Deuteronomy · Chapter 19

Verse 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.

V. 2. In the midst of the land-Namely, beyond Jordan, as there were three already appointed on this side Jordan: In the midst of the several parts of their land, to which they might speedily flee from all the parts of the land.

Verse 2. Thou shalt separate three cities] See Clarke on “Numbers 35:11”, &c.

Verse 2. Thou shalt separate three cities for thee — There were to be six cities of refuge in all, but Moses had already appointed three on that side of Jordan where they now were. See Numbers 35:14, 15; Deuteronomy 4:41. In the midst of thy land — That is, in the midst of the several parts or districts of thy land, or within thy land; for had they been all three in the very heart of the country, the very intention of them would have been counteracted: which was, that they should be so conveniently placed in several parts of the country, that men might easily and speedily flee to them.

V. 3. Prepare thee a way-Distinguish it by evident marks, and make it plain and convenient, to prevent mistakes and delays.

Verse 3. Thou shalt prepare thee a way] 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.

Verse 3. Thou shalt prepare thee a way — Make a plain road to them, keep it in good repair, and distinguish it by evident marks, to prevent delays and mistakes, that the manslayer might meet with no difficulty in escaping to the nearest city. And divide the coasts of thy land — Thy possessions on the west of Jordan into three equal parts, and in the central part of each open a place of refuge, which being nearly at an equal distance with respect to the inhabitants of that district, all might have the same benefit by it.

3. Thou shalt prepare thee a way — The sentence might read, prepare the road. This was understood to be a direction to have the roads leading to the cities of refuge kept in order. The hills were to be levelled; the streams were to be bridged; the road was to be thirty-two cubits broad.

V. 8. Enlarge thy coast-As far as Euphrates.

Verses 8, 9. If the Lord thy God enlarge thy coast — As far as the Euphrates. If thou shalt keep all these commandments — This shows that the promise of enlarging their border was conditional, and the condition not being performed the promise was never accomplished, so that there was no need for three more cities of refuge. This the Jewish writers themselves own. “Yet the holy blessed God,” say they, “did not command it in vain, for in the days of Messiah the Prince, they shall be added.” They expect it in the letter: but we know it has in Christ its spiritual accomplishment. For the borders of the gospel Israel are enlarged according to the promise: and in the Lord our righteousness, refuge is provided for all that by faith flee to him.

8-10. Then shalt thou add — Here are directions for three additional cities of refuge in case the boundaries of the nation, should be in the future extended.

V. 9. If thou shalt keep all these commandments-But the Jewish writers themselves own, that the condition not being performed, the promise of enlarging their coast was not fulfilled, so that there was no need for three more cities of refuge. Yet the holy, blessed God, say they, did not command it in vain, for in the day’s of Messiah the Prince, they shall be added. They expect it in the letter: but we know, it has in Christ its spiritual accomplishment. For the borders of the Gospel-Israel are inlarged according to the promise: and in the Lord our righteousness, refuge is provided for all that by faith fly to him.

Verse 9. Shalt thou add three cities more] This was afterwards found necessary, and accordingly six cities were appointed, three on either side Jordan. See Joshua 21:1-3, &c. In imitation of these cities of refuge the heathens had their asyla, and the Catholics their privileged altars. See Clarke “Exodus 21:13”; “Exodus 21:14”; and “Numbers 35:11”, &c.

Verses 8, 9. If the Lord thy God enlarge thy coast — As far as the Euphrates. If thou shalt keep all these commandments — This shows that the promise of enlarging their border was conditional, and the condition not being performed the promise was never accomplished, so that there was no need for three more cities of refuge. This the Jewish writers themselves own. “Yet the holy blessed God,” say they, “did not command it in vain, for in the days of Messiah the Prince, they shall be added.” They expect it in the letter: but we know it has in Christ its spiritual accomplishment. For the borders of the gospel Israel are enlarged according to the promise: and in the Lord our righteousness, refuge is provided for all that by faith flee to him.

8-10. Then shalt thou add — Here are directions for three additional cities of refuge in case the boundaries of the nation, should be in the future extended.

8-10. Then shalt thou add — Here are directions for three additional cities of refuge in case the boundaries of the nation, should be in the future extended.

Verse 11. If any man hate his neighbour] See Clarke on “Exodus 21:13”.

11-13. But if any man hate — The appointment of cities of refuge was a merciful provision for the security of those who unintentionally should shed blood. The usage in the time of Moses evidently was the carrying out rigorously the law of retaliation. But if life had been taken without malice this provision for cities of refuge afforded a place of escape from the avenger of blood. But they were not to be places of refuge for murderers. They were not to protect those who had slain their fellow-men through hatred or for gain. Such guilty ones were to be taken from the cities by the magistrates and given up to the avenger of blood. Human life was sacred among the Hebrews. We see how carefully it was protected, how stringent was the legislation. Moses made provision for the protection of property also.

Verse 12. The elders of his city — The city of the manslayer. The sense is, that upon any information or suspicion of murder, laid against any one that had taken refuge in any of these cities, the magistrates of the town or district where the fact was committed, should send for the person out of the refuge-city, bring him to a fair trial, and, upon clear evidence of wilful murder, condemn him to death, and cause execution to be done without fear, partiality, or affection; as they valued the divine blessing, and desired to be free of the guilt of innocent blood, which otherwise would be required at their hands.

11-13. But if any man hate — The appointment of cities of refuge was a merciful provision for the security of those who unintentionally should shed blood. The usage in the time of Moses evidently was the carrying out rigorously the law of retaliation. But if life had been taken without malice this provision for cities of refuge afforded a place of escape from the avenger of blood. But they were not to be places of refuge for murderers. They were not to protect those who had slain their fellow-men through hatred or for gain. Such guilty ones were to be taken from the cities by the magistrates and given up to the avenger of blood. Human life was sacred among the Hebrews. We see how carefully it was protected, how stringent was the legislation. Moses made provision for the protection of property also.

11-13. But if any man hate — The appointment of cities of refuge was a merciful provision for the security of those who unintentionally should shed blood. The usage in the time of Moses evidently was the carrying out rigorously the law of retaliation. But if life had been taken without malice this provision for cities of refuge afforded a place of escape from the avenger of blood. But they were not to be places of refuge for murderers. They were not to protect those who had slain their fellow-men through hatred or for gain. Such guilty ones were to be taken from the cities by the magistrates and given up to the avenger of blood. Human life was sacred among the Hebrews. We see how carefully it was protected, how stringent was the legislation. Moses made provision for the protection of property also.

Verse 14. Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark] 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. The termini or landmarks among the Romans were held very sacred, and were at last deified.

To these termini Numa Pompillus commanded offerings of broth, cakes, and firstfruits, to be made. And Ovid informs us that it was customary to sacrifice a lamb to them, and sprinkle them with its blood:— Spargitur et cæso communis terminus agno.

FAST. lib. ii., ver. 655.

And from Tibullus it appears that they sometimes adorned them with flowers and garlands:—

Nam veneror, seu stipes habet desertus inagris,

Seu vetus in trivio florida serta lapis.

ELEG. lib. i., E. i., ver. 11.

“Revere each antique stone bedeck’d with flowers,

That bounds the field, or points the doubtful way.” GRAINGER.

It appears from Juvenal that annual oblations were made to them:— ———————Convallem ruris aviti

Improbus, aut campum mihi si vicinus ademit,

Aut sacrum effodit medio de limite saxum,

Quod mea cum vetulo colult puls annua libo.

SAT. xvi., ver. 36.

“If any rogue vexatious suits advance

Against me for my known inheritance,

Enter by violence my fruitful grounds,

Or take the sacred landmark from my bounds,

Those bounds which, with procession and with prayer And offer’d cakes, have been my annual care.”

DRYDEN.

In the digests there is a vague law, de termino moto, Digestor. lib. xlvii., Tit. 21, on which Calmet remarks that though the Romans had no determined punishment for those who removed the ancient landmarks; yet if slaves were found to have done it with an evil design, they were put to death; that persons of quality were sometimes exiled when found guilty; and that others were sentenced to pecuniary fines, or corporal punishment.

Verse 14. Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s land-mark — Having provided for the preservation of the lives of innocent persons against such as might be disposed to take them away, he proceeds to give a charge for securing every man’s right and property in other matters; and especially forbids all encroachments upon boundaries of lands and estates. Josephus considers this as a prohibition, not only against removing any land-mark of an Israelite, but also any that might distinguish their territories from those of any of the neighbouring nations, with whom they might be at peace, the breaking in upon these bounds being generally the occasion of wars and insurrections, which arise from the covetousness of men, who would thus fraudulently enlarge their possessions.

Verse 14. Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s 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.

14. Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark — Among the Romans boundaries were placed under the protection of a special deity — Terminus; and the severest penalty was visited upon the one who removed a landmark defining property. So among the Assyrians there were evidently the most stringent provisions for the security of landed rights. On a stone found on the western side of the Tigris, which George Smith thought was of the date 1340 B.C., is an inscription of a grant of land made by Merodach-Baladan to one of his officers. On the back of the stone is a rudely carved picture of the deities invoked to protect the property, and to punish any who should remove the boundary-stone. The inscription closes with curses upon any who should injure or remove the stone. See Records of the Past, vol. ix, p. 29. Compare also Deuteronomy 27:17, where among the curses to be pronounced on Mount Ebal is one against him who removeth his neighbour’s landmark. Comp. also Hosea 5:10; Job 24:2; Proverbs 22:28; 23:10. They of old time — This is not a suitable translation of the Hebrew word. The Vulgate has priores. Schroeder renders it predecessors. We prefer to consider it as explained by Joshua 14:1, where we learn that Eleazar the priest and Joshua and the heads of the tribes distributed the land on the west of Jordan. We understand the term rendered they of old time in our version to mean the heads of the tribes, who, after the general division of the land to the tribes, subdivided each tribal division to the several families. The expression, then, by no means implies that the land had been long occupied by the Israelites.

V. 15. Rise-Or be established, accepted, owned as sufficient: it is the same word which in the end of the verse is rendered, be established.

Verse 15. One witness shall not rise up, &c.] See Clarke “Numbers 35:30”.

Verses 15-17. One witness shall not rise up — Or, be established, as the same word is rendered in the end of the verse; that is, shall not be accepted or owned as sufficient. If a false witness rise up — A single witness, though he speak truth, is not to be accepted for the condemnation of another man; but if he be convicted of bearing false witness, it is sufficient for his own condemnation. Both the men shall stand before the Lord — That is, shall come to the supreme court, which consisted partly of priests, and partly of other great persons, who, it seems, in Moses’s time, sat at the door of the tabernacle, and so the men, in standing before them, might properly be said to stand before the Lord.

Ver. 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.

15. At the mouth of three witnesses — In Deuteronomy 17:6, the rule had been laid down that in capital offences the decision should not be made on the testimony of a single witness. The same rule is here extended so as to apply to all cases that come before the courts.

V. 16. A safe witness-A single witness, though he speak truth, is not to be accepted for the condemnation of another man, but if he be convicted of false witness, this is sufficient for his own condemnation.

Verses 15-17. One witness shall not rise up — Or, be established, as the same word is rendered in the end of the verse; that is, shall not be accepted or owned as sufficient. If a false witness rise up — A single witness, though he speak truth, is not to be accepted for the condemnation of another man; but if he be convicted of bearing false witness, it is sufficient for his own condemnation. Both the men shall stand before the Lord — That is, shall come to the supreme court, which consisted partly of priests, and partly of other great persons, who, it seems, in Moses’s time, sat at the door of the tabernacle, and so the men, in standing before them, might properly be said to stand before the Lord.

16. A false witness — The general treatment of the subject of bearing false witness is found in the earlier legislation. See Exodus xxiii, 1-3; Leviticus 19:15-18. But no penalties are assigned to particular cases. Here Moses allows the lex talionis — the law of retaliation — to be applied to those who through malice endeavour to wrong the innocent. To testify… that which is wrong — The Hebrew word which is here rendered wrong is sometimes used with the significance of apostasy. It is here used in a more extended sense for any violation of law. We might translate the expression to testify against his departure — that is, from the law of Jehovah.

Verses 15-17. One witness shall not rise up — Or, be established, as the same word is rendered in the end of the verse; that is, shall not be accepted or owned as sufficient. If a false witness rise up — A single witness, though he speak truth, is not to be accepted for the condemnation of another man; but if he be convicted of bearing false witness, it is sufficient for his own condemnation. Both the men shall stand before the Lord — That is, shall come to the supreme court, which consisted partly of priests, and partly of other great persons, who, it seems, in Moses’s time, sat at the door of the tabernacle, and so the men, in standing before them, might properly be said to stand before the Lord.

17. The men, between whom the controversy is — The original parties in the case, one of whom is supposed to have brought into court the false witness. But Keil thinks the accused and the false witness are the men referred to in this clause. Before the Lord,… priests… judges — At the place appointed by Jehovah for the sanctuary, before the highest court, this judicial investigation was to be made. The crime of bearing false witness was of such grave moment that it was to be treated with the greatest solemnity.

Verse 19. Then shall ye do unto him as he had thought to have done unto 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. In the 37th of Edw. III., chap. 18, it is ordained that all those who make suggestion shall incur the same pain which the other should have had, if he were attainted, in case his suggestions be found evil. A similar law was made in the 38th of the same reign, chap. 9. By a law of the twelve Tables, a false witness was thrown down the Tarpeian rock. In short, false witnesses have been execrated by all nations.

Ver. 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.

19. Do unto him, as he had thought to have done — The convicted perjurer was to suffer the identical punishment that would have been inflicted upon the one against whom he falsely testified, had he been proven guilty. Comp. Proverbs 19:5, 9; Daniel 6:24.

V. 21. Eye for eye-What punishment the law allotted to the accused, if he had been convicted, the same shall the false accuser bear.

Verse 21. Life-for life, eye for eye, &c.] The operation of such a law as this must have been very salutary: if a man prized his own members, he would naturally avoid injuring those of others. 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. I speak this in reference to law generally, and the provision that should be made to prevent and punish ferocious and malevolent offences. A Christian may always act on the plan of forgiving injuries; and where the public peace and safety may not be affected, he should do so; but if law did not make a provision for the safety of the community by enactment against the profligate, civil society would soon be destroyed.

DEUTERONOMY

Verse 21. An eye for an eye — What punishment the law allotted to the accused, if he had been convicted, the same was the false accuser to bear.

21. Thine eye shall not pity — It has been said that this is a harsh and cruel requirement. But it must be borne in mind that the usages which prevailed and the condition of society demanded stringent laws. The wise legislator adapts law to the circumstances of the people. Moses found the law of retaliation deeply seated. It has its foundations in the conception of impartial justice. With all his influence over the people he could not eradicate long-established usages. At the present day in the East there is a most cruel feature of the lex talionis. When the murderer cannot be reached the avengers have the right to kill any member of his family. See THOMSON’S Land and Book, vol. i, p. 448. If we turn to the words of Him who spake as never man spake, we see how the Gospel modifies the stern exactions of this law of retaliation. “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil.” Matthew 5:38, 39.