Okay, you can turn to Deuteronomy chapter 19. If you were expecting Deuteronomy 18, that's because you probably took Truth and Reconciliation Day off last Wednesday night, while eight of us were here going through Deuteronomy 18. So we're in Deuteronomy 19. I'll read the chapter and then we'll look at it in some detail.
So Deuteronomy chapter 19, beginning in verse one, 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 time 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 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.
The Case of Premeditated Murder
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.
Introduction: Community Law and the Decalogue
So the last several chapters into and including this particular chapter, deals with community relations, how do we function as a civil and ecclesiastical polity that is Old Covenant Israel at this particular time preparing to enter into the land of promise that God had sworn to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. they needed to learn how to live in light of God's law in the land that he was giving them. And so in chapters 16 and 17 we see the maintenance of justice in the civil sphere deals with lower courts, judicial procedure, higher courts, and monarchy. Chapter 18, as we saw last Wednesday night, deals with ecclesiastical matters, specifically the function of priests and prophets in Old Covenant Israel. The priests specifically were to be maintained, they were to be provided for such that they could engage in their priestly activities, and then there was a prohibition against mixing with the heathen in the Promised Land, and learning from them about the way they worship.
There's a strong prohibition against witchcraft and soothsaying and the sorts of things that would be rampant when they inherit the land of Canaan. And then that emphasis on prophet. So they were not to look to witches, they were not to look to necromancers, they were not to look to soothsayers, they were to look to the prophet of God who spoke with the voice of God as well as the priest who interceded on their behalf before God and as well taught the law of the Lord. So now in chapter 19 we see a return to some matters concerning civil polity.
And there's three sections, and I think it's good for us to observe that this is basically application of the Ten Commandments to life in civil society. So the first bit deals with the legislation concerning the cities of refuge in verses one to 13. That's the sixth commandment. The commandment prohibiting murder is spoken to in this particular section.
So the legislation concerning the cities of refuge deals with the sixth commandment. The second matter is the legislation concerning property boundaries in verse 14. That's an 8th commandment situation because you're not supposed to steal another person's property. And then the third section is the legislation concerning witnesses in verses 15 to 21, which is obviously a 9th commandment violation.
You're not supposed to bear false witness. So again, what you have behind the scenes in these three specific pieces of legislation is basically the decalogue of the Ten Commandments being worked out and applied in civil society. We move from the general principle, you shall not murder, to the extended treatment concerning the distinction between manslaughter and murder, which we'll see in just a moment. We have the commandment that says, you shall not steal.
Well, that's comprehensive. That applies as well to moving your property or your neighbor's property boundaries. And then, of course, the law concerning witnesses. This gives a concrete sort of example on the problem of false witness and the penalty for false witness in Old Covenant Israel.
Cities of Refuge: The Sixth Commandment
So let's look first at the legislation concerning the cities of refuge in verses 1 to 13.
The Command: Separate Cities and Build Roads
So you've got a command, verses 1 to 3, and then you've got application in verses 4 to 13. But in terms of the command, notice in chapter 19 at verse 1, there's a reminder of God's grace. 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 sort of the kernel of that is the land the Lord your God is giving you.
Again, all the way back to the book of Genesis when God promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that he was gonna give them the promised land. Well, the time has come, they're poised on the plains of Moab, they're getting ready to enter into the promised land, and so God is giving them that legislation so they can function in a manner that's consistent with their purpose in Deuteronomy 4, they were to be a light, shining and mediating the blessings of God to the nations around them. They were supposed to go into the land, conquer the land, dispossess the Canaanites from the land, and set up a holy nation, a kingdom of priests. Obviously, they don't do that.
They become like the nations that they were supposed to dispossess. But here God is saying, this is the reason, this is the rationale, this is the why as to how you are to conduct yourself in the land that the Lord is giving you. So notice the land was not only given to them, but the destruction of the enemies was given to them. When the Lord, your God, has cut off the nations.
So we continue through finishing the Pentateuch into the former prophets. You will see that often in Joshua. It's God who routed the enemies of Israel. It was God who fought for the nation of Israel.
As well, the dispossession of the enemies was given to them. And you dispossessed them. by God's strength, by God's grace, and according to God's holy providence, and then the dwelling in their cities and houses was given to them. They didn't work for them, they didn't build them, they didn't dig for them, but rather God, in His mercy, according to that promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, gave them land that also had or included dwelling places and farmland and all those sorts of things. So there's that reminder of God's grace and goodness.
And I think the principle is picked up in the New Testament as well. After 11 chapters detailing the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ in Romans chapters 1 to 11, Paul then begins in chapter 12. Therefore, my beloved brethren, Don't present your bodies as a living sacrifice unto God, which is your reasonable service. In other words, you have tasted and benefited from the grace of God in the gospel of our salvation, therefore live in a manner that's consistent with it.
And that's scattered all throughout the letters that Paul wrote to the churches in the first century. Let your conduct be worthy of the gospel. live or walk in a way that is worthy of your high calling in Christ Jesus our Lord. So the same thing obtains here. They were given this gift graciously.
Based on that gift of God, graciously, they were then to live in the land in a way that was consistent as those who had received grace from the Most High. And then notice in verses two and three, we see the necessity for order in the civil polity. In other words, it's not supposed to be chaotic, it's not supposed to be maverick, it's not supposed to be everybody doing what is right in their own eyes, but there is first of all, a call to establish cities. In verse two, you shall separate three cities for yourself in the midst of your land, which the Lord your God is giving you to possess.
Now the establishment of these particular cities and in the context are the cities of refuge and that'll be explained as we move through this section of the chapter. It wasn't established cities so that you can dwell in them, established cities so that you can have commerce in them, but these three cities specifically were cities of refuge. It was such that the manslayer, or that one who had committed accidental homicide, could go to the city of refuge and avoid being executed by the avenger of blood. I'm going to explain those particular concepts as we move through, but in terms of the eastern tribes, those particular cities were Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan, according to Deuteronomy 4, 41 to 43.
Later on there's more cities for the western tribes and Joshua 20 tells us they were Kadesh, Shechem and Kirjath Arba which is also known as Hebron. And so this is to appoint these particular cities for a particular reason because the honest or rather the accurate assessment is that accidents happen. And accidents happen, nevertheless there's consequences, but it mustn't be the case that somebody who kills another person accidentally is executed as if he's a murderer. Again, that distinction comes out specifically here in chapter 19.
And then notice, not only separate these three cities in verse two, but in verse three, you shall prepare roads for yourself. I thought that was interesting. You shall prepare roads for yourself. Now, it tells us that roads must be prepared.
It doesn't tell us how the roads must be prepared, but it seems to me Old Covenant Israel was about decentralization. I don't get the vibe that there was a big bureaucratic bloated entity that was responsible for every road in Old Covenant Israel. It was probably the local communities, those communities closest to those particular cities that would prepare the roads. And you can see the logic.
Why would we need roads? because the manslayer is fleeing from the Avenger of Blood and he needs to get to the City of Refuge. If he doesn't get to the City of Refuge, the Avenger of Blood is going to kill him. So you not only need to have a City of Refuge, it needs to be accessible. What good is it having a City of Refuge if a guy can't get there?
And so that's the emphasis there specifically in verse 3 at the beginning. The local communities were to provide access to the cities of refuge. And then 3b explains it. 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 manslayer, as I said, is going to be explained here in the next little section. Manslayer sounds pretty vicious. And it's kind of like manslaughter. It doesn't sound like it's an accidental sort of a thing.
It sounds pretty intentional and pretty horrific. What are you in for? Manslaughter. I slaughtered a man.
I slayed a man. It just doesn't sound good. But manslayer in this context is the opposite of a murderer. The manslayer is actually the one that's the good guy.
I mean, he's got some carelessness that we'll address in a few moments. But nevertheless, he does not try to kill his neighbor when he goes out to the forest to cut wood. He does it accidentally. So the cities of refuge are there specifically to protect these men or women that were manslayers from being executed by the Avenger of Blood.
Accidental Homicide and the Manslayer
So note, in verses 4 to 10, you've got the case of accidental homicide. You've got the provision, verses 4 and 5. This is the case of the manslayer who flees there that he may live. Whoever kills his neighbor unintentionally, not having hated him in time past.
So that's the specific reality. The purpose is stated that he may live. There's gotta be this city of refuge that he can go to such that he may live. And then specifically, the example is provided in verse five.
Notice, as when a man goes to the woods with his neighbor to cut timber, and his hand swings a stroke with the ax to cut down the tree, and the head slips from the handle and strikes his neighbor so that he dies, he shall flee to one of these cities and live. He didn't try to kill his neighbor. He didn't lie in wait for his neighbor. He had no malice aforethought with reference to his neighbor.
There was no intentionality about this particular act. He's not a murderer. He didn't lure his neighbor into the woods. He didn't lure his neighbor into the woods under pretense and then go after him and hatchet him to death with his axe.
No, it was an accident. He swung the axe, the head wasn't fastened appropriately, it falls off and it finds its way into the head of his neighbor. So he's killed the man, but it's an accident. accidental homicide, or manslaughter, or manslayer. And this particular example is used a couple of other times in the Pentateuch.
It's in Exodus, or the distinction rather is in Exodus 21, 12 to 14. And then the elaboration is in Numbers 35, nine to 28, especially in verses 20 to 23. So it's an accidental case where somebody inadvertently kills his neighbor. And so then the procedure follows.
Again, notice at the end of verse 5, 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 had you lived in one of those local communities, you might have balked at the idea that they were collecting some of your money to build roads. Until the day you went out to the forest and your axe head slipped and found its way into your neighbor's head.
And then you needed access to the city of refuge, but the roads weren't built. You see, there was a good emphasis on not only having cities of refuge, but having good roads such that you could get to those cities of refuge so that the avenger of blood may not kill you. So in terms of the procedure, the manslayer flees to the city of refuge specifically for a trial. He's got to go stand before the judges.
He's got to go stand before those in authority. Numbers 35, 12 tells us that. It's in this particular chapter as well. The manslayer escapes the avenger of blood.
Now the avenger of blood was a kinsman. of the decedent, the man who was killed had this avenger of blood, somebody in his family that would defend him if he was in debt or if he was inadvertently killed or prematurely killed. So basically a kinsman of the decedent who had the duty of protecting or redeeming a member of the family or clan who was in difficulty or debt. So you're the avenger of blood. You find out that your brother took an ax head to the head while he was out in the forest.
And you go out then and pursue the one who swung the ax. Well, the idea behind the legislation is that guy's gotta get to the city of refuge where he has that place to go so that he can be heard. And when it's determined that he's not guilty of murder, he has to stay in that city of refuge until the death of the high priest. Again, we're gonna revisit that theme in just a moment, but just sketching out the procedure here.
The manslayer was not deserving of death. Notice again, it says in verse six, 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, the one that the avenger of blood is killing, is not deserving of death. So to kill the man guilty of manslaughter or to kill the man guilty or responsible rather for accidental homicide then becomes murder. The Avenger of Blood does not have the right to take that man's life because he didn't do the crime.
He didn't violate the Sixth Commandment. He rather accidentally killed the neighbor that was in the forest alongside with him. And notice in verse 10, 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. So what underscores this legislation is that there's blood guiltiness if the avenger of blood kills a man who's only engaged in accidental homicide.
You're not supposed to kill somebody when they commit an accident. You kill somebody when they transgress the law of God. That's behind the scenes or rather that's explicitly revealed in this particular passage. So the manslayer needed cities of refuge and he needed roads in order to get to those particular cities.
Distinguishing Manslaughter from Murder
Now the primary issue at play here is the distinction between accidental homicide, what we have here, and then murder, what we're going to see in verses 11 to 13. Two different things, two different acts. One, I go into the woods, I swing my axe, the head's not fastened, it falls into my neighbor's head. The other one is, again, intentionality.
There's malice aforethought or premeditation or hatred. There is the actual desire in my heart to end the life of my neighbor. So the primary issue is the difference between accidental homicide and murder. But I would suggest secondarily, secondarily, in light of Numbers 35, in light of this particular legislation, if you did go into the forest and you did swing your axe and the head fell off accidentally, you had to go to the city of refuge and you had to remain in that city of refuge until such time as the high priest died.
That meant leaving your job, that meant leaving that forest, that meant leaving your family, that meant disruption in your life. So I would suggest that secondarily, check your axe heads to make sure they're fastened appropriately. In other words, try not to be irresponsible when swinging your axe heads. Yes, the provision specifically is to delineate between accidental homicide and the act of murder, but if there's repercussions, if there's some consequences, and such should be the case today, there's things that we might do that are accidents, but they might have bad implications for us.
We should be careful when we're driving. We should be checking mirrors. We should be cautious when we're in a school zone. We should make sure that we're not unnecessarily endangering other people's lives.
We should make sure that axe head is appropriately fastened such that it doesn't fly off and find its way into a neighbor's head. so that we don't have to go to the city of refuge and there spend time until such time as the high priest dies. And then this section is sort of ending with this promise in verses 8 to 10. 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. In other words, go into the land, obey God, reap the blessings of God, there will be multiplication.
You'll have such a land that is very fruitful, there's land flowing with milk and honey, lots of water, lots of rivers, lots of brooks, lots of things to sustain life. The idea being is that you're going to act upon that original creation mandate, you're going to multiply in the land, you're going to have a lot more people and thus the potential for a lot more accidents, so multiply the cities. Again, you might have cities, you might have roads, but if the guy lives on the other side of the country, that's not going to do him any good. So build cities that are centrally located in particular regions such that when these accidental homicides occur, we can spare the lives of those who committed accidents and keep them from the avenger of blood and him executing them.
And again, the principle of verse 10, 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. That's a big no-no, as far as God is concerned. These passages always sort of terrify me. If you look back to Numbers 35, it's another terrifying passage when we talk about blood guiltiness. after the legislation on the cities of refuge in 35, 9 and following, notice in verse 29, sort of a summary statement of all that's been said, 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." That's terrifying. The absolute necessity is that we execute murderers.
I'd argue there's other crimes that we should execute criminals for, but specifically a violation or transgression of the Sixth Commandment, when somebody ends the life of another human being through murder, They're to be executed. So what do we think of a land that's saturated with blood guiltiness, not only of aborted babies and euthanized elderly folk. I saw the news today that the government of Canada has ruled that you can't have mate or you're not supposed to have mate if your only problem is medical or mental illness. Well, thank you benevolent government.
Thank you so much for your grace and your mercy and your liberality. It's atrocious. This land is saturated with blood guiltiness, not only from the dead babies, the dead elderly, but from living murderers that oftentimes get parole. It's unconscionable and unthinkable that we live in a society that takes so little concern for the execution of justice and righteousness.
And then we hear as Christians, oh, the Old Testament is barbaric. I argue that what we are facing today is far more, well, it's barbaric. The Old Testament isn't. It's the working out of the principles of the Decalogue, putting them into practice in civil society.
So back to our text, the guilt of bloodshed is to try and be avoided with reference to your country. But then notice specifically the case of murder in verses 11 to 13. But there's a contrast, there's a difference, there's a separation. It's dealt with accidental homicide under the banner of a manslayer or manslaughter.
But what was absent with reference to manslayer? He didn't have premeditation. There was no intentionality about it. There was no malice of forethought.
There was nothing like that, but that's everything what's going on here in verse 11. 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." So notice in the first instance, there's blood guilt if an innocent man is executed. In this instance, there's blood guilt if a guilty man is not executed.
That's God's Law, again, applied to civil society. So the presence of malice aforethought, he hates his neighbor. Notice the intentionality. He lies in wait for him.
And notice as well the specific deed. He rises against him and strikes him mortally so that he dies. Turn back again to Numbers 35, just backing up a little bit in that chapter. It gives other illustrations that I think flesh this out even more.
Verse 16, But 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. The Avenger of Blood himself shall put the murderer to death. When he meets him, he shall put him to death.
If he pushes him out of hatred or while lying in wait hurls something at him so that he dies, or in enmity he strikes him with his hand so that he dies, the one who struck him shall surely be put to death. He is a murderer. The Avenger of Blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him." So that's the case that's being described here in Deuteronomy chapter 19. So if anyone hates his neighbor, lies and waits for him, rises against him and strikes him mortally.
It's different. Everybody gets that, right? There's a huge distinction between, you know, me driving down the street and a kid running out from between cars and me hitting them accidentally than me seeing the kid that I don't like and, you know, aiming for him and running him down. There's malice, there's premeditation, there's intentionality, there's a purpose behind that particular activity versus the accidental.
But again, with reference to the accidental, my life is going to be substantially changed. There's going to be consequences, not that I have to go to the city of refuge and wait till the high priest dies, but it's going to affect me and well it should, I should be more cautious and more careful. So you see the law is given for the maintenance of justice and peace. The law is given to protect the innocent in the case of the manslayer.
He's not a murderer. He doesn't deserve execution. But here specifically with reference to a murderer, you need to execute him. So the city of refuge is not an option for the murderer.
The elders deliver him over then to the Avenger of Blood, and the Avenger of Blood takes action and executes the man on behalf of the family of the decedent. So the Avenger of Blood does what the Avenger of Blood was purposed to do. And then notice in verse 13, 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." I think that if you've had your eyes open for the last couple of months, you'll see why there's a statement like, your eyes shall not pity him.
You might say, well, why would we pity a murderer? Well, it just happened in the U.S. with a woman who murdered three kids. 11 out of 12 pitied her, which was, you know, travesty of justice. It was injustice. There is that sympathetic emotional idea that sometimes we have, well, you know, the guy had it coming to him.
No, I shall not pity him. You know, we need to function rationally. We need to function in a manner consistent with the law. We need to function not with our emotions.
We need to function in a way that does not pity, but rather you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel. Notice that it may go well with you. If you don't do this, then it's not going to go well with you. When you read through the prophets, and the prophets come on behalf of God to upgrade the nation of Israel, they throw these kinds of things at them.
The justice is lacking. Yeah, they upbraid them for religious idolatry, but they upbraid them for adultery, for murder, for violence, for unpunished things, for unjust judges, for wicked princes and kings. The Old Testament was to function, or rather the Old Covenant nation of Israel was to function in a way that they were supposed to actually obey God when they took tenure in the land. Now
Property Boundaries: The Eighth Commandment
the next section deals with the legislation concerning property boundaries, which again, 8th commandment, don't steal. But in the context, it makes perfect sense. We're dealing with the land of Israel. We're dealing with particular cities in parts of the nation.
And so this seems to be a great time to deal with property boundaries. In verse 14, 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. Notice in Deuteronomy 27, Deuteronomy chapter 27, the curses pronounced from Mount Ebal with reference to the sort of end of this covenant treaty. In other words, the covenant treaty ends with the pronouncement of blessing for obedience and curses for disobedience.
And you see, if you're looking at chapter 27, all those statements that say, cursed, cursed, cursed. Well, notice in verse 17, cursed is the one who moves his neighbor's landmark and all the people shall say, amen. Over in Proverbs, you can turn there. Lots of passages that deal with this particular problem.
I'm not sure why we somehow in the 21st century have arrived at the thought that thou shalt not steal no longer is binding. You know, I think it's pretty typical for Christians to denounce and decry Sixth Commandment violations, and well, we should. Abortion is wretched. Euthanasia is horrible.
Not punishing, you know, murderers with execution is horrible. We denounce and decry the Seventh Commandment sins, you know, homosexuality, fornication, adultery. And, well, we should. The Eighth Commandment, too, is foundational to any civil society.
You don't build a society based on theft. You can't just misappropriate people's property. You can't just take their money and expect God's going to bless you. Again, I'm not sure why we've arrived now that it's perfectly commonplace for us to pay our taxes and our roads still be a mess.
I'm all for decentralized roads, but in this case, if the city of Chilliwack wants to fix Woodbine, I'd be very happy about that. But this idea of moving property markers or boundaries, it's vile, it's theft. 2228, do not remove the ancient landmark which your fathers have set. Proverbs 2310, do not remove the ancient landmark, nor enter the fields of the fatherless. Hosea 5.10 references it.
But probably one of the biggest examples is in the book of 1 Kings. 1 Kings chapter 21, Ahab wanted more property. So what does he do? He basically squeezes Naboth out. Well, he doesn't.
He's too much of a wimp. But Jezebel takes care of business. Jezebel comes from, you know, the pagan, heathen areas, and her dad was most likely a king. And if her dad wanted a piece of property, he took the piece of property.
So probably Jezebel's having a tough time with Aab. So they get in there and falsify charges and squeeze Naboth until we get his land. That's wrong, it's transgression, it's theft, it's sin. And that's exactly what Old Covenant Israel is being taught here.
You're not supposed to take people's property. Again, you'd think that was foundational and basic for civil society, but it doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
Witnesses and Perjury: The Ninth Commandment
And then the next and final section, as I said, is Ninth Commandment, the legislation concerning witnesses in verses 15 to 21. It opens with the declaration in verse 15, one witness shall not rise against a man, excuse me, concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits. By the mouth of two or three witnesses, the matter shall be established. We've already seen in Deuteronomy 17 that you had to have at least two or three witnesses in order to successfully carry out a capital crime or a capital sentence.
In other words, if you didn't have two or three witnesses, we read it there in Numbers as well, you couldn't execute somebody. So here, that principle is carried over in a general way, but in the context specifically, the main emphasis here is to address Ninth Commandment violations vis-a-vis the false witness testimony. And with reference to this, this is a principle that gets picked up all throughout scripture. Proverbs 18.13, he who answers a matter before he hears it, it's folly.
Proverbs 18.17, the first to plead his cause seems right until his neighbor comes and examines him. You know, you got to listen to the facts. You got to hear both sides. There's got to be cross-examination.
And of course, in the context of church discipline in Matthew 18, you know, bring two or three witnesses. If he doesn't listen to them, tell it to the church. When it comes to dealing with elders in 1 Timothy chapter 5, two or three witnesses when you make an accusation against an elder. That's set up to protect the accused.
The accused has rights, too, and you can't just run roughshod over those. Well, I think he did this crime, so let's hand him over to the judges for execution. It didn't work that way. It probably had some abuses, and it probably did work that way at some points.
Well, in the case of Ahab and Naboth, it certainly worked that way. But it was supposed to work in such a way that there was careful inquiry made, there was investigation conducted, there was evidence presented, there was testimony listened to, there were facts examined, and then the verdict was rendered. That's due process. That's the way we're supposed to operate.
With reference to the plurality of witnesses here, Christopher 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 Naboth discovered in 1 Kings 21, but it provided at least some safeguard. There was a built-in sort of boundary within that you couldn't just say, hey, I saw this guy do this. OK, bring him here and we'll chop his head off.
That's not the way biblical law was worked out. That's not the way the text of scripture presents it. Again, were there abuses? Yeah, Ahab did horrible things to Naboth, Ahab and Jezebel.
But nevertheless, the law itself was given to protect all parties involved. So then notice the violation of the rule in verses 16 to 20.
The False Witness and Due Process
So the specific instance here is if a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing. So the absence of witnesses does not mean the absence of wrongdoing. Because you might think, well, there would have been two or three, so there are four. And now we're dealing with just one.
The absence of witnesses does not mean the absence of wrongdoing. In other words, if you didn't have two or three witnesses, but somebody committed a crime against you, you could still report it. It would just make it a lot more difficult. I mean, if you're going to get victimized by criminals, try to have a couple of buddies around so they can see it.
But Craigie in his commentary on Deuteronomy 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 it made it exceptionally difficult to secure a conviction. But again, if it was a clear cut case or it was a pretty overwhelmingly evidentiary case, yeah, the judges could rule in that man's favor. Couldn't be capital, couldn't be a capital execution. But then notice, so you have this false witness according to verse 16.
Verse 17 highlights the process, then both men in the controversy shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges and serve in those days. We already saw that legislation, the function of the higher court in Deuteronomy 17 in verses 8 to 13. Remember at the local level, you heard most things, you were able to adjudicate, you were able to render verdict, but there were some cases that were difficult, so they offered him up to this higher court. And so that's what's envisioned here in verse 17.
And then notice in verse 18, and the judges note, shall make careful inquiry. They're not just already, oh, well, you know, that guy's guilty, off with his head. That's not the way it was designed to function. Careful inquiry.
That doesn't tell us, you know, all the jots and the tittles, but it tells us that something was happening in terms of an investigation, especially when you're dealing with the sorts of things that are indicated here, manslaughter, murder, property boundaries, theft. It requires a bit of wisdom and reflection and men in high places that are coming together and investigating these things thoroughly. So verse 18, the judges shall make careful inquiry and indeed, now notice, if the witness is a false witness who has testified falsely against his brother. So in the midst of their careful inquiry, what have they concluded?
This guy's a fake. This guy's a liar. He doesn't have a case. He's wrong.
He's got a problem with his brother. He's got a problem with his neighbor. He's trying to get him in trouble. This is where I think the beauty and wisdom of God's law really ought to be respected and in my mind implemented in our own day and age.
So in verse 18, they determined that this is in fact a false witness who has testified falsely against his brother. Now note the punishment in verses 19 and 20.
Punishment for Perjury and Lex Talionis
Then you shall do to him the false witness as he thought to have done to his brother. In other words, if I'm bringing you up on charges that are capital in nature, or I'm bringing you up on charges that are especially heinous and demand a lot of punishment, and I'm a fake, and it's determined that I'm a fake, I get that punishment. Isn't that beautiful? It does two things.
First, deterrent. I've already mentioned, if the death penalty isn't a deterrent, or the argument that the death penalty isn't a deterrent, so what? That doesn't matter. That's not the purpose for the death penalty.
The death penalty is the law of retaliation or the law of retribution. It is punishment. Now, I would argue there is a deterrent effect, at least for the one that was capitally punished, and for certain those who learned of it. Paul tells us that in Romans 13.4.
If you do evil, be afraid. Why? Because he's God's servant. He doesn't, you know, he implements the sword as an avenger of God's wrath.
So there is a deterrent effect. Wright says the text has a simple look go back to the text and I'll read right. Then you shall do to him verse 19 as he thought to have done to his brother. So you shall put away the evil from among you.
So Wright 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. I would argue as well, limitation effect.
I think people would think twice before entering into a court to perjure themselves, to turn it not only in the sense of I could be killed or I could be fined or I could be imprisoned or I could be whatever punishment there is for a guy like me who's falsely testifying, but just the idea of a litigious society where everybody's so happy. You know, if you're found out to be a liar and a fraud and you end up with that bill, man, I'd like to think that people would think twice before they acted. And I think that's what verse 20 tells us. And those who remain shall hear in fear and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you.
In other words, if you knew that somebody perjured themselves and ended up in great trouble because it was determined that they were perjuring themselves, would you go perjure yourself? It's that text in Ecclesiastes 8.11. In fact, turn there because I think it's a passage that you should probably know and love and pray for in terms of our own civil situation that we find ourselves in. Ecclesiastes chapter 8 verse 11, because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.
If you're a criminal and you see other criminals and they get no punishment, you're going to conclude there's no punishment for criminal. This is a good life. I like to steal, rob, and cheat. And they don't want to punish stealers and robbers and cheaters.
Hey, it's a great arrangement. It's a truism, it's built in. Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. Now, I'm not suggesting your children are these, is this hardened, but it is this way with children, right?
When you relax, when you don't implement discipline, when you turn the blind eye, do they normally get better? Oh, you know, they've taken this newfound liberty and they've become so holy. That was never my experience. We know, okay, we need to have a reign of terror for the next couple of weeks because we've slacked off.
It's just the way it is. If I see somebody do something, and I'm of a criminal element, and they get caught, they get slapped on the wrist, and they're back out at it again, hey, I'm emboldened to go out and do the same sorts of things. The deterrent is built in when it's successfully carried out time and time and time again. When you haphazardly, once in a while, punish somebody somewhere, well, yeah, the message doesn't get down to the streets.
But when the message gets down to the streets, hopefully people think twice before they walk into court and perjure themselves. When they try to bring great harm upon a brother. Now this is a good thing. Those who remain shall hear in fear and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you.
And then the lax talionis or the law of retribution or retaliation is the underscoring principle. Your eye shall not pity, life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. Now, people don't like this. I get it.
People don't like this. But, you know, I always try to remind people, don't put yourself in a situation where your victim are rather subject to the law of retaliation. In other words, don't break the law. That's always an option too.
Oh, those punishments are harsh and unfair. Hey, don't go rob banks. Don't murder people. Don't do bad things.
For the most part, you won't be in court if you don't get arrested for doing foolish things. But this particular principle is something we uphold in Western civilization with a vengeance. Pun not intended. The punishment must fit the crime.
It's the law of proportionality. Your eye shall not pity, life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. You don't chop off somebody's hand for theft. There's one case of punitive amputation in Deuteronomy and it has nothing to do with theft.
It has everything to do with a woman who grabs the genitals of a man that her husband is fighting with. Probably the jeopardizing of seed is at the root of that particular offense. But there's no punitive amputation for theft. There's payback, of course, you got to pay it back.
Again, we don't even think about that today. You know, I mean, you get stolen from and nobody pays you back at all, ever. You're paying more if they do catch the guy because he's in jail now and your tax money is feeding him. but it's the law of proportionality. Your eyes shall not pity, life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
I love again that repetition, your eyes shall not pity. You don't govern by emotion. You don't govern by feeling. You don't govern by, well, he seems like such a nice fellow.
No, no, no, no, no, no. I'm sure that a lot of criminals are nice fellows in certain contexts, but they committed crimes. Don't pity them. Do what the law says.
And again, don't put yourself in the position of breaking the law and then whining that the penalty is too severe. It just seems so wrong at every possible level. As well though, this is a limiting principle. Van Drunen says, far from promoting unbridled vengeance, the lex talionis prohibits excessive retaliation.
You don't chop off a man's hand because he stole a ham from Walmart. That would be disproportional. You don't maim him and keep him from ever being able to work again because he stole. So it's a good thing, the way that it's related.
Life shall be for life, again, murder. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. Now, practically, I mean, was there a squad set apart to go out and gouge eyes? I doubt it.
I think, again, the principle is the punishment must fit the crime. Was there somebody out there that carried pliers to, you know, pull a tooth out of somebody that, you know, knocked a tooth out of a... You know, the practicalities of it, notwithstanding, the essence of it is that the punishment must fit the crime.
Conclusion: Life, Justice, and the Gospel
Well, as we conclude, the sanctity of life, I think, is overarching in that first section. Again, execution of one who accidentally committed homicide is wrong. You can't execute a man for accidentally killing somebody. Even if it's your brother, even if it's your friend, even if it's somebody that you love, if they didn't have that malice of forethought, there was no intentionality, there was no premeditation or act of violence that was calculated to end his life.
You gotta deal with that. I mean, you know, hopefully he gets the consequences that he deserves to be sure, but execution is not legit in that situation. But then the failure to execute one who commits murder. Verses 11 to 13, coupled with Numbers 35 and many other times throughout the Pentateuch, it highlights for us the overarching principle of Genesis 9.6, whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood will be shed.
Why? For in the image of God, He made man. Now again, Genesis gives that whoever sheds man's blood, the rest of the Pentateuch delineates for us or distinguishes for us what is accidental homicide and what is murder. Genesis 9, definitely dealing with murder because the punishment is to execute the man.
The principle is held up in Romans 13. Paul says the government has been given the sword by God for the execution of God's wrath in history, in civil society. So we cannot, on humanistic principles or pity-oriented principles or emotionalism, suspend our judgment with reference to the death penalty. The Bible teaches it.
And I realize that even Christians struggle with that. Well, how can you be pro-life if you're for the death penalty? Pro-life because I'm pro-death penalty. The pro-death penalty is pro-life.
It's about the protection of innocent life and the execution of criminals who murder that innocent life. Secondly, the justice of God. We see his provision in the midst of civil polity to provide safe haven for the manslayer, to provide protection for the people that own property, private ownership, You had a right and a title to your land. Somebody couldn't just come in and say, I'm going to move my boundary markers because I want more.
No, God is for that. God is not anti-private property. And then I would suggest as well the sinfulness of man. Even the covenant people under God needed such legislation to protect life and property.
God was not under any delusions that they were going to enter into the promised land and always ever do what was right. That's just not it. He's forming, he's communicating, he is giving these laws through his servant Moses for the proper conduct of the children of Israel as they enter into the promised land. And I would say finally, the glory of the gospel.
Praise God that Jesus is our covenant keeper because we know The rest of the Bible from, you know, Judges on and even into, you know, even Joshua tells us that they didn't do what they were supposed to do. The Israel of God failed to comply with the law of God. Jesus in the New Covenant is the Israel of God who always does what the Father gives him to do. So this old covenant, which is a covenant of works, should cause us to appreciate the new covenant, which is a covenant of grace.
It's a covenant of works kept for us by the Lord Jesus Christ. Well, let us pray.
Closing Prayer
Our Father, we thank you for your word. We thank you for these clear distinctions with reference to the Sixth Commandment, the importance of the Eighth Commandment in terms of property boundaries, and as well the ninth commandment, that we tell the truth, that we tell the truth in court, that we don't bear false witness against our neighbor. If not to destroy his life, we can destroy reputations. Jesus condemns this so clearly in Matthew's gospel in the Sermon on the Mount.
Help us to be careful with these things and help us always to put on the Lord Jesus Christ and to make no provision for the flesh to fulfill its lusts. And we ask this in Jesus' name, amen.