← Back to sermon library

Deuteronomy chapter 19, I'll 
pick up reading in verse 1, read to the end of the chapter, and 
God willing, we'll get to all of this chapter this evening. 
If not, we'll perhaps roll over the last portion into Sunday 
night. But just beginning in chapter 
19 at verse 1, 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. 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 the past, 
as when a man goes to the woods with his neighbor to cut timber, 
and his hand swings a stroke with the axe 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. 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. 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 eyes shall not pity him, 
but you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel 
that it may go well with you. 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. 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. Your eyes shall not pity, life 
shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, 
foot for foot. Amen. So we're still dealing 
with the bulk of the exposition of the law as the people of Israel 
are going into the land of Canaan What we are finding here beginning 
in chapter, at the end of chapter 5 we have the Ten Commandments. 
And then from 6 on to the end of 26, we see that law expounded. We see application made, how 
they are to put it into practice when they get into the promised 
land. And we are dealing here specifically 
with judicial matters, with civil and criminal matters, as is obvious 
in the reading of the text. We see laws referring to the 
cities of refuge, though that particular language isn't employed 
here. What the concept is, this is 
repeated in Numbers 35, so the cities of refuge, and then there 
is this statement concerning property boundaries in verse 
14, and then the law concerning witnesses in verses 15 to 21. 
Klein says, the theme of judicial justice is continued with stipulations 
calculated to secure a fair trial and a true verdict. That's what 
they're after here. The truth of God, the truth of 
His word undergirds all of this. The Ninth Commandment is certainly 
vividly applied here, the sixth commandment when it comes to 
life and the threat against life, all those sorts of things come 
into play. Another man, Christopher Wright, 
says, Yahweh, by his character as well as his action, demanded 
commitment to social and judicial justice among the people who 
claimed his name. He says, the most essential components 
of that justice were the impartiality of judges and the integrity of 
witnesses. Hence, the presence of the Ninth 
Commandment in the Decalogue, and hence, this direct and uncompromising 
attack upon perjury, speaking to the latter part of this particular 
chapter. and we'll see that, God willing, 
tonight when we get there. But it's a very powerful section 
of Scripture dealing with these particular issues. So let's look 
first at the cities of refuge in verses 1 to 13. Again, we are reminded of God's 
grace in verse 1. We see that as a recurring theme. 
We see Moses never allowing the children of Israel to forget 
the reality that their reception of the land was by grace alone. 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. So God is going to cut off the nations, He is giving 
them the land, they will dispossess the land and they will dwell 
in the land. Again a constant reminder of the context of God's 
grace. They go into this land by grace. They enjoy the favor of God by 
grace and then they as a response are to flesh out, they are to 
live in light of God's holy word, in light of God's holy law. Now notice this command in verses 
2 and 3. They are to separate three cities. Now in this instance they're 
dealing with cities on the western side of Jordan. Back in Deuteronomy 
chapter 4, they had already apportioned three cities on the eastern side 
of the Jordan for those tribes. Remember, they first go to the 
eastern portion of Jordan. The three tribes remain there. they're poised to go over into 
the promised land, which would be the western side. So in the 
eastern tribes, they had Bezer in the wilderness on the plateau 
for the Reubenites, Ramoth and Gilead for the Gadites, and Golan 
and Bashan for the Manassites. That's Deuteronomy 4, 41 to 43. 
So the eastern tribes already had their three cities of refuge. 
You see, God puts into place these particular things, realizing 
that when people commune together, they need law, they need structure, 
they need order, they need discipline, they need cities of refuge for 
things like homicide, accidental homicide. It's a terrible thing, 
but sometimes terrible things happen. And so God regulates 
in a very specific manner. Now the three cities west of 
the Jordan are ultimately designated in Joshua chapter 20 verses 1 
to 9. It would be Kedesh in the north, 
Shechem in the mountains of Ephraim, and Kirjath Arba or Hebron in 
the South. And so what we have in these 
particular cities is a place of asylum, a place where a person 
who is not guilty of the crime of murder can flee and find refuge. In the original legislation in 
Exodus 21, verses 12 to 14, it indicated that the place of asylum 
was the altar. It was the altar. That was where 
the man went if he had engaged in manslaughter he was not guilty 
of the crime of murder, he would go there. But remember that with 
expansion, with life in the land, there would be decentralization. 
In other words, you couldn't do everything at the central 
altar because people lived a long way away. Remember when it came 
to slaughtering animals. If you slaughtered animals prior 
to life in Canaan, it was always in concert with the tabernacle. It was always near the tabernacle. But in Deuteronomy 12, we see 
decentralization. In other words, when we sacrifice 
or slaughter animals connected with sacrifice, that's to be 
done at the altar. But if we are slaughtering animals 
for our own use, we don't have to go to the place where the 
central altar is. We may do that at whatever place 
we're in. The same idea, the same concept 
is true here. We have decentralization. We 
have these three cities located, north, middle, and south, so 
that they can then serve as a place for asylum for the one who has 
engaged in accidental homicide, who's committed manslaughter. 
That's the whole point in view. Now, the connection to the life 
of the high priest, in other words, the man that seeks asylum, 
he is to remain there until the death of the high priest, which 
seems to indicate that these cities of refuge are extensions 
of that altered concept. They're still connected with 
the cult, still connected with the high priest. So the rest 
of the legislation speaks to that particular issue. In Numbers 
35, 28, as long as the high priest was alive, the man remained in 
that city of refuge. When the high priest died, he 
was allowed to leave the city of refuge and return to his own 
tribal inheritance. So the idea here, separate these 
three cities. Notice establish access routes 
in chapter, or in verse 3a. It says you shall prepare roads 
for yourself. Now that's not just a general 
have roads because it makes life helpful. The idea is, is make 
these cities of refuge accessible. It shouldn't be the case that 
an innocent man is put to death. You see, the chapter tells us 
it is absolutely crucial that a man who commits murder ought 
to be executed. But it's equally crucial that 
a man who hasn't committed murder shouldn't be executed. That's 
blood guiltiness as well. When an innocent man is executed 
for a crime that he did not commit, the same land is polluted with 
the same sort of blood as the land is when a guilty murderer 
is not executed. So the idea, the legislation 
is tasked with and charged with protecting the innocent, punishing 
the guilty to be sure. Both things are equally important. You know, when we look at the 
Old Testament legislation, it's not just about the guilty getting 
their comeuppance or the guilty getting their just desserts. 
It's also that the innocent enjoy the protection of God's law. 
That the innocent enjoy safety and are not put to death for 
crimes that they did not commit. So separate three cities, establish 
access routes, provide access to the cities for the persons 
in need. Don't make it a game. Don't make 
it that the guy has to run the entirety of Israel to try and 
make it. This isn't, you know, the Hunger 
Games. This isn't some sort of an idea 
where the government likes to control people. No, you make 
these cities accessible so in the event of an accidental homicide 
they have recourse and redress to go and pursue legal action. And allow refuge for the manslayer. At the end of verse 3, 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. Now the primary reason, or at 
least the initial reason, why the manslayer would go to these 
cities of refuge was for legal trial. It was for procedural 
emphasis. Numbers 35 verse 12, they shall 
be cities of refuge for you from the avenger that the manslayer 
may not die until he stands before the congregation in judgment. 
Everybody gets a fair shake. Everybody gets to be heard. You 
get a recourse to a righteous trial that is properly manned 
by legitimate priests and judges and it is conducted on the up 
and up. So the manslayer is able to go 
to that city of refuge and the initial thing is that he is able 
to stand trial so that they can then determine if he is an innocent 
manslaughterer. I know it sounds bad when you 
hear manslayer. The last thing you think is innocence. But the difference between manslaughter 
and murder is clearly delineated in the passage. So don't let 
manslayer prejudice you against this particular fellow. Again, 
he's swinging his axe, and it slips off, and it hits his buddy 
in the head. He's not a murderer. He slayed 
a man. That's a bad thing. Or he slaughtered 
a man. That's not the greatest of things. But it was an accident. 
He's not culpable. He is not guilty of the crime 
of murder and thereby deserves death. So you see, these cities 
of refuge are places, are put up by God for legal trial, legal 
proceeding, judicial proceeding, so that the innocent may indeed 
be protected. It is a wonderful and a blessed 
thing, and while we in our civilized society may sort of scoff at 
the idea of a city of refuge, at least They were attempting 
to deal with the situation of not putting innocent men to death 
or putting them into prison with no chance for parole whatsoever. 
They had a system in place that was designed and designated so 
that people could get justice. Now, having said all that, as 
we work our way through the chapter, whenever sinners are involved, 
it's never foolproof. There's always loopholes. There's 
always issues. There's always difficulties. 
But the structure is put into place to try and reduce and try 
and limit the amount of abuse that would go on in the society 
itself. So it is a good thing calculated 
for, yes, the punishment of evildoers, but as well the non-punishment 
of the judicially innocent with reference to the crime of murder. The book of Joshua also indicates 
that there was a bit of a preliminary trial. When the man went to the 
gates of the city of refuge, at that time he laid out the 
specifics, and then they allowed him access to the city. Or, I 
think that's what we find in verse 12, but the elders of his 
city shall send and bring him from there. So there's even a 
preliminary trial, a preliminary hearing before he, you know, 
goes and lives within the city of refuge. So it's quite a blessed 
system, quite a wonderful thing to protect the innocent people 
there in Israel. Now notice the rules regarding 
the manslayer. How does a man gain access to 
these cities of refuge? Again, the general principle 
is in Exodus 21 12 to 14. In fact, we could just read that 
just so you can see it there. Again, what we find in the Deuteronomy 
legislation is more amplification, not a change in revelation, not 
a change in law, but how we apply that law within the land of Canaan 
when there is not this tabernacle that we're all sort of living 
right next to. But when there are cities, when 
there are communities, when there is more geography at our disposal, 
how do we function? Exodus 21, 12, he who strikes 
a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. However, if 
he did not lie in wait, but God delivered him into his hand, 
then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee. There's that 
whole idea. Asylum. But if a man acts with premeditation 
against his neighbor to kill him by treachery, now notice, 
you shall take him from my altar. There's that indicator that the 
altar was the place of asylum. Take him from there that he may 
die. More in depth and more in detail 
concerning the cities of refuge is in Numbers 35, 9 to 34. You 
can even look there for a moment. Numbers 35, 9 to 34. We won't 
read that whole section, but if you notice specifically in 
verses 16 to 21, the Deuteronomy legislation uses one illustration. It uses the illustration of the 
man cutting wood and the axe head slips off and finds its 
way into his neighbor's melon, and thus bringing him to death. 
Here, there's a lot of different sort of scenarios. Again, not 
a contradiction. Deuteronomy is not taking up 
all of the particulars. It's giving an illustration of 
the point. but for more detail here in Numbers 35, verse 16. 
If he strikes him with an iron implement so that he dies, he 
is a murderer. The murderer shall surely be 
put to death. And if he strikes him with a stone in the hand 
by which one could die, and he does die, he is a murderer. The 
murderer shall surely be put to death. Or if he strikes him 
with a wooden hand weapon by which one could die, and he does 
die, he is a murderer. The murderer shall surely be 
put to death. You see all these different instances, but then 
in verse 22 if he pushes him suddenly without enmity or throws 
anything at him without lying in wait or uses a stone by which 
a man could die throwing it at him without seeing him so that 
he dies while he was not his enemy or seeking his harm. So 
you see there's an obvious difference between these two scenarios. 
A man who accidentally throws a rock and it kills someone is 
not a murderer. There has to be these vital elements 
involved to establish the crime of murder. We go back to Deuteronomy 
chapter 19 and that's what we see here, the rule in verses 
4 and 5. This is the case of the manslayer 
who flees there that he may live. Whoever kills his neighbor unintentionally, 
that is requisite, that is absolutely crucial for the crime of murder. 
There has to be intent. If the man does not have intent, 
he is not a murderer." Again, not justifying, not saying it's 
no less of a death, but he isn't guilty of the crime of murder. 
That's what's in view here. So he kills his neighbor unintentionally, 
not having hated him in time past. I think the NIV has malice 
aforethought, is that? Yeah, malice of forethought. 
That is a component necessary to establish guilt for murder. There has to be malice of forethought. You have to premeditate it. You 
have to plan it. You have to concoct it. You swinging 
your axe at wood and the head slips off. That wasn't malice 
of forethought. That wasn't a premeditated act. 
Now, if you rigged your axe so that it would fly off and you 
positioned it to fly off into your neighbor's head, That's 
malice of forethought. You see, that's what the court, 
that's what the elders would hear and seek to determine. It is a wonderful thing, judicial 
procedure. So there's no intent, there's 
no malice of forethought, it was an accidental homicide. And that's the specific example 
in verse 5. As when a man goes to the woods 
with his neighbor to cut timber, and his hand swings a stroke 
with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slips from 
the handle and strikes his neighbor so that he dies. That's an accident. That's the reality. That sometimes 
happens. Now, just think about a modern 
application of this. If somebody, God forbid, runs 
over your child, as much as we might want that person to die 
or to be executed by the government, If they did not intend to run 
your child over, they're not murderers and they shouldn't 
be treated that way. Now, if there's recklessness 
or drugs or alcohol or, you know, other things involved, who knows 
what sort of a case can be prosecuted. But a man who accidentally hit 
somebody, and if it were you, if you ran over a child and it 
was an accident, You want the provision of the law to cover 
you so that you're not executed. You didn't mean, you didn't intend, 
you didn't have malice aforethought, you didn't know that kid was 
going to run out there and you were going to gun him down with 
your car. There are accidents that happen 
in this world and we need to understand that. That's what 
the cities of refuge were for, was accidental homicide. Now 
notice the response at the end of verse 5, he shall flee to 
one of these cities and live." We've already seen the primary 
element, the primary first step was this trial, was this judicial 
procedure where they would weigh the evidence, they would listen 
to witnesses and determine whether or not this man had in fact done 
so accidentally or if he had intent and malice aforethought. 
Now the avenger of blood Some cool words here. I mean, you 
know, what do you want to be when you grow up? I want to be 
the Avenger of Blood. I mean, that sounds like a pretty 
awesome job title, doesn't it? Notice, lest the Avenger of Blood, 
while his anger is hot, pursue the manslayer and overtake him, 
because the way is long, and kill him. So the idea here is 
that Avenger of Blood was a kinsman, a family member, who had the 
duty of protecting or redeeming a member of the family or clan 
who was in difficulty or debt. Now, it's interesting. This city 
of refuge existed, the trial existed, lest the avenger of 
blood kill him when he didn't have criminal intent, when he 
didn't have malice aforethought. These cities of refuge existed 
in such a way as to put the brakes on everybody involved in the 
situation. Because when something happens, 
what's the immediate response? Let's get justice. Well, wait 
a minute. Maybe the guy isn't guilty of 
the crime. Maybe he really didn't mean to do it. You know, we really 
need to back it down a few notches, let our heads settle, and think 
biblically about these particular issues. So that's why these cities 
of refuge were set up. Last, 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. The 
cities of refuge served as a check upon the avenger of blood so 
that he couldn't just kill the guy. You ran over my kid, you're 
dead. No, that brings the guilt of 
bloodshed upon the land just like letting a murderer go free 
as well. You see, and verses 6 and 10 
also indicate this whole idea, I'm sorry, verses 6 and 12, 6, 
10, and 12 indicate that the avenger of blood was submissive 
to the judicial structure. In other words, the Avenger of 
Blood didn't operate autonomously. He wasn't riding his black horse 
with his cape flowing, and he just went out and kicked rear. 
No, he was subject to the same rules that applied with reference 
to these cities of refuge. Notice the idea. The man goes 
out into the woods. The axe slips off, or the head 
slips off. He flees to one of the cities 
and lives, 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." You see, 
if the avenger of blood doesn't operate according to the rule 
of law, then he can be guilty of bringing guilt upon the nation 
of Israel. You see, go on in Numbers 35, 
we'll do that later, but in Numbers 35 it says that if the land is 
polluted with blood, That is a horrible and abominable thing. In other words, God says you 
can't take ransom for a murderer. You must execute a murderer. There's a lot of crimes in the 
scripture that financial remuneration or retribution is fitting. But 
for the crime of murder, if you let the murderer live, you pollute 
the land with blood. Well, conversely, if the avenger 
of blood kills an innocent man, a man who has not engaged in 
the crime of murder, that's what verse 10 says. 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. It is designed to protect the 
judicially innocent. That is as important in a civilized 
society as the punishment of evildoers. And that's what we 
need to appreciate about God's law. It is beautiful and balanced. Yes, punish the guilty, but yes, 
protect the innocent. That is crucial in this whole 
manner. So the manslayer was not to be 
punished for murder because he was not deserving of it. He hadn't 
hated the victim in time past. Verses 8 and 9 speak to the reality 
that if God blesses, if they obey, and they enlarge their 
territory, add three more cities. Right? Isn't that beautiful? Now, nowhere in the history of 
Israel do they ever add three more cities. I think what we 
must appreciate here is that they never obeyed the Lord. They saw some expansion under 
Solomon's reign, but never to the point where they needed to 
add three to the already extent six cities. Remember, you had 
six on the eastern side. You have three on the eastern 
side, three on the western side. If they enlarge their territory, 
they obey the Lord. They're enjoying blessing. Add 
three more cities. Why? Because as you have more 
people living together, the eventuality is that more axe heads slip off 
handles and hit people in the head. you need a system and a 
structure that is established to deal with the population. 
God is wise. God is telling that. 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. And then here's the specific 
purpose. 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. Right? So not only 
does undealt with murder bring guilt upon a society, But so 
does a government that punishes people that are actually innocent. God doesn't say, well, you know, 
that's OK. At least you're punishing. No. Justice matters for our God. He actually cares not only about 
the destruction of the judicially guilty, but he also cares for 
the protection of the judicially innocent. So that is specifically 
the rules regarding the manslayer. Now notice the exception to the 
rule in verses 11 to 13. There's an exception. It's murder. A murderer doesn't 
get to go to the city of refuge. A murderer doesn't get to appeal 
to this protection. Notice verse 11. If anyone hates 
his neighbor, Here's that idea of malice. Here's that idea of a motive, of a despising his 
neighbor. He lies in wait for him. He rises against him and strikes 
him mortally so that he dies. Those components are crucial 
to establish guilt in a murder trial. You know, sometimes you 
watch the news and you say, how in the world did they not get 
that guy? Well, there could be a whole 
lot of reasons, but it could be that some of these vital components 
are absent. I mean, if you cannot demonstrate 
beyond a reasonable doubt that these things are present, you 
know, again, imagine if you're the guy they're trying on the 
bench there. You want them to prove it beyond 
reasonable doubt. He hates his neighbor, he lies 
in wait, he rises against him and he strikes him mortally so 
that he dies. Now notice, at the end of verse 
11, and the murderer flees to one of these cities, then the 
elders of his city shall extradite him." That's what they'll do. 
Okay? Guy murders in our city and he 
flees. He goes to the city of refuge. They preliminarily hear him. However, the elders of his originating 
city gets wind of it. They say, send him back. Now, I doubt he's sent back on 
his own accord. I'm sure he's under lock and 
chain or however they did it in those days with maybe a spear 
or however it was necessary. But notice, then the elders extradite 
him. 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. Now again, involved 
in this is judicial procedure. The elders don't just have an 
idea. They don't just don't like this guy. What we have to assume 
is that all of the other rules that have been enacted, all of 
the other rules that apply, are put into practice here. If there 
is a judicial trial to determine whether the manslayer is guilty 
or innocent, we must conclude that there is a trial to determine 
whether the murderer is guilty or innocent. And so that's what 
happens. The murderer runs to the city 
of refuge. It is known by the elders of 
the city. They say, bring him back here. 
And then they deliver him over to the hand of the Avenger of 
Blood. Again, note the procedure. note the process, the elders 
are involved with the judicial proceedings, they are the ones 
who hand him over to the avenger of blood, and here's the specific 
reason, here's what you do with a murderer, that he may die. And then notice verse 13, 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. So you see 
the two problems the section addresses. The two problems are 
simply this, that the Avenger of Blood does not put to death 
an innocent man, but as well that the Avenger of Blood does 
put to death a guilty man. God is concerned with both of 
those elements, both of those aspects are crucial to Him. Again, just go back for a moment 
to Numbers 35, the end of the section there. Numbers 35-29, 
and these things shall be a statute of judgment to you throughout 
your generations and all your dwellings. Whoever kills a person, 
the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses. 
But one witness is not sufficient testimony against a person for 
the death penalty. Moreover, you shall take no ransom 
for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall 
surely be put to death. You shall take no ransom for 
him who has fled to his city of refuge, that he may return 
to dwell in the land before the death of the priest. So you shall 
not pollute the land where you are, for blood defiles the land, 
and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that 
is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it. Therefore, 
do not defile the land which you inhabit in the midst of which 
I dwell, for I, the Lord, dwell among the children of Israel." 
So you see, God says, punish offenders, protect the innocent, 
and that's how you're supposed to conduct yourself when you 
get into the land. Unfortunately, they didn't always 
do this. Often wondered, what about a 
society that revels in blood guiltiness? revels in it, like 
abortion and euthanasia and no death penalty. You see, I marvel 
when Christians say, no death penalty. The Bible mandates it 
for murder. It's inescapable. The fact that 
we are not executing murderers is only polluting the land with 
blood. As far as I can tell, there's 
no ransom to be taken for the murderer. It's a terrible, terrible 
situation that we live in. Okay, notice the property boundaries, 
verse 14. This seems a bit... Kind of an interesting flow there 
as far as I can tell. We move from the cities of refuge 
to 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. As I was 
sort of thinking about this I thought well they're talking about land, 
they're talking about apportioning cities for cities of refuge. This land that they used for 
the cities of refuge was the land that was given not by tribal 
inheritance, but remember the Levites did inherit cities. The 
Levites had cities where they could do some basic farming. 
to supply for their needs in conjunction with temple sacrifices 
and all that sort of thing. So the cities of refuge would 
be taken or would be utilized from the Levitical cities. So 
I got to thinking, well, maybe somebody might want to move that 
property marker a little bit and increase or decrease the 
city of refuge. You know, not that big of a deal 
anyway. They're all, you know, just accidental homicide people 
living there anyhow. They don't need any comfort. 
I'll just sort of extend mine. You know, I thought that might 
be a legit connection. Other men, other commentators 
suggested that it had to do with tampering with evidence. tampering 
with evidence via moving somebody's property marker. I mean, that's 
legit. Klein said it. I think Alan Harmon 
said it in his commentary. And yeah, that might speak to 
the issue as well. And then one other view was the 
idea that the importance of land in order to sustain life. So 
not, you know, not only are we dealing with manslaughter and 
murder, we're also dealing with property infringement. We think, 
well, you know, if I take something from somebody, that's just the 
way it goes or, you know, we shouldn't be so bent out of shape. I mean, redistribution of the 
wealth, everybody deserves their fair share. Well, when we mess 
with somebody's property, we are messing with their ability 
to live. So it might find its place there. 
We've got homicide, we've got murder, and we've got this whole 
idea of moving our neighbor's landmark and thus decreasing 
his value, decreasing his property. and increasing hours, which is 
obviously a type of theft. But when we mess with somebody's 
land, we're messing with their ability to sustain life. So that might be something of 
the connection. It's repeated in Deuteronomy 
27, 17. It's mentioned in Job 24, Proverbs 22, Proverbs 23, 
and Hosea chapter 5. Obviously, 1 Kings 21 is a wretched, wretched 
application by Ahab of this particular principle. He annexed Naboth's vineyard 
or Naboth's field so that he could grow his vegetables. It 
was a terrible, terrible breach of this particular command. So 
that's probably one of those three things or perhaps a shade 
of a You know, each one of them is why it finds itself smack 
dab in the middle of murder, manslaughter, murder, and then 
the laws concerning witnesses. Now notice, the laws concerning 
witnesses, verses 15 to 21. First of all, the rule is established 
negatively. Verse 15, one witness shall not 
rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that 
he commits. Now we just read in Numbers 35. 
Hopefully you saw that. You can't convict of a capital 
crime on the basis of one witness. That says that in Deuteronomy 
17.6 as well. You need two or three witnesses 
for a capital crime. The fact that the words sin and 
iniquity are used here probably means that we're not dealing 
with a specific application with reference to a capital offense. 
but rather we're dealing with a general principle of judicial 
proceeding. We're dealing with a general 
principle of judicial life. We're dealing with a general 
principle with reference to witnesses to any sort of a crime, to any 
sort of an iniquity, to any sort of a sin that would necessitate 
involvement from some other authority. So negatively, one witness shall 
not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that 
he commits. The principle here is absolutely 
crucial. One witness isn't legit. We need two or three witnesses. What happens? It becomes my word 
against this person's word. When we come to the courtroom, 
what we need is two or three witnesses. Now, as we move through 
the passage, we'll see that just because there is only one witness, 
that doesn't mean there isn't a crime. And it doesn't mean 
we don't pursue help and assistance, but it does mean it's a lot more 
difficult. It's a lot more difficult when 
you're dealing with one witness. We'll see that in just a moment. 
But just the basic rule established. Negatively, one witness shall 
not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that 
he commits. Positively, by the mouth of two 
or three witnesses, the matter shall be established. Wright 
says, the purpose of the plurality of witnesses is clearly the protection 
of the accused, especially the protection of the weaker individual 
from the vindictiveness of a more powerful opponent. Obviously, 
this precaution could be flouted, as Naboff discovered, but it 
provided at least some safeguard. Again, we are sinners. There's 
a million ways that we can finagle out of clear commands. There's 
a billion ways that we can sin against God's holy law. But what 
is being established here is the structure and the system 
to try and provide a safeguard against abuse with reference 
to these sorts of matters. So that's the rule established. Now notice the violation of the 
rule, the false witness. Verse 16, if a false witness 
rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, then 
both men in the controversies controversy shall stand before 
the Lord." Okay, so ideally you want two or three witnesses, 
right? But it may be the case that you don't have that. Does 
that mean there's no crime? No. It just means it's more difficult. What if I'm the first witness 
to report a crime, thinking there will be others? And there are 
no others. And I'm the lone witness. They 
say, well, they're the only witness, so forget it. That crime never 
happened. No, of course the crime happened. 
We need to prosecute it. We need to deal with it. It just 
puts it into a category that's far more difficult. You see, 
it's a lot easier and a lot more helpful if two or three people 
say, yeah, I saw him point that gun at person B and shoot him 
point blank five times in the head. Now, if only one person 
saw him do that, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just makes 
it a little more difficult to try and prove the particular 
crime. So is everybody with me? The general principle, 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. We need to build 
in a safeguard. There's a situation if a false 
witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing. 
Again, Craigie says, in legal process, the absence of witnesses 
or the existence of a single witness did not mean that no 
crime had been committed. But I love what he says here. 
But it made it exceptionally difficult to secure a conviction. If you only have the one witness, 
doesn't mean there's no crime, it just means it's going to be 
that much more difficult to try and prosecute this. Now note 
the procedure, verse 17. Then both men, here it is, you 
don't have the two or three witnesses at this point, you've got both 
men. You've got one man who's alleged that another man is guilty 
of a particular crime. Then both men in the controversy 
shall stand before the Lord, the blessing of living in a theocracy. The blessing of living in a theocracy. Be nice if everybody just always 
told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but 
unfortunately they don't always do that. Well, here in Israel, 
again, they still didn't always do that, but they had a place 
wherein they could take the difficult cases. Everybody remember that? 
Remember way back in Deuteronomy 17? Remember you had the lower 
courts in the cities? And then you have the higher 
court or that central tribunal that was manned by the priests 
and the judges and it was done before the Lord. Well, here's 
an instance of a difficult case. Here's an instance of a tough 
one. Here's an instance where a man has alleged another man 
has committed a crime. There's not two or three witnesses, 
so we need to bring them to the central tribunal, we need to 
bring them before the Lord, and then the priests and the judges 
will do their job. Verse 18, the judges shall make 
careful inquiry. And indeed, if, well we'll get 
to that in just a moment, but notice again the procedure, the 
fleshing out of this principle. You've got this higher court, 
you've got this central tribunal, you've got whatever you want 
to call it, it is local, it is near the temple tabernacle, it 
is near the central altar, it is staffed by men in the know, 
It's a tough case. It's a hard case. It's a difficult 
case because of the absence of the two or three witnesses. So 
they bring these men. They make careful inquiry. They search it out. They investigate. They listen to witnesses. They 
listen to testimony. They check facts. They check 
data. They go through the procedure. 
Now notice what happens. 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. The penalty that 
the defendant would have received will be inflicted upon the false 
witness. That's huge. And it's a safeguard. It's a protection. It hopefully 
will cause me, as a man in Israel, to say, I want to bring this 
man down, but I know that if I don't have two or three witnesses, 
I am going to stand before the Lord. Judges and priests are 
going to listen to our testimony. They could believe me. They could 
rule in my favor and my neighbor will get what I think he deserves. 
But if they don't believe me and I'm found to be a false witness, 
they are going to do to me what I had hoped would be done to 
him. I don't think I'm going to risk that. It's a beautiful 
system. It is a safeguard. Again, not 
foolproof in a world filled with sinners, but nevertheless it 
is a helpful thing. Christopher Wright again says, 
this text has a simple but effective deterrent to perjury. Anyone 
proved to have lied in court is to suffer whatever penalty 
would have been inflicted on the accused if the false accusation 
had been successful. If the case is capital, then 
the risk to a malicious witness was very great indeed. Now, notice 
something else. I didn't see this in the commentaries, 
so I'm just offering this as a suggestion. I don't always 
like to sort of proffer my ideas, because unless I see it in one 
of the boys that I trust, I don't usually go public. But for your 
consideration, it is specified in the laws concerning capital 
punishment that there must be two or three witnesses, right? 
We saw that. Numbers 35, Deuteronomy 17, 6. 
If I'm a false witness, and I am found out as a false witness, 
there's not two or three witnesses. So for perjury, God really gets 
upset. Can we make that conclusion there? unless the judges and the priests 
somehow function then as witnesses to sort of satisfy the requirement 
that no one's put to death except on the basis of two or three 
witnesses. But generally speaking, the judges handing down a sentence 
aren't considered the witnesses. It is me and the guy. And if I allege that this guy 
committed murder and I am a false witness and they determine that 
to be the case, I am executed without the two or three witnesses 
at that point. God does not take perjury lightly. If we come out of this chapter 
with anything, let us have a fresh appreciation for that ninth word 
in the Decalogue. You shall not bear false witness 
against your neighbor. So if the man is indeed 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. Notice the great 
deterrent effect here in verse 20, and those who remain shall 
hear and fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such 
evil among you. There is deterrent effect in 
the Bible or in biblical law when it is rightly applied. If 
it is applied consistently, then those who hear and fear, hereafter 
they shall not again commit such evil among you. If you knew and 
you had heard that somebody had been executed because they were 
afraid, false witness, man, I hope that you would think twice about 
going and breaking the ninth commandment. What underscores 
this whole process is the lex talionis, the law of retribution, 
your eyes shall not pity, life shall be for life, eye for eye, 
tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. If I'm coming 
in before these judges and priests and I hope that my neighbor ends 
up dead then it's only fit and right and the punishment fits 
the crime that I should lose my life if I'm a false witness 
and I have made this up and I have tried to get my neighbor put 
to death. Your eyes shall not pity. Do 
not pity the false witness. Life shall be for life, eye for 
eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. So the first 
section deals with the guilt of bloodshed. Bloodshed, two 
types. The innocent victim of a deliberate 
murder who goes unpunished. That is blood guiltiness. But as well, the innocent person 
who accidentally caused death and is then punished capitally. 
That's blood, or that's guilt as well. We cannot have either. 
We must punish the, not we, us in the church, in terms of civil 
crime, but we as societies must punish evildoers, but we must 
protect the innocent as well. Property, don't move your neighbor's 
landmark. you know, build your fence on 
his property, respect your neighbor's stuff, and then this law concerning 
witnesses. Not one, you want two or three. If there is the case where you 
have one man against another, his word against your word, In 
this particular scenario, you could go to the central court, 
the central tribunal before the Lord, give the evidence, they 
would then make the pronouncement. If you were found to be a false 
witness, you would be punished with whatever it was the defendant 
himself would have been punished if found guilty. So hopefully 
we appreciate the balance, the justice, and the rightness of 
this portion of God's holy law. Let us pray and then we'll... 
have discussion. Father, we thank You for Your 
Word and we thank You for its clarity, we thank You for its 
beauty, we thank You for its power. And we just pray, God 
in heaven, that You would continue to show us these things and continue 
to show us and impress upon our hearts the necessity of truth 
and the necessity of right witness and the necessity of protecting 
the judicially innocent and punishing those who are guilty. God, all 
these things that our modern society seems to be so bad at, 
we just pray, God in heaven, that your people would think 
clearly, your people would be prayerful, that we would elect 
leaders and we would vote for people that make good decisions, 
sound decisions, people that think righteousness and justice 
actually matter. God, it's grieving to consider 
how few in your church even take seriously these portions of the 
Scripture. We just pray that that would 
not be the case with us. Help us to be students of your 
Word, and we pray in Jesus' name, Amen.