Deuteronomy 19 – Concerning Criminal Law

A. Cities of refuge to be provided.

1. (1-3) Three special cities.

“When the LORD your God has cut off the nations whose land the LORD your God is giving you, and you dispossess them and dwell in their cities and in their houses, you shall separate three cities for yourself in the midst of your land which the LORD your God is giving you to possess. You shall prepare roads for yourself, and divide into three parts the territory of your land which the LORD your God is giving you to inherit, that any manslayer may flee there.

a. When the LORD your God has cut off the nations: The three sermons of Moses recorded in Deuteronomy were given a few weeks before Israel crossed the Jordan and began their conquest of Canaan. This section describes something they were to do when they were established in the land.

i. “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.” (Morgan)

b. You shall separate three cities for yourself in the midst of the land: God instructed Israel to establish three cities of refuge in the Promised Land and instructed them to spread the cities across Israel (in the midst of the land).

i. The cities of refuge were anticipated in Exodus 21:12-14. Numbers 35:9-28 gave the initial command to establish the cities of refuge, and Joshua 20:7-8 is the record of their establishment. Moses had already established Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan as the cities of refuge on the east side of the Jordan River (Deuteronomy 4:41-43).

ii. The three cities later established by Joshua were Kedesh, Shechem, and Hebron (Joshua 20:7-9). “Kedesh served the Galilee region, Shechem the central hill country, and Hebron the highlands of Judah.” (Merrill)

c. Prepare roads for yourself: The people of Israel were to build good roads to each city of refuge, so the cities would be accessible to travelers.

i. “The Jews inform us that the roads to the cities of refuge were made very broad, thirty-two cubits; and even, so that there should be no impediments in the way; and were constantly kept in good repair.” (Clarke)

2. (4-7) The purpose for the cities of refuge.

“And this is the case of the manslayer who flees there, that he may live: Whoever kills his neighbor unintentionally, not having hated him in time past—as when a man goes to the woods with his neighbor to cut timber, and his hand swings a stroke with the ax to cut down the tree, and the head slips from the handle and strikes his neighbor so that he dies—he shall flee to one of these cities and live; lest the avenger of blood, while his anger is hot, pursue the manslayer and overtake him, because the way is long, and kill him, though he was not deserving of death, since he had not hated the victim in time past. Therefore I command you, saying, ‘You shall separate three cities for yourself.’

a. The case of the manslayer who flees there, that he may live: The cities of refuge were for the protection of the person who killed another accidentally or in self-defense. In ancient Israel, when one was killed, it was the responsibility of the avenger of blood to make certain the murder was punished.

i. This practice was based upon a correct understanding of Genesis 9:6: Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God, He made man.

ii. John Trapp considered the phrase not having hated him in time past, and the nature of such hatred when it does exist: “There is, first, a passion of hatred. This is a kind of averseness and rising of the heart against a man, when one sees him, so that he cannot away with him, nor speak to him, nor look courteously or peaceably upon him, and by his goodwill he would have nothing to do with him. Secondly, there is a habit of hatred, when the heart is so settled in this alienation and estrangement, that it grows to wish, and desire, and seek his hurt. Both these must be mortified.” (Trapp)

b. Lest the avenger of blood: The avenger of blood was an appointed member of the family (the goel), designated to protect the honor and lives of the family. His interest would not be in gathering evidence, but in avenging the honor of the family – so, in the case of an accidental killing, the manslayer would need protection from the avenger of blood.

i. The case study given here in Deuteronomy 19 illustrates the point. Two men are working together, chopping down trees, when one man takes a swing of an ax and the ax head flies off, striking the other man in the head and instantly killing him. The surviving man had good reason to believe the avenger of blood from the dead man’s family would track him down and kill him, believing the death was murder.

ii. Therefore, such a man could flee to a city of refuge – an appointed Levitical city, where he could stay, safe from the avenger of blood, until the issue was settled, and he could leave the city of refuge safely.

iii. “It was not that the next of kin was deprived of his right of blood revenge, but only that restraints were placed on the indiscriminate exercise of the right.” (Thompson)

3. (8-10) Appointment of additional cities of refuge.

“Now if the LORD your God enlarges your territory, as He swore to your fathers, and gives you the land which He promised to give to your fathers, and if you keep all these commandments and do them, which I command you today, to love the LORD your God and to walk always in His ways, then you shall add three more cities for yourself besides these three, lest innocent blood be shed in the midst of your land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, and thus guilt of bloodshed be upon you.

a. Now if the LORD your God enlarges your territory: As Israel expanded, there were to be more cities of refuge. If a city of refuge was too far to be readily reached by the manslayer, it would do him no good. The avenger of blood would overtake him before he could reach the city of refuge.

i. “Even under David and Solomon, this did not occur; so the third set of cities of refuge was never appointed.” (Kalland)

b. Then you shall add three more cities for yourself: Ultimately, there were to be six cities of refuge; with three on each side of the Jordan River. Each of the three cities on either side would be positioned as north, central, and south.

i. Joshua 20:7-8 tells of the actual cities chosen, and they fulfilled the plan of being evenly distributed across the territory of Israel.

4. (11-13) What to do with the guilty who seeks protection in the city of refuge: your eye shall not pity him.

“But if anyone hates his neighbor, lies in wait for him, rises against him and strikes him mortally, so that he dies, and he flees to one of these cities, then the elders of his city shall send and bring him from there, and deliver him over to the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. Your eye shall not pity him, but you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with you.

a. But if anyone hates his neighbor, lies in wait for him, rises against him and strikes him mortally: The city of refuge was never intended to protect the person who was truly guilty of murder. It is easy to imagine that someone who was truly guilty of murder would seek protection in the city of refuge. Therefore, whenever a manslayer came to seek protection at a city of refuge, the elders of the city were to judge his case and determine if he was truly worthy of protection.

b. Deliver him over to the hand of the avenger of blood: If, after an investigation, it was determined at his trial that the man was truly guilty of murder, then he would be delivered to the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. There was no protection for the guilty within the walls of a city of refuge, only for the innocent.

i. “So heinous was murder its penalty was to be inflicted without pity or compassion of any kind. The reason is that humankind is the image of God (cf. Genesis 1:27; 9:6) and therefore murder was deemed to be an assault on God himself, an ultimate act of insubordination and rebellion (Genesis 9:5–6).” (Merrill)

c. Put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with you: God was just as concerned that the guilty be punished as He was that the innocent be protected (lest innocent blood be shed in the midst of your land, Deuteronomy 19:10).

5. The cities of refuge as a picture of Jesus.

a. The Bible applies this picture of the city of refuge to the believer finding refuge in God on more than one occasion:

i. Psalm 46:1: God is our refuge and strength, A very present help in trouble. More than 15 other times, the psalms speak of God as being our refuge.

ii. Hebrews 6:18 also explains, that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us.

b. There are many points of similarity between the cities of refuge and the refuge that the believer finds in Jesus Christ.

· The cities of refuge were within easy reach of the needy person; they were of no use unless someone could get to the place of refuge. This is also true of the refuge the believer finds in Jesus Christ.

· The cities of refuge were open to all, not just the Israelite; no one needed to fear they would be turned away from their place of refuge in their time of need (Numbers 35:15). This is also true of the refuge the believer finds in Jesus Christ.

· The cities of refuge became a place where the one in need would live. Someone in need didn’t come to a city of refuge to casually visit (Numbers 35:25). This is also true of the refuge the believer finds in Jesus Christ.

· The cities of refuge were the only alternative for the one in need; without this specific protection, they would be destroyed. This is also true of the refuge the believer finds in Jesus Christ.

· The cities of refuge provide protection only within their boundaries; to go outside meant death (Numbers 35:26-28). This is also true of the refuge the believer finds in Jesus Christ.

· With the cities of refuge, full freedom came with the death of the High Priest (Numbers 35:25). This is also true of the refuge the believer finds in Jesus Christ.

c. There is a crucial distinction between Israel’s cities of refuge and the refuge the believer finds in Jesus Christ.

· The cities of refuge only helped the innocent, but the guilty can come to Jesus and find refuge.

B. Other legal principles.

1. (14) The principle of the landmark.

“You shall not remove your neighbor’s landmark, which the men of old have set, in your inheritance which you will inherit in the land that the LORD your God is giving you to possess.

a. You shall not remove your neighbor’s landmark: When Israel possessed the land of Canaan, they would divide the land by tribes, clans, and families. These individual plots of land would be distinguished by a landmark, normally a stone property boundary marker. To move your neighbor’s landmark was to enlarge your own property, and to steal your neighbor’s property. These boundary markers were to be respected and not moved.

i. “Before the extensive use of fences, landed property was marked out by stones or posts, set up so as to ascertain the divisions of family estates. It was easy to remove one of these landmarks, and set it in a different place; and thus the dishonest man enlarged his own estate by contracting that of his neighbour.” (Clarke)

ii. “The right to hold property was a cornerstone of Israel’s inheritance from the Lord. It is still a primary right of free people on the earth, and without it freedom is greatly limited.” (Kalland)

iii. “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.” (Morgan)

iv. This command reinforced the eighth commandment, you shall not steal (Exodus 20:15). This both established and supported the basic right to private property. The land of Israel ultimately belonged to God, but He distributed it to Israel by tribe, clan, and family. Individual plots of land belonged to one family and did not belong to another family.

v. This command supports an important foundation for human society: The right to personal property. God has clearly entrusted certain possessions to certain individuals, and other people or states are not permitted to take that property without due process of law.

vi. This command is repeated in the wisdom of the Proverbs: Do not remove the ancient landmark, which your fathers have set (Proverbs 22:28).

b. Which the men of old have set: This law also reflects an important spiritual principle: It isn’t wise to ignore what the men of old have set in life, and especially when doing the work of the LORD. Many a young man, or a new man, has greatly hindered his own work by being a revolutionary – and ignoring the “landmarks” which the men of old have set.

i. A landmark – a custom, a tradition, or a value – should not be removed lightly. We should never assume that men of old set such landmarks for no reason or for a bad reason. We should not defend tradition for the sake of tradition, but neither should we destroy tradition just for the sake of destroying it.

2. (15-20) The requirements for testimony and witnesses.

“One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established. If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, then both men in the controversy shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days. And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother, then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you. And those who remain shall hear and fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you.

a. One witness shall not rise: In the system of law God established for ancient Israel, one witness was never enough to convict an accused person. One needed two or three witness to confirm the guilt of the accused.

i. This wasn’t only because it was possible for one witness to lie without having their story corroborated. It was also because one witness can be confused or mistaken in their testimony. This is a basic standard of evidence, lifting accusations above a standard of “my word against theirs.”

ii. In this context, a witness can also be an independent line of evidence. Clear physical evidence from a crime (such as the ancient equivalent of fingerprints on a murder weapon) can serve as a witness.

iii. “Even Jezebel knew that she had to hire more than one witness to testify against Naboth if her case were to have any merit (1 Kings 21:10, 13).” (Merrill)

b. If a false witness rises against any man to testify: A false witness was to be discovered by careful examination (the judges shall make careful inquiry) and was to be punished by giving the false witness the same penalty which would have gone to the man he falsely accused (you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother).

i. You shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother: “Nothing can be more equitable or proper than this, that if a man endeavour to do any injury to or take away the life of another, on detection he shall be caused to undergo the same evil which he intended for his innocent neighbour. Some of our excellent English laws have been made on this very ground.” (Clarke)

ii. At the trial of Jesus, many false witnesses testified against Him, and were demonstrated to be false witnesses by their confused and contradictory testimony (Matthew 26:59-60). Those false witnesses, under Jewish law, should have been put to death, because that was the punishment they sought for Jesus.

c. And those who remain shall hear and fear: In the present day, it is often doubted that the just punishment of others is an effective deterrent to crime, but the Bible clearly says that it is. Weak, delayed, or inconsistent punishment does not deter crime, but effective punishment does.

i. “Others’ woes should be our warnings, others’ sufferings our sermons, yea, standing sermons (1 Corinthians 10:5-12). God’s house of correction is the school of instruction.” (Trapp)

3. (21) A basic legal principle: eye for eye, tooth for tooth.

Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

a. Your eye shall not pity: This was an important principle for the biblical court of law, here connected to the punishment described for false witness. In this immediate context, it means that the penalty for false witness should be carried out.

i. It is a pity that this law were not still in force: it would certainly prevent many of those savage acts which now both disgrace and injure society.” (Clarke)

b. Life shall be for life, eye for eye: However, justice was always limited by the eye for eye principle. An individual or a mob may want to inflict a greater judgment, but the law was not to be used to satisfy the desire for revenge.

i. It is common to want to do more against the offending party than what they had done against their victim. Under God’s law, punishment was not to come from the motive of revenge, only from the motive of justice.

ii. “Far from encouraging vengeance it limits vengeance and stands as a guide for a judge as he fixes a penalty suited to the crime. The principle was thus not license or vengeance, but a guarantee of justice.” (Thompson)

c. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth: In Matthew 5:38-39, Jesus quoted this passage in His teaching on the true interpretation of the law. Jesus did not say that the eye for eye principle was wrong; rather, He simply condemned the use of it to create an obligation to carry out revenge against someone who had personally offended an individual.

i. Many Rabbis in Jesus’ day taught that the eye for eye law meant that people were obligated to avenge themselves of a personal insult or attack. Jesus rightly disallowed the application of this law in personal relationships. This was a law intended to guide the judges of Israel in the work of their law courts, not to guide personal relationships.

ii. “Jesus’ criticism of this law (Matthew 5:38f.) arose from its use to regulate conduct between individuals. He did not reject it as a principle of justice which should operate in the courts of the land. For private relationships He proposed the ideal of brotherhood, a strong principle throughout the book of Deuteronomy. To extend the lex talionis [eye for an eye principle] to this interpersonal domain was to destroy the law of God.” (Thompson)

0 Shares