord your God has cut off the nations whose land the Lord your God gives you, and you dispossess them and dwell in their cities and in their houses;
2 You shall set apart three cities for you in the land which the Lord your God gives you to possess.
3 You shall prepare the road, and divide the territory of your land, which the Lord your God gives you to possess, into three parts, so that any manslayer can flee to them.
4 And this is the case of the slayer who shall flee there that he may live. Whoever kills his neighbor unintentionally, for whom he had no enmity in time past;
5 As when a man goes into the wood with his neighbor to hew wood, and his hand strikes with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slips off the handle and lights on his neighbor, and kills him; he may flee to one of those cities and live;
6 Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his [mind and] heart are hot with anger, and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him; although the slayer was not worthy of death, since he had not been at enmity with him previously.
7 Therefore I command you, You shall set apart three [refuge] cities.
8 And if the Lord your God enlarges your territory, as He has sworn to your fathers to do, and gives you all the land which He promised to your fathers to give,
9 If you keep all these commandments to do them, which I command you this day, to love the Lord your God, and to walk always in His ways; then you shall add three other cities to these three,
10 Lest innocent blood be shed in your land, which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance, and so blood guilt be upon you.
11 But if any man hates his neighbor, and lies in wait for him, and attacks him and wounds him mortally so that he dies, and the assailant flees into one of these cities,
12 Then the elders of his own city shall send and fetch him there, and give him over to the avenger of blood, so that he may die.
13 Your eye shall not pity him, but you shall clear Israel of the guilt of innocent blood, that it may be well with you.
COMMENT 19:113
See also Ch. Deu. 4:41-43 and notes. There we had the east-side cities set apart. Now provision is made, not only for the first three, but a second three, and also three cities more (Deu. 19:9) on the west side. The controversy as to whether the former passage is chronologically out of place, is not worth the energy of debate. We will leave it where it is, as a part of the divine record, and leave this where it is for the same reason. As will be seen below, there is no good reason for changing the order of the two passages.
WHEN JEHOVAH . . . SHALL CUT OFF THE NATIONS (Deu. 19:1)This beginning phrase makes it seem obvious that the refuge cities Moses now refers to are the west side cities, not the east, for the conquering of the east side, as well as the setting aside of the refuge cities on that side of the Jordan, was history, and Israel was now camping near the banks of the Jordan, yea, not far from the waters edge! See Deu. 1:1, Deu. 3:27, etc. In view of the fact that the tribes of Ephraim, Gad and Manasseh (except those able to go forth to war, who were to assist Israel) were to stay on the east side, it would only be natural for Moses to go ahead and set apart the cities on that side (Deu. 4:41-43).
THOU SHALT SET APART THREE CITIES (Deu. 19:2)McGarvey remarks on the sequence of setting these cities aside thus:
As the Pentateuch now stands, the first command on the subject is in the thirty-fifth chapter of Numbers. There the order to appoint cities of refuge is given, the number then is stated, and the law by which their use is to be regulated is elaborated. No one of the cities is named. Next, in Deu. 4:41-43, it is said that Moses, after the conquest of the country east of the Jordan, selected three of them, and their names are given. Next, in Deu. 19:1-13, Moses directs that after they shall have possessed the country west of the Jordan, they shall select three cities of refuge on that side; he repeats the law less elaborately, and orders that if Jehovah shall enlarge their borders, and give them all the land promised to their fathers, they shall add three other cities on that side [Deu. 19:9], so that all the manslayers may have the benefit of a place of refuge. Their borders were never thus extended until the reign of David, and they remained so only till the close of Solomons reign, and consequently these three additional cities were never appointed.
In Jos. 20:1-9 these three west-side cities are set apart: Kedesh in Naphtali, Shechem in Ephraim, and Hebron in Judah. The east-side cities are again listed.
Exo. 21:12-13, it has been mistakenly thought, provides that the altar was appointed by God as a refuge for a manslayer. But that law, instead of making the altar of God an asylum for the manslayer, positively forbids its use as such, It was to furnish no protection, not even temporary protection, from death. A murderer might think, Surely no one would have the gall to kill a man on Gods altar! Or, Surely I will not be killed here, lest human blood defile the altar! But God would say of a presumptuous murderer, take him off the altardo not spare him. So Adonijah and Joab both fled to the altar with the hope of being sparedbut were slain, 1Ki. 1:50-53; 1Ki. 2:24-25; 1Ki. 2:28-34.
The cities of refuge, on the other hand, were not appointed to provide permanent asylum for murderers, but that every man who killed his neighbor might find protection there until the time of his trial, and might remain there after his trial, if he was not found worthy of death, until the death of the high priest. He could then return to his home if he wished.
THOU SHALT PREPARE THEE THE WAY (Deu. 19:3)The Amplified O. T. renders Deu. 19:3, You shall prepare the road, and divide the territory of your land, which the Lord your God gives you to possess, into three parts, so that any manslayer can flee to them. With a careful division of the land into thirds, and roads to the cities, access to them would be easier.
THREE CITIES (Deu. 19:7) . . . ADD THREE CITIES MORE FOR THEE, BESIDES THESE THREE (Deu. 19:9)See note above. We have assumed that these last three are not again mentioned in the Bible, and probably were never appointed. The appointment of the six cities was when . . . but the appointment of the last three was IF thou shalt keep all this commandment, etc. (Deu. 19:9). These periods were such brief flashes in Israels history the job apparently never got done.
BUT IF ANY MAN HATE HIS NEIGHBOR (Deu. 19:11)Whether this were true or not would be determined during his trial. Cf. Num. 35:9-34.
THOU SHALT PUT AWAY THE INNOCENT BLOOD (Deu. 19:13)See Deu. 21:9 and notes, below.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
Deu. 19:1-13. THE CITIES OF REFUGE.
(See for more on this subject, Num. 35:9, &c.; Joshua 20)
(1) When the Lord thy God hath cut off the nations.We find that the three cities of refuge on the west of Jordan were appointed by Joshua after the conquest (Joshua 20). The first three on the east of Jordan, namely, Bezer, Ramoth-Gilead, and Golan, had already been selected by Moses (Deu. 4:41, &c), but Joshua assigned them to their Levitical possessors.
(3) Thou shalt prepare thee a way.Upon this phrase Rashi remarks (from the Talmud) that Miklot! Miklot (Refuge! Refuge!) was written up at the parting of the ways.
Divide the coasts of thy land . . . into three parts.So that no part of the country might be too far from any of the cities of refuge.
(5) As when a man goeth into the wood.An obvious instance.
(6) The avenger of the blood.Literally, the redeemer of the blood. The Hebrew, gool stands for all the three words, redeemer, avenger, kinsman.
(8, 9) if the Lord thy God enlarge thy coast . . . thou shalt add three citiesi.e., thou shalt add three to the six, making nine in all. There is no trace of this ever having been done in the history of Israel. The comments of Jewish writers show that nothing is known of the fact in their literature. Some of them point out that only seven nations were assigned to thehost of Joshua, and that the land occupied by these seven could not have needed more than the six cities. They lay stress upon the words If He give thee all the land which He promised to give thy fathers (not merely the seven nations promised to thee). They refer to the Kenites and the Kenizzites and the Kadmonites in particular, as three nations promised to Abraham. It would have been more to the purpose if they had referred to the Hittites. The cities of this people, as recently discovered, from Kedesh on the Orontes to Carchemish, lie to the north of the known territory of Israel. If all the laud of the Hittites (Jos. 1:4) had been conquered, the three additional cities might have been required. But though this land seems to have been tributary to Solomon, it was not so occupied by Israel as to necessitate the appointment of three additional cities of refuge. And Solomons empire lasted only for his own reign. But without going back to these details, they also take the promise as prophetical; holding that when the Lord has circumcised their heart (Deu. 30:6), to love the Lord, and given them one heart and one way to fear Him for ever, and shall make an everlasting covenant with them, and put His fear in their hearts ( Jer. 32:39-40) that they shall not depart from Him, then the promises will be fulfilled. All the land will be given to them, and they will need these other cities. One writer adds, Blessed is he that waiteth, and shall attain to it, from Dan. 12:12. Thus the Jews take the passage as prophetic of their ultimate restoration. Evidently it is no addition of later times, but the genuine language of Moses. What later writer would have thought of adding it?
(10) That innocent blood be not shedi.e., the blood of the manslayer who can find no refuge, and yet is no murderer.
(11) But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him.Rashis comment upon this is in the spirit of St. John: By way of hatred he comes to lying in wait: and hence it has been said, when a man has transgressed a light commandment, that he will end by transgressing a greater. Therefore when he has broken the commandment, Thou shalt not hate, he will end by coming to bloodshed. What is this but He that hateth his brother is a murderer?
(12) Deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood.There is as yet no idea of a public trial and execution, which belongs to a more advanced stage of civilisation than this.
(13) Shalt put away.Literally, consume, or, as it were, burn out.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
REGULATIONS IN REFERENCE TO CITIES OF REFUGE, Deu 19:1-13.
Comp. Exo 21:13, and Num 35:9-34; Deu 4:41. Six cities were to be designated. Moses had already named the three east of the Jordan. Deu 4:41-43. The three that were for the west were Kadesh in the north, Shechem in the centre, and Hebron in the south. In Jos 20:7, the names of the cities, both on the east and the west of the Jordan, are given.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Chapter 19 The Setting Up Of Cities of Refuge For the Manslayer. Treatment of False Witnesses.
The section from Deu 16:18 to Deu 18:22 has dealt with setting up the powers in the land for the maintenance of justice and to ensure the keeping of Yahweh’s Instruction (Torah). That had involved setting up the system of justice, the future possible king, the priests and Levites, and the prophets, but one major thing that had not been covered was the way of dealing with a violent death in the land brought about innocently, and thus out of the range of justice. Such a violent death in Yahweh’s land was seen as a serious matter, for it was a violation against God Himself Who had sovereignty over human life. A life over which He had full jurisdiction had been taken within His own land. The situation had to be righted.
But it was also of concern to God that the innocent should not suffer. If the death had occurred accidentally then the death of the slayer was not required. However, this could not be dealt with by an ordinary court because by the time the court convened the man might well be dead, slain by an avenger of blood. For the custom with regard to such deaths was that the dead man’s relatives were seen as having the right to avenge the blood of the dead man on the slayer the moment that they could find him. Indeed it was seen as their duty to seek him out and take blood for blood (compare Gen 4:14 where Cain was afraid of his father and his brothers. See also Gen 4:23). They were considered to have the absolute right to avenge the blood of the slain man, so much so that no one, apart from those so appointed by God, would refuse it. Nor could they be found guilty of murder for what they did. It was the only effective method of practical policing and preventing murder available in early tribal societies and all were agreed on it. The problem was that it could then result in blood feuds or innocent persons being killed, something which the cities of refuge were designed to prevent.
This is the only possible real explanation of all the facts. Had the avenger of blood been an official or an independent party he would not have pursued the manslayer in anger.
So God had ordained that cities of refuge were to be appointed as soon as they were settled in the land, where manslayers who claimed to be innocent could flee for refuge and be safe, and where, if there was any dispute, a proper trial could be arranged so as to discover whether the killing was premeditated or accidental (Num 35:9-28; compare Exo 21:12-14). Such cities had already been set up in the part of the country that they then were in, in Transjordan (Deu 4:41-43). But once they crossed the Jordan they would be necessary throughout the whole land. Details of these and their purpose is now given.
These cities of refuge replaced the ancient idea of sanctuary at the altar (Exo 21:13-14) which is testified to in many civilisations and gave the opportunity for a man who took advantage of it to be given the opportunity of a fair trial. If the man was clearly guilt, however, the sanctuary would not save him (see 1Ki 2:30-34, where Solomon acted as both accuser and judge).
Entry into the city was probably seen as involving a punishment for the man for his carelessness, and as a safeguard in keeping him under observation in case he was more guilty than he seemed. He could not leave the city. It also ensured that the avenger of blood could not slay an innocent man, and satisfied them that at least he could not kill again. It thus had a manifold purpose.
Again in this chapter ‘thee, thou’ predominates, but ‘ye’ occurs in verse 19 where the thought turns to those in the locality.
The Setting Up Of Cities of Refuge And Their Purpose And The Non-Removal of Landmarks ( Deu 19:1-14 ).
The idea behind this passage is that the land is Yahweh’s and He has given it to them for them to possess it (Deu 19:2 and Deu 19:14). It is now to be their inheritance (Deu 19:3 Deu 19:14). Its purity and integrity must therefore be defended at all costs. In lieu of this He has ordered that the nations at present living in it are to be cut off without mercy (Deu 19:1), for they have defiled it, while any blood shed in the land, other than that justly or accidentally shed, shall be compensated for by the death of the slayer without pity. And because it is His the ancient landmarks must not be removed, for they declare Yahweh’s ownership of the land, and to move them will misappropriate it from Yahweh. The emphasis therefore is on maintaining the land pure and keeping it as Yahweh has originally given it, with all portions remaining as given.
In order for this to be so, however, provision has to be made in case blood is shed innocently. And this is the purpose of the cities of refuge. Those who claim to have shed blood innocently may flee there and be safe, but if when their case is judged they are found to be guilty they are to be handed over to the avengers of blood. So first the Canaanites are to be cut off, then the cities of refuge are to be set up, and then no landmark must ever be removed, for they declare ownership of the land under Yahweh.
a When Yahweh your God shall cut off the nations, whose land Yahweh your God gives you, and you succeed them, and dwell in their cities, and in their houses, you shall set apart three cities for yourself in the midst of your land, which Yahweh your God gives you to possess it, you shall prepare yourself the way, and divide the borders of your land, which Yahweh your God causes you to inherit, into three parts, that every manslayer may flee there (Deu 19:3).
b And this is the case of the manslayer, that shall flee there and live, whoever kills his neighbour unawares, and did not hate in time past, as when a man goes into the forest with his neighbour to hew wood, and his hand fetches a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slips from the shaft, and lights on his neighbour so that he dies, he shall flee to one of these cities and live, lest the avenger of blood pursue the manslayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and smite him mortally, whereas he was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past (Deu 19:4-6).
c For this reason I command you, saying, “You shall set apart three cities for yourself (Deu 19:7).
d And if Yahweh your God enlarge your border, as He has sworn to your fathers, and give you all the land which He promised to give to your fathers if you shall keep all this commandment to do it, which I command you this day, to love Yahweh your God, and to walk ever in his ways (Deu 19:8-9 a).
c Then shall you add three cities more for yourself, besides these three, that innocent blood be not shed in the midst of your land, which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance, and so blood be on you (Deu 19:9-10).
b But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally so that he dies, and he flee into one of these cities, then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him from there, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die (Deu 19:11-12).
a Your eye shall not pity him, but you shall put away the innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with you. You shall not remove your neighbour’s landmark, which they of old time have set, in your inheritance which you shall inherit, in the land that Yahweh your God gives you to possess it (Deu 19:13-14)
It is noteworthy here that Deu 19:14 is deliberately connected with Deu 19:1-13 by the phrases used. Note ‘land which Yahweh your God gives you to possess it’ in Deu 19:2 and the same in Deu 19:14, and ‘which God causes you to inherit’ in Deu 19:3 with ‘your inheritance which you will inherit’ in Deu 19:14.
Note that in ‘a’ once the Canaanites have been (justly) cut off (the assumption is that their eye is not to pity them for they have committed capital crimes in the same way as those in Deu 19:13) and Yahweh gives Israel their land and they succeed them and dwell in their cities, the cities of refuge are to be set up and made easily accessible for manslayers, and in the parallel landmarks are not to be moved in their land (for it has been given by Yahweh), while those who deliberately slay others will be slain without pity in order to compensate for and put away the innocent blood which has been shed. In ‘b’ the one who kills his neighbour unawares may flee there ‘lest the avenger of blood pursue the manslayer — and smite him mortally’ and he will then be safe, and in the parallel the one who hates his neighbour and slays him deliberately shall be delivered ‘into the hand of the avenger of blood that he may die’ . In ‘c’ they are to set apart three cities, and in the parallel, if things prosper they must set aside three more cities. In ‘d’ these extra cities are dependent on their being faithful and thus expanding in order to possess even more land.
Deu 19:1-3
‘ When Yahweh your God shall cut off the nations, whose land Yahweh your God gives you, and you succeed them, and dwell in their cities, and in their houses, you shall set apart three cities for yourself in the midst of your land, which Yahweh your God gives you to possess it. You shall prepare yourself the way, and divide the borders of your land, which Yahweh your God causes you to inherit, into three parts, that every manslayer may flee there.’
The introduction of this passage in this section of Moses’ speech brings out how horrific unnatural deaths were seen to be. Above all ‘crimes’ they were dealt with as something to be looked at on their own. For all life belonged to Yahweh and an unnatural death was therefore to rob Him of what was His and the spilt blood defiled His land. It cried out to Him.
We should note two things about these verses. The first is that they are based on Yahweh ‘cutting off the nations’ (compareDeu 12:29). It is no coincidence that such a phrase introduces a section dealing with violent deaths, the first accidental, the second in war and the third murder. ‘Cutting off the nations’ were deaths that were justified because of the behaviour of those nations. They cleansed the land. But one of the very reasons why they had been cut off was their abominable behaviour. Such activity as would be instanced by a deliberate violent death or the removing of ancient landmarks (an attempt to misappropriate Yahweh’s land) was not to be countenanced in a land that belonged to Yahweh and had been cleansed. It must not be. But equally vital was that innocent blood should not be shed because of it, where the death was accidental. This also had to be prevented. Blood for blood must not punish the innocent.
Secondly we should note the stress in this passage on the fact that Yahweh was now giving the land to Israel. This is stressed in three different ways, ‘whose land Yahweh your God gives you — your land which Yahweh your God gives you to possess it — your land, which Yahweh your God causes you to inherit.’ Compare Deu 19:14. Also compare Deu 15:4 but even that does not have quite the same extended threefold stress. Here the land is declared with great stress to be Yahweh’s gift to them, it is their possession given to them by Him, and it is what they will inherit from Him. What belongs to Him, and what they have received in this threefold way as such a munificent gift from Him, must not be defiled with innocent blood deliberately taken, nor misappropriated. This is the background to the setting up of the cities of refuge. Vengeance must not be taken in His land on innocent men. It must be prevented. There must be a way of deliverance provided.
This vengeance was to be prevented, by Israel yielding up out of the many cities and houses that He would give them to dwell in, three cities to be cities of refuge (a complete threefold provision). This benefit was ‘for themselves’. It was accomplished by taking the land that He would by then have given them, and which they will inherit, and dividing it into three parts, with a city of refuge in each part, selected for the convenience with which they could be reached (and because they were Levitical cities where the Levites could have oversight over the situation – Jos 21:13; Jos 21:21; Jos 21:27; Jos 21:32; Jos 21:38. That this idea of the setting up of the cities was ancient comes out in that at this stage it was anticipated that more would need to be set up, something which did not happen – see Deu 19:8-10).
“You shall prepare yourself the way.” Some have seen this as signifying building smooth roads to the cities, but if so it fits rather inconsistently. Thus we might therefore translate as ‘measure yourself the way’, that is, measure the relative distances. The aim is to make the cities as accessible as possible from anywhere within the territory of Israel.
This huge significance of a violent death in the land is stressed elsewhere. Compare the situation in Deu 21:1-9 when a dead body is found where no one knows who has done it, where again innocence has to be demonstrated, and there a death had to take place on behalf of the nearest town, probably as blood for blood to ritually satisfy the avengers of blood. It was not a sacrifice. Possibly it was a substitutionary or representative execution, or, being totally innocent and slain in an innocent place, was bearing blood for the innocent. It demonstrated that if the murderer was found that would be his punishment as determined by that town, thus releasing the town from having vengeance wrought against it.
Deu 19:4-6
‘ And this is the case of the manslayer, that shall flee there and live, whoever kills his neighbour unawares, and did not hate in time past, as when a man goes into the forest with his neighbour to hew wood, and his hand fetches a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slips from the shaft, and lights on his neighbour so that he dies, he shall flee to one of these cities and live, lest the avenger of blood pursue the manslayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and smite him mortally, whereas he was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past.’
An example of the kind of manslayer who may flee there and live is now described. It is one who kills his neighbour unawares without having enmity in his heart. Thus for example, one who goes with his neighbour into the forest to hew wood, and he begins his stroke to cut the tree, and the head falls from the shaft and hits his neighbour so that he dies. Such a man may flee to a city of refuge.
He would have to do it quickly. Once the death was known about, the avengers of blood would be incensed and would not rest until they had taken his life. It was agreed by all that it was their family duty. They only knew that their relative had been slain. That is why the city must be accessible, for if the way was long he may be overtaken and his innocent blood shed in Yahweh’s land. And that must not be for he was not worthy of death having killed the other man innocently.
This preventative method was necessary because of the deeply ingrained belief about avenging blood. Simply forbidding retaliation would not have worked. By the time the impassioned men had been told that the death had been innocent, it might have been too late. Even if they had finally been convinced the innocent man might well be dead. In a society where members of a family had to protect each other because there was no one else to protect them such a situation could inevitably arise. The cities of refuge saved the lives of many innocent men.
Deu 19:7
‘ For this reason I command you, saying, “You shall set apart three cities for yourself.’
And that, quite briefly, is why Yahweh commanded that they set aside three cities for themselves for this purpose. Then once a man was within one of those cities of refuge everyone in that city was bound to protect him. To slay him there would be murder, itself punishable by death.
Deu 19:8-10
‘ And if Yahweh your God enlarge your border, as he has sworn to your fathers, and give you all the land which he promised to give to your fathers, if you shall keep all this commandment to do it, which I command you this day, to love Yahweh your God, and to walk ever in his ways, then shall you add three cities more for yourself, besides these three, that innocent blood be not shed in the midst of your land, which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance, and so blood be on you.’
And this principle was so important that if God extended their borders even further as He had promised to their fathers, as a result of their keeping the whole of Yahweh’s overall commandment in the covenant, loving Him, and walking always in His ways, then a further three cities should also be set apart so that distances might not become too great, for it was important that innocent blood should not be shed in land that belonged to Yahweh, and was given by Him to them for an inheritance. For if it was shed there once He had given them the land, the innocent blood would be laid at their door. It would be ‘on them’.
This appointment of three more cities in fact never happened because sadly Israel never fulfilled the covenant sufficiently for it to occur. (This again supports the genuineness of the speech. Who would have put something like this in, and why would they do it, if they already knew that it had not happened? It would be realism gone mad). But it does serve to bring out the conditional nature of their position in the land.
Deu 19:11-12
‘ But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally so that he dies, and he flee into one of these cities, then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him from there, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.’
But if it is proved through witnesses that the man had actually hated his neighbour, and had lain in wait for him, and had risen up against him deliberately in order to smite him mortally so that he died, his fleeing to the city of refuge merely bought him time. The case against him would be examined, and if considered proved, would result in him being handed over to the avengers of blood who could then execute him. In this case it was necessary that he should die so that the land would be cleansed.
This procedure would be carried out by the elders of his city, who, if they examined the facts and thought that there was a good case against the manslayer, could call for him to be handed over for examination. In the wilderness the examination was by the whole congregation (Num 35:24-25), but that was not convenient once they were spread throughout the land. So the city elders would then examine him. If he was found guilty he would be handed over to the avengers of blood. If he was found innocent he would be returned to the city of refuge, for there only would he be safe from the avengers of blood. It was the only way to ensure his safety.
However once a High Priest died that in some way dealt with the innocent manslayer’s problem so that he was then free to go wherever he liked with complete immunity from the avengers of blood (Num 35:25). We do not know why exactly it was effective. Perhaps it was because in the death of the High Priest all that had previously happened was considered to have ‘died’ with him, with a new era beginning. All could begin again. Thus his guilt was no more. Perhaps because the High Priest, as leading Levite over the levitical cities, was seen as having died bearing for the inhabitants of those special cities the guilt of deaths brought about innocently. Perhaps it was because his death as representative of the whole people was seen as in some way atoning for all blood spilt in innocence by that people.
Deu 19:13
‘ Your eye shall not pity him, but you shall put away the innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with you.’
No eye should pity the guilty manslayer, any more than they were to pity the Canaanites, for it was necessary for the innocent blood to be avenged so that the guilt for it should not rest on the whole of Israel, and so that Israel might continue to prosper. Thus the cities of refuge did not prevent justice. They prevented miscarriages of justice.
The lessons that come home from these cities of refuge are firstly the seriousness with which God treats deliberate murder, secondly that those who kill by accident should not bear guilt, and thirdly that just as the city of refuge was available for men to find deliverance, so our Lord Jesus Christ will be our city of refuge, even though in our case we are guilty. For as our High Priest He has died for us so that we may be forgiven and go free.
Removal Of Ancient Landmarks.
Almost as criminal as the shedding of innocent blood was the removal of ancient landmarks, either secretly or by use of force. Ancient landmarks were sacred, having been there from time immemorial, marking off Yahweh’s land and indicating that it was His. To move them was to go directly against Yahweh and to seek to appropriate land that had been long marked off by ancient custom in Yahweh’s land. It was to steal directly from Yahweh. And it put those who did it under a curse (Deu 27:17). The placing of this among matters dealing with the shedding of blood demonstrates its importance. Nothing would more likely cause the shedding of blood than such a violation of ancient rights.
As we have already seen similar phrases are applied here in Deu 19:14 as in Deu 19:2-3. ‘Land which Yahweh your God gives you to possess it’ is found in Deu 19:2 and Deu 19:14, and compare ‘which God causes you to inherit’ in Deu 19:3 with ‘your inheritance which you will inherit’ in Deu 19:14. It is the fact that the land is Yahweh’s gift, and is their inheritance from Him, that makes it essential that they shall respect its purity and integrity. They must neither shed blood there nor remove landmarks.
Deu 19:14
‘ You shall not remove your neighbour’s landmark, which they of old time have set, in your inheritance which you shall inherit, in the land that Yahweh your God gives you to possess it.’
When Yahweh gave them the land as their inheritance to possess, the ancient landmarks that had already been set in place must not be removed. They were ancient markers, and were part of the inheritance, and were to be used to assist in the dividing up of the land, being looked on as sacrosanct. They would then secure the land to its owners. They had been set there before Yahweh gave them the land as their inheritance, and were therefore equally Yahweh’s gift. In a sense they could be seen as having been set there by Yahweh. To seek to move them was to blatantly go against Yahweh’s anciently expressed will. It was to seek to steal what belonged to Yahweh and was lent by Him to another and was not theirs. Compare Pro 23:10 where moving a boundary marker is compared with stealing from defenceless orphans. The purpose in doing it could only be in order to defraud Yahweh’s people (Job 24:2; Isa 5:8; Hos 5:10). It was to make the return of land in the year of Yubile more difficult because of the problem of identification. Its being included after the passage on the defiling of the land by the shedding of blood brings out how great a crime it was seen to be. It was to take away someone’s livelihood, thus leaving them to die. And it would cause violence which would almost certainly result in the shedding of blood. But even worse it was direct rebellion against Yahweh and repudiation of His sovereignty.
We may ask what ancient landmarks have to do with us? In fact they teach valuable lessons. Firstly they indicate that God controls all things and has had all things planned from the beginning and has ‘staked His claim’ for us long before we were born. Secondly His concern about their maintenance indicates that God is concerned with all the things of our daily lives. No one can intrude on our lives without God knowing and caring. Thirdly they indicate that all that we have comes from God, and that He has marked it all off beforehand for our benefit. And fourthly it guarantees that our eternal inheritance is secure for it is signposted from eternity.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
III. REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD ( Deu 19:1 to Deu 21:9 ).
In this section the question of different ways of shedding blood is considered. Lying behind this section is the commandment, ‘you shall do no murder’. It should be noted that in some sense it continues the theme of the regulation of justice.
The shedding of the blood of men was always a prominent issue with God (compare Gen 9:5-6). It is dealt with in a number of aspects.
a). In Deuteronomy 19 the question is raised as to how to deal with deliberate murder and accidental killing through cities of refuge. And this is linked with the removal of ancient landmarks which could cause, or be brought about by, violence and death, and was doing violence to the covenant of Yahweh. The mention of it here demonstrates the seriousness of this crime. It is also linked with the need to avoid false witness which could lead to an unjust death or could bring death on the false witness.
b). In Deuteronomy 20 the question of death in warfare is dealt with, both as something to be faced by the people themselves, and then with regard to how to deal with a captured enemy, differentiating between neighbouring lands and native Canaanites. But the trees are not to be killed.
c). In Deu 21:1-9 the question is dealt with as to what to do if a slain man is found and no one knows who did it.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Regulations Concerning the Cities of Refuge
v. 1. When the Lord, thy God, hath cut off the nations, v. 2. thou shalt separate three cities for thee in the midst of thy land which the Lord, thy God, giveth thee to possess it. v. 3. Thou shalt prepare thee a way, v. 4. And this is the case of the slayer which shall flee thither that he may live: Whoso killeth his neighbor ignorantly, v. 5. as when a man goeth into the wood time his neighbor to hem wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke time the ax to cut down the tree, and the head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his neighbor, v. 6. lest the avenger of the blood, v. 7. Wherefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt separate three cities for thee, v. 8. And if the Lord, thy God, enlarge thy coast v. 9. if thou shalt keep all these commandments to do them, which I command thee this day, to love the Lord, thy God, and to walk ever in His ways, v. 10. that innocent blood be not shed in thy land which the Lord, thy God, giveth thee for an inheritance, and so blood be upon thee. v. 11. But if any man hate his neighbor, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, v. 12. then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood that he may die, v. 13. Thine eye shall not pity him,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
LAWS CONCERNING CITIES OF REFUGE. LANDMARKS NOT TO BE REMOVED. LAWS CONCERNING WITNESSES.
Deu 19:1-13
Moses had before this enunciated the law concerning cities of refuge for manslayers, and had already pointed out the cities on the east of the Jordan that were to be set apart for this (Num 35:11, etc.; Deu 4:41, etc.), he here repeats the law with special reference to the appointment of such cities “in the midst of the land,” on the west of the Jordan, in Canaan itself; and he supplements the instructions formerly given with directions as to the maintenance of roads to the cities of refuge, and as to the division of the land, so that there should be a city of refuge in every third of the land.
Deu 19:3
Thou shalt prepare thee a way. In the East, the roads were for the most part mere tracks made by the feet of animals used as beasts of burden or for traveling; and this continues to be the case in Palestine and many other parts of the East even at the present day. That roads, however, properly so called, were not unknown to the Hebrews, even in early times, is evident, not only from this passage, but also from Le 26:22; Num 20:17; Num 21:22; Deu 2:27; 1Sa 6:12. The design of the injunction here was that every facility should be afforded to the fugitive to escape to the place of refuge. In later times, it was enacted that the roads leading to these cities should be repaired every year in the month Adar, and every obstruction removed.
Deu 19:4-7
(Cf. Num 35:11, etc.)
Deu 19:8, Deu 19:9
In case their land should be extended, in ease they should come to possess the whole territory promised by God to the patriarchs, so that their domain should reach from the Nile to the Euphrates (Gen 15:18)an event which should be realized only if they should continue steadfast in their obedience to all that God had enjoined upon them, and an event which in point of fact never was realized, for even under David and Solomon there were extensive territories within these limits which were not incorporated with the kingdom of Israelin that case they were to add other three cities of refuge to those already appointed.
Deu 19:10
The design of appointing these cities was to prevent the shedding of innocent blood, which would be the case were the unintentional manslayer killed in revenge by one of the relatives of the man he had slain; in this case the guilt of bloodshed would rest upon the nation if they neglected to provide for the escape of the manslayer.
Deu 19:11-13
These cities, however, were not to be places of refuge for murderers, for those who from hatred and with wicked intent had slain others; if such fled to one of these cities, they were not to be suffered to remain there; the elders of their own city were to require them to be delivered up, that the avenger might put them to death (Num 35:16-33, etc.). In the earlier legislation, it is enacted that the congregation shall judge in such matters, and that by their decision it should be determined in any case whether the person who had slain another was to be allowed to remain in a city of refuge or be delivered over to the avenger of blood. With this the ordinance here is not inconsistent; the elders were not to act as judges, but merely as magistrates, to apprehend the man and bring him to trial.
Deu 19:14
To the ordinance concerning cities of refuge Moses appends one prohibiting the removing of landmarks; if these had been placed by a man’s ancestors to mark the boundaries of possessions, they were not to be surreptitiously altered. Landmarks were held sacred, and a curse is pronounced against those who remove them (Deu 27:7; cf. Job 24:2; Pro 22:28; Pro 23:10; Hos 5:10). Among other nations also landmarks were regarded as sacred.
Deu 19:14
They of old time; i.e. those of a former age. The word does not necessarily imply that the age described as “former” was removed at a great distance in the past; it might designate men of the immediately preceding age. The LXX. have here , and the Vulgate priores. That the law here given was uttered whilst Israel was yet outside of Canaan, is evident from what follows in this verse.
Deu 19:15-21
To secure against injury to life or property through inadequate or false attestation, it is enacted that more than one witness must appear before anything can be established; and that, should a witness be found on trial to have testified falsely against his neighbor, he was to be punished by having done to him what he thought to have done to his neighbor (cf. Deu 17:6; Num 35:30).
Deu 19:15
The rule in Deu 17:6, regarding accusations of idolatry, is here extended to accusations of every kind before a court of justice; a single witness was not to be admitted as sufficient to convict a man of any offence, either civil or criminal.
Deu 19:16
To testify against him that which is wrong; literally, to testify against him defection, i.e. from the Law of God. The speaker has apparently in view here all such defections from the Law as would entail punishment on the convicted offender. In Deu 13:5 [6], indeed, the crime described here as “that which is wrong” (margin, “falling away”) is specially the crime of apostasy to idolatry; but the word (), though usually expressing apostasy from Jehovah, has properly the general sense of a deflection from a prescribed course (from , to go off, to go aside), and so may describe any departure from what is constituted right.
Deu 19:17
Both the men, i.e. both parties at the bar, shall stand before the Lord; i.e. shall come to the sanctuary where Jehovah had his dwelling-place in the midst of his people, and where the supreme judges, who were his delegates and representatives, held their court (Deu 17:9).
Deu 19:19
Thought. The verb here used () means generally to meditate, to have in mind, to purpose; but it frequently has the subaudition of meditating evil (cf. Psa 31:1-24 :37; Psa 37:12; Pro 30:32, etc.).
Deu 19:20
(Cf. Deu 13:12.)
Deu 19:21
The lex talionis was in this case to be observed (cf. Exo 21:23; Le 24:20). Practically, however, a pecuniary compensation might be accepted for the offence (cf. Josephus, ‘Antiq.,’ 4.8, 35).
HOMILETICS
Deu 19:1-13
The cities of refuge.
The appointment of cities of refuge by Moses is of great interest, as yielding a study in Jehovah’s ways of educating his people, and of giving light and truth to men. We will see
I. THE PLACE THIS INSTITUTION OCCUPIES IN HISTORY. So far as we are aware, there is nothing just now existing among civilized nations with which it is altogether analogous. The most recent regulations which seem to be a kind of reflection of it from afar, are those in the mediaeval Church, called “the right of sanctuary.” Ecclesiastical historians inform us that the right of refuge in churches began as early as the days of Constantine; that at first only the altar and the interior of the Church was the place of refuge, but that afterwards any portion of the sacred precincts availed. This privilege was “not intended to patronize wickedness, but to give a place of shelter for the innocent, or, in doubtful cases, to give men protection till they could have a hearing, and to give bishops an opportunity of pleading for criminals.” These refuges allowed thirty days’ respite, though under the Anglo-Saxon law of King Alfred but three days were granted. It speaks but little for the advance of opinion then that the right of refuge was denied, not only to the openly wicked, but to heretics, apostates, and runaway slaves. In after times this right of sanctuary was granted even to notorious criminals, not excepting such as were guilty of treason. In early ages there were asyla among the Germans. Before that, among the Romans. In founding Rome, Romulus made it a place of refuge for criminals from other states, for the purpose of peopling the city. Further back, in the Greek states, the temples, altars, sacred groves, and statues of the gods possessed the privilege of protecting slaves, debtors, and criminals. And, if we go back further still, we find among Oriental peoples a custom known by the uncouth term, “blood-revenge,” according to which, if a murder had been committed, the nearest of kin to the murdered man had a right to pursue the murderer and take vengeance on him. It is said that among the Arabs this right exists to the present day. In what form it existed among the ancient Egyptians we are able to infer from Mr. Lane’s statement that it exists in almost savage wildness among the moderns. And we might gather, from the way in which Moses uses the term “avenger of blood,” that the Hebrews may have been familiar with it, as having seen it practiced in Egypt, or as having received the custom from the nations among whom their fathers dwelt prior to going down into Egypt. This right of the nearest of kin to avenge a murder in a family is called goelism, from the word “goel,” which has the two apparently incompatible meanings of “next of kin” and “avenger of blood.” So that there are actually two institutions known of, in the light of which we have to look at these cities of refuge. One, goelism; the other, the right of sanctuary. Each of them was open to abuse. If the former had unrestricted sway, private revenge might bear very hardly on one who had accidentally killed another. Supposing the second to be left without guard, it might become the means of screening from justice criminals of the worst type. The first abuse was common among Oriental nations; the second, amongst Greeks, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, and the mediaeval sanctuaries of Europe. And it is only as we set the Mosaic institution in the double light of the earlier ones out of which it came, and of the later ones which came out of it, that its real value can be seen. Hence we see
II. THE PURPOSE IT SERVED IN THE MOSAIC LEGISLATION. There is one fundamental principle on which the Mosaic civil code is based, i.e. the value of patient culture. Moses found certain abuses existing. He did not sweep them away at once, but aimed at educating the people out of them. With regard to this right of revenge, he established such a remarkable system of checks and counter-checks as surely only a superhuman wisdom could, in that age, have devised. Our space will only allow us to indicate these very briefly.
1. Moses recognizes the sacredness of human life, both to God and to man.
2. He provides that, when a wrong is done to society, it should be in some way recognized, and that society should have its own safeguard against the repetition thereof.
3. A great step would be gained if such reparation for the wrong as is needed for the sake of security could be gained without any peril of the wild play of private revenge (Deu 19:6; Num 35:24).
4. A broad distinction is to be made between wrongs (Num 35:25).
5. The examination of the case and the decision upon it were put into the hands of the people through their elders and judges.
6. The cities of refuge were selected where justice was most likely to be done; even from the cities of the Levites.
7. All this was doubly fenced from abuse. For
(1) No murderer was to be screened (Num 35:31).
(2) No one was to be reckoned as a murderer on the unsupported testimony of one man. So that the goel had no power except there were corroborative evidence of guilt.
8. The reason is given in Num 35:33, Num 35:34. Now, when we know that all legislation has to be tested, not by the question, “What is absolutely the test?’ but by “What is the best the people can bear?”surely these laws give indications of a guidance and wisdom not less than Divine.
III. THE TYPICAL FORESHADOWINGS IN THIS INSTITUTION ARE NOTEWORTHY. They are many. The preacher may well luxuriate in working them out.
1. Outraged right requires vindication.
2. In vindicating the right and avenging the wrong, equity and kindness are to be studiously guarded. Grace is to reign through righteousness.
3. God, in his kindness, provides a refuge from the haste or excesses of private revenge.
4. God gives special directions concerning them. There was to be one in each district, so that the fleeing one might not have too far to go. The place was to be accessible; good roads thither were to be made. The Jews caught the spirit of the directions, and had direction-posts put at the corners of roads, with the words “Refuge! Refuge!” plainly put thereon. The same rule for a Hebrew applied to the stranger and foreigner. The refuge did not avail if a man did not rice thither. And there were sins for which it did not avail at all (see Num 35:11,Num 35:12, and Num 35:29-34); and where the refuge did avail it was only the death of the high priest which set a homicide entirely free from the consequences of his blood-shedding.
IV. THERE ARE SOME RELATED TRUTHS IN THE GOVERNMENT OF GOD WHICH ARE NOT FORESHADOWED IN THESE CITIES OF REFUGE. Two of these there are, and those so remarkable, that it is not surprising if some do not regard the cities of refuge as being typical at all.
1. Though the manslayer was to flee to the city, yet he was to flee from the goel. The opposite is the case under the gospel. We said that the word “goel” had two meanings, viz. that of “nearest of kin” and “avenger of blood,” because the nearest of kin was the avenger of blood. But as the student traces the Bible use of this word, lo, it has a third meaning, even that of redeemer (Isa 41:14; Isa 43:14; Isa 44:24; Isa 48:17; Isa 54:5, Isa 54:8; Isa 60:16). Jehovah is the Goel. The Lord Jesus Christ is our next of kin, the avenger of wrong, the Redeemer. He has vindicated the majesty of Law by bearing the stroke, that it may not be inflicted on the penitent. He is at once our City of Refuge and our Goel. We flee to him, not from him.
2. The refuge was provided for the delay of judgment till the case was examined. Here, refuge is for the penitent, that he may never come into judgment at all He may say and sing
“Should storms of sevenfold thunder roll,
And shake the globe from pole to pole,
No flaming bolt shall daunt my face,
For Jesus is my Hiding-place.”
HOMILIES BY J. ORR.
Deu 19:1-13
Cities of refuge.
The institution of cities of refuge (cf. Deu 4:41-43) seems to have been peculiar to the legislation of Moses. It is an institution reflecting strong light on the wisdom, justice, and humanity of the Mosaic code. The system of blood revenging, while securing a rude kind of justice in communities where no proper means existed of bringing criminals to public trial, was liable to great abuses (Deu 19:6). The usage was, however, too deeply rooted to be at once abolished, and Moses, by this ordinance, did not seek prematurely to abolish it. The worst evils of the system were checked, and principles were asserted which were certain in course of time to lead to its abandonment. In particular the two principles were asserted:
1. The distinction between accidental homicide (Deu 19:4, Deu 19:5) and intentional murder (Deu 19:11).
2. The right of every criminal to-a legal trial. It is a proof of the wisdom of the institution that, under its operation, blood avenging seems very early to have died out in Israel.
These old cities of refuge, though their gray walls have long since crumbled to decay, have still much about them to interest us. We can scarcely regard them as ordained types of gospel realities, but they certainly furnish valuable illustrations of important gospel truths. To a reader of the New Testament, Christ is suggested by them, and shines through them, and the best use we can make of them is to learn from them the need of seeking a like security in Christ to that which the manslayer found in his strong city (see infra).J.O.
Deu 19:1-13
The cities of refuge as types.
Using the word in a popular and not in a theological sense, we may speak of them in this way. We have in the law ordaining them
I. A VIVID PICTURE OF THE DANGER OF THE SINNER. In certain points the contrast is stronger than the resemblance.
1. The manslayer might be guiltless of the crime imputed to him. His act may have been unintentional. He had in that case done nothing worthy of death (Deu 19:6). To slay him would have been to shed “innocent blood.” The sinner who seeks refuge in Christ cannot enter this plea. His sins are only too real and inexcusable.
2. The avenger of blood may have pursued the man-slayer unjustly. He may have sought his death in blind fury and passion. His hot heart would make no distinctions. The Avenger whom we have to fear is holy and just. His breast harbors no vindictiveness, nor does he pursue without just cause. Yet he does pursue, for sin is the one thing which God cannot tolerate in his universe, and he will not allow it to pass unjudged and unavenged. These are points of difference, but in the one point of awful and immediate danger, the parallel is exact. Outside the walls of the city of refuge the manslayer knew that there was no safety for him. A sword was unsheathed which would certainly drink his blood, if the pursuer could but overtake him. Delay meant death, and he would not tempt it by pausing one instant in his flight. Is the situation of the sinner out of Christ any less perilous? “The wrath of God abideth on him” (Joh 3:36). The sword of justice is unsheathed against him. Whither shall he flee to escape his danger? Concealment may have been possible from the avenger of blood, but it is not possible from God. Nor will any other refuge than Christ avail. The man in shipwreck, who scorns to avail himself of the lifeboat, but prefers to cling to the solitary hulk, filling with water, and doomed soon to go to the bottom, is not more certain of his fate than is the transgressor of God’s Law, rejecting Christ, letting his day of grace slip past, and clinging vainly to his own righteousness or to any other mocking hope. “Neither is there salvation in any other,” etc. (Act 4:12).
II. A VIVID PICTURE OF THE SECURITY OF THE REFUGE PROVIDED IN CHRIST. In Christ, our Savior, God has provided a secure and accessible refuge for the sinner. Here again there is a point of contrast as strongly marked as is the feature of resemblance. The refuge city was, after all, only a refuge for the innocent. The manslayer may have been rash and careless, and in that sense blameworthy, but he was not a willful murderer. For the deliberate murderer there was no asylum (Deu 19:11-14). He was to be taken even from God’s altar, and put to death (Exo 21:14). In this respect the gospel presents features different from the refuge of the Law. It is true that even in Christ there is no refuge for sinners wedded to their sins. If murderers may come to him, it is no longer with murderous, impenitent, unbelieving hearts. But, on the other hand, of those who turn to him in penitence, there is none whose sins are so black that the Savior will not take him in. The guiltiest and most red-handed may wash in his blood, and be cleansed from their stains (1Jn 1:7). This is the peculiarity of the gospel that as, on the one hand, it proclaims the absolute need of salvation to those who may think themselves too good for it; so, on the other, it holds out welcome to those who might be tempted to think themselves too bad for it. There is none beyond the pale of God’s mercy save he who puts himself beyond it by his own unbelief. Christ is a Refuge for sinners:
1. In virtue of the offices he sustains.
2. In virtue of the work he has accomplished.
3. In virtue of the position he occupiesappearing in heaven in the presence of God for us.
In him believers are safe. They are freed from condemnation (Rom 8:1). They are justifiedsaved from guilt and wrathunder Divine protection, and certain of acquittal in the judgment (Rom 5:1, Rom 5:9, Rom 5:10; Rom 8:31-39). They “have a strong city; salvation will God appoint for walls and bulwarks” (Isa 26:1).
III. A VIVID PICTURE OF THE SIMPLICITY OF THE WAY OF SALVATION. The way to the city of refuge was direct and plain. The roads were kept in good repair. A sufficient number of cities was provided to make the refuge readily accessible from every part of the land. It was God’s desire that men should reach the refuge, and every facility was afforded them for doing so which the ease admitted of. How fit an image of the simplicity and directness of the gospel method of salvation through faith in Christ! “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Act 16:31). “It is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed” (Rom 4:16). Faith includes the three ideas of believing in, accepting of, and resting in Christ. Doubtless, to some, faith seems anything but easy. Carrying with it the surrender of the heart to Christ, it is, in one view of it, the hardest of all conditions. But it is hard only to those who love sin more than they desire salvation. The soul that sees the evil of its sin, and has a deep desire to escape from it and to be reconciled to God, will never cease to wonder at the simplicity of the way by which its salvation is secured.
IV. AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE NECESSITY OF ABIDING IN CHRIST FOR SALVATION. The manslayer had to abide in the city till the high priest’s death. If he went beyond it he was liable to be slain (Num 35:25-29). Our High Priest never dies, and we must abide in our city if we would be safe (Joh 15:4; Col 1:23; Heb 3:14; Heb 10:38, Heb 10:39). The conclusion of the whole is, the duty of availing ourselves at once of this Refuge “set before us” (Heb 6:18).J.O.
Deu 19:14
Removing the landmark.
1. A dishonest act.
2. A deceitful act.
3. A covetous act.
4. An injurious act.
Nothing would as a rule be more keenly resented than this mean attempt to rob the owner of land of a bit of his ancient possession.J.O.
Deu 19:16-21
False witness.
God’s brand is here placed upon the crime of false witness. It was to be severely punished. Every one is interested in the suppression of such a crime-the parties whose interests are involved, society at large, the Church, the magistracy, God himself, of one of whose commandments (the ninth) it is the daring violation. The rules here apply primarily to false witness given in courts of justice, but the principles involved may be extended to all forms of the sin.
I. FALSE WITNESS IS IN GOD‘S SIGHT A GREAT EVIL.
1. It indicates great malevolence.
2. It is grievously unjust and injurious to the person wrongfully accused.
3. It is certain to be taken up and industriously propagated.
A calumny is never wholly wiped out. There are always found some evil-speaking persons disposed to believe and repeat it. It affixes a mark on the injured party which remains on him through life.
II. FALSE WITNESS ASSUMES MANY FORMS. It is not confined to law courts, but pervades private life, and appears in the way in which partisans deal with public men and public events. Persons of a malicious and envious disposition, given to detraction, can scarcely avoid itindeed, live in the element of it. Forms of this vice:
1. Deliberate invention and circulation of falsehoods.
2. Innuendo, or suggestio falsi.
3. Suppression of essential circumstancessuppressio veri.
4. The distortion or deceitful coloring of actual facts.
A lie is never so successful as when it can attach itself to a grain of truth
“A lie that is all a lie may be met and fought with outright;
But a lie that is part of a truth is a harder matter to fight.”
III. THE FALSE WITNESS BORNE BY ONE AGAINST ANOTHER WILL BE EXPOSED AT GOD‘S JUDGMENT SEAT. The two partieshe who was accused of bearing false witness and he who alleged himself to be injured by itwere required to appear before the Lord, and to submit their cause to the priests and judges, who acted as his deputies (Deu 19:17). It was their part to make diligent inquisition, and, if the crime was proved, to award punishment (Deu 19:18, Deu 19:19). The punishment was to be on the principle of the lex talionis (Deu 19:19-21). So, at Christ’s judgment seat, the person who has long lain under an undeserved stigma through the false witness of another may depend on being cleared from wrong, and the wrong-doer will be punished (Col 3:25). Meanwhile, it is the duty of every one to see to the punishment of this crime, not only in cases of actual perjury, But in every form of it, and not only by legal penalties, butwhich is the only means that can reach every caseby the emphatic reprobation of society, and, where that is possible, by Church censures.J.O.
HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR
Deu 19:1-13
The cities of refuge.
The blood-feud, as we know, was carried out remorselessly among nomadic nations, the manslayer having to be slain, even though his manslaying were purely accidental. In other words, there was no distinction made between manslaughter and murder by the nomadic nations in the rude early ages. But, by the Lord creating the cities of refuge, three on each side of the Jordan, to which the manslayer could repair, and where, if it was manslaughter only, he could remain without molestation till the death of the high priest, a distinction between these two crimes was carefully made. The city of refuge was a divinely ordained place of peace for the person who had only slain his neighbor accidentally. In case of premeditated murder, the person was to be taken even from God’s altar and executed.
I. THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL WERE HEREBY TAUGHT THAT ALL SINS ARE NOT EQUALLY HEINOUS IN GOD‘S SIGHT. Morality must differentiate and distinguish, not treat sin in the lump. Morality is undermined where revenge treats manslaughter and murder alike. The Old Testament morality was thus a great advance on the morality of the time.
II. THIS ARRANGEMENT ABOUT THE CITIES OF REFUGE SHOWED THAT THERE WAS A WAY OF PARDON PROVIDED FOR AT LEAST SOME SINNERS UNDER THE LAW. The
Law is sometimes regarded as merciless rigor, whereas its sacrificial ceremonies and such an arrangement as this before us proclaimed pardon and escape for some sinners. An undertone of mercy was heard underneath the thunder of its wrath.
Now, the way of pardon is instructive. It was to be prepared. Towards the cities of refuge the best roads of the country converged. Directions were given to keep them clear, that the man who was fleeing for his life might have his fair chance of escape.
And what agony must have been experienced along that way! The possibility of being overtaken, and having the life taken away, must have made the race to the city a desperate ordeal.
And then the imprisonment there till the death of the high priest must have made the manslayer walk very softly all those days. When at last the high priest died, he was free!
Now all this, we believe, is typical of the gospel. The soul is, like the manslayer, guilty of shedding innocent blood. Doubtless not intentionally, but much evil is wrought by want of thought, as well as by want of heart. We are all guilty. But a way has been provided for our safety. It is a way of anxiety, of solemn thought, and eventually of peace through the death of him who is our High Priest. Safety in the city of refuge is the symbol of safety in Jesus Christ; while he is also the High Priest whose death delivers and restores the exile. It takes the two things, the city of refuge and the death of the high priest, to bring out all that Jesus is to sinful men.
III. THERE WAS UNPARDONABLE SIN UNDER THE LAW, AS THERE IS UNDER THE GOSPEL. The murderer was not protected in a city of refuge, but delivered up to execution. Murder was one of the sins which the Law deemed unpardonable. We mean, of course, unpardonable so far as this life and world are concerned.
Now what we have to notice is that, under the gospel, there is an unpardonable sin. And about this sin our Lord is very explicit. It is unforgivingness, the perpetuation of the murderous spirit in impenitent mood. We do not hold that the blood of Jesus Christ is insufficient to cleanse away all sin (1Jn 1:6, 1Jn 1:7)the very opposite. But so long as a soul regards others with an unforgiving temper, it is manifest that the Divine grace has been kept at bay. God will not forgive those who are not forgiving Forgivingness and forgiveness are twin sisters, and they visit the soul together. If God has really forgiven us, we shall find ourselves in a forgiving mood, the least we could do in the circumstances; but conversely, if we continue in hard, unforgiving mood, it is proof positive that we have not yet experienced God’s forgiveness. How deeply the gospel probes our carnal nature, and conquers it!
IV. VENGEANCE CANNOT BE DISPENSED WITHIN GOD‘S GOVERNMENT, AND WE NEED NOT CALCULATE UPON SUCH A DISPENSATION. The avenger of blood was the officer for the time being of public justice. It was a public duty he was called to discharge. And public justice still has its revenges, and will, as long as criminals continue. It is the same with God. “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” The weapon is a dangerous one for us to handle, but God will take charge of it, and will use it as the interests of good and all-wise government require.R.M.E.
Deu 19:14-21
The law of retaliation.
When we consider “retaliation,” we find that it is the converse of the “golden rule.” In fact, it is giving back to a person his breach of that rule to see how he likes it. It is just a rough method of teaching rude, selfish souls that there is retribution in all selfish practices; the gun may be fired maliciously, but it sooner or later lays the sportsman in the dust. Now, it is morally right that those who do to others as they do not wish others to do to them should have precisely their own paid back to them. It is simple justice.
I. PUBLIC JUSTICE MAKES PROVISION FOR THIS IN EVERY CIVILIZED COUNTRY. When Jesus directed his disciples not to retaliate, but to cultivate the spirit of nonresistance to evil (Mat 5:38 42), he did not wish them to take the law into their own hands, but to leave to public justice what in the olden time had to be settled privately. He certainly did not mean that his disciples should screen men from the processes of public law, when they had made themselves amenable thereto. His advice regarded the edifice of public justice as raised by advancing civilization, and taking up consequently many matters which private parties in a ruder age had to deal with.
II. RETALIATION WAS IN THE EARLY TIME A DUTY WHICH INDIVIDUALS OWED TO THE PUBLIC. It is too often supposed that revenge is such a gratification that men need no exhortation to take it. But we find men that are too cowardly to retaliate, men who would rather let the greatest ruffians escape than risk anything in giving them their desert. Before the erection of public justice, therefore, as a recognized and well-wrought institution, it was necessary to sustain the courage of the people against lawlessness by making retaliation a public duty. The avenger was not a man thirsting for blood, but one who would very likely have remained snugly at home instead of risking his life in retaliation. Men have to be “whipped up” oftentimes to the requisite courage for public duty.
III. RETALIATION, WHEN FAITHFULLY CARRIED OUT, WAS A CHECK ON SELFISH CONDUCT AND A HELP TO A HIGHER MORALITY. The golden rule of doing unto others as we would that they should do to us was the goal at which the morality of the Old Testament was aiming. One way of leading up to it is by carrying out its opposite, and giving to the wrong-doer an idea of what it is to receive what we do not desire. We have to practice this in the correction of children. When they act a cruel part by others, they get a taste of suffering themselves, just to let them know what it is like.
IV. AT THE BACK OF ALL GOD‘S MERCY THERE IS THE ALTERNATIVE OF STRICT JUDGMENT IN CASE HIS MERCY IS REFUSED. The gospel is the golden rule in its highest exemplification. It is God doing unto man as he would have man do unto him were he in such circumstances. But if men reject the Divine mercy, and will not receive God’s love, then there is no other alternative but strict justice. And strict justice means retaliation. It is giving back to man what he dares to give to God. If man refuses God’s love, and, instead of accepting and returning it, gives to God hate; then it is only right, eternally right, that he should receive what he gives. God cannot bat hate as utterly abominable the soul that hates him who is essential Love. Wrath is the “love-pain of God” (Liebes-schmertz Gottes), as Schoberlein has called it. It is forced on him by the action of his creatures. They have had the opportunity of love, but, since they refuse it, they must be visited by wrath.
Hence there is nothing weak about the Divine administration. Its backbone is justice; but special arrangements were made in the atonement of Jesus to allow of God being “justly merciful;” when, however, this just mercy is rejected, God must return to the stricter lines, and deal with the ungrateful as they deserve. In the retaliation of God there is, of course, nothing mean and nothing selfish. His vengeance is in the interests of public morals, and a necessary part of a wise administration. There should be no trifling, then, with the Divine offer; for, if it be not accepted, men must prepare for wrath.R.M.E.
HOMILIES BY D. DAVIES
Deu 19:1-10
The cities of refuge.
The territory of Canaan was allotted to the Jews for this special end, that the principles of the heavenly kingdom might be practically unfolded on earth. In the Divine treatment of men, as members of the body politic, justice and mercy were to be harmoniously blended. Human life was uniformly treated as precious, but righteousness was revealed as more precious still.
I. SEVERE INJURY TO MEN MAY BE WROUGHT SIMPLY BY THOUGHTLESS INADVERTENCE. The physical laws of nature are stupendous forces, which man must well investigate and comprehend, if he would wisely control. They are evidently intended for the welfare of mankind, and prove very useful servants, but very dangerous masters. In the infancy of science and technical skill, great peril arises to human life from gigantic forces which we have not learnt to command. The fall of an axe, the course of a projectile, is according to the operation of fixed law. Careful observance of this law is life; heedlessness is death. “Evil is wrought by want of thought, as well as want of heart.”
II. THE DUTY OF THE STATE POLITIC TO PROVIDE FOR THE NECESSITIES OF THE UNFORTUNATE. Before the Jews entered into possession of the Promised Land, God gave them instruction how to fulfill responsible duties. If it was a claim of justice that refuge cities should be provided for unwary manslayers, then justice would equally require that provision should be made for all sorts of unfortunates and afflicted ones. To stay the hand of private revengeto prevent the effusion of innocent bloodprivate vigilance does not suffice; it must be the business of the State. The whole community is addressed by God, as if it were a single person. In some respects, each man and each woman has to act separately and alone; in some respects, they have to merge serf into the family, and the family into the nation. Man must learn to act as part of a greater whole.
III. THE FAMILY TIE IS ALWAYS STRONGER THAN THE NATIONAL TIE. It is Obvious that this is the natural order. If a man was inadvertently killed, some blood relation would, in all likelihood, espouse the cause of the injured, and thirst to avenge the injury. Men feel bound to protect each the other against the assaults of violence. There is an understood compact for mutual protection. But, in proportion as affection becomes diffused and spreads over a larger area, so it becomes attenuated. What it gains in extension it loses in intensity. Therefore checks and restraints are needed for immoderate family feeling.
IV. HUMAN FEELING IS MORE RAPID IN ITS MOVEMENTS THAN THE JUDGMENTS OF REASON. On the whole it is best that it should be so. Self-preservation often depends on the spontaneous movement of instinct. But whenever human life is not in imminent peril, it is becoming that sane men should reflect and ponder before they yield to vindictive feeling. It is quite possible that the man killed was the more blameworthy; perhaps the only blameworthy of the two; yet the vengeful blood of neighbor or friend of the dead waits for no inquiry, but rushes off to add another to the tenants of Hades. This also is the work of the devil, and must be resisted. We must learn to bring all instincts and feelings under the scepter of reason and love. Haste usually is a mark of weakness or of madness.
V. REVENGE IS INVIGORATING: SORROW AND FEAR ARE ENERVATING. If, under ordinary circumstances, two men were well matched in strength and courage, the one who has unwarily killed a neighbor is so enfeebled by sorrow or by fear (or by both), that he is no longer a match for the other. On the other hand, the man who undertakes to champion the cause of the dead is lifted into almost superhuman stature anal strength. For the moment he feels as if girded with omnipotence, and acquires fleetness, courage, and strength over the quailing person of the manslayer. Therefore, every possible facility must the state politic afford for the relief of the manslayer against the avenger.
VI. TERRITORIAL PROPERTY CARRIES WITH IT RESPONSIBLE DUTIES. Material property has its dark side as well as its bright. It brings burdens as well as enjoyments.
With every increase of territory, God required that there should be increase of refuge cities, and that roads should be prepared along which the unsinning manslayer should flee. All earthly blessings have their drawbacks, but heavenly possessions are unalloyed. They are pure gold without admixture, sun without shade, summer without winter.
VII. RELIGION ENNOBLES AND BEAUTIFIES EVERY EARTHLY LOT. The land which we inherit, or which furnishes for us a temporary home, is a gift from God. He has not parted with the freehold. It is his absolutely, and in the use of it his will is ever to be consulted. We have but a life enjoyment in it. As it is a free gift from him, we are bound to respect all the clauses he embodies in the trust. He is to be recognized and revered perpetually. The refuge cities were the residences of the priests; the elders of these cities were priests of Jehovah, therefore they were representatives of Jehovah’s mercy. These cities were emphatically “cities of salvation.” Their walls were deliverance; their gates, praise. They were symbols of Calvarytypes of the great redemption.D.
Deu 19:11-13
Lex talionis.
The refuge provided by mercy is open to abuse. The perversity of man will poison the streams from the heavenly fountain. But in this city of peace none shall abide except those who have clean hands. False hopes are doomed to crushing disappointment. Even from the gate of heaven there is a back way to the prison-house of hell. The man of blood eventually destroys himself.
I. HATRED IS INGENIOUS IN ACCOMPLISHING ITS NEFARIOUS ENDS. Hatred has an insatiable appetite. It drives a man in whom it dwells, as with a slave-master’s whip, to do its base behests. It robs him of his sleep at night, that he may lie in ambush for some innocent victim. All day long he is driven to most odious tasks by this spirit of mischief. Without interruption, hatred holds its busy conclave in the dark caverns of the soul, and presses into service every faculty of the man, until it has clutched its prey.
II. THE MURDEROUS MAN FLATTERS HIMSELF THAT HE SHALL BE SAFE. He is conscious that vengeance is in store for him. No sooner is the deed done than cowardly fear seizes him. The righteousness of God has fleet-footed detectives in its service. Nevertheless, cunning falsehood comes to him as the devil’s comforter. Though his hands be stained through and through with blood, he will wear gloves of innocence, a mask of pretence. It were a [nobler thing to brave the matter out, and defy all opposition. But this the sinner cannot do. He quails before the omniscient eye; and, however insecure the hiding-place, he cheats himself with the hope of escape. Guilty as his conscience affirms him to be, he seeks a place among the innocent. For the sinner no refuge can be found. The earth shall cast him out.
III. THE POWER OF DEATH IS A SOVEREIGN FUNCTION OF THE STATE. “The elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence.” Human life is too precious to be placed at the disposal of private revenge; therefore the chief province of the state politic is to protect life against violence. Unbiased natures are the only proper judges of right and wrong. Justice will speak only in the calm atmosphere of sincerity and truth. The representative power of the whole community is the only power which fully suffices to vindicate the claims of righteousness. This is God’s vicegerent upon the earth. Hence magistrates are described as “gods.”
IV. RIGHTEOUSNESS IS NOBLER THAN PITY. There are circumstances in which Pity must not speaka time for her to be silent. “Thine eye shall not pity.” There are some situations in which her presence would be out of place, her action injurious. But Righteousness must never be absent. The very atmosphere in God’s kingdom is penetrated with her vital breath. Her scepter is the scepter of God, and exerts a potent influence over every department of human life. Righteousness is the soul’s proper robe, and without it she can nowhere fitly appear. All true prosperity is the fruit of righteousness. It cannot go well with any nation, nor with any man, until guilt is put away. Even compassion for others must be a righteous compassion.D.
Deu 19:14
Caution against fraud.
Nothing that concerns man’s welfare and joy is beneath God’s care. The vast extent of his kingdom hinders not his guardianship ever every minute interest of his creatures. Even landmarks, boundary stones, are under his protection.
I. GOD IS TO BE RECOGNIZED AS THE ABSOLUTE PROPRIETOR OF ALL THINGS. As the Creator and Upholder of the universe, he has supreme claim to this solid globe. “The earth is the Lord’s” Nor has he ever parted with his rightful claim, for he keeps the globe hourly in existence, and so continually proclaims his control over it. It is his gift to men, not in the sense that he has transferred all his rights to others, but only in the sense that we were unable to purchase from him. We hold every possession from him in trust, and are bound by such terms and conditions as his will may impose.
II. IT IS GOD‘S WILL THAT LAND SHOULD BE DISTRIBUTED AS PERSONAL ESTATE. Although evils result from the division of the land into personal property, greater evils would result from communal or indiscriminate possession. The fields would not be well cultured. The land would not yield her prolific plenty. Dispute and strife would be the chronic state of society. Personal property is essential to healthy life in the State. Yet men are stewards, and not absolute proprietors.
III. BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN OUR OWN AND OTHER‘S POSSESSIONS ARE TO BE SCRUPULOUSLY RESPECTED. The arrangements of personal property offer a fine field for self-restraint, as well as for neighborly kindness. If we had been destitute of all possessions, we should be denied the enjoyment of helping others. A man who has regard for the health of his own soul, will not remove his neighbor’s landmarks by so much as a single inch. He will rather lose a pound than take by fraud a penny. This Divine command is but a tiny branch springing out of the root principle, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”D.
Deu 19:15-21
Bulwark against perjury.
“The tongue is an unruly member, and cannot easily be restrained.” Private slander is base enough, but its basest utterance is when, in the sacred halls of justice, it swears away a man’s reputation or his life. It is doubtful if a deed so black is done in hell.
I. PERJURY IS SO COMMON AS TO NECESSITATE A PUBLIC STIGMA ON HUMANITY. “One witness shall not rise up against a man.” If every man had been known as truthful, the testimony of one witness on any accusation would be ample. The narration of one eye-witness or ear-witness ought to be enough. For a truthful man would always speak within the limits of truth, and would promptly express his doubt, if certainty could not be reached. But the common experience of humanity has been that the bulk of men will prevaricate and conceal the truth, even under the solemn sanction of an oath. Hence it has been found wise to condemn no man judicially, unless more than one witness can be found. Cumulative evidence is required to obtain a valid sentence. This can be interpreted in no other way than a public testimony to the depravity of man. The prisoner obtains the benefit.
II. PERJURY IS A CRIME, TO BE TRIED IN THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE REALM. The accused and the accuser in such a case shall “stand before the Lord.” This is not so much a sin against man as a sin against God. The sacred person of Truth has been publicly violated, and the wisest and holiest in the land are commissioned by God to be the judges. As often as we violate the truth, we insult the God of truth, and stand before God for judgment. Hence it is of the first importance that we cultivate truthfulness in our thoughts and in our speech.
III. IN PROPORTION TO THE GRAVITY OF THE CHARGE SHOULD BE THE THOROUGHNESS OF THE SCRUTINY. Although we may expect to know the will of God in any particular ease by laying our own minds open to the action of God’s Spirit, we are still bound to pursue the most diligent and thorough inquiry. God rewards, not the indolent, but the patient searcher after truth. He that does the truth will discover the truth. “God helps those who help themselves.”
IV. INTENDED MISCHIEF IS TREATED AS ACTUAL CRIME. The character and quality of a deed depend upon the moral intention. Whether the intention becomes an overt act will often depend upon outward opportunity and circumstance. But God sees the incipient motive and purpose; in his court, judgment passes upon the offender. Human courts are to be, as far as possible, copies of the court of heaven. Hence the perjured witness, who seeks to visit judicial penalties upon the head of the innocent, is himself as guilty as if his base project had succeeded. “Into the pit which he had digged for another he shall fall himself.” The gallows which Haman prepared for Mordecai, served for his own doom. This is God’s law of retribution.
V. THE END SOUGHT IN THIS JUDICIAL EXECUTION IS THE PUBLIC GOOD. The sacrifice of one life is intended to bring advantage to the many. The moral effect is most precious, viz. regard for righteousnesspublic abstinence from crime. Every man should be filled with this patriotic sentimentthe higher virtue of the nation. We may do good in our circle, either intensively on the minds of a few, or extensively on the minds of the many. In doing good to others we do good to ourselves. “We are members one of another.”D.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Ver. 1. When the Lord thy God, &c. Moses, having pressed upon the people the great commandment of loving God with all the heart, now proceeds to remind them of other precepts belonging to the second table, though not in an exact manner, nor without interspersing some ceremonial matters. He begins with what concerns that principal part of our neighbour’s property, his life.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
The Sixth Command
Deu 19:1 to Deu 21:9
Deu 19:1-21
1When the Lord thy God hath cut off the nations, whose land the Lord thy God giveth thee, and thou succeedest them, [possessest them (their land)] and dwellest in their cities, and in their houses; 2Thou shalt separate three cities for thee in the midst of thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it. 3Thou shalt prepare [restore, put in good condition] thee a way, and divide the coasts of thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee to inherit, into three parts, that every 4slayer may flee thither. And this is the case [word] of the slayer [what avails for him] which shall flee thither, that he may live [and live, remain]: Whoso killeth his neighbour ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past;1 5As when a man [And (indeed) whoever] goeth into the wood with his neighbour to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head [iron] slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon [striketh]2 his neighbour, that he die; he shall flee unto one of these cities, and live: 6Lest the avenger3 of the blood pursue the slayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him;4 whereas he was not worthy [there is not to him judgment] of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past. 7Wherefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt separate three cities for thee. 8And if the Lord thy God enlarge thy coast, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, and give thee all the land which he promised 9[spake] to give unto thy fathers; If thou shalt keep all these commandments [this whole commandment] to do them [it] which I command thee this day, to love the Lord thy God, and to walk ever in his ways; then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, beside these three: 10That innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and so blood be upon thee. 11But [And] if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally [to the life] that [and] he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: 12Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch [take] him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that [and] he may die. 13Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee.5 14Thou shalt not remove thy neighbours land-mark, which they of old time [thy forefathers] have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee 15to possess it. One witness [only] shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter [word] be established. 16If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him, that which is wrong [a falling away, apostasy]; 17Then both the men between whom the controversy is shall stand before the Lord, before the priests 18and the judges, which shall be in those days; And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; 19Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. 20And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil [word] among you. 21And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
Deu 20:1 to Deu 20:1.When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the Lord thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. 2And it shall be when ye are come nigh unto the battle, that the priest shall approach and speak unto the people, 3And shall say unto them, Hear, O Israel, ye approach this day unto battle against your enemies: let not your hearts faint [be weak, soft]6 fear not, and do not7 tremble, neither be ye terrified because of them; 4For the Lord your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you. 5And the officers [shoterim] shall speak unto the people, saying, What man is there that hath built a new house, and hath not dedicated it? let him go [he shall go] and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man dedicate it. 6And what man is he that hath planted a vineyard, and hath not yet eaten8 of it [taken into use]? let him also go [he shall go] and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man eat of it. 7And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go [he shall go] and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her. 8And the officers [shoterim] shall speak further unto the people, and they shall say, What man is there that is fearful and faint-hearted? let him go [he shall go] and return unto his house, lest his brethrens heart faint [melt, flow down] as well as his heart. 9And it shall be, when the officers [shoterim] have made an end of speaking unto the people, that they shall make captains of the armies9 to lead the people. 10When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. 11And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein, shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. 12And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war [battle] against thee, then thou shalt besiege it [close, enclose it]: 13And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof 14with the edge of the sword: But [only] the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take [spoil, plunder] unto thyself: and thou shalt eat [enjoy] the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee. 15Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which 16are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But [Only] of the cities of these people which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: 17But thou shalt utterly destroy them, namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee: 18That they teach you not to do after all their abominations which they [do] have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the Lord your God. 19When thou shalt besiege a city a long time in making war against it to take it [conquer it] thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them; for thou mayest eat of them: and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is mans life) to employ them in the siege [for O man, the tree of the field is there to go before thee (through thee) (in the) siege].10 20Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat [fruit trees] thou shalt destroy and cut them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until [its fall] it be subdued.
Deu 21:1 to Deu 9:1. If one be found slain in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying [fallen] in the field, and it be not known who hath slain him: 2Then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is slain: 3And it shall be that the city which is next unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take an heifer which hath not [yet] been wrought with, and which hath not [yet] drawn in the yoke; 4And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley [a perennial brook]11 which is neither eared nor sown, and shall strike off 5[break] the heifers neck there in the valley; And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near, (for them the Lord thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the Lord,) and by their word [mouth] shall every controversy and every stroke be tried; 6And all the elders of that city that are next unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded [whose neck is broken] in the valley: 7And they shall answer and say, Our hands have not 8shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. Be merciful [Forgive] O Lord, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israels charge [into the midst of thy people Israel]. And the blood shall be forgiven them.12 9So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the Lord.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. Deu 19:1-13. With chap. 19 the discourse passes unquestionably to the sixth commandment. Other commands are alluded to only as they may be connected with this. Deu 19:1. Comp. Deu 12:29; Deu 17:14. Deu 19:2 refers undoubtedly to Canaan. Comp. upon Deu 4:41 sq. [The three East Jordan cities had been already named. Moses now gives direction for the three West of Jordan.A. G.]. Deu 19:3 directs that the way to the cities of refuge (collectively) should be put into a proper condition, and kept in it, so that there should be no hindrance in this respect. According to tradition, the way must be level, thirty-two cubits broad, and marked by fingerposts, bearing the words Refuge, Refuge Herxheimer. [The same tradition tells us that the magistrates were to send out surveyors and repair these ways annually on the 15th of the month Adar; that every obstacle must be removed, and no stream left unbridged.A. G.]. The direction, Num 35:14, was carried out, through the threefold division of Canaan, with reference to the point in view. The there prescribed three refuge cities in Canaan are placed now one each, in the smaller parts, equally near to all sides, and thus the way first becomes practical. Thee, as Deu 19:2, brings out the personal use and obligation in regard to the designed preservation of life, and prevention of bloodshed in Israel. Comp. further upon Deu 1:38; (Deu 3:28; Deu 12:10) Deu 4:42. Deu 19:4, as Deu 15:3. Comp. upon Deu 4:42. Deu 19:5 illustrates by example the more general statement in Deu 19:4. Compare Num 35:22 sq. wood for burning or building, 7:1, casts out, here used intransitively, falls off. Others (transitively) and the iron is drawn from the wooda piece which hits. At its close Deu 19:6 discloses the object of the arrangement. is the redeemer who both on account of some possession belonging to the family is a member interested, and in a special sense, on account of blood kindred, has to save, redeem, avenge the bloodshed of the family according to the divine, as according to the human and natural right of retaliation. This private justice, as is very natural, must be somewhat restrained both on account of the personal feelings of the subject, and from the first heat of grief and anger. The refuge offers its convenient situation to the pursued generally, but especially to those overtaken, (Deu 14:24). , the prominence of life, for whose sacredness it is here provided, and to which the succeeding words whereas he was not worthy of death, Schroeder, literally, and there is not to him the right of death, correspond, i.e., death does not belong to him as a right, as a legal right, or the judgment of death, death penalty, or the case is no legal case of life and death, no breach worthy of death. Deu 19:7. The more emphatic statement with regard to the three cities in Canaan, while the three East of Jordan, as set apart, and arranged by Moses, are not again alluded to. Deu 19:8 connects itself with Deu 19:7, but passes on to that which is still wider, and in a way to recall Deu 11:24; Deu 1:7. Comp. Deu 12:20 (Gen 15:18). The method of the discourse, Deu 19:9 (Deu 4:6; Deu 5:1; Deu 6:5; Deu 8:6; Deu 11:22.) also forbids us to hold with Hengstenberg that the three cities more are the three cities in Canaan, mentioned, Deu 19:2, beside these three described, Deu 4:41 sq. Neither is it true that the three new cities (Knobel) are those West of the Jordan, and the three East of the Jordan those spoken of in Deu 19:2. The three cities here are rather in the prospect of the promised future, which prospect was obscured by the failure to fulfil the conditions with which it was connected. (If thou shalt keep, sq.). There remain thus only six (instead of the nine, to which the prospect here enlarges) of which the discourse treats. Schultz rightly emphasizes the wider horizon of Deuteronomy in this regard as Mosaic. [It is obvious that such a passage as this could not have been penned in the times to which rationalist critics assign Deut. No one living in those times would think of treating as a future contingency (If the Lord thy God enlarge, sq.) an extension of territory which at the date in question had in fact taken place long ago, and been subsequently forfeited. Bib. Com.A. G.], Deu 19:10 resumes now the thread broken off at Deu 19:7; Deu 19:8-9, being regarded as a parenthesis. Innocent blood was that of the slayer, upon whom death is visited, not with judgment or right, (Deu 19:6). Comp. Deu 19:3. In such cases, if there were no refuge, blood, i.e., the guilt of blood would be upon Israel. Deu 19:11-13. Insert the contrast. Comp. Gen 4:8; Exo 21:14; Num 35:16 sq. Private justice must follow upon, be connected with, and subordinated to public justice. The elders form the fitting mediation for this purpose, partly as they are the (more revered) fathers, corresponding to the domestic element in the blood-revenger, partly as the city magistrates who represent in general the executive power of the State, and from whom also, as from the priests and Levites the judges were to be chosen (Deu 16:18). Thus the still ruling custom among the Arabians, of blood-revenge, was legally bounded and civilized, just as out of the predominant family life by and by the orderly state springs. Deu 19:13, as Deu 7:16; Deu 13:9; Deu 13:6; Deu 5:30 (Deu 15:16). Comp. Num 35:31 sq.
2. Deu 19:14. It is characteristic for the Mosaic view of the wife as a possession, that the discourse passes over the seventh command, and in Deu 19:14 comes on the contrary to speak of the eighth command, from the point of view of the sixth command, i.e., of the earthly life. Thus light is thrown upon the eighth command from the application of the sixth; significant both for Deut. and for the total view of the law.Each district, as it comes into your inheritance, with thy neighbors as with thine own, is thus connected with the family life, and comprises its livelihood; the lessening or disturbance of these limits is simply a question of existence therefore. The possession, particularly the landed, is the ground which yields to man its produce for his support. Thus it shares in the sacredness of life, which is preserved by it; entirely like Deu 20:19-20. The penalty of the offence is hinted, Deu 27:17. They of old. Schroder, predecessors. Either in time, and thus also in succession, or in honor, the leaders. What the first possessors, the fathers, Joshua and the renowned elders, determined, should be observed down to the most distant future. Comp. still upon Deu 19:3 and Intro., 4, I. 17. [They of old time, is an unfortunate rendering, as it seems to imply a long residence in Canaan, when this direction was given. The original contains no such intimation. It is the heads, chiefs. Vulg., priores. The immediately following clauses make it clear that the direction was given while the land was not yet in possession.A. G.].
3. Deu 19:15-21. A similar illumination of the ninth command from the sixth. In the first place, the importance of the witnesses before the court, in regard to the life of a neighbor, is established by this, that the testimony of one was not sufficient for condemnation. Num 35:30. Deu 19:15. perverseness, wrong, guilt; as sin is a deviation from the right, from the law. denotes the reference generally. the concrete case. Comp. Deu 17:6. In the second place, in the special case of false witness, Moses places life for life, in any case the like punishment. Deu 19:16. Treats a peculiar case; a witness of violence, who will do violence to his neighbor by his testimony, designates both the beginning and the reply in conversation, hence; to answer before the court in regard to any falling away (comp. Deu 13:6; Deu 17:7) from God, or the law. The suspicion against the witness has been proven in the lower court, as the Talmud understands of a case which was far off from the witness, strange to him, since he cannot prove his presence at it. Deu 19:17. Comp. Deu 17:8 sq., an example of the causes which were difficult or hard. [Both the men, the parties to the original suit. Before Jehovah cannot be, as Knobel, the lower court. The false witness was borne in the court below, and now comes before the supreme court at the sanctuary.A. G.]. Deu 19:18 as Deu 13:15. Deu 19:20. Comp. upon Deu 13:12 (Deu 17:13). It is not the punishment as such, which is the means of alarm, but that before Jehovah the purpose, is as the deed (Deu 19:19) and generally the decided earnestness of the lextalionis, as it is solemnly and impressively announced in Deu 19:21. (Exo 21:23 sq.; Lev 24:19 sq.). The rest as in Deu 19:13.
4. Deu 20:1-9. Out of the sacredness which attaches to human life, light is thrown upon the warfare (chap. 20) which Israel even in the occupation of Canaan (Intro., 4, I. 17) could not avoid. Israel should rejoice especially in the protection of God, to whom the life of man among his people is of such value. [Bib. Com.: Reverence for human life was to show itself with respect to the Israelites levied for war, Deu 20:1-9; to the enemy (1015) the Canaanites excepted, (Deu 20:16-18) and in respect to the property of the vanquished, 19, 20.A. G.]. Deu 20:1. Horses and chariots. These forces are those which would strike the eye of Israel, not equipped in a like way (Deu 17:16), and make the impression of superior power on the part of the enemy, (Deu 7:17); at the same time are characteristic of the Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines (Jos 17:16; Jdg 4:3; 1Sa 13:5) and Syrians (2Sa 8:4). With thee was illustrated and proved historically. Deu 20:2. As they are now, having departed from their homes, drawn up in order, to advance to the battle. The priest is the one commissioned for the purpose, according to the Talmud one anointed for the war, as Phinehas, Num 31:6; the field preacher, not the high-priest. (Num 10:8-9). The Lords servants, give to His people a more definite, solemn, and formal expression of the duty of fearlessness out of regard to Him (Deu 20:1). Deu 20:3, (Deu 1:21; Deu 1:29; Deu 7:21). Israel its name of honor, Isa 41:8; Isa 41:14 (Gen 32:28). Deu 20:4, (Deu 3:21) comp. Deu 1:30. Represented by the taking of the ark of the covenant, 1Sa 4:3. Save, to rescue you, and generally to insure the victory. Schultz lays undue force upon the expression. Religious encouragement follows the worldly conduct, as it appears in the actual relations (Deu 20:5-7), and in the personal deportment in the case (Deu 20:8). Officers, Shoterim: Comp. upon Deu 1:15. These officers might have the genealogies and tribal rolls. (Comp. Hengstenberg: The Books of Moses, p. 90.) How truly the idea of the sixth command is the animating idea here, appears in the statement of the independent human life in the three beginnings: house building as the first foundation; the planting of the vineyard as the first enlargement of the relations of life; the betrothal as the first completion of the independent position in life. may also signify whoever the man is, who, sq., thus: whoever, any one. He shall (not barely may) go. Every one in Israelthere were no involuntary levies hereif he had made efforts for life, should first rejoice in the result of his efforts. It was as humane as prudent. Such a depletion of the host not merely prevented the disheartening of the others through a homesick soldier, but testified on the part of God in this actual way, His high estimate of the value of life, so that it might inspire confidence in the timid, and increase the courage of the brave. to fit, thus to arrange, to occupy, Keil and Schultz, remind us of a consecration, and by a transfer from the temple, (1Ki 8:63) of a solemnity, at least a feast, for which there is no occasion other than the fancies of the Rabbins. The three times repeated lest he die brings out clearly the purpose in view. Deu 20:6. is any field of noble plants; an olive, or fruit garden. according to Gesen. refers to common use in the fifth year, since in the fourth year it was sanctified to the Lord (Lev 19:23 sq.). According to others, with the same reference, it is to release. Knobel: To open, to enter upon. (Perhaps also to cut, to take the clusters). Deu 20:7 completes Deu 24:5. For the whole, comp. Deu 28:30, and perhaps also Luk 14:18 sq. Deu 20:8 introduces the other class, who in like manner are to be dismissed with this distinction, that here the reference to the other soldiers comes into view, and indeed as the object, (lest his brethren, sq.). The faintness of heart may be explained as fearfulness, as natural weakness, and not so much moral cowardice, or as Deu 1:28. Deu 20:9. to inquire, inspect, to muster, and so it may be rendered: and thus the captains of the host shall hold a muster. The distinction between and the Shoterim (officers) which indeed is obvious, may somewhat account for the absence of the article which Keil so misses. But the Shoterim have scarcely finished speaking, the doing may still follow, and according to Num 3:10 (although the there is wanting here) and Deu 4:27, the meaning is, to take order for a still closer inspection. The mustering also actually occurs after the dismissal of those previously mentioned. Schultz: The captains of the host should lead, carry out the command, which is not demonstrable, rather: should have the oversight. The captains of the host are the chiefs of particular bands, which the Shoterim are not named, so much as they are simply appointed under charge of the Supreme Head (Jos 1:10 sq.; Deu 3:2 sq.), so that upon them rests the obligation to secure the preparedness for war.
5. Deu 20:10-20. The required dismissal of the two classes in Israel, Deu 20:5 sq., applies, the importance of human life in relation to God, as it was shown in war, to the advantage of his neighbor, namely, in Israel itself. Deu 20:10 sq. now makes this reference availing over against the enemy, first with regard to his person, then as to his property. They are summoned by heralds to the walls, in order to bring about a peaceful surrender and subjection. The first case is that of a corresponding answer and conduct. Deu 20:11. tax, tribute, thus an obligatory tribute, and that indeed of personal service. Thus a sparing of life. In the second case, ver 12 may be viewed altogether as the antecedent: And thou shalt besiege it, and the Lord thy God hath delivered, sq.the destruction, Deu 20:13, is simply of the males (Deu 13:16) who would otherwise threaten Israel with death; on the other hand the others might contribute to his enjoyment of life, and were therefore to be spared. Deu 20:14. The following limitation shows that the previous two cases could only occur with enemies, not Canaanites. Deu 20:15. For the third case: Canaan Deu 20:16, the curse rules. Deu 20:17 : Comp. Deu 7:1 sq. all living, i.e., all men (Jos 10:40; Jos 11:11; Jos 11:14). Deu 20:18. Comp. still Deu 12:31; Deu 18:9. Eternal life is of more value than the temporal. Mat 16:26.Nevertheless (comp. Deu 14:21) the fruit trees are to be spared because, and so far as, they are useful to life. Deu 20:19 presupposes the more comprehensive directions for the siege, and hence the temptation to use even the fruit trees for the purpose (Schultz). Comp. Deu 19:5. Since denotes the fruit trees in the gardens and orchards of the cities, it is clear that is used with reference to the wild trees in the region around, the field in the wider sense, which is made more definite in Deu 20:20. Other renderings: for (the life) of man is the tree of the field (synonymous with ) thou mayest eat thereof, for the life of man is preserved through the tree, thou mayest not cut it down. Schultz: For man is connected with (depends upon) the tree of the field, Deu 24:6. Knobel and Keil: For is the tree of the field a man, to come before thee in the siege? using the interrogative. Thus: thou mayest besiege men, but trees are not thy enemies; thou mayest rather eat of them, they are useful in thy purpose with the city in the work of the siege and destruction. Others still render it in the vocative: for O man the tree of the field cannot offer resistance, sq., or: it is there for this purpose, namely, your support, that it (the city) may be besieged by you. Some regard as a parenthesis and connect with : thou shalt not cut down the tree that it may serve in the works of the siege. The last clause is also explained: that the tree of the field go from thy face (be destroyed) in the siege; or: must go from before thee (be saved) in the fortifications. Deu 20:20. until it be overthrown, cast down, Deu 28:52. Others: Until thou hast subdued it. [While there is this variety in the renderings, in order to meet the necessities of the text, the sense is clear and substantially the same whichever construction may be adopted. The contrast between Deu 20:19-20, as to the trees alluded to, makes it clear that the trees in Deu 20:19 are fruit trees, and that they were to be spared in the siege. The rendering in our version accords well with the original text, and brings the sense out clearly, and is therefore to be preferred. See further Bib. Com.A. G.].
6. Chap. 21. Deu 21:1-9. Closes the treatment of the sixth command, with a ceremony impressively symbolizing the sacred worth of human life. Deu 21:1. comp. upon Deu 5:16. The case is that of unknown murder. Hence Deu 21:2, beside the elders of Israel (19, 12) i.e. those supposed especially to have knowledge in the case, judges also come into view, both probably from the neighboring cities. The elders of the city, ascertained by these as nearest to the dead, are laid under obligation and indeed as its civil representatives. Not that the murderer was probably from that city (Knobel), nor because it has maintained so poor a police (Schultz), but because blood-guiltiness was upon Israel generally (Deu 19:10), so especially upon the places in the neighborhood of the murder. Hence the transaction with the young heifer, like the institution of the cities of refuge, is to be viewed as a solemnity expressing the abhorrence in Israel, at the shedding of innocent blood. Deu 21:8-9 show that in the nature of the heifer, the sacrificial qualities are near at hand. Comp. upon Deu 15:19, and Num 19:2. The reference of the requisites in Deu 21:3 to the not enfeebling of the vital force by toil (Keil), is too remote, in any case the necessary thought of a peculiar sanctification for the end in view lies nearer, since the thought of life is symbolized, both in the age, and in the female (life-bearing) sex. To this sanctity of the victim corresponds the locality to which it is to be led, Deu 21:4, the common (Deu 5:13 sq.) toil of men (as Deu 21:3) can neither plough nor sow there; generally a waste valley where nothing fruitful is done, where there was no arable ground for seed; it can at the same time represent the absence of any human participation and knowledge in the murder (Deu 21:7) and give a vivid representation of the shedding of the blood of the fallen unknown man. For that there, in the bottom of that valley, untouched by men, the heifers neck was to be broken, plainly states the assassin-like manner in which the one found fallen back wards was killed. The elders by their acts, partly express for their city, that as it lies nearest it comes into account with respect to the murdered one, partly announce their abhorrence as to what has occurred (Exo 13:13; Isa 66:3); not so much that they may symbolically execute the punishment due to the murderer, (Keil), nor even testify in act as much as in them lies, that they are pure from any participation in the guilt, as they have devoted to death something of their own, from which they have not enjoyed any gain, all its profit being still in anticipation (Schultz). The latter ideas scarcely entered into the truly profoundly thoughtful, and yet simple rite. The abhorrence of the murder, as it is directly announced in the mode of the victims death, has clearly the object, on the part of the city, represented by its elders, of removing in the most formal and solemn manner the guilt of blood. According to the form the valley must be , i.e. a brook-valley (wady) which has everflowing (from firm, strong, enduring) water (Psa 74:15; Exo 14:27) which may take away for ever the shed blood of the heifer, in resemblance of the murder, (comp. Deu 21:6). [There is no incongruity between the rendering rough valley and perennial stream, since the narrowest gorge would be skirted by some barren, rocky strips which could not be ploughed or sown.A. G.]. We may either render with Johlson: hard, rocky ground, which is the positive side, of which the following expressions are the negative, or with Herxheimer: the firm ground, which designates very little the firm administration of justice by the judge, which does not come into view here, but rather the firmness of the elders in their abhorrence of the deed. The idea of life in the warding off of death, the thought of the living water (Knobel) indeed upon the lasting verdure (Schultz), must have been derived from Num 19:17; Lev 14:5. The presence of the priests, who could be brought from the nearest Levitical cities, (comp. Intro. 4, I. 22, and upon Deu 10:8; Deu 18:5; Deu 17:8-12) is in entire accordance with the ceremony. They appear with respect to the transaction itself, its religious and symbolical character, as well as with respect to the ethical and legal case to which the transaction refers. As to the first, it is apparent from the close approach to a sacrificial act; they represent in some sense the sanctuary. Comp. Num 19:3-4. The further ceremony, the washing of the hand with water from the brook in the valley, a symbolical declaration of innocence (Psa 26:6; Psa 73:13; Mat 27:24), is performed, by the elders of the nearest city, with reference to its participation in the guilt, over the heifer, which had been treated like the murdered man, and with direct reference to him. But the solemnity of the whole ceremony culminates in the prayer which follows, and in which the explanation of the washing of the hands appears. Deu 21:7. Answer (Deu 19:16) to the question to them contained in the murder, i.e., the accusation, or, they mutually speak, the elders, Deu 21:7, and the priests, Deu 21:8 (Deu 27:14). They neither did the crime, nor knew of it. This blood, as it was represented in that of the heifer, which would otherwise be laid upon them as a capital crime, as if they would say, we know not the murderer, so that we can meet his guilt with a corresponding punishment, Deu 21:8., to cover, conceal, here; the blood, the guilt of it, i.e., to forgive. The essential significance of the ceremony is thus apparent. It represents on one hand what was done by the murderer to the murdered, and on the other hand expresses in the most solemn form the abhorrence of the crime, and the innocence of the city called to account for it. The nature of the act was expiatory, not because the heifer was the substitute of the murderer, but because the city most concerned substituted it for the share of the guilt cleaving to it. Hence the prayer, out of the very nature of the transaction, grounds itself in the redemption from Egypt, whose import with regard to expiation in Israel, for the whole sacrificial service down to its fulfillment in Christ, is thus made apparent. (Comp.Deu 15:15) either with most, lay not the guilt and punishment of innocent blood upon Israel, or, literally, let not such blood appear further in Israel. The result is the actual expiation in every case of the specified crime. The granting of the request cannot be assured. There will ever be innocent blood in its midst, but Deu 21:9, Israel as far as possible should put it away (Deu 19:13) if not through an expiation upon the murderer, still through the prescribed expiatory act, either, because it should do right, sq. or: when it will do right, sq. (Deu 12:25-28). The latter interpretation opens, at the same time, a view as to all the consequences.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. Since the refuge cities are expressly cities of the Levites (Num 35:6) they share in the significance of the dispersion of the Levites among Israel; that they may be a great but divided place of testimony: (Bahr II. 51) i.e. they may afford in particular places what the dwelling of Jehovah, the altar, affords generally. (1Ki 1:50 sq.; Deu 2:28 sq.; Exo 21:14). As knowing the law, and truly as judges, the priests and Levites are brought into view; they knew whether it was murder or a mere casual killing. The separation of these cities of refuge 1) reminds us of the distinction between wilful and unintentional sins, and also of a distinction as to the punishment of sins. Piscator. The O. T. city of refuge is no asylum for the murderer, still less for the insolvent debtor, or the fugitive slave as among the Greeks and Romans; neither was it merely to secure the manslayer from the avenger of blood, for if he left the city before the high-priests death (Num 35:26 sq.) he was exposed to the avenger, but held over him an exile, which was merely an expiation of his deed. (The separation of the cities 2) is a type of our wretched condition, and of our redemption through Christ our High-Priest. Piscator.
2. Since the discourse takes this occasion to treat of war, under the sixth command, the objections against war drawn from this command are without force. The word of God takes the world, as it lies in wickedness, and so regards war as a necessary evil for the present. It speaks to the individual and aids him to peace, it holds out firmly the final prospect of peace generally, only however through crises and wars, which cannot endure. What is possible and what ought to be are different things, Rom 12:18. There are unrighteous wars, which grow out of hatred, selfishness, lust of power, etc. But wars of conquest may also be carried on in the service of a great idea, and rightly become destructive. The war against Canaan (Deu 20:16 sq.) was a sacred war. Comp. Doct. and Eth. upon Deu 1:6; Deu 4:40; par. 9, and upon chap. 7. par. 2. Was it a war expressly commanded by God, Exo 17:14 sq.; Num 24:20; Num 31:2 sq.; Deu 25:17, then it is not merely permitted as the Rabbins distinguish, to make war. It is a duty to make war if there is no possible deliverance otherwise. Defensive wars are necessary. Offensive wars may become obligatory. The so-called blood-letting carried on under the plea of political advantage, the most demoralizing civil wars, should be prevented, but viewed in their higher relations, they have their missionary character, even civilization and Christianity follow them. What does not Christendom, as to its spread in the world, owe to those dialectical popular movements, which are wars, leaving out of view even the fact that war has its destination, to reveal the finite nature of all things, to raise the world to greater piety, and to help it to the knowledge of the one thing needful. (Marheineke theol. moral, p. 329). [The wars of Israel generally though not always were wars of the Lord. Their enemies were His since they were His people. But the war with the Canaanites was peculiarly a war of the Lord. These nations had filled up the measure of their iniquities. The time of judgment had come, and Israel was called to execute that judgment. The command to kill everything that breathed was a judicial sentence. There is nothing in such a command more difficult to explain than in any of the judicial providences of God. And this character of the war must be borne in mind when we are considering the unwonted severity which marked it.A. G.].
3. Moses insists as little as any other writer upon ordinary courage. The O. T. indeed has not cultivated that idea. It puts confidence in God generally in its room; and in the room of warlike courage more definitely confidence in God, who regards human life as sacred and valuable, and therefore preserves it. It corresponds alone also with its religious peculiarity, by virtue of which it was not fitted to cultivate the usual warlike virtues as such, but truly the other less conspicuous but doubtless higher virtues. The rules of war which chap. 20 contains, bear a decided religious stamp upon the ground of the sacredness of life, do not spring from the lower sources of prudence, but from the high, sacred fountain in God.Schultz.
4. The following commands spring especially from two fundamental thoughts 1) Israel is the people of God, and carries on war therefore only in His name; therefore it should not trust to an arm of flesh, but release from duty in war, every one who either had formed a new relation, or even only whose faint-heartedness had taken away that courage of faith which is the strength of the hosts of the Lord. 2). Peace should be dearer to the people of God than war. It never needed to yield to the lust of conquest, and with the exception therefore of the righteous punishments, which as a trust of the Lord it must execute, it must offer peace constantly, and even spare the fruit trees in the fortification and siege.V. Gerlach.
5. Since all expiation in Israel is connected with a sacrifice (Lev 17:11), the expiatory rite, chap. 21 must have a sacrificial character. But as Baumgarten remarks it cannot possibly be literally a propitiatory sacrifice since then it might easily mislead to the idea that a murder could be expiated by a sacrifice. The guilt also is only indirect and relative. It is therefore on the other hand correct to regard the ceremony (Deu 21:5) as belonging to the sphere of law and justice into which the murderer has fallen.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
1. Chap. 19 Deu 19:3. Starke: Thus God prepares the way by His word and Spirit, and by His servants, to His refuge, His Saviour, that nothing may prove a hindrance in the way; as he did through John the Baptist, Mat 3:3. But Christ is equally near all His servants, Mat 11:28; Joh 6:37. Berl. Bib: How excellent is the refuge which tempted and troubled sinners have in Him, in whom is the whole fulness of the Godhead; so that no sin, no law, curse, nor Satan, death or hell, can reach them ! The finger posts point to Him. Joh 1:29. But whoever will have safety in Him must forsake father, mother and all. Psa 45:10; Luk 14:26. Wurth. Bib., Deu 19:10 : Magistrates ought not only to punish the guilty, but protect and save the innocent, Deu 19:1-13. The place of refuge in Israel a security, but no protection for sin. Deu 19:14. Piscator: God cares not only for the body and life of our neighbor, but for all that is necessary for his abode, and purposes that no one shall injure another in this respect. Baumgarten: With these directions the prohibition as to the landmark is so far connected, as it also has its deepest ground in the character of the land as the possession of Jehovah. Hence Moses returns immediately to the judicial investigation of the murder. Berl. Bib.: In Deu 19:14 to prevent civil wars among His people, God forbids any alteration of the limits, once fixed by lot in the division of the land. Each family and tribe should keep within its inheritance. Osiander, Deu 19:20. If the magistrates cannot see the heart, they may prevent the crime from becoming common.
Deu 20:1. Richter. This is not the mere natural encouragement of the war songs. Baumgarten: As the heathen occupy all the land, Israel must enter through contest; but its peaceful and happy life, in its most sensitive points, is not disturbed by war. Deu 20:2-3. Piscator. Example and form of a live field preacher and sermon; is the cause good, are they contending for the word of God and the fatherland, God is present with them and assures the victory. [So especially with Christs soldiers, and in His cause.A. G.]. Starke: Although Gods hand is in wars displeasing to Him, still He is only to be looked for in His gracious presence, in righteous wars. Osiander: If it is not every mans duty to accustom himself to wars, it is every Christians duty to carry on continual warfare with the devil, etc. These rules for natural wars are also for the spiritual; they are in force in the wars of the Lord and will be practically shown in the believer. Deu 20:4. Schultz: The Lord will do the work, His people reap the fruits. How are wars victorious: when in the soldiers there is no other fear than the fear of God, when there is no other trust in weapons than trust in God; when above all the Lord is the captain of the host. Deu 20:5 sq., Richter: God chooses and will have no constrained soldier, Psa 110:3. There is in Deu 20:5-7 at the same time a full estimate of earthly joys which charm the heart only at the beginning, but whose vanity is soon recognized. Deu 20:8, comp. Rev 21:8 and also Jdg 7:3 sq. Deu 20:10. Schultz: Israel, although conquering and transforming the world (Deu 2:25) is a peaceful people. Its final destination, great end, not destruction, but from the beginning the mediator of blessings. Gen 12:3, (Isa 45:14; Isa 49:23) Mat 10:12-13. Deu 20:11-12. Berl. Bib.: Has the Lord for so long a time in his patience invited us to peace! But we choose peace in the flesh. He offers that only through righteousness. Isa 32:17. Let us receive it while there is time. For the Jews who reject Him there remains nothing but the sword, Deu 20:18. Here only tolerance is injurious and blameworthy. Deu 20:19. May be spiritually explained that we should not contend against those who are for us and not against us. Baumgarten: The primitive destination of the fruit tree. Gen 1:29; Gen 2:9; Gen 2:16 sq.; Deu 3:2; Deu 3:22. Israel a tree, Exo 15:17. Humanity even to its extremest limits a charge for Israel. The kingdom of the world is later presented as animal, the kingdom of Israel as a kingdom of men.
Deu 21:2. Piscator. The public highways should be safe. The organic connection in Israel must appear prominently, precisely when a member has been broken off. God lays the duty upon men, does not refer to the lot, to discover the murderer; he should let himself be recognized, or make himself known, to which the ceremony in its publicity and solemnity might contribute. God is the God of order. The extraordinary interventions of God are kept back, behind the order of salvation for the individual and the world, at the same time behind the order of the magistrates for all. Deu 21:3 sq. Lange: For the rest we learn here how we may deal with the sins of others, but should not be partakers in them. Rom 1:32; 2Jn 1:11. Deu 21:6. Calvin: As if they placed the corpse of the dead before God. Deu 21:9. Berl. Bib.: We learn among other things that we should from the heart ask God to pardon our unknown sins of spiritual murder against our neighbor, 1Jn 3:15, and even against ourselves, Eph 4:17-19 (Psa 90:8), for the sake of the blood of Christ, which was poured out in the deep valley of humiliation and in the great thirst of the forsaking of His heart; that God would not impute to us our blood-guiltiness, but be gracious to us for the sake of His dear Son, and forgive our sin.
Footnotes:
[1]Deu 19:4. Margin literally; from yesterday, the third day, or the day before yesterday.A. G.].
[2]Deu 19:5. Literally: findeth.A. G.].
[3]Deu 19:6. Heb. goel.A. G.].
[4]Deu 19:6. Smite him, in life, as the margin, or: to the life, mortally.A. G.].
[5]Deu 19:13. Literally: and good to thee.A. G.].
[6]Deu 20:3. Margin: be tender.]
[7]Deu 20:3. Heb.: make haste.]
[8]Deu 20:6. Make common from laying it open for common use, which was not allowed for the first three years.A. G.].
[9]Deu 20:9. Literally: In the head of the people.A. G.].
[10]Deu 20:19. Literally: for man the tree of the field to come from thy fare in the siege. For the variety of renderings and the plausibility of each, see the Exegesis. Perhaps that chosen by our translationusing the parenthesiswill commend itself as the best.A. G.].
[11]Deu 21:4. The literal rendering is that of Schrder, but the other part of the verse seems to require that of our version, and the Hebrew admits of it.A. G.].
[12][Deu 21:8. Shall be covered to them, atoned for, in this way.A. G.].
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
Our ever adored Redeemer told the Pharisees in the days of his flesh, that on the two great commandments, of the love of GOD and the love of our neighbor, hung all the laws and the prophets; and accordingly, Moses having in the foregoing chapters largely pointed out the first of these, proceeds now, in this chapter, to enforce the duties of the second table of the commandments.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
This is a very sweet chapter if read under the HOLY GHOST’s teaching, and spiritually considered as leading to JESUS. And I take occasion here again in the opening of it to remind the reader once more, that it was of JESUS Moses wrote. If the reader will consult Exo 21:13 . he will there find, GOD’S gracious promise concerning his merciful provision for sins of inadvertency in unintentional murder. And if he will then refer to Deu 4:41-42 . he will observe this promise fulfilled. I beg the Reader to consult the Commentary on the passages. But when the Reader hath made his observation on these passages, I would call upon him to remark, that the provision here made for the like occasions hath a reference to the state of Israel, after that Israel should become settled in Canaan. Yes! in Canaan as well as in the wilderness, it is JESUS alone who is the city of refuge to his people. Reader! do you not know that even in heaven itself JESUS will be the everlasting covering of his people, their house, their habitation, their joy, their all in all to all eternity! Sweetly and securely from their union with his person, their interest in his righteousness, and their acceptance in his blood, are their souls brought into the everlasting city of refuge, and guarded from every trouble and from every possibility of evil.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Divinely-provided Refuge
Deu 19
When a blessing has been conferred a duty is to follow. This would seem to be the method of the divine kingdom. That kingdom does not consist wholly of blessing, sentiment, ease, and honour; the kingdom of God is a kingdom of duty and discipline, calling upon its possessors to be faithful and gracious, to obey certain commandments, and to hold the kingdom feudally, not as of right, but as from the Lord, to whom an account must be rendered. Whenever the Lord gives us cities we have a work of separation to do. The cities are not given to us wholly: they are only given to us partially. The Lord still maintains his position upon earth, though he is throned in heaven; he has cities upon the earth that are peculiarly his own. Whatever city is given to us must have part of it set aside as God’s, for God’s use, and concerning which an account must be rendered to God. Had the message been all upon one side, how subtle and tremendous would have been the temptation addressed to human vanity and ambition! the Lord will give you cities; he will cast out the heathen and the stranger before you; you shall enter into the palaces of their kings and enjoy the riches of all their generations. Had the message run in that line it would have been an evil. There is nothing really in the very soul of it good that does not involve the element of discipline. Regard it as a fact established by all history and approved by all the philosophy that is founded upon experience, that at some point man must bow the knee, and acknowledge lordship and divine right and claim; and wherever he thus bows the knee man sets up an altar. Human will must be broken. This is a doctrine which benevolent but foolish parents endeavour to evade: they bring up their children with an unbroken will, and call it graciousness and good-nature; it is baseness, selfishness, cruelty: it is leaving that to be done by a stranger which ought to have been done by the spirit of home and the genius of love. We are called upon to acknowledge God in all our possessions, to have our will broken in the sense of rejecting the idea of sole proprietorship or absolute claim, and in the sense of saying concerning many a fair city, This is God’s, not mine; concerning many a wedge of gold, This is the Lord’s, not mine. When the human spirit has been brought to that concession, and can make the surrender graciously, lovingly, and thankfully, the miracle of grace has been accomplished in the reluctant or obdurate heart. Israel could keep the cities, and include the three that ought to have been separated in the bill of ownership; but the Lord could have withheld the rain, and no city could live without the clouds: the Lord could have shifted the wind into the quarter whence cometh blight, cold, and desolation; no city can live without the southwest wind. We may claim all, but we cannot keep all. To put the three cities into our bag and lodge them with the usurer is not to outwit God: the Sovereign will take out his claim in health, or wealth, or peace: but his claim must be recognised and satisfied. Listen not to the sophism which says that all cities are God’s: there is a morality which is too grandiloquent; reject the suggestion that all days are God’s: there is a liberality that gives nothing. God has always secured three of the cities or more, part of every harvest-field, a few grapes at least out of every vineyard, one day in the week; the claim has not been great in extent in relation to the territory which has been covered, but the making of it is the assertion of sovereign right, and the satisfaction of it is an expression of human obedience.
“Thou shalt prepare thee a way, and divide the coasts of thy land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee to inherit, into three parts, that every slayer may flee thither” ( Deu 19:3 ).
There was to be public proclamation of the existence of the cities of refuge. The picture is a very striking one. There were signs put up along the road leading to the cities of refuge, and on the signs was written the word ” miklot ” refuge. What a sign to come upon in the hour of despair and oppressed weakness! The man who was fleeing, having shed innocent blood, looked anxiously around that he might observe the standard bearing the magic word miklot ; seeing that word, he fled along the road which was indicated by the gracious term. Fix the mind upon the picture until the picture itself glows into a beauteous gospel. A man has done wrong: he knows the consequences of his wrong-doing, even though the wrong was a misadventure: instantly he flees for refuge; he did not make the city of refuge: he may not know in what direction the city of refuge lies; but here and there and again the standard is lifted up and on it written refuge. The man does not run the other way, or ask who wrote the miklot , or enter into discussion as to the form of the letters and the right of those letters to be where they are; nor does he ask the age of the standard, or why it is not on the other side of the road: the man is in earnest: the avenger is behind him: he has no time for questions or controversy about the refuge; Where lies the city? and seeing an indication of its position he “flees for refuge” to the city that is set before him. Our public roads should have no lack of standards of a higher and nobler kind: the wrong-doer should have no doubt left upon his mind as to what direction to take in the time of self-accusation and self-despair. Every Christian should be a stranger, having written upon him ” miklot ” refuge; every church should be an open door, opened towards heaven, pardon, and peace. We must not be afraid to say that all our Christianity exists in the first instance for the purpose of saving the wrong-doer who wishes to be saved. That is the primary purpose of the Church; other purposes are no doubt included, but the one initial, all-commanding object of the Church is to be a city of refuge, a place where the lamp of hope burns brightly, a sanctuary where the gospel words are spoken with gospel fervour and unction. The Church of the living God should resound with the cry: Flee for refuge, to the hope set before you in the Gospel. The enormous the incalculable difficulty is that men do not recognise themselves as in need of refuge. We must have destroyed within us the sophism that we are fit to be at large. So long as we walk up and down the city complacently approving ourselves and quoting instances of our own wisdom and virtue, any standard bearing the word miklot refuge is an offence to us. The Gospel was never meant for any man who can take care of himself: it is a city of refuge; and men only ask for refuge when they hear the pursuit of the avenger, or know themselves to be objects deserving punishment. Where do we find the refugees in the church? Men are not there as refugees: they are there as upon equal terms with the Lord of the sanctuary; they patronise that Lord: they subscribe to his reputation upon the earth: they light his lamps for him, and they expect to be rewarded for their loyalty; whereas men ought to be in the church in a state of breathlessness, then in a state of thankfulness for security; then, sometimes, as if hearing just outside the stroke of the avenger, they should pray more mightily and sing their praises more fervently, knowing that the avenger may smite the wall and hurt himself, but can never reach those who are hidden in the place of refuge “Jesus, Refuge of my soul, let me to thy bosom fly.” We should realise this conception of the Church, and doing so we shall not be slow to put up in the city the sign-post and the index-finger; nor shall we scruple to use the word “refuge,” or the word “salvation,” for we shall speak the word with the emphasis and the unction of personal gratitude.
“And this is the case of the slayer, which shall flee thither, that he may live: Whoso killeth his neighbour ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past: as when a man goeth into the wood with his neighbour to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his neighbour, that he die; he shall flee unto one of those cities, and live: lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him; whereas he was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past” ( Deu 19:4-6 ).
Here is the principle that actions as between man and man are to be discriminated. Everything depends upon motive. The action is not complete in itself, and remains a mystery or an enigma until the motive has been penetrated and understood. This discrimination of actions would destroy many a sacred phantasm. The law applies in both directions. Supposedly good actions are to be examined in the light of this law as well as actions that are supposedly vicious. If everything depends upon the motive, what becomes of the fabric of a lifetime? How much easier it would be to live from the outside than to live from an interior centre! The hand can do so many things easily as an expression of skill and mechanical cleverness, whilst the heart may be away committing murder and theft, and breaking all the commandments at one tremendous stroke. The word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the dividing asunder of the joints and marrow. What temples of charity are thrown down because the action of an evil motive was in the midst of them! the action itself was beautiful, reputable, and was accepted by society with applause; but the spirit of the Book asks for the motive which originated the charity or the action, and finding that to be of base quality the action itself goes for less than nothing, and in the great book of account is set down against the doer. If our good actions are set down against us, who can pay the sum-total of the debt? Thus, we are thrown back upon spiritual thoughts and spiritual considerations. All our mechanical and outside arrangements and institutions go for nothing: the Lord asks but one question, What is your motive? What do you really mean? What is your purpose? and the answer to that inquiry being in the right tone, all the rest will be accounted to us: even our dreams shall be temples, and our cup of cold water shall be as a goblet of wine.
But there was another kind of man-slayer what was to become of him?
“But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee” ( Deu 19:11-13 ).
Then is it even so? May accidental sins be provided for, but is there no provision made for those who cry out in the bitterness of their souls, each for himself, I am a murderer: I have slain the good; I have entertained malice where I ought to have entertained nothing but gratitude; I have been unjust and cruel; is there no refuge for me? the miklot is a mockery to me if the city be meant only for those who are chargeable with misadventure? Now comes the great gospel speech: Christ is the city of refuge but understand in what sense, lest the very goodness of God be profaned and prostituted. Christ is not a refuge in the sense of a criminal being able to outrun justice. The picture in Israel was the picture of a man fleeing for refuge and an avenger fleeing after him, and if the avenger were swifter of foot the man-slayer might be killed outside the city. There is no such picture in Christianity. In Christ we do not outrun justice: justice itself, by a mystery we can neither understand nor explain, has been satisfied by Christ. This is not to be made a matter of words: the controversialist is not here to offer his impertinent opinion; the question lies entirely between men who are in agony and Christ who offers refuge. There is no place for controversy or criticism, or coming to an understanding with all the factors in the case; this is an instance of self-convicted men, conscious of having done wrong and only wrong, asking if there is no miklot in all the universe for them, when they hate the wrong and repent it with bitterness of soul. Christianity is not a clever contrivance for outwitting justice. The mystery of the Cross lies within that thought. What that mystery is we cannot say. Now and then we seem to see somewhat of its meaning. God is just, and yet the justifier of the ungodly; Christ bore our sins in his own body on the tree; he suffered the just for the unjust; he was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him. We do not know what it means; but there are times when we need just these words and no other: they are full of rest, hope, music; to analyse them is to slay the life that you may find its secret. The soul can but hear them now and then, but when they are heard, suddenly there is with the soul a multitude of the heavenly host singing, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will toward men.” Do not ask to have that great light brought within the sphere that is visual and comprehensible: let it stand in its own place, fixed by the hand of God; and when we are weariest, saddest, and most severe with ourselves we shall see that light and call it heaven. The refuge in Christ is based upon confession, repentance, and restitution. Let us flee for refuge to the hope set before us in the Gospel. The action is one of intensity. We are not loitering upon the road, talking upon indifferent subjects as we ramble along: we are fleeing running at our utmost speed: if we attract attention at all, it is by the swiftness of our motion and the eagerness of our action. How does a man run when the wolf is pursuing him over the snow? how the horses plunge and urge forward then! How do men flee when fire is following them? when the whole prairie is ablaze and the wind is a weapon of fire? How do men flee from a building that is tottering and might at any moment fall? From all such images gather some hint of the meaning of the words: flee for refuge: make haste: heed nothing but the attainment of the sanctuary which has been built by God: its open door is a welcome: it was meant for sinners, it was built for sinners: it was not set up for righteous men, but for men unrighteous and lost. This is the Gospel which Christianity has to preach. It has no other Gospel; and it can only preach it with effect to men who are conscious of having done wrong. If any man say, I have no sin, the Gospel has no speech of welcome to make to him, but a speech of condemnation, saying, He is a liar; “if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” But we cannot understand the mystery: the evil deed was done, and God in his omnipotence says to us Leave me to expunge the evil; as for you flee for refuge!
Prayer
Almighty God, though we dwell in tabernacles of clay, yet dost thou not withhold thy light from our window, but dost surround us with the morning glory, and call us, in the midst of all the joy of light, to the joy and sacrifice of labour. Though we are consumed before the moth, to teach us how little we are, yet are we also conscious of being immortal in God: so shall we outlive all stars and suns and worlds, and be for ever with the Lord. We thank thee for this lifting up of the heart in sacred rapture: it makes us feel thy nearness when we yield to thy power, and it gives strength to our confidence when we hear the voice of thy grace. Surely thou art nigh unto them that call upon thee, and thine hand is outstretched in almightiness to those who put their trust in thee in the time of fear and danger and great distress. It is our joy to believe in thy nearness, in the tenderness of thy love, in the long-suffering of thy patience, in the all-helpfulness of thy power. We have heard of thy Son that this Man receiveth sinners and eateth with them. He came to seek and to save that which was lost: he did not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. We confess our sin: we mourn it with bitterness; yet we cannot but rejoice that Jesus Christ came in answer to it. Our sin brought thy Son into the world that he might save us from its guilt and consequence. A wondrous mystery this in thy rule! We see the stars in the darkness, not in the light: we see all thy mercy, compassion, love, and tears in the darkness of our sin. Oh, how the stars glitter! How great their number! Blessed be God, all these are witnesses of thy care for us. Thou wilt not willingly see the sinner die: thou hast no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Turn ye, turn ye, why will ye die? is a word which has been traced to thine own lips. We accept it now; it is addressed to ourselves; it is an inquiry of love. Lord, by thy grace we will not die: we will arise and go to our Father, and speak words of penitence and self-loathing. We know that whilst we are yet a great way off thou wilt see us, and run and have compassion and fall upon our neck and kiss us, and adopt us into the family again; this is the exceeding love of God; this is the mystery of infinite pity. God be merciful unto us sinners! The Lord magnify his grace over our guilt that we may see how great is the compassion of God, and how infinite the resources of love. We pray that thine house may be as a door opening upon heaven. We desire that this elevation may enable us to see beyond the boundary of time and behold somewhat of the gleaming and beauty of the city that lies beyond. O fair city! beauteous home of beauteous souls! We yearn for its purity, we weary to enter its rest, we long to know the mystery of its service. We bless thee that thou hast set a city of allurement before us a fascination in the skies, a Jerusalem above, a mother city, waiting for us and bidding us come up higher. We need such exhortation and comfort, such stimulus and solace, all our days; and this great privilege we attain and secure through Jesus Christ our Saviour, who died for us and rose again, and is able to make intercession for us at the right hand of God; he is our Surety, our Saviour, our Propitiation; we flee unto him as pursued men flee into a city of refuge. Jesus, Refuge of my soul, let me hide myself in thee. This is the cry of the heart; to such a cry thou wilt send a great answer. Amen.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
(See the Deuteronomy Book Comments for Introductory content and Homiletic suggestions).
XIII
SECOND GREAT ORATION, PART 2
Deuteronomy 12-26
This section is on the second part of the second great oration of Moses, as embodied in Deuteronomy 12-26 inclusive, of the book of Deuteronomy. If you have carefully read all this section, it will be easier for me to emphasize in the brief limits of this chapter the most salient points and easier for you to grasp and retain them. By the grouping of correlated matters under specific heads, the important distinction between many statutes and the constitutional principle from which they are logically derived will become manifest. A constitution is a relatively brief document of great principles, but legislative enactments developing and enlarging them become a library, which continually enlarges, as new conditions require new statement and application.
Yet again you must note that while one discussion arranges in order many statutes, it necessarily leaves out much of the homiletical value of each special statute. Each one of them may be made a text for a profitable sermon. Indeed these fifteen chapters constitute a gold mine of texts for the attentive preacher.
First of all, it should be noted that Moses is speaking here to the whole people as a national unit and concerning the future national life in the Promised Land which they are about to occupy. He carefully puts before them the national ideal of a people belonging to Jehovah separated from other nations and devoted to a special mission. Because addressing the whole people he recalls the history and law in Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers much more particularly than the special legislation of Leviticus relating mainly to the official duties of a single tribe.
Secondly, when he touches the tribe of Levi in Deuteronomy, it is as a part of the nation rather than about their specific duties as priests and Levites. On this account Deuteronomy is called the people’s code and Leviticus the priest’s code. This fact will help us much to understand tithing in Deuteronomy when compared with tithing in the preceding books. Note carefully this point.
While it is difficult to classify satisfactorily such a multitude of topics and laws, we may profitably group the whole section under the following heads:
I. Unity in the Place of National Worship, Deu 12:5
In their pilgrimage history the cloud and the ark, shifting from place to place according to the exigency of travel, designated day by day the central place of worship. But the people are here admonished that when they conquer the land and become a settled people, God himself will designate one fixed locality as the center of national unity and one permanent place of national worship. In Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and I Samuel, when we get to those books, we shall find only a temporary central place, and occasionally, more than one at the same time, the land not yet all conquered, the people not yet all settled, but in David’s time everything prescribed about the central place of worship is fulfilled, Jerusalem is the place thenceforward throughout their history until Jesus, that prophet like unto Moses, comes and says to the woman of Samaria, “Believe me, the hour cometh when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem shall ye worship the Father. Ye worship that which ye know not; we worship that which we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and Truth.”
To this place, that is, the central place of worship, three times a year must the tribes come in national assembly to keep the great festivals of the Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles, and as a nation they must observe the great day of atonement. In this connection observe particularly that the tithing in Deuteronomy, to which we have before referred, is not the first tithe of the other books, which was the Lord’s inheritance and devoted to the general support of the great festivals, in which indeed the Levites share as a part of the people. Hence the Levites’ share of this tithe does not correspond to their title to the whole of the first tithe, and hence the third year’s provision in Deuteronomy for the poor is unlike any provision of the first tithe. If you have that point fixed in your minds, you are able to answer one of the gravest objections ever brought against Deuteronomy, that is, that it contradicts, on the question of tithes, what had been previously said in other books.
The marvelous effect of this one fixed place of national worship, and of these great festivals, on national unity, on the preservation of a pure worship, appears in all their subsequent history and becomes the theme of psalm, song, and elegy. When we get over into the Psalms and the Lamentations of Jeremiah, we will see backward references to this central place of worship. It is in the light of this law that we discover the sin in the later migration of the Danites and their setting up a new place of worship (Jdg 18 , particularly verses Jdg 18:27-31 ); the sin of Jeroboam (1Ki 12:26-33 ); the sin of the Samaritans later, and the sin of a temple in Egypt. That is the first thought, the unity in national worship. For an account of the Samaritan Temple see Josephus, “Antiquities,” Book XI, chapter 8, and for the Egyptian Temple see “Antiquities,” Book XIII, chapter 3.
2. Unity in the Object of Worship
The second thought in this oration is unity in the object of worship, the exclusive worship of Jehovah. Under this head the section prescribes the death penalty on the following:
(1) The false prophet, who however attested by signs and wonders, shall seek to divert the people to the worship of some other god.
(2) Any member of a family, however near and dear the tie of kindred, who sought to induce the rest of the family to turn away from the worship of Jehovah to worship another god, that member of the family had to die.
(3) Any city that turned aside as a municipality to other worship, that city must be placed under the ban and blotted out. If you have been much of a student of classic literature, you must have noticed how each city stresses the worship of some particular patron divinity, as Minerva at Athens, Diana in the City of Ephesus and Venus at Corinth. Now, this law teaches that any city, in its municipal life, turning aside from the worship of Jehovah to worship a false god for local advantage shall be blotted off the face of the map. The underlying principle here is of immense importance in our times. Cities are tempted continually to sacrifice the paramount spiritual and moral interests of the community in order to promote material interests. So in their annual fairs which bring local advantage in commercial affairs, they lose sight of God and handicap what is commendable in these enterprises by overloading them with poisonous and corrupting attachments, and count any man an enemy to his home place, however much he may approve the good, if he protest against the bad. See the striking examples and illustrations in the cases at Philippi and Ephesus (Act 16:19 ).
(4) To show more emphatically that Jehovah alone is God and must be worshiped, the death penalty was assessed on any necromancer, soothsayer or wizard who sought by illicit ways to understand and interpret the future. To Jehovah alone must the people come to know secret things. What he chose to reveal was for them and their children. What he withheld must remain hidden. All prurient curiosity into Jehovah’s domain of revelation must be rebuked; all seeking unto the dead, all fortunetelling and divinations were mortal sins and punishable by death in every case.
(5) All persons guilty of crimes against nature; the nature of the subject forbids me to specify. They were such outrageous violations of the dignity of man made in God’s image, and indicated such disregard for Jehovah that capital punishment alone would meet the requirements of the case.
(6) Every breaker of the covenant must be put to death. If any had knowledge that another had violated the covenant, it became his duty to investigate the case and bring the attention of the magistrates to it. There is a reference to that in the letter to the Hebrews, where it is said, “He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God [offense against the Father], and hath counted the blood of the everlasting covenant an unholy thing [sin against the Son], and hath done despite unto the Spirit of Grace [sin against the Holy Spirit, and an unpardonable sin]?” (Heb 10:28-29 ).
(7) To impress still more this thought of the exclusive worship of Jehovah: There must be no borrowing from other religions in bewailing the dead; Jehovah’s law alone was the one exclusive standard. The custom of cutting themselves, and disfiguring themselves in the days of their mourning as practiced in other religions, finds here a positive prohibition. I stop to say, Oh, what a pity that so soon after apostolic times, in the great apostasy which Paul predicted and which took place in the Roman Catholic development, there was borrowing old robes of every religion in the world.
3. All Administrations of Law Subject to Jehovah
Whether ceremonial law, moral or civil and criminal law, all administration of law was subject to Jehovah. The government was a theocracy pure and simple, no matter whether it remained a republic or became a kingdom, as it did in the days of Saul, it was a theocracy, God was the only real King and governed all officers himself, whether executive, judicial, or religious.
(1) They were representatives of Jehovah and must first of all consider his honor, justice, and mercy. This fact determined the prescribed character and qualifications of every prince, ruler, elder, judge, sheriff and scribe. These officers must be God-fearing men, hating covetousness, impartial and fearing not the face of any man.
(2) They must in judging hear all evidence fairly.
(3) They must not convict except upon adequate testimony.
(4) It took two good witnesses to prove any point.
(5) They must justify the innocent and condemn the guilty without any regard for age, sex, social position, or financial position. Even and exact justice must be administered to all.
(6) Decision when given must be enforced speedily.
(7) If the case was too hard for them, they must appeal to Jehovah and no other for light. A provision was made by which Jehovah would give the right answer in every such case of appeal. What a pity we have not that kind of a supreme court!
(8) The conduct of all their wars must be under the laws prescribed by Jehovah. War must not be declared against any nation except upon his direction. Their later history furnishes many examples of referring the declaration of war to Jehovah, and it furnishes many examples of disaster befalling them when they went to war in their own wisdom and strength. The regulations touching war covered all material points, such as sanitary measures in camp, treatment of prisoners, conducting sieges, and sparing fruit trees when besieging a city. The boasted progress of modern civilization falls far short of the Mosaic code in ameliorating the sufferings and horrors of war. A great Federal general of the War Between the States well said, in view of his own practice in conducting it, “War is hell!”
(9) On account of this subordination to Jehovah, note the remarkable paragraph Deu 21:1-9 , touching civic responsibility in a case of murder where the offender is unknown. In my prohibition speech in the last prohibition contest in Waco, I used that paragraph as a principle upon which prohibition is based. If you will look at the passage in your Bible and mark it, you will notice that the case is this: A man is found murdered and it is not known who killed him; the nearest city thereto is determined by measurement and must purge itself of responsibility for the crime. The municipal officers in that city must come in the presence of that dead body, hold up their hands before God and swear that they are innocent of the blood.
In my speech I recalled the case of the County Attorney of Tarrant County who was shot down on the streets of Fort Worth, his murderer also being killed; nobody could be held directly responsible for the murder. I said, “Suppose the mayor, the city council, and all the other city officers had been required to place their hands on that dead body and swear that no negligence on their part was resposnible for that murder. They could not have taken the oath. Every one would have been convicted, because they were responsible for the conditions that not only made that particular murder possible, but made murder in some cases certain.”
(10) The numerous statutes concerning charities, mercy, and humanity constrain the people to imitate Jehovah himself in dealing with the poor and with the unfortunate. Indeed some of the most beautiful and pathetic of these laws relating to treatment of the lower creatures embody principles capable of application in a wider range of higher things. They reprobate all cruelty and the infliction of all unnecessary suffering as hateful to Jehovah, for example: “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn”; and “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk.”
Once in Waco a young man whom I had known when he was a little fellow came to me bringing a letter purporting to be from his father, commending this young man to me and asking me to help him in any way I could. When he next came and asked me to endorse a paper for thirty dollars, I endorsed it. When it matured, I had to pay it. I wrote to the father about it and he replied that his son had forged that letter, and that is was only one case out of many. That son had broken him up. The boy was arrested on a similar case at Corsicana and sent to the penitentiary. When it was suggested that I testify against him, I would not, because of this scripture, “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.” The only way I could help to convict that boy would be to submit his father’s testimony to prove that he was a forger.
(11) In like manner all laws regulating business, such as weights and measures. Once I called upon a man whose name I will not give, and asked him why, when he bought goods, he weighed on one scale and when he sold goods he sold by another. He said. “They are all right.” I said, “No, sir, you have loaded the one you sell by and whoever buys from you does not get full weight.” All laws touching business, such as weights and measures, the restraints on exacting pledges for debt, the withholding of wages for day laborers which they have fairly earned, the limitations on usury and the like are but expressions of divine mercy and justice and tended to build up an honest and righteous people, not forgetful of mercy.
(12) The social laws concerning marriage, slavery, parental power over children, while far from the highest expression of God’s will, do yet in every particular prohibit many current evils freely practiced in other nations. Our Lord himself explains that on account of their hardness of heart and low order of development imperfect laws were suffered. “The people but recently were a nation of slaves, with much more of the slave spirit remaining. It cannot be denied that even the civil and criminal codes on these points were far superior to the codes of other nations. The sanctity of human life, the sanctity of the home, and the sanctity of the family are marvelously safeguarded in these laws. And wherever this code touched an evil custom, it never approved the evil but limited the power and scope of the evil, as far as the unprepared people were able to bear it.
(13) Restrictions on entering the covenant, Deu 23:1-7 , constitute a paragraph very few people understand. This applied to proselytes from other nations. The body politic must not be corrupted by alien additions that could not be easily assimilated. On that line our own nation is gravely troubled by loose naturalization laws that permit the scum and offscourings of other nations to be absorbed into our national life and so fearfully endanger the perpetuity of free institutions and make our great cities cesspools of iniquity. An orator once prayed, “O that an ocean of fire rolled between us and Europe!” The Pacific Slope seems also praying ,”O that an ocean of fire rolled between us and the Orient!”
(14) The governing Jehovah idea appears in an emphatic way in the paragraph Deu 24:1-11 , where by an offering of a basket of firstfruits the Israelite must confess Jehovah’s absolute ownership over his products and his own unworthy derivation. The oration concludes with his general result: “Thou hast avouched Jehovah this day to be thy God, and that thou wouldest walk in his ways and keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his ordinances, and hearken unto his voice: and Jehovah hath avouched thee this day to be a people for his own possession, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments, etc.”
QUESTIONS
1. What the importance of grouping correlated matters under specific needs and what is a constitution?
2. What the homiletic value of these fifteen chapters?
3. What two things especially noted concerning the second part of Oration Two?
4. Under what three heads does the author group all the material of these fifteen chapters?
5. Under the first head, when was the central place of worship to be established; when, where and by whom actually established; how long continued?
6. How often and at what festivals must the nation assemble at this central place of worship?
7. What bearing has this fact on the tithing question of Deuteronomy?
8. What the marvelous effects of this one fixed place of national worship?
9. Give examples of the violation of this law, and what their particular sin?
10. Under the second head, what cases of violation called for capital punishment?
11. What underlying principle governing the cities is of great importance in our times? Illustrate.
12. What reference to the covenant breaker in the New Testament, and what the threefold sin therein described?
13. Which of these prohibitions are Romanists most guilty of violating?
14. Under the third head (1) What must be the qualifications of all officers? (2) What their several duties? (3) If the case was too hard for them what were they to do? What the provision for Jehovah’s answer? (4) What prescriptions concerning war? (5) How determine civic responsibility in the case of murder where the murderer was unknown? Present day application and illustrate. (6) What laws relating to the poor and to lower animals? (7) What laws regulating business? (8) What social laws? (9) What the restrictions on entering the covenant and the present day application? (10) How does the governing Jehovah idea appear emphatically
15. How does the oration conclude?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Deu 19:1-3
1When the LORD your God cuts off the nations, whose land the LORD your God gives you, and you dispossess them and settle in their cities and in their houses, 2you shall set aside three cities for yourself in the midst of your land, which the LORD your God gives you to possess. 3You shall prepare the roads for yourself, and divide into three parts the territory of your land which the LORD your God will give you as a possession, so that any manslayer may flee there.
Deu 19:1 cuts off This VERB (BDB 503, KB 500, Hiphil IMPERFECT) is used in several senses:
1. to make (cut) a covenant, Deu 4:23; Deu 5:2-3; Deu 7:2; Deu 9:9; Deu 29:1; Deu 29:12; Deu 29:14; Deu 29:25; Deu 31:16
2. remove, destroy, Deu 12:29; Deu 19:1
3. cut down (literal, i.e., a tree), Deu 19:5; Deu 20:19-20
whose land the LORD your God gives you See note at Deu 1:8.
settle in their cities The description of God’s activity in accomplishing this task on the eastern side of the Jordan River is seen in Deu 4:41-43.
Deu 19:2; Deu 19:7 three cities These were Levitical cities of refuge, discussed in Numbers 35; Joshua 20, where someone accused of murder (i.e., manslayer) could flee to protect himself from the dead person’s relatives (i.e., blood avenger). The leaders of these cities were to hold a trial (cf. Deu 19:11-13) to determine the facts of the case.
A list of the cites of refuge is found in Jos 20:7-8 :
1. Trans-jordan
a. Bezer in Reuben
b. Ramoth-Gilead in Gad
c. Golan in Manasseh (Bashan)
2. Canaan
a. Kadesh in Naphtali (Galilee)
b. Shechem in Ephraim
c. Hebron in Judah
The idea of a place of safety or refuge was not unique to Israel. Most ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean cultures provided these special places. Usually they were located at religious shrines. Israel also had this concept by one grabbing the horns of the altar (cf. Exo 27:2; Exo 30:10) at the central shrine (cf. Exo 21:14; 1Ki 1:50-53; 1Ki 2:28-34). However, special cities were unique to Israel. YHWH was concerned with the death of innocent manslayers.
Deu 19:3 prepare the roads The VERB (BDB 465, KB 464, Hiphil IMPERFECT) here means prepare a road. There are three possible meanings:
1. equal distance apart
2. easy access
3. provide road signs pointing the way (Rashi quoting a Maccabean document)
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
When. Compare Num 35:10, Num 35:11. succeedeth = dispossessest.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 19
Now in the nineteenth chapter again, they are told to establish the cities of refuge; three of them when they come into the land. Three had already been established on the other side of Jordan. But when you come into the land, God will appoint three cities as cities of refuge. Again the idea being that if you killed someone accidentally, if you and your friend were out chopping wood and your ax head should fly off the handle and hit him in the head and kill him and the avenger of blood would be angry because you killed his brother and he’s chasing you, you could flee to the city of refuge. And there you could be saved from the avenger of blood. He could not come into the city to take you or to kill you. However, the cities of refuge were never to be a refuge from those who were guilty, for those who were guilty of first-degree murder.
Now again in verse nine, God just gives, chapter nineteen, some commandments.
If thou shalt keep all these commandments to do them, which I command thee this day, to love the LORD thy God, and to walk ever in his ways; then thou shalt add three cities more for thee, beside these three ( Deu 19:9 ):
In other words, three more cities when you get into the land. Now, the commandment is to “love the Lord and to walk ever in his ways”. They were not to touch the landmark of their neighbors. Now in those days they would set up little piles of stones. These stones would be landmarks. When you go through the land of Israel today, you can still see out in the fields these little piles of stones, which are landmarks which they have set up. In the Arab territory, in the Jewish territory, they don’t practice this, but in the Arab territory in the land of Israel there on the West Bank you’ll see all these little piles of stones out in the fields which are landmarks. Now you’re not to go out at night and move those stones over ten feet or so. You’re not to remove your neighbor’s landmark. That was a crime that was looked upon with great disfavor.
Now, if a man would rise up and bear false against his neighbor and he was proved that he had perjured himself in his false witness, his sentence would be whatever kind of a crime he is trying to get pinned on his neighbor. In other words, if you got up and lied and said, “Well, I saw this man steal that cow.” and it was proved that you were lying, you didn’t see him, you were just trying to get him in trouble; then you would get the sentence of a cow thief. Whatever sentence would have been meted out against the fellow, whom you were trying to incriminate, that sentence would be yours. And if you were trying to incriminate him in a capital offense, then you would be put to death. So, whatever you were seeking to have done unto him shall be put onto you. And thus, God wanted them to have a healthy fear of lying as a witness, the perjury
“
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Still with his mind on the fact that the people were coming into the land, Moses made further applications of the laws to the new conditions. His words now had to do with life and land and truth and justice.
Cities of refuge were to be provided in order that in the administration of the law which safeguards human life there should be strict justice. The accidental killing of a man was not to be counted equal to premeditated murder. Deliberate killing was to be followed by the death penalty, the cities of refuge offering no harbor to the guilty.
The words concerning the land were brief but clear. No man was to remove an ancient landmark. The far reaching importance of this will be understood when it is remembered how absolutely man depends on the land for physical sustenance.
Truth as between man and man in all dealings must be maintained at all costs. Anything in the nature of false witness was to be severely punished.
The final words have in them a note of great severity as they sternly insist on the necessity for the strictest justice in all human interrelationships.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Deu 19:5-6
I. There are many besides the murderer of Uriah who have need to cry with him, “Deliver me from blood-guiltiness, O God.” (1) This charge may have a fearful applicability to Christian ministers. If ministers neglect to warn the wicked, if they keep back from the people any part of the counsel of God, blood lieth at their door; the angel of vengeance is abroad in pursuit of them. (2) Consider that subtle, undefinable thing called influence. Can you conscientiously say that you have always exerted your influence for good, never for evil? If in one instance you have used it for evil, blood lieth at your door. You have shed the blood of souls, and the life of your own soul is justly forfeit.
II. The spiritual refuge of the sinner is Jesus Christ, and the road by which we flee to Christ is the road of faith. (1) The sinner must fly to Christ as if for his life, as a man flies from a falling house or a beleaguered town. (2) As impediments were removed out of the man-slayer’s way, and the road was made as easy and obvious to him as possible, so it is a very plain, simple thing to believe in Christ, and thus to flee to our spiritual cities of refuge. (3) When the merciful Elder, Jesus Christ, comes to the gate of the city of refuge, we can only plead our sinfulness, our infinite desert of condemnation, and God’s appointment of Jesus Christ to be a refuge to us. (4) The man-slayer was to abide in the city of his refuge, and so must we abide in ours if we would be safe.
III. There are two points of contrast between the Jewish city of refuge and its New Testament antitype. (1) The city of refuge was permanently available only to such man-slayers as had acted without any evil intent. Not so our city of refuge. Christ is able to save to the uttermost. (2) The man-slayer was to remain in the city until the high-priest died. But our High-priest never dies. “He ever liveth to make intercession for us.”
E. M. Goulburn, Sermons Preached in the Parish Church of Holywell, p. 101.
References: Deu 19:12.-J. B. Mozley, Ruling Ideas in Early Ages, p. 201. Deu 19:21.-Ibid., p. 180. Deut 19-Parker, vol. iv.. p. 281. Deu 20:2-4. J. M. Neale, Sermons for the Church Year, p. 167. Deu 20:8.-W. Ray, Thursday Penny Pulpit, vol. xi., p. 233; Parker, vol. iv., p. 290; J. M. Neale, Sermons for the Church Year, p. 177. Deu 20:10.-Ibid., p. 298. Deu 20:16.-M. Dods, Israel’s Iron Age, p. 1; J. B. Mozley, Ruling Ideas in Early Ages, p. 83. Deu 20:19.-Parker, City Temple, vol. iii., p. 18. Deu 22:1-4.-Parker, vol. iv., p. 305. Deu 22:6, Deu 22:7.-Ibid., vol. ii., p. 312; S. Cox, The Bird’s Nest, p. 1. Deu 22:8.-Parker, vol. iv., p. 318; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iii., p. 354.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
15. Laws for Israel in the Land
CHAPTER 19
1. Concerning the cities of refuge (Deu 19:1-13)
2. Removing a landmark (Deu 19:14)
3. The punishment of a false witness (Deu 19:15-21)
Here again we have not a repetition of the previous law concerning the cities of refuge (Num 35:9-34), but an earnest admonition to be obedient to those laws. The three cities on the east of Jordan were named in chapter 4. Here the other three in the midst of the land are in view. They were to be in a place of easy access with a prepared way leading to them. Grace and judgment are illustrated in the case of the slayer, who killed his neighbor ignorantly and he who killed his neighbor purposely. When the slayer reached the city he found a shelter there and lived, for he had done it ignorantly. Grace gave him shelter and he knew he was safe. For the wilful murderer there was no mercy, but judgment. Thine eyes shall not pity him. Obedience was demanded in all these utterances of Moses.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
hath cut: Deu 6:10, Deu 7:1, Deu 7:2, Deu 12:1, Deu 12:29, Deu 17:14
succeedest: Heb. inheritest, or possessest, Deu 12:29
Reciprocal: Exo 13:5 – shall bring Exo 21:13 – I will appoint Lev 14:34 – When Num 35:10 – General Deu 4:42 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Deu 19:1. From enforcing the laws enacted against idolatry, and calculated to preserve and promote the purity of divine worship, Moses now proceeds to inculcate some important duties belonging to the second table, but not in any exact order, nor without interspersing some precepts respecting ceremonial matters. He begins with some regulations appointed to secure the preservation of the most important part of the property of a fellow- creature, his life.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Deu 19:14. Thou shalt not remove thy neighbours landmark. This prohibition was salutary in preserving the public peace; it also extended to the removal of the boundaries between the tribes, as fixed by Joshua; and Josephus adds, the boundaries of the neighbouring nations. Ah, how many are the boundaries which the divine legislator was obliged to fix against the avarice and covetousness of man.
Deu 19:15. One witness, who is clear and pure, ought to be sufficient. But such is the party wickedness of men, and such their malice, that in cases of life and death, it is safer to require two witnesses.
Deu 19:19. Then shall ye do unto him as he had thought to have done to his brother. This is called a just judgment. Our courts abound with false- swearing, because we allow the perjured to escape punishment: yet they sometimes get exposed in the court.
REFLECTIONS.
In addition to what is said in Numbers 35. respecting the manslayer, it is worthy of remark, that however innocent he might be of wilful murder, his exile was a punishment which tended to make all men cautious of fighting with their neighbours, and very much awed the passions of brutish and vulgar men.
In the prohibition of mitigating the punishment of the murderer, we see the greatness of his crime, which is to be abhorred and detested by all persons who desire to love God, and all his creatures. Nevertheless the kings of Israel exercised the power of pardoning on some occasions. David forgiving the widows son of Tekoah, was obliged at the same time to pardon Absalom his son. In the last case the royal clemency was awfully abused; and there are few cases indeed in which it can be exercised with safety to national justice.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Deuteronomy 19
“When the Lord thy God hath cut off the nations, whose land the Lord thy God giveth thee, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their cities, and in their houses; thou shalt separate three cities for thee in the midst of thy land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it. Thou shalt prepare thee a way, and divide the coasts of thy land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee to inherit, into three parts, that every slayer may flee thither.” (Vers. 1-3.)
What a very striking combination of “goodness and severity” we observe in these few lines! We have the “cutting off” of the nations of Canaan, because of their consummated wickedness which had become positively unbearable. And, on the other hand, we have a most touching display of divine goodness in the provision made for the poor manslayer, in the day of his deep distress, when flying for his life, from the avenger of blood. The government and the goodness of God are, we need hardly say, both divinely perfect. There are cases in which goodness would be nothing but a toleration of sheer wickedness and open rebellion which is utterly impossible under the government of God. If men imagine that, because God is good, they may go on and sin with a high hand, they will, sooner or later, find out their woeful mistake.
“Behold,” says the inspired apostle, “the goodness and severity of God!”* God will, most assuredly, cut off evil doers who despise His goodness and long-suffering mercy. He is slow to anger, blessed be His Holy Name! and of great kindness. For hundreds of years He bore with the seven nations; of Canaan, until their wickedness rose up to the very heavens, and the land’ itself could bear them no longer. He bore with the enormous wickedness of the guilty cities of the plain; and if He had found even ten righteous people in Sodom, He would have spared it for their sakes. But the day of terrible vengeance came, and they were “cut off”
{*The word rendered “severity” is apotomia, which literally means “Cutting off.”}
And so will it be, ere long, with guilty Christendom. “Thou also shalt be cut off.” The reckoning time will come, and oh! what a reckoning time it will be! The heart trembles at the thought of it, while the eye scans and the pen traces the soul subduing words.
But mark how divine “goodness” shines out in the opening lines of our chapter. See the gracious painstaking of our God to make the city of refuge as available as possible for the slayer. The three cities were to be “in the midst of thy land” It would not do to have them in remote corners, or in places difficult of access. And not only so, but “thou shalt prepare thee a way.” And again, “thou shalt divide the coasts of thy land…. into three parts.” Everything was to be done to facilitate the slayer’s escape. The gracious Lord thought of the feelings of the distressed one “flying for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before him.” The city of refuge was to be “brought near, just as “the righteousness of God” is brought near to the poor broken-hearted helpless sinner – so near, that it is “to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly.”
There is peculiar sweetness in the expression, “Thou shalt prepare thee a way”. How like our own ever gracious God – “The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! ” And yet it was the same God that cut off the nations of Canaan in righteous judgement, who thus made such gracious provision for the manslayer “Behold, the goodness and severity of God.”
“And this is the case of the slayer which shall flee thither, that he may live, whoso killeth his neighbour ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past; as when a man goeth into the wood with his neighbour to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his neighbour, that he die; he shall flee unto one of those cities and live; lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long” – most touching.. and exquisite grace! – “and slay him; whereas he was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past. Wherefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt separate three cities for thee.” (Vers. 4-7.)
Here we have a most minute description of the man for whom the City of refuge was provided. If he did not answer to this, the city was not for him; but if he did, he might feel the most perfect assurance that a gracious God had thought of him, and found a refuge for him where he might be as safe as the hand of God could make him. Once the slayer found himself within the precincts of the city of refuge, he might breathe freely, and enjoy calm and sweet repose. No avenging sword could reach him there, not a hair of his head could be touched there.
He was safe; yes, perfectly safe; and not only perfectly safe, but perfectly certain. He was not hoping to be saved, he was sure of it. He was in the city, and that was enough. Before he got in, he might have many a struggle deep down in his poor terrified heart, many doubts and fears and painful exercises. He was flying for his life, and this was a serious and an all-absorbing matter for him – a matter that would make all beside seem light and trifling. We could not imagine the flying slayer stopping to gather flowers by the roadside. Flowers, he would say, “What have I to do with flowers just now? My life is at stake. I am flying for my life. What if the avenger should come and find me gathering flowers? No, the city is my one grand all-engrossing object; nothing else has the smallest interest or charm for me. I want to be saved; that is my exclusive business now.
But the moment he found himself within the gates, he was safe, and he knew it. How did know it? By his feelings? By his evidences? By experiences? Nay; but simply by the word of God. No doubt, he had the feeling, the evidence and the experience, and most precious they would be to him after his tremendous struggle and conflict to get in. But these things were, by no means, the ground of his certainty or the basis of his peace. He knew he was safe because God told him so. The grace of God had made him safe, and the word of God made him sure.
We cannot conceive a manslayer, within the walls of the city of refuge, expressing himself as many of the Lord’s dear people do, in reference to the question of safety and certainty. He would not deem it presumption to be sure he was safe. If any one had asked him, “Are you sure you are safe?” “Sure!” he would say, “How can I be otherwise than sure? Was I not a slayer? Have I not fled to this city of refuge? Has not Jehovah, our covenant God, pledged His word for it? Has not said that, ‘fleeing thither he may live’? Yes, thank God, I am perfectly sure. I had a terrible run for it – a fearful struggle. At times, I felt as if the avenger had me in his dreaded grasp. I gave myself up for lost; but then, God, in infinite mercy, made the way so plain, and made the city so easy of access to me, that, spite of all doubts and fears, here I am, safe and certain. The struggle is all over, the conflict past and gone. I can breathe freely now, and walk up and down in the perfect security of this blessed place, praising our gracious covenant God, for His great goodness in having provided such a sweet retreat for a poor slayer like me.”
Can the reader speak thus as to his safety Christ? Is he saved, and does he know it? If not, may the Spirit of God apply to his heart the simple illustration of the manslayer within the walls of the city of refuge! May he know that “strong consolation” which is the sure, because divinely appointed portion of all those who have “fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope see before them.” (Heb. 6: 18.)
We must now proceed with our chapter; and, in so doing, we shall find that there was more to be thought of in the cities of refuge than the question of the slayer’s safety. That was provided for perfectly, as we have seen; but the glory of God, the purity of His land, and the integrity of His government had to be duly maintained. If these things were touched, there could be no safety for any one. This great principle shines on every page of the history of God’s ways with man. Man’s true blessing and God’s glory are indissolubly bound together, and both the one and the other rest on the same imperishable foundation, namely, Christ and His precious work.
“And if the Lord thy God enlarge thy coast, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, and give thee all the land which he promised to give unto thy fathers; if thou shalt keep all these commandments to do them, which I command thee this day, to love the Lord thy God, and to walk ever in his ways; then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, beside these three; that innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and so blood be upon thee. But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities; then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee.” (Vers. 8-13.)
Thus, whether it was grace for the slayer, or judgement for the murderer, the glory of God, and the claims of His government had to be duly maintained. The unwitting manslayer was met by the provision of mercy; the guilty murderer fell beneath the stern sentence of inflexible justice. We must never forget the solemn reality of divine government. It meets us everywhere; and if it were more fully recognised, it would effectually deliver us from one-sided views of the divine character. Take such words as these, “Thine eye shall not pity him.” Who uttered them? Jehovah. Who penned them? God the Holy Ghost. What do they mean? Solemn judgement upon wickedness. Let men beware how they trifle with these weighty matters. Let the Lord’s people beware how they give place to foolish reasonings in reference to things wholly beyond their range. Let them remember that a false sentimentality may constantly be found in league with an audacious infidelity in calling in question the solemn enactments of divine government. This is a very serious consideration. Evil doers must look out for the sure judgement of a sin-hating God, If a wilful murderer presumed to avail himself of God’s provision for the ignorant manslayer, the hand of justice laid hold of him and put him to death, without mercy. Such was the government of God in Israel Of old; and such will it be in a day that is rapidly approaching. Just now, God is dealing in long-suffering mercy with the world; this is the day of salvation, the acceptable time. The day of vengeance is at hand. Oh! that man, instead of reasoning about the justice of God’s dealings with evil doers, would flee for refuge to that precious Saviour who died on the cross to save us from the flames of an everlasting hell!*
{*For other points presented in the cities of refuge we must refer the reader to ‘Notes on the Book of Numbers,” chapter 35.}
Before quoting for the reader the closing paragraph Of our chapter, we would just call his attention to Verse 14, in which we have a very beautiful proof of God’s tender care for His people, and His most gracious interest in everything which, directly or indirectly concerned them. “Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it.”
This passage, taken in its plain import and primary application is full of sweetness, as presenting the loving heart of our God, and showing us how marvellously He entered into all the circumstances of His beloved people. The landmarks were not to be meddled with. Each one’s portion was to be left intact according to the boundary lines set up by those of old time. Jehovah had given the land to Israel; and, not only so, but He had assigned to each tribe and to each family their proper portion, marked off With perfect precision, and indicated by landmarks so plain that there could be no confusion, no clashing of interests, no interference one with another, no ground for lawsuit or controversy about property. There stood the ancient landmarks marking off each one’s portion in such a manner as to remove all possible ground of dispute. Each one held as a tenant under the God of Israel, who knew all about his little holding, as we say; and every tenant had the comfort of knowing that the eye of the gracious and Almighty Landlord was upon his bit of land, and His hand over it to protect it from every intruder. Thus he could abide in peace under his vine and under his fig-tree, enjoying the portion assigned by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Thus much as to the obvious sense of this beautiful clause of our chapter. But surely it has a deep spiritual meaning also. Are there not spiritual landmarks for the church of God, and for each individual member thereof, marking off, with divine accuracy, the boundaries of our heavenly inheritance – those landmarks which they of old time, even the apostles of our Lord and Saviour Jesus have set up? Assuredly there are, and God has His eye upon them, and He will not permit them to removed with impunity. Woe be to the man that attempts to touch them; he will have to give account to God for so doing. It is a serious thing for any one to interfere, in any way, with the place, portion, and prospect of the church of God; and it is to be feared that many are doing it without being aware of it.
We do not attempt to go into the question of what these landmarks are; we have sought to do this in our first volume of “Notes on Deuteronomy,” as well as in the other four volumes of the series; but we feel it to be our duty to warn, in the most solemn manner, all whom it may concern, against doing that which, in the church of God, answers to the removal of the landmarks in Israel. If any one had come forward in the ]and of Israel to suggest some new arrangement in the inheritance of the tribes, to adjust the property of each upon some new principle, to set up some new boundary lines, what would have been the reply of the faithful Israelite? A very simple one, we may be sure. He would have replied in the language of Deuteronomy 19: 14. He would have said “We want no novelties here; we are perfectly content with those sacred and time-honoured landmarks which they of old time have set in our inheritance. We are determined, by the grace of God, to keep to them, and to resist, with firm purpose, any modern innovation.”
Such, we believe, would have been the prompt reply of every true member of the congregation of Israel; and surely the Christian ought not to be less prompt or less decided in his answer to all those who, under the plea of progress and development, remove the landmarks of the church of God, and instead of the precious teaching of Christ and His apostles, offer us the so-called light of science, and the resources of philosophy. Thank God, we want them not. We have Christ and His word; what can be added to these? What do we want of human progress or development, when we have “that which was from the beginning”? What can science or philosophy do for those who possess “all truth”? No doubt, we want, yea, long to make progress in the knowledge of Christ; long for a fuller, clearer development of the life of Christ in our daily history; but science and philosophy cannot help us in these; nay, they could only prove a most serious hindrance.
Christian reader, let us seek to keep close to Christ, close to His word. This is our only security, in this dark and evil day. Apart from Him, we are nothing, have nothing, can do nothing. In Him we have all He is the portion of our cup and the lot of our inheritance. May we know what it is not only to be safe in Him, but separated to Him, and satisfied with Him, till that bright day when we shall see Him as He is, and be like Him and with Him for ever.
We shall now do little more than quote the remaining verses of our chapter. They need no exposition. They set forth wholesome truth to which professing Christians, with all their light and knowledge, may well give attention.
“One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.” (Ver. 15.)
This subject has already come before us. It cannot be too strongly insisted upon. We may judge of its importance from the fact that, not only does Moses, again and again, press it upon Israel’s attention, but our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and the Holy Ghost in the apostle Paul, in two of his epistles, insists upon the principle of “two or three witnesses,” in every case. One witness, be he ever so trustworthy, is not sufficient to decide a case. If this plain fact were more carefully weighed and duly attended to, it would put an end to a vast amount of strife and contention. We in our fancied wisdom, might imagine that one thoroughly reliable witness ought to be sufficient to settle any question. Let us remember that God is wiser than we are, and that it is ever our truest wisdom as well as our greatest moral security to hold fast by His unerring word.
“If a false witness rise up against any man, to testify against him that which is wrong; then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges which shall be in those days; and the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and have testified falsely against his brother; then shall ye do unto him as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” (Vers. 16-21.)
We may here see how God hates false witness; and further, we have to bear in mind that, though we are not under law but under grace, false witness is not less hateful to God; and surely the more fully we enter into the grace in which we stand, the more intensely we shall abhor false witness, slander, and evil speaking, in every shape and form. The good Lord preserve us from all such!
Fuente: Mackintosh’s Notes on the Pentateuch
Deu 19:1-13. The cities of refuge (lit. of reception, Num 35:12 P) were in criminal law the substitute for the local, now disestablished, sanctuaries, each sanctuary in ancient times affording temporary protection for criminals whose guilt was not obvious (Numbers 35*, Joshua 20*). British churches have served the same purpose, (cf. the Sanctuary Knocker of Durham Cathedral and Frithstool of Beverley Minster and of Hexham Abbey). Blood revenge was the police of the primitive Aryan and Semitic peoples, and it needed such restraint as the law of asylum supplied. For the earlier law, see Exo 21:12-14* (JE), and for the later, Numbers 35 and Jos 20:1-6 (both P). The need for this law arose through the operation of the principle of one sanctuary. In Deu 19:1-7 Moses commands the establishment of three such cities W. of the Jordan, when the Israelites have settled in Canaanno doubt on the sites of disused sanctuaries. When, however, Yahweh has extended their territory (Deu 19:8-10, see Deu 19:17), they are to appoint three other cities of refuge, almost certainly E. of the Jordan. Num 35:13 ff. speaks of six such cities, three E. and three W. of the Jordan.
Deu 19:8-10 may be an addition based on Num 35:13 ff., as Deu 4:41-43 almost certainly is.
Deu 19:11-13 provides sufficient security against the abuse of the right of asylum.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
CITIES OF REFUGE
(vs.1-13)
We have seen in Deu 4:41-43 that Moses set aside three cities east of the Jordan as cities of refuge. Now Moses gives instructions to Israel that, when God should cut off the nations of the land and Israel was established there, they should separate three cities on that side of Jordan, each in a distinct area, as cities of refuge (vs.1-2).
They were to divide the land into three parts on that side of Jordan, with roads that would be helpful in denoting the bounds of those divisions as well as making it more simple to flee to a city of refuge when a road led in that direction (v.3).
Now God carefully repeats the proper terms under which one could claim the shelter of the city of refuge. It was a provision for a manslayer, not for a murderer. He might kill another unintentionally. An example of this is given here also. One might swing his axe to cut down a tree, and the axe head slip off the handle, accidentally killing another person (vs.4-5). In such a case he could flee to the city of refuge where he would be safe from “the avenger of blood.” This person would be a close relative or friend of the victim, and might feel himself justified in taking vengeance on the manslayer.
These three cities are spoken of in Jos 20:7 as Kadesh in Galilee, in the north, Shechem, about midway in the land, and Hebron in the south. Added in verses 8 and 9 is the promise that if the Lord enlarged their territory and if they would keep His commandments, they were to add three more cities of refuge. It seems this refers to the same three cities that Moses set apart in Deu 4:41-42. Perhaps they had not yet been established at that time, however, in spite of being indicated.
God by means of these cities showed His concern that one must not suffer unfairly (v.10). But on the other hand, a murderer could not be allowed to take advantage of this provision. If one had been guilty of motives of hatred or intentionally murdering another, if he fled to the city of refuge, then the elders of his own city must send to the city of refuge, where the guilty person must be given up to return to his own city and face the retribution of the avenger of blood (vs.11-13).
There is a typical lesson in this that we must observe. All mankind has been guilty of the death of the Lord Jesus. Yet He could say, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do” (Luk 23:34). If our guilt is through ignorance, there is a refuge for us and forgiveness in now receiving Christ as Savior. But if we have rejected Him through malicious hatred, “there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment” (Heb 10:26-27). Thus the murderer was not to be spared, not to be pitied (v.13), for only by his death could Israel put away the guilt of innocent blood.
LANDMARKS MUST REMAIN
(v.14)
If one did not respect the life of his neighbor, it might well be that he would not respect his neighbor’s landmarks, so Israel is warned not to remove these. These were marks to indicate the borders of the people’s possessions. They had been established by “men of old.” These are typical of truths that are basic to the testimony of the Church of God, — truths that will enable us to remain within the borders that God has prescribed for the order of His Church. These may be called traditions, but true traditions are good. If they are merely men’s traditions, we must refuse them. But too often efforts are made to negate truths that are taught in Scripture by calling them “traditions.” This is removing the old landmarks. May we not be guilty of this.
WITNESS MUST BE TRUE
(vs.15-21)
Two or three witnesses are necessary as regards making a decision in any matter. One witness may be mistaken or prejudiced, or even dishonest. If two people have a controversy, they must stand before the judges and have the matter thoroughly investigated. If one testified falsely, he must suffer the judgment he desired against his opponent (vs.18-19). Under law there was no mercy — eye for eye, tooth for tooth.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
Manslaughter 19:1-13
God revealed the law concerning how the Israelites were to deal with manslayers earlier (cf. Num 35:9-34). In Israel this kind of crime was a domestic rather than a law court matter; families were to deal with it rather than the courts. The instructions given here urge application of this law and explain the need for three more cities of refuge west of the Jordan River. Moses had already designated three towns on the east side of the Jordan (Deu 4:41-43). The provision of cities of refuge taught the Israelites how important life is to God. The cities of refuge were conceptually extensions of the altar in the tabernacle courtyard as places of asylum. [Note: Kline, "Deuteronomy," p. 181.]
"The extension of the power of Israel to the Euphrates under David and Solomon, did not bring the land as far as this river into their actual possession, since the conquered kingdoms of Aram were still inhabited by the Aramaeans, who, though conquered, were only rendered tributary. And the Tyrians and Phoenicians, who belonged to the Canaanitish population, were not even attacked by David." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 3:398. Cf. Craigie, The Book . . ., p. 267.]
There is no indication in the Bible that the Israelites ever set aside this third set of three cities of refuge (Deu 19:8-9). If they did not, it may have been because they never secured the full extent of the Promised Land.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
6. Laws arising from the sixth commandment 19:1-22:8
The sixth commandment is, "You shall not murder" (Deu 5:17). The representative laws in this chapter all protected people who were vulnerable for one reason or another. Civil law is in view.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
THE ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF ISRAELITE LIFE
IT has often and justly been said that the life of Israel is so entirely founded on the grace and favor of God that no distinction is made between the secular and the religious laws. Whatever their origin may have been, whether they had been part of the tribal constitution before Moses day or not, they were all regarded as Divinely given. They had been accepted as fit building stones for the great edifice of that national life in which God was to reveal Himself to all mankind, and behind them all was the same Divine authority. That being so, it is not wonderful, in times like these, when the air is full of plans and theories for the reconstruction of society in the interest of the toiling masses of men, that believers in the Scriptures should turn with hope to the legislation of the Old Testament. In the present state of things the material conditions of life are far more deadening and demoralizing for the multitude in civilized countries than they are in many uncivilized lands. That this should be so is intolerable to all who think and feel; and men turn with hope to a scene where God is teaching and training men, not merely in regard to their individual life, as in the New Testament, but also in regard to national life. It is seen, too, that the tone and feeling of these laws are sympathetic for the poor as no other code has ever been; and many maintain that, if we would only return to the provisions of these laws, the social crisis which is as yet only in its beginning, and which threatens to darken and overshadow all lands, would be at once and wholly averted. Men consequently are diligently inquiring what the land tenure of ancient Israel was, what its trade laws were, how the poor were dealt with, and how and to what extent pauperism was averted or provided for. Many say, If God has spoken in and by this people, so that their first steps in religion and morals have been the starting-point for the highest life of humanity, may we not expect that their first steps in political and social life will have the same abiding value, if rightly understood? Now the main thing in regard to which the economical arrangements of a nation are important is land. In modern times there may be some exceptionally situated communities, such as the British people, among whom commerce and manufactures are more important than agriculture; but in ancient times no such case could arise. In every community the land and the land tenure were the fundamentally important things.
Now the fundamental thing concerning it was that Yahweh, being the King of Israel, who had formed and was guiding this people as His instrument for saving the world, and who had bestowed their country upon them, was regarded as the sole owner of the soil. It is not necessary to quote texts to prove this, since it is the fundamental assumption throughout the Old Testament Scriptures that the Israelite title to their land was the gift of Yahweh. He had promised it to the fathers. He had driven out the Canaanite nations before Israel. He had by His mighty hand and His stretched-out arm established His chosen people in the place which He had chosen, and He had granted them the use and enjoyment of it so long as they proved faithful to Him. Consequently, in a quite real and palpable sense, there was no owner of land in Israel save Yahweh. And this thought was not without practical consequences of great moment. It was not a mere religious sentiment, it was a hard and palpable fact, that Yahweh ruled. Absolute proprietorship could never be built up on that basis, and never, as a matter of fact, was acknowledged in Israel. All were tenants, who held their places only so long as they obeyed the statutes of Yahweh. The sale in perpetuity of that which had been portioned out to tribes and families was consequently entirely prohibited. As against other nations, indeed, Israel was to possess this land, so that no heathen could be permitted to buy and possess even a scrap of it; but as against Yahweh and the purposes for which He had chosen Israel, all were equally strangers and sojourners, practically tenants at will, who could neither give nor take their holdings as if they were absolutely theirs. Yet, relatively, the land was given to the community as a whole, and according to Jos 13:7 sqq. (a passage generally assigned to the Deuteronomic editor) it was parceled out by lot to the various tribes just before Joshuas death, according to their respective numbers. Then within the tribal domain the families in the wider sense had their portion, and within these family domains again the individual households. In this way the Israelite tenure of land occupies a middle point between the theories of Socialism and the high doctrine of private property in land which declares that the individual owner can do what he will with his own. The nation as a whole claimed rights over all the land, but it did not attempt to manage the public estate for the common good. It delegated its powers to the tribes. But not even they undertook the burdens of proprietorship. Under them the families undertook a general superintendence; but the true proprietary rights, the cultivation of the soil, and the drawing of profit from it, subject only to deductions made by the larger bodies, the families, the tribes, and the nation, were exercised only by individuals. The nation took care that none of its territory should be sold to foreigners, lest the national inheritance should be diminished, and the tribes did the same for the tribal heritage, as we see from the narrative concerning the daughters of Zelophehad. It was only within limits, therefore, and the individual proprietor was free; and though the rights of property were respected, the corresponding duties of property were set forth with irresistible clearness. The community, in fact, never abandoned its claims upon the common heritage, any more than Israels Divine King did, and consequently the field within which proprietary rights were exercised was more restricted here than in any modern state.
Further, besides the prohibition of absolute sale which flowed from the recognition of Yahwehs ownership, and the limitations which tribal and family claims involved, there were distinct provisions in which the national ownership under Yahweh was plainly asserted. For example, it is enacted Deu 23:24 -“When thou comest into thy neighbors vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel. When thou comest into thy neighbors standing corn, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbors standing corn.” Allied to these were the provisions (Lev 19:9 ff; Lev 23:10) concerning gleaning, and not reaping the corners of the field. It will be observed that, though these latter may be discounted as intended for the relief of the poor alone, the former provision was for all, and that consequently it may be regarded as an undoubted assertion of the common ownership, or common usufruct, which, though latent, was always held to be a fact. In other ways also the same hint is given. The provisions for letting the land lie fallow in the seventh year and in the jubilee year, and for securing the use of what grew in the field for all who chose to take it, were interferences with the free-will of the individual owners or occupiers, which find their justification only in the fact that the general ownership was never suffered entirely to fall into the background.
To sum up then: this system aimed at securing the advantages both of the socialist view and of the individualistic view while avoiding the evils of both. Private enterprise was encouraged, by the individual being guaranteed possession of his land against any other individual; while public spirit and a regard for general interests were promoted by the restrictions which limited the private ownership. Further, and more important still, the whole relation of the nation and of the individual to the land was raised out of the merely sordid region of material gain into the spiritual and moral region, by the principle that Yahweh their God alone had full proprietary rights over the soil. All were “sojourners” with Him. He had promised this land to their fathers as the place wherein He should specially reveal Himself to them. Here, communion with Him was to be established, and to each household there had been assigned by Yahweh a special portion of it, which it would be equally a sin and an unspeakable loss to part with. Compulsion alone could justify such a surrender; and the completed legislation, whatever its date, and even if it remained always an unrealized ideal, shows how determined the effort was to secure the perpetuity of the tenure in the original hands. The ideal of Israelite life was consequently that the land should remain in the hands of the hereditary owners, and that the main support of all the people should be agricultural labor.
The hypothesis that this was the case is strengthened to a certainty by the manner in which commerce, one of the other main sources of wealth, is dealt with in the Israelite law. There is but little sympathy expressed with it, and some of the regulations issued are such as to render trade on any very large scale within Palestine itself impossible. From the use of the word “Canaanite” in the Old Testament {el. Job 41:6 Pro 31:24 Zep 1:2 Eze 17:4, and Isa 23:8} it is clear that, even in the later periods of Israelite history, the merchants were so prevailingly Canaanites that the two words are synonymous. Nay, more; there can be no doubt that the commercial career was looked down upon. Even as early as the prophet Hosea the Canaanite name is connected with false weights and vulgar commercial cheating, {Hos 12:7} and it is looked upon as a last degradation that Ephraim should take delight in similar pursuits. In all that we read of merchants in the Old Testament we seem to hear the expression of a feeling that commerce, with its necessary wanderings, its temptations to dishonesty, its constant contact with heathen peoples, was an occupation that was unworthy of a son of Israel. Even Solomons success as a royal merchant would not seem to have overcome this feeling, nor did the later commercial successes of kings like Jehoshaphat. In fact the ordinary Israelite had the home-staying farmers contempt and suspicion of these far-wandering commercial people, so much more nimble-witted than himself, who were therefore to be regarded with half-admiring wariness.
But the very sinews of extensive commerce were cut by the law against the taking of interest from a brother Israelite. Without credit, or the lending of money, or what is called sleeping partnership (and all these are bound up with receiving interest), it is impossible to have extensive trade. Without them every merchant would have to limit his operations to cash transactions and to his own immediate capital, and the great combinations which especially bring wealth would be impossible. Now we do not need at present to discuss the wisdom of prohibiting the taking of interest, nor the still more debated question whether that ancient prohibition would be wise or advantageous now. It is enough for our purpose that usury in its literal sense was actually forbidden among Israelites, and that they were thus shut out from the developed commercial life of the surrounding nations. As a result trade remained in a merely embryonic condition.
But in still other ways the Sinaitic legislation interfered with its development. The inculcation of ceremonial purity, especially in food, and the effort to make Israel a peculiar people unto Yahweh, which distinguishes even the earlier forms of the law, made intercourse with foreigners and living abroad always difficult and under some circumstances impossible. Consequently all the legislation that can possibly be considered commercial was of a very rudimentary character. From every point of view it is clear that ancient Israel was not a commercial people, and that the Divine law was intended to restrain them from commercial pursuits. They could not have been the holy and peculiar people they were meant to be, had they become a nation of traffickers.
With regard to manufacturing industries the case was not essentially different. Such pursuits were, it is true, more honored than commerce was, for skill in all arts, whether agricultural or industrial, was regarded as a special gift of the Almighty. But so far as the records go, there is no evidence that a manufacturing industry existed, beyond what the very limited needs of the nation itself demanded. From the fact that, according Pro 31:24, which was probably written late in the history of Israel, the manufacturing of linen garments for sale and of girdles for the Canaanites was the business of the thrifty and virtuous housewife, we may gather that systematic wholesale manufacture of such things was unknown. Probably the case was not otherwise in regard to all branches of industry. There are no traces of trade castes, nor of manufacturing towns; so that the manufacturing industries, so far as they existed, had no other place than that of handmaids to agriculture, by which the nation really lived.
According to the Old Testament, then, the ideal state of things for a people like Israel was that every household should be settled upon the land, that permanent eviction from or even alienation of the holdings should be impossible, and that the whole population should have a common interest in agriculture, that most honorable and fundamental of all human pursuits.
There were, of course, some men in Israel more prominent than others, and some richer, but there was to be no impassable barrier between classes such as we find in Eastern countries where caste prevails, or in Western countries where the aristocratic principle has drawn a deep dividing line between those of good blood and all others. So far as is known, there were no class barriers to intermarriage. From the highest to the lowest, all were servants of Yahweh, and were consequently equal. The conditions of the land tenure were such that it was impossible, if they were respected, that large estates should accumulate in the hands of individuals, and a landless proletariate could not arise. The very rich and the very poor were alike legislated out of existence, and a sufficient provision for all was that which was aimed at. By the cycle of Sabbatic periods (the weekly Sabbath, the Sabbatic year, and the year of jubilee) ample rest for the land and its inhabitants was secured; and in the limits set upon the period for which a Hebrew slave might be retained, in the release, whatever that was, which the seventh year brought to the debtor, and in the restoration of land to the impoverished owner in the year of jubilee, such a series of breakwaters were erected against the inrushing flood of pauperism, that, had they been maintained, the world would have seen for the first time a fairly civilized community in which even moderate ill-desert in a man could not bring irretrievable ruin upon his posterity. The prodigal was hindered from selling his heritage; he could only sell the use of it for a number of years. He could not ruin himself by borrowing at extravagant rates of interest, for no one was tempted to lend him, and usury was forbidden. He might indeed run into debt and be sold into slavery along with his family, but that could only be for a few years, and then they all resumed their former position. In this very land where the fact, Divinely impressed upon human life, that the sins of the fathers were visited on the children was most unflinchingly taught, the most elaborate precautions were taken to mitigate the severity of this necessary law. From the first the ideal was that there should be no son or daughter of Israel oppressed or impoverished permanently; and whatever the stages of advance in Israelite law may have been, and whatever the date of particular ordinances may be, there is an admirable consistency of aim throughout. Even should it be proved that the Sabbatic ordinances remained mere generous aspirations, which never entered into the practical life of the people at all, that fact would only emphasize the earnestness and persistency with which the inspired legislators pursued their generous aim. No change in circumstances turned them aside. The glitter of the wealth acquired by Solomon and other kings by commerce never seduced them. No ideal but that early one of every man sitting under his own vine and his own fig-tree, with none to make him afraid, which is witnessed to before the Exile, {Mic 4:4} in the Exile, {1Ki 4:25} and after the Exile, {Zec 3:10} was ever cherished by them; and the whole economic legislation is entirely consistent with what we know of the earliest time. And the deepest roots of it all were religious. The Biblical writers have no doubt at all that the ideal economic state can be reached only by a people attuned by religion to self-sacrifice, to pity, and to justice. In this they differ radically from the socialists or semi-socialists of today. These imagine that man needs only a favorable environment to become good; whereas the Scriptural writers know that to use well the best environment is a task which, more than anything, puts strain upon the moral and spiritual nature. For to deal in a supremely wise fashion with great opportunities is the part only of a nature perfectly moralized. Consequently all the social laws of Israel are made to have their root in the relation of the people to their God.
There was only one power that could secure that this admirable machinery would move, and keep it moving. That was the love and fear of God. The conduct prescribed was the conduct befitting the true Israelite, the man who was faithful in all his ways. The laws marked out the paths wherein he should walk if he willed to do Gods will. They were, therefore, ideal in all their highest prescriptions, and could never; become real except where the true religion had had its perfect work. In that respect the Sermon on the Mount resembles the Israelite law. It presupposes a completely Christian society, just as the old law presupposes a completely Yahwistic society, i.e., a society made up of men who made devotion to their God the chief motive of their lives. In such a community there would have been no difficulty in entirely realizing the state of things aimed at here, just as in a community penetrated by the love of Christ the Sermon on the Mount would be not only practicable but natural. But without that supreme motive much that the enactments of both the Old Testament and the new demand must remain mere aspiration. Just in proportion as Israel was true to Yahweh was the law realized, and the demands of the law always acted as a spur to the better part of the people to enter into fuller sympathy and communion with Him in order that they might respond to them. The law and the religion of the people acted and reacted upon one another, but the greater of these two elements was religion.
It was not wonderful, therefore, that to a large extent this legislation failed, as men measure failure. The religious state of the nation never was what it should have been; and the law, though it was held to be Divine, was never wholly observed. In the Northern Kingdom, by the time of the Syrian wars, the old constitution of Israel had broken up. The hardy yeomanry had been ruined and dispersed. Their lands had been seized or bought by the rich, and every law that had been made to ensure restoration was habitually disregarded. As Robertson Smith states it: “The unhappy Syrian wars sapped the strength of the country, and gradually destroyed the old peasant proprietors who were the best hope of the nation. The gap between the many poor and the few rich became wider and wider. The landless classes were ground down by usury and oppression, for in that state of society the landless man had no career in trade, and was at the mercy of the landholding capitalist.” And in Judah the state of things, though not so bad, was similar. In the days of Zedekiah we know that Hebrew slaves were held for life, instead of being released in the seventh year. {Cf. Jer 34:8 ff.} The properties of those compelled to sell were never returned to the owners, and all the laws that were meant to secure the welfare and prosperity of the masses of Israel were contemptuously disregarded. In short, the worst features of a purely competitive civilization, with materialism eating into its soul, became glaringly manifest. All the canonical prophets without exception denounce the vices and tyrannies of the rich. {Cf. Amo 2:6 ff.} As far as can be learned, moreover, the year of release and the Sabbatic year were not regularly or generally observed, while the jubilee year would seem never to have been kept after the Exile. The laws regarding taking interest were also evaded. {Neh 5:1 seq.}
Nevertheless it would be a great error to suppose that these Divinely given social laws should be branded as a failure. They were not lived up to, and it is not improbable that the corruption of the peoples life was in a degree intensified by the reaction from so high an ideal. But the axiom which is current now in all the newspapers, that laws too far above the general level of the national conscience cannot be enforced, and becoming a dead letter tend to produce lawlessness, does not apply to such codes as those of Israel. These, as has more than once been pointed out, were not of the same character as our legal codes are. Among us, laws are meant to be observed with minute and careful diligence, and any breach of them is punished by the courts, which, on the whole, can be easily set in motion. Ancient religious codes are never of that kind. They do contain laws of that character, but the bulk of the provisions are not laws which the executive is to enforce, but ideals of conduct which the true worshipper of God ought to strive to attain to. It is, therefore, of their very essence that they should be far above the average national conscience. Nations whose ideals soar no higher than the possible attainment of the average man as he is, have virtually no ideals at all, and are cut off from all enduring upward impulses. Those, on the contrary, who have a vision of the perfect life, are certain to be both humbler, and at the same time more sure to persist in the painful path of moral discipline. As “a mans reach should exceed his grasp,” so also should a nations; and though it is almost always forgotten, it is precisely Israels glory that she set up for herself and exhibited to the world an ideal of brotherhood, of love to God and man, to which she could not attain. Great as the practical failure in Israel was, therefore, no fault can be found in the legislation. It molded the characters of men who were sensitive to the influences coming from God, so that they became fit instruments of inspiration; and it made their lives examples of the highest virtue that the ancient world knew. Further, it gave shape to the hopes and aspirations of the people, especially where it was not realized. The year of jubilee, for example, is the groundwork of that great and affecting promise contained in Isa 61:1-11 : “The Spirit of the Lord Yahweh is upon me, because Yahweh hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; He hath sent me to bind tip the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty (deror) to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of Yahweh and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn.” That which was unattainable here, amid the greeds and lusts of an unspiritual generation, gave color to the Messianic future; and men were taught to look and wait for a kingdom of God in which a peace and truth that could not as yet be reached would be the certain possession of all.
When we turn to modern times and modern circumstances, it is not easy to see how this ancient law can be applicable to them. In the first place, much of it was made binding upon Israel only because of its peculiar character as the people to whom the true religion was revealed. As custodians of that, they were justified in keeping up walls of partition between themselves and the world, which if universally accepted would only be hurtful to the highest interests of mankind. On the contrary, the development of the true religion having been completed by the coming of Christ, it is the duty of those nations which enjoy the light to spread abroad the “good news” of God which they have received, and to exhibit its power among all the nations of the earth. The highest and most Divine call which can now come to any people must, therefore, be radically different in some chief aspects from that of Israel. In the second place, the civilization and culture of the great nations of today are far more complicated than any ancient civilization ever was, and the general level is fixed by an action and reaction extending over the whole civilized world. No successes can be achieved, no blunders can be committed, in any part of the world which do not affect almost immediately the farthest ends of the earth. Moreover the intimate and universal correlation of interest makes interference with any piece of the complicated whole an exceedingly perilous matter. Any proposal that this law, as being Divinely given, ought in its economic aspect to be made universally binding, should therefore be met by a demand for a careful inquiry into possible differences between ancient life and modern, which might make guidance Divinely given to the one inapplicable to the other. It is not necessarily true that because Israel by Divine command established every household upon the soil, forbade interest, and did nothing to encourage trade and manufactures, we should do these things. Take, for instance, the case of interest. In our day, and in civilizations of a high type, lending money to a person not in distress at all, but who sees an opportunity of making enough by the use of borrowed money to pay the interest and make a profit, is often a most praiseworthy and charitable act.
But if the Israelite legislation in regard to interest cannot justly be taken as a law for all time, still less can any great modern state neglect or discourage commerce and manufactures. The merely embryonic character of commercial legislation, and the contempt for the merchant which did in ancient days exist, would be exceedingly out of place now. There is no career more honorable than that of the merchant of our day when he carries on his business in a high-minded fashion, nor is there any member of the community whose calling is more beneficent than his. So long as he looks for gain to himself in ways which, taken on the great scale, bring benefit both to producer and consumer, his activity is purely beneficial. There is absolutely no reason why commercial life should not be as honest, as sound, as much in accord with the mind of God, in itself, as any other manner of life. For in many ways it has been a civilizing agent of the highest power. Of course, if the charges brought against merchants by Ruskin, for example, who seizes upon and believes every story which involves charges of fraud against modern commerce, were true; if it were impossible, as he says it is, for an honest man to prosper in trade, then we might have some ground for condemning this branch of human activity. But happily only a confirmed and incorrigible pessimist can believe that. In our time some of the noblest men of whom we have any knowledge have been merchants, and among no class has so much princely generosity been exhibited. If mercantile help had been withdrawn from the poor, if the time, the money, the organizing skill which merchants have freely expended upon charities were suddenly to fail them, the case against our modern civilization would be indefinitely stronger than it is. Moreover the immense expansion of credit which is at once the glory and the danger of modern commerce, is itself a proof that such wholesale condemnation as we have spoken of is unwarrantable. The bulk of commerce must, after all, be fairly sound, otherwise it could not continue and spread as it does. And, as against the evils which affect it in common with all human activities, we must put the fact that it brings the produce of all lands to the door even of the poor, and by the constant contact between nations which it causes it is influencing the thought as well as the lives of men. Human brotherhood is being furthered by it, slowly, it is true, but surely, and the barriers which separate the nations are being sapped by its influence. These are indispensable services for the future progress of mankind, and make commerce now as much the necessary handmaid of the highest life as it would have been a hindrance to it in the case of the chosen people, before they had assimilated the truths of which they were to be the bearers to the world. That commerce, and trade in general, need to be purified goes without saying. That it may, of late years, have deteriorated, as the general decay of faith and the pursuit of luxury have weakened the sanctions of morality, is not improbable. But in itself it is not only a legitimate human activity; it is also an admirable instrument for bringing home to the consciences of men the truth that they are all their brothers keepers. It presses home as nothing else could do the great truth proclaimed by St. Paul in regard to the Church, as true also of the world, that if one member suffers all the body suffers with it. Every day through this channel men are receiving lessons, which they cannot choose but hear, to the effect that no permanent benefit can come from the loss and suffering of men in any part of the world; that peace and righteousness and good faith are things which have supreme value even in the mercantile sense; and that, conversely, the merchants pursuit of wealth, if carried on in accord with the fundamental truths of morality, inevitably becomes a potent factor in that advance to a world-wide knowledge of the Lord, which gleamed before the eyes of prophets and seers as the
“Far-off Divine event,
To which the whole creation moves.”
But if we cannot make the Old Testament our law in regard to commerce, we must ask whether the legislation in regard to land has for us any binding force? Viewing it with this question in our minds, I think we must be struck by one fact, this namely, that the universal possession of land which was provided for in Israel and so anxiously maintained is the only provision known against the growth of a wage-earning class largely, if not entirely, at the mercy of the employer. In Greece and Rome the population at first were all settled on their own lands, and it was only when by money-lending the small properties were bought up and turned into huge farms, worked by farm-bailiffs and slaves, that misery began to invade all parts of the social fabric. In mediaeval and feudal England, on the other hand, and indeed wherever the feudal system existed, the cultivators, even when they were serfs, had an inalienable right to the land. They could not be evicted if they rendered certain not very burdensome services to the lord. “As long as these dues were satisfied, it is plain the tenant was secure from dispossession,” says Professor Thorold Rogers (“Six Centuries,” etc., p. 44). But in time that system was broken down; and ever since, until within the last half-century, the course of things with the laboring classes in England has been one long descent. So long as the people were attached to the soil, and so long as all alike practiced agriculture, as in Palestine under the Mosaic law, Englishmen lived in rough plenty, and were for the most part content. The fifteenth century was the golden age of mediaeval agriculture; but a change for the worse came in with the seventeenth, and it continued.
Two measures-the introduction of competitive rents with its corollary, eviction, and the enclosure of the common lands-worked gradually on until they have entirely divorced the workman from the soil, and Professor Cairnes has told us clearly what that means. “In a contest between vast bodies of people so circumstanced and the owners of the soil the negotiation could have but one issue, that of transferring to the owners of the soil the whole produce, minus what was sufficient to maintain in the lowest state of existence the race of cultivators. This is what has happened wherever the owners of the soil, discarding all considerations but those dictated by self-interest, have really availed themselves of the full strength of their position. It is what has happened under rapacious governments in Asia; it is what has happened under rapacious landlords in Ireland; it is what now happens under the bourgeois proprietors of Flanders; it is, in short, the inevitable result which cannot but happen in the great majority of all societies now existing on earth where land is given up to be dealt with on commercial principles unqualified by public opinion, custom, or law.” The result is that the laborers have only their daily wages to depend upon. “They have no means of productive home industry; they have not even a home from which they cannot be ejected at any moment on failure to pay the weekly rent; they have no land, garden, or domestic animals, the produce of which might support them till fresh work could be obtained.”
We need not wonder that this question of the occupancy of land as the only visible remedy for the hideous social state of the most highly civilized nations of the world is gradually becoming the question of our time. A great reaction against the purely commercial theory of land tenure has taken place. The land legislation in Ireland has been based on the doctrines that the nation cannot permit absolute property in land, and that there is no hope for any permanent improvement in the condition of the poor until laborers have land of their own. Now these are precisely the principles of the Scriptural land legislation. Under it landlords with absolute rights over land were impossible, and the rise of a proletariate at the mercy of the capitalist was also impossible. It is not so strange, therefore, as it might at first sight appear, that the demands of advanced land reformers, as they are voiced in Mr. Wallaces book (p. 192) are mutatis mutandis, identical with the provisions of the Israelite law. He demands
(1) that landlordism shall be superseded by occupying ownership;
(2) that the tenure of the holders of land must be made secure and permanent;
(3) that arrangements must be made by which every British subject may secure a portion of land for personal occupation at its fair agricultural value; and
(4) that in order that these conditions be rendered permanent subletting must be absolutely prohibited, and mortgages strictly limited.
This essential oneness of view in the modern land reformer and in the ancient law is all the more remarkable that, so far as can be gathered from his book, Mr. Wallace has never regarded the Old Testament from this point of view. He never quotes it, and is apparently quite unconscious that the plan which experience of present evils, and acute and disinterested reflection on them, has suggested to him, was set forth thousands of years ago as the only righteous one.
But this is not by any means the end of the matter. Even if the social reformers of our day could restore society to the conditions set forth so emphatically and so long ago in Israel, history proves that nothing more than a temporary improvement might be accomplished. In Israel, as we have seen, with the decay of religion came the decay of this righteous social state. Human selfishness then shook off the curb of religion, and gave itself without restraint to the oppression of the poor. Have we any reason to believe that now human selfishness would do less? There appears little ground to think so; and though we may believe that without the acceptance of Deuteronomic principles in modern life we cannot restrain the growth of poverty, even with Deuteronomic principles embodied in our Jaws nothing will be done if the people turn their backs upon religion, make selfish enjoyment their highest good, and the comforts and pleasures of a merely material life their only heart-warming aspiration. In that fact we have an indication of the true functions of the Church and of religious teachers in the social and political life of our time and of times to come. As individuals, religious men should certainly be found always among the advocates of all laws and plans which tend to justice and mercy, and to the raising of the toilers everywhere to a higher standard of living. Further, at no time should the Church be found committed to a purely conservative policy, of retaining things as they are. The undeniable facts as to the condition of the poor are so utterly unjustifiable, that to leave things as they are is to fall into the treason of despair in regard to the future of our race, and into scarcely veiled disbelief of the essential truth of Christianity. No Church whose heart has not been corrupted by worldliness can think for a moment that the present state of things in all highly civilized communities is even tolerable. It cannot last, and it ought not to last; the Church that timidly supports it, lest worst things should come, is named and known thereby for recreant to Christ and to the highest hopes of His Gospel. But, on the other hand, it is only in very exceptional circumstances, and for short intervals, that the Churches and their ministers can ever be called upon to make the external, material condition of the people their first and chief care. They have a place of their own to fill, a function of their own to discharge; and upon their efficiency and diligence in these the stability and permanence of all that politicians and publicists can accomplish ultimately depends. They must keep alive and nourish the religious life, as that life has been shaped and constituted by our Lord Jesus Christ. Their province is to witness, in season and out of season, for a life of purity and love, for the Divine and ideal sides of things, for the necessity, for mans highest well-being, of a life hid with Christ in God. If they do not keep up this testimony, no others will; and if it be dropped out of sight, then the social agony and struggle, the patriotic and humanitarian strivings of all the reformers, will lack their final sanction. Men will inevitably come to think that mans life does consist in the abundance of the things that he possesses, the leisure, the amusement, the culture which by combining material resources he may attain to. But it is to deny and denounce that view that the Church exists in the world. It was to lift men out of it, to set them above it forever, that Christ died. It is finally only by abandoning it that the highest social condition can be reached and made permanent for the multitudes of men. In no way therefore can the Church so dangerously betray the cause of the poor and the oppressed as by plunging into the heat of the social and political struggle. She has to witness to higher things than that involves, and her silence in the ideal region which would certainly follow her devotion to material interests, however unselfish, would be but ill compensated for by any imaginable success she might attain.
JUSTICE IN ISRAEL
AMONG the nations of the modern world one of the most vital distinctions is the degree in which just judgment is estimated and provided for. Indeed, according to modern ideas, life is tolerable only where all men are equal before the law; where all are judged by statutes which are known, or at least may be known, by all; where corruption or animus in a judge is as rare as it is held to be dishonorable. But we cannot forget that in the majority of even the more advanced countries of the world these three conditions are not yet found, and that where they do exist they are only recent acquirements. In the latest born, and in many respects the most advanced of the great commonwealths, in the United States of America, the corruption of a number of the inferior courts is undeniable, and is tolerated with a most disappointing patience by the people. In England Judge Jeffries is no very remote memory, and Lord Bacons acceptance of presents from litigants in his court has only been made more certain by recent investigations. An absolutely honest intention to give even-handed justice to all is, therefore, even in England, only a recent attainment, and in no country is the honest intention always successful in realizing itself. But if this be so among the civilized nations of the West, we may say that in Oriental countries there has been little of systematic and continuous effort to give even-handed justice at all. Yet nowhere has the sinfulness and the destructiveness of corruption in judgment been more impassionedly and more frequently set forth by the highest authorities in religion and morals, than in the East. Tupper, our most recent authority, in writing of “Our Indian Protectorate,” p. 289, describes the Indian attitude to law thus: “There was not that reverence for law which in Europe is in all probability very largely due to the influence of the Roman law, and to the teaching of the Roman Catholic and other Christian Churches. So far as there was a germ out of which the respect for law ought to have grown, it was to be found in dislike to actions plainly opposed to custom and tradition. There was a deeply rooted and widespread conviction that there could be no rule to which exceptions could not be made, if agreeable to the discretion of the chief or any of his delegates. The chief was set above the law; it did not limit his authority by any constitution. There was no legislation for the improvement of law. The administration of justice was extremely imperfect.” The same writer describes the result of such a state of mind in his picture of Mahratta rule (p. 247). “There was,” he says, “no prescribed form of trial. Men were seized on slight suspicions. Presumptions of guilt were freely made. Torture was employed to compel confession. Prisoners for theft were often whipped at intervals to make them discover where the stolen property was hidden. Ordinarily no law was referred to except in cases affecting religion.” That there were both Hindu codes and Mohammedan codes in existence which claimed and were believed to have Divine authority made no difference in India. Nor does it make any in Persia today.
Now, in coming to the consideration of the views of justice embodied in Old Testament law, and the quality of the judiciary in ancient Israel, we must take not Western but Eastern ideas as our standard. Judging from that point of view, it should create no prejudice in our minds if we find on the first glance that all men were not equal before the ancient law of Israel; that for a considerable period, if not during the whole political existence of Israel, there was no very extensive written law; and that arbitrary and corrupt judgment was only too common at all times. For none of these defects would indicate in ancient Israel the same evils as similar defects in nations of our time would indicate. They are rather defects in the process of being overcome, than defects arising from feeble or vitiated life. If there was a constant movement towards the highest state of things, that is all we can demand or expect to find.
Now there does seem to have been that. As has been well pointed out by Dr. Oort, in the tribes which became Israel justice must have been administered by the heads of the various bodies which went to make these up. The household was ruled even in matters of life and death solely, by the father; the family, in the wider sense, was judged by its own heads; the tribes by the elders of the tribes, and there probably was no appeal from one tribunal to another. Each tribunal was final in its own domain. It may be, also, that the judicial function was in all these bodies exercised in the lax and timid fashion common among Bedouin tribes today. In all cases, too, it is probable that in the pre-Mosaic time the standard of judgment was customary law. Only with this very great modification can Oorts epigrammatic description of the situation-“There was no law, but there were givers of legal decisions”-be accepted. So far as can be ascertained, the customs according to which men were expected to live were perfectly well known, and within certain narrow limits of variation were extraordinarily table. How stable customary law may be made, even in the midst of a society governed in the main according to written law in its strictest sense, may be seen in the execration which any breach of the Ulster custom of tenant right met with, before that custom was embodied in any statutes. And in antiquity the stringency of custom can hardly be exaggerated. Under it, when thoroughly established, there was, in all the cases covered by it, only this one way of acting lot: all, both men and women, who were fit for society at all. Any alternative course was probably inconceivable in the tribal stage of the Israelites existence.
But a change would doubtless be wrought whenever the appointment of a king took place. Then national law would appear, in embryo at least; and at first, until custom had grown up in this region also, it would largely be an expression of the will of the king, and of the royal officers instructed and trained by the king. But it would have free and unchallenged course only when it claimed authority in matters lying outside of the family and tribal jurisdictions. Wherever it attempted to interfere with tribal or family rights, danger to the kingship of the most acute kind would be sure to arise. In all probability, it was disregard of this axiomatic truth which made Solomons reign so burdensome to the people and tore the kingdom asunder under Rehoboam. Ahab too fell a victim to his disregard of it. Lastly, the introduction of elaborate written codes of law would, if it came as the crown of such a development, depose custom from its supremacy, though it would not abolish it; and would substitute for it as the main element in all judicial matters the written prescription, which is the necessary presupposition of a fully organized judiciary of the modern type, with a regulated and definite power of appeal.
But in the case of ancient Israel there is a distinguishing element which has to be fitted into this ordinary scheme of progression, and that is the Divine revelation to Moses. Taken up at the tribal stage by the Mosaic revelation, the Israelite tribes were touched and welded into coherence, if not quite as a nation, at least as the people of Yahweh, so that during all the distracting days of the Judges they kept up in essentials their social and religious unity. And with the religious union there must have come administrative uniformity to some considerable extent. The jurisdiction of the heads of households, of heads of families, and of the tribal elders would be as little interfered with as possible; but, as we have seen, all customs and rights had to be reviewed from the point of view of the new religion, and appeal to Moses as the prophet of it must have often been unavoidable. Just as his first followers were continually coming to Mohammed, to ask whether this or that ancient custom could be followed by professors of Islam, so there must have been constant appeals to Moses. So long as he lived, therefore, he, and after him Joshua and Moses fellow-tribesmen the sons of Levi, as being specially zealous for the religion of Yahweh, must have been constantly called in to assist the customary judges; and so the habit of appeal must have grown in Israel long before there was any king. Thus also a common standard of judgment would be established. That standard must necessarily have been the law of Yahweh, i.e., the new Yahwistic principles and all that might prima facie be deduced from them, together with so much of custom and tradition as had been accepted as compatible with these principles. We have stated the reasons for holding that the Decalogue was Mosaic, and the Book of the Covenant may be taken also to represent what the current law in Mosaic or sub-Mosaic time was held to be. As Oort well says (loc. cit.), when we know that the Hittites about the middle of the fourteenth century B.C. concluded a treaty with Rameses II of Egypt the terms of which were written upon a silver plate, “why may there not also have been written statements regarding the mutual rights and duties of the people of a town, engraved upon stone or metal, and set forth openly for inspection?” What he confines to mere town business and refers to the time of the Judges, we may without risk extend to a general fundamental law like the Decalogue, or even to the Book of the Covenant, and date it in the time of Moses. Writing was so common an accomplishment in Canaan before the Exodus, that such a supposition is not in the least improbable. These written laws formed the crown of the law of Yahweh, and by them all the rest was raised to a higher level and transformed.
As new men, new times, and new difficulties arose, the priest became the special organ of Divine direction. It may be that the priestly Torah was largely the result of the sacred lot; but the questions that were put, and the manner in which they were put, would be decided ultimately by the conception the priest had of the truth about God. The teaching of the Decalogue would therefore be the dominant and formative power in all that was spoken by the priest and for Yahweh. In the disorganized state into which Israel fell during the time of the Judges, when, as Deuteronomy takes for granted, and as 1Ki 3:2-3 asserts, the legitimate worship of Yahweh was carried on at many centers, the substantial sameness of the tradition as to the history of Israel, in all the varied forms in which we encounter it, is proof sufficient that at each of the great sanctuaries (which were certainly in the hands of Levitical priests) the treasure of ancient knowledge, both in law and history, was carefully and accurately preserved. New decisions would be given, but they came through men penetrated with the high thoughts of God, and of His peoples destiny, which Moses had so fruitfully set forth. This was the element in the life of the people which all the higher minds strove to perpetuate, and, being spiritual, it spiritualized and raised all accessory things. Consequently there was, long before the kingship, what was equivalent to a national feeling of the highest kind, and the conception of justice and its administration corresponded to that.
In the Book of the Covenant, which in this matter represents so early a period that there is no mention of “judges,” only of Pelilim, i.e., arbitrators, {Exo 21:22} so that the tribal and family heads can alone have exercised judicial functions, we find the most solemn warnings against any legal perversion of right to gain popularity, against yielding to the vulgar temptation to oppress the poor, or to the subtler and, for generous minds, more insidious temptation, to give an unjust judgment out of pity for the poor. Israel was, moreover, to keep far from bribery, “which blindeth them that have sight, and perverteth righteous causes.” In no way was the law to be used for criminal or oppressive purposes. From the very first, therefore, in Israel the higher principles of faith and life set themselves to combat doutrance the tendency to unjust judgment, which seems now, at least, quite ineradicable in the East, save among the Bedouin.
A still higher note is struck in the repetition of the law in the Book of Deuteronomy. In chapter 1, originally part of a historic introduction to the book proper, we read: “Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; ye shall hear the small and the great alike; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment (i.e., the whole judicial process and function) is Gods; and the cause that is too hard for you ye shall bring unto me (Moses), and I will hear it.” Yes, the judgment is Gods. Just as the whole of moral duty towards man was raised by the Decalogue to a new and more intimate relation with God, so here justice, the fundamental necessity of a sound and stable political state, is lifted out of the conflict of mean and selfish motives, in which it must eventually go down, and is set on high as a matter in which the righteous God is supremely concerned. In this, as in all things, Israel was called to a lonely eminence of ideal perfection by the character of the God whom they were bound to serve. Therefore it strikes us with no surprise that justice is insisted upon almost with passion in Deu 4:1 : “Justice, justice shalt thou pursue after, that thou mayest live and possess the land which Yahweh thy God giveth thee”; or that it is made one of the conditions of Israels permanence as a nation. In Deu 24:17 we read, “Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take the widows raiment to pledge”; in Deu 25:1-2, “If there be a plea between men, then they (i.e., the judges) shall justify the righteous and condemn the wicked.” For any other course of conduct would bring guilt upon the nation in the sight of Yahweh; and how jealously that was guarded against is seen in the sacrifice and ritual imposed for the purification of the people from the guilt of a murder the perpetrator of which was unknown. {Deu 21:1-9} Unatoned for and disregarded, such a crime brought disturbance into those relations between Israel and their God upon which their very existence as a nation depended; and the disregard of justice, where wrongs were committed by known persons and were left unpunished, was of course more deadly. So the author of Deuteronomy looked upon it; and the prophets, from the first of them to the last brand unjust judgment, the perverting the course of legal justice, as the most alarming sign of national decay. The righteous God, with whom there was no respect of persons, could not permanently favor a people whose judges and rulers disregarded righteousness; and when destruction actually came upon this people, it was proclaimed to be Gods doing, “because there was no truth nor justice nor knowledge of God in the land.” Nowhere in the world, therefore, has the demand for justice been made more central than here, and nowhere has injustice been more passionately fought against. Nor have the sanctions binding to a pursuit of justice been at any period more nobly or more vividly conceived. In this main point, therefore, Israels law stands irreproachable-marvelously so, considering its great antiquity. But we have still to inquire whether any really adequate provision was made for the general and inexpensive administration of justice. To take the latter first, law was in old Israel probably as cheap as it would be in the primitive East today, if bribery were to be stopped. To advise as to the sacred law, to plead for justice according to it, did not then, and does not now in similar circumstances, belong to any special professional class who live by it. The priest could be appealed to freely by all; and the heads of fathers houses, as well as the tribal heads, were, by the very fact that they were such, bound to give judgment among their people, and to appear for and take responsibility for them when they had a cause with persons beyond the limits of the particular families and tribes. Justice, consequently, was in ordinary circumstances perfectly free to all. And from a very early time earnest efforts were made to make it equally accessible. At first, when the people were in one army or train, before they came to Sinai, an overwhelming burden was laid upon Moses. As the prophet of the new dispensation all difficulties were brought to him. But at Jethros suggestion, as JE tells us in Exo 18:13 ff., and as Deuteronomy repeats in Deu 1:16, he chose men of each tribe, or took the heads of each tribe, and set them as captains of thousands and hundreds and fifties and tens. Not improbably this was primarily a military organization, but to these captains was committed also jurisdiction over those under them. In all ordinary cases they judged them and their families in the spirit of Yahwism, as well as commanded them; and in this way, as has already been pointed out, the customary law was revised in accordance with Yahwistic principles. Justice too was brought to every mans door. The only question that suggests itself is whether these captain-judges were the ordinary family and tribal heads, organized for this purpose by Moses. On the whole this would seem to have been so, and it may well be that Jethros suggestion had in view the danger of ignoring them, as well as the burden which Moses sole judgeship laid upon him. But with the advance to the conquest of Canaan a new situation emerged, and the probability is that more and more, as the tribes fell into entire or semi-isolation, the tribal organization in its natural shape would come to the front again. Deuteronomy, however, tells us little if anything of this. In the main passage regarding this matter, {Deu 17:8-13} where provision is made for an appeal to a central court, the legislation is entirely for a period much later than Moses. Like the law regarding sacrifice at one altar, the judicial provisions of Deuteronomy seem all to be bound up with the place which Yahweh shall choose, viz. the Solomonic Temple in Jerusalem.
We may consequently conclude that the judicial arrangements to which Deuteronomy alludes existed only after the Israelite kingship had been for some time established at Jerusalem. We have no distinct evidence for the existence of a central high court in Davids days; and from the story of Absaloms rebellion we should gather that the old, simple Oriental method still prevailed, according to which the king, like the heads of tribes, families, etc., judged every one who came to him, personally, at the gate of the royal city. But Samuel is said in 1Sa 7:16 to have annually gone on circuit to Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah. According to the school of Wellhausen, nearly the whole of this chapter is the work of a Deuteronomic writer about the year 600. In that case, of course, it would be difficult to prove that the arrangement attributed to Samuel was not a mere echo of what was done in Josiahs day; though, if the Deuteronomic prescriptions were carried out then, there would be no need for such a system. On the other hand, if Budde and Cornill be right in tracing the chapter back to JE, this habit of going on circuit must have been an ancient one, possibly dating from Samuels time. That this latter vicar is the correct one is in a degree confirmed by the statement in 1Sa 8:1-2 that Samuels sons were installed by him as judges in Israel, at Beersheba. This belongs to E, and it would seem to indicate the beginnings of such a system as Deuteronomy presupposes.
But it is only in the days of Jehoshaphat (873-849 B.C.) that an arrangement like that in Deuteronomy is mentioned. From 2Ch 19:5 ff. we learn that “he set judges in the land throughout all the fenced cities of Judah, city by city. Moreover in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites and of the priests, and of the heads of the fathers houses, for the judgment of Yahweh and for controversies.” Further, it is stated that Amariah the chief priest was set over the judges in Jerusalem in all Yahwehs matters, i.e., in all religious questions, and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael the prince of the house of Judah in all the kings matters, i.e., in all secular affairs. Of course few advanced critics will admit that the Books of Chronicles are reliable in such matters. But that judgment is altogether too sweeping, and here we would seem to have a well-authenticated record of what Jehoshaphat actually did.
For it will be observed, that when we take up the various notices in regard to the administration of justice, we have a well-defined progress from Moses to Jehoshaphat. Moses was chief judge and committed ordinary cases to the tribal and family heads who were chosen as military leaders, each judging his own detachment. After passing the Jordan, the whole matter would seem to have fallen back into the hands of the tribal heads, with the occasional help of the heroes who delivered and judged Israel. At the end of this period Samuel, as head of the State, went on circuit, and appointed his sons judges in Beersheba, thus initiating a new system, which, had it been successful, might have superseded the tribal and family heads altogether. But it was a failure, and was not repeated. With the rise of the kingship the courts received further organization. If the Chronicler can be trusted, Levites to the number of six thousand were appointed to be judges and Shoterim. The number seems excessive: but the appointment of Levites to act as assessors with the tribal and other heads would be a natural-expedient for a king like David to have recourse to, if he desired to secure uniformity of judgment, and to bring the courts under his personal influence. The next step would naturally be that which is attributed to Jehoshaphat, and it is precisely that which Deuteronomy points to as being already at work in his time. We have, consequently, more than the late authority of the Chronicler for Jehoshaphats high court. The probabilities of the case point so strongly to the rise of some such judicial system about that period, that it would require some positive proof, not mere negative suspicion, to lead us to reject the narrative. In any case this must have been the system in Josiahs day, and afterwards. For when Jeremiah was arraigned for prophesying destruction to the Temple and to Jerusalem, the process against him was conducted on similar lines to those laid down in Deuteronomy. The princes judged, the priests (curiously enough along with the false prophets) made the charge, i.e., stated that the prophets conduct was worthy of death, and the princes acquitted. During the Exile it is probable that the “elders” of the people were permitted to judge them in all ordinary cases, but we have no certain proof that this was so. After the return from Babylon, however, the local courts were re-established, probably in the very form in which they appear in the New Testament. {Mat 5:22; Mat 10:17 Mar 13:9 Luk 12:14-58}
Throughout the whole history of Israel, therefore, courts of justice were easily accessible to every man, whether he were rich or poor. No doubt the free, open-air, Eastern manner of administering justice was favorable to that; but from the days of Moses onward we have fairly conclusive proof that the leaders of the people made it their continual care that wherever a wrong was suffered there should be some court to which an appeal for redress could be made.
The justice aimed at in Israel was, therefore, impartial and accessible. We have still to inquire whether it was merciful or cruel in its infliction of punishment. Dr. Oort says it was a hard law in this respect, but one is at a loss to see how that view can be sustained. There is no mention of torture in connection with legal proceedings, either in the history or in the legislation. Nor is there any instance mentioned in which an accused person was imprisoned until he confessed. Indeed imprisonment would not appear to have been a legal punishment in Israel, nor in any antique state. The idea of providing maintenance for those who had offended against the law was one which could never have occurred to any one in antiquity. Prisons are, of course, frequently mentioned in Scripture; but they were used, up to the time of Ezra, only for the safekeeping of persons charged with crime till they could be brought before the judges. Sometimes, as in the case of the prophets, men were imprisoned to prevent them from stirring up the people; but this procedure was nowhere sanctioned by law. Further, the crimes for which the punishment prescribed in the ancient law was death were few. Idolatry, adultery, unnatural lust, sorcery, and murder or manslaughter, together with striking or cursing parents and kidnapping-these were all. Considering that idolatry and sorcery were high treason in its worst form, so far as this people was concerned, and that impurity threatened the family in a much more direct and immediate fashion then than it does now, while the people were naturally inclined to it, one must wonder that the list of capital crimes is so short. Contrast this with Blackstones statement in regard to England (quoted “Ency. Brit.,” 4., p. 589): “Among the variety of actions which men are daily liable to commit, no less than one hundred and sixty have been declared by Act of Parliament to be felonies without benefit of clergy, or, in other words, to be worthy of instant death.” It is only in comparatively recent years that the punishment of death has been practically restricted to murder in England. Yet that is almost the case in the ancient Jewish law; for the exceptions are such as would reappear in England if it were more sparsely populated and manners were rougher. In Australia, for example, highway robbery under arms and violence to women are capital crimes, just because the country is sparsely inhabited and the households unprotected. Nor were the modes of death inflicted cruel. Only three-viz, impalement, and burning, and stoning-appear to be so. But it may be believed that in the cases contemplated by the law death in some less painful manner had preceded the two former, as is certainly the case in Jos 7:15; Jos 7:25, and in Deu 21:22. As for the latter, it must have been horrible to look upon, but in all probability the criminals agony was rarely a prolonged one. The other method of execution, by the sword namely, was humane enough. Dr. Oort tells us that mutilations were common; but his proof is only this, that in the treaty between the Hittite king and Rameses II we read, concerning inhabitants of Egypt who have fled to the land of the Hittites and have been returned, “His mother shall not be put to death; he shall not be punished in his eyes, nor on his mouth, nor on the soles of his feet.” The same provision is made for Hittite fugitives. From this evidence of the custom of surrounding peoples, and from the fact that the jus talionis is announced in the Scriptures by the familiar formula, “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,” Dr. Oort draws this conclusion. But he appears to forget that the jus talionis was common to almost all the peoples of the ancient world, and is referred to in the Pentateuch, not as a new principle, but as a custom coming down from immemorial time. Consequently, though there must once have been a time in which it was carried out in its literal form, that time probably was past when the laws referring to it were written. In Rome, and probably in other lands where this custom existed, it early gave place to the custom of giving and receiving money payments. Most probably this was the case in Israel, at least from the time of the Exodus. For the new religion introduced by Moses was merciful. But these references to the principle of retaliation tell us nothing as to the frequency or otherwise of mutilation as a punishment. No instance of mutilation being inflicted either as a retaliation or as a punishment occurs in the Old Testament, and the probability is that cases were never numerous. Apart from retaliation they are never mentioned; and we may, I think, set it down as one of the distinctive merits of the Israelite law that it never was betrayed into sanctioning the cutting off of hands or feet or ears or noses as general punishment for crime. But so far as the principle of the lex talionis was retained, its effect was wholesome. It was a continual reminder that all free Israelites were equals in the sight of Yahweh. And not only so, it enforced as well as asserted equality. Any poor man mutilated by a rich man could demand the infliction of the same wound upon his oppressor. He could reject his excuses, and refuse his money, and bring home to him the truth that they had equal rights and duties.
In this way this seemingly harsh law helped to lay the foundation for our modern conception of humanity, which regards all men as brethren. For the teaching of our Lord, which fulfilled all that the polity and religion of ancient Israel had foreshadowed of good, broke down the walls of partition between Jew and Gentile, and made all men brethren by revealing to them a common Father. It surely is strange and sad that those who specially make liberty, equality, and fraternity their watchwords, have received so false an impression of the religion of both the Old and New Testaments, that they pride themselves on rejecting both. When all is said, the leveling of barriers which the crushing weight of Roman power brought about, and the common methods and elements of thought which the Greek conquest had spread all over the civilized world, would never have made the brotherhood of man the universally accepted doctrine it is. The truths which made it credible came from the revelation given by God to His chosen people, and its final and conclusive impulse was given to it by the lips of Christ.
In face of that cardinal fact it is vain to point out as one of the defects of this law that all men were not equal before it. Women were not equal with men, nor were foreigners nor slaves equal with freeborn Israelites; but the seed of all that later times were to bring was already there. The principles which at the long end of the day have abolished slavery, raised women to the equal position they now occupy, and made peace with foreigners increasingly the desire of all nations, had their first hold upon men given them here. In all these directions the Mosaic law was epoch-making. In the fifth commandment, as well as in the legislation regarding the punishment of a rebellious son, the mother is put upon the same level as the father. However subordinate womans position in the larger public life might be, within the home she was to be respected. There, in her true domain, she was mans equal, and was acknowledged to have an equal claim to reverence from her children.
In precisely the same way the “stranger” was freed from disability and protected. In the earliest days, when the Israelite community was still being formed, whole groups of strangers were received into it and obtained full rights, as for example the Kenites and Kenizzites. But though this was a promise of what Israel was ultimately to be to the world, the necessities of the situation, the need to keep intact the treasure of higher religion which was committed to this people, compelled the adoption of a more separatist policy. Yet “in no other nation of antiquity were strangers received and treated with such liberality and humanity as in Israel.” They were freely afforded the protection of the law; they were, in short, received as “a kind of half-citizens, with definite rights and duties.”
Further, though the ger was not bound to all the religious practices and rites of the Israelite, yet he was permitted, and in some cases commanded, to take part in their religious, worship. If he consented to circumcise all his house he might even share in the Passover feast. All oppression of such a one was also rigorously forbidden, and to a large extent the stranger shared in the benefits conferred by the provision for the poor of the land which the law made compulsory.
Nor was the case otherwise with slaves. Equality there was not, and could not be; but in the provisions for the emancipation of the Israelite slave and the introduction of penalties for undue harshness, it began to be recognized that the slave stood, in some degree at least, on the same level as his master-he too was a man.
Taking it as a whole, therefore, the ancient world will be searched in vain for any legislation equal to this in the “promise and the potency” of its fundamental ideas as to justice. Here, as nowhere else, we can see the radical principles which should dominate in the administration of justice laying hold upon mankind, and that there was a living will and power behind these principles is shown in the steady movement toward something higher which characterized Israelite law. In the pursuit of impartiality, accessibility, and humanity, the teachers of Israel were untiring, and the sanctions by which they surrounded and guarded all that tended to make the administration of justice effective in the high sense were unusually solemn and powerful. The result has been most remarkable. All the ages of civilized men since have been the heirs of Israel in this matter. Roman influence and the influence of the Christian Church have no doubt been powerful, and the manifold exigencies of life have drawn out and made explicit much which was only implicit in the ancient days. But the higher qualities of our modern administration of justice can be traced back step by step to Biblical principles, and the course of development laid bare. When that is done, it is seen that the almost ideal purity and impartiality of the best modern tribunals is the completion of what the Israelite law and methods began. In this one instance at least the great Mosaic principles have come to fruition; and from the security and peace, the contentment and the confidence, with which impartial justice has filled the minds of men, we can estimate how potent to cure the ills of our social and moral state the realization of the other great Mosaic ideals would be. It should be a source of encouragement to all who look for a time when “the kingdoms of, this world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ” that something like the ideal of justice has so far been realized. It has no doubt been a weary time in coming, and it has as yet but a narrow and perhaps precarious footing in the world. But it is here, with its healing and beneficent activity; and in that fact we may well see a pledge that all the rest of the Divinely given ideals for the Kingdom of God will one day be realized also. Such a consummation, however remote it may seem to our human impatience, however devious and winding the paths by which alone it can draw near, will come most surely, and in our approach to the ideal in our judicial system we may well see the first fruits of a richer and more plentiful harvest.