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
Introduction
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
Cities of Refuge: Verses 1–13
let's look first at the cities of refuge in verses 1 to 13. Again,
Grace as the Covenant Context
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
Three Cities and Their Purpose
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
Rules Regarding the Manslayer
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
The Exception: Murder
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,
Property Boundaries: Verse 14
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
Laws Concerning Witnesses: Verses 15–21
notice, the laws concerning witnesses, verses 15 to 21. First of all,
The Rule: Two or Three Witnesses
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
The False Witness
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
Penalty for Perjury
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.
Lex Talionis
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.
Closing Prayer
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.