Deuteronomy 19

The Covenant Stipulations, Covenant Making at Shechem, Blessings and Cursings (Deuteronomy 12:1 to Deuteronomy 29:1). In this section of Deuteronomy we first have a description of specific requirements that Yahweh laid down for His people. These make up the second part of the covenant stipulations for the covenant expressed in Deuteronomy 4:45 to Deuteronomy 29:1 and also for the covenant which makes up the whole book. They are found in chapters 12-26. As we have seen Deuteronomy 1:1 to Deuteronomy 4:44 provide the preamble and historical prologue for the overall covenant, followed by the general stipulations in chapters 5-11. There now, therefore, in 12-26 follow the detailed stipulations which complete the main body of the covenant.

These also continue the second speech of Moses which began in Deuteronomy 5:1. Overall in this speech Moses is concerned to connect with the people.

It is to the people that his words are spoken rather than the priests so that much of the priestly legislation is simply assumed. Indeed it is remarkably absent in Deuteronomy except where it directly touches on the people. Anyone who read Deuteronomy on its own would wonder at the lack of cultic material it contained, and at how much the people were involved. It concentrates on their interests, and not those of the priests and Levites, while acknowledging the responsibility that they had towards both priests and Levites. And even where the cultic legislation more specifically connects with the people, necessary detail is not given, simply because he was aware that they already had it in writing elsewhere. Their knowledge of it is assumed.

Deuteronomy is building on a foundation already laid. In it Moses was more concerned to get over special aspects of the legislation as it was specifically affected by entry into the land, with the interests of the people especially in mind.

The suggestion that it was later written in order to bring home a new law connected with the Temple does not fit in with the facts. Without the remainder of the covenant legislation in Exodus/Leviticus/Numbers to back it up, its presentation often does not make sense from a cultic point of view. This is especially brought home by the fact that when he refers to their approach to God he speaks of it in terms of where they themselves stood or will stand when they do approach Him. They stand not on Sinai but in Horeb. They stand not in the Sanctuary but in ‘the place’, the site of the Sanctuary. That is why he emphasises Horeb, which included the area before the Mount, and not just Sinai itself (which he does not mention).

And why he speaks of ‘the place’ which Yahweh chose, which includes where the Tabernacle is sited and where they gather together around the Tabernacle, and not of the Sanctuary itself. He wants them to feel that they have their full part in the whole.

These detailed stipulations in chapters 12-26 will then be followed by the details of the covenant ceremony to take place at the place which Yahweh has chosen at Shechem (Deuteronomy 27), followed by blessings and cursings to do with the observance or breach of the covenant (Deuteronomy 28). II. THE OF THE (Deuteronomy 16:18 to Deuteronomy 19:21). Having established the principles of worship and religious response for the community based on the dwellingplace where Yahweh would choose to establish His name, Moses now moved on to various aspects of governing the community. He had clearly been giving a great deal of thought to what would happen when he had gone, and to that end had been meditating on God’s promises in Genesis and the content of God’s Instruction (Torah). Moses was doing here what he described himself as having done for the previous generation (Deuteronomy 1:15-18).

There he had established them with a system of justice ready for entry into the land but they had refused to enter it when Yahweh commanded. Now he was preparing their sons for entry into the land in a similar way.

Justice was to be provided for in a number of ways: 1). By the appointment of satisfactory judges (Deuteronomy 16:18-20) 2). By rejecting Canaanite methods of justice (Deuteronomy 16:21-22). He reiterated the necessity for the abolition of idolatry and religious impropriety, and called for the judgment of it in the presence of witnesses (Deuteronomy 16:21 to Deuteronomy 17:7). 3). By setting up a final court of appeal. Here he dealt with what to do when major judicial problems arose (Deuteronomy 17:8-13). 4). By legislating what kind of king to appoint when they wanted a king. At present they had him.

Shortly he would be replaced by Joshua. Then would come a time when they needed another supreme leader and here he faced up to the issue of possible kingship, an issue that, in view of certain prophecies revealed in the patriarchal records (Genesis 17:6; Genesis 17:16; Genesis 35:11; Genesis 36:31) would certainly arise in the future, and which Balaam had recently drawn attention to (Numbers 24:17) as on the horizon. Thus it needed to be legislated for so that when the time came they might not appoint the wrong kind of king, and especially they were to be guides as to the kind of king that they should consider (Deuteronomy 17:14-20). 5). By providing for the sustenance of the priesthood and Levites who watch over their spiritual welfare (Deuteronomy 18:1-8). 6). By warning against looking to the occult for guidance and promising instead the coming of other prophets like himself (Deuteronomy 18:9-22). But while we may see this as a separate unit it is not so in the Hebrew.

As we would expect in a speech not prepared by a trained orator it just goes smoothly forward. ‘Thee, thou’ predominates as befits a section dealing with commandments with an occasional subtle introduction of ‘ye, your’. III.

THE OF BLOOD (Deuteronomy 19:1 to Deuteronomy 21:9). In this section the question of different ways of shedding blood is considered. Lying behind this section is the commandment, ‘you shall do no murder’. It should be noted that in some sense it continues the theme of the regulation of justice. The shedding of the blood of men was always a prominent issue with God (compare Genesis 9:5-6). It is dealt with in a number of aspects. a). In Deuteronomy 19 the question is raised as to how to deal with deliberate murder and accidental killing through cities of refuge. And this is linked with the removal of ancient landmarks which could cause, or be brought about by, violence and death, and was doing violence to the covenant of Yahweh.

The mention of it here demonstrates the seriousness of this crime. It is also linked with the need to avoid false witness which could lead to an unjust death or could bring death on the false witness. b). In Deuteronomy 20 the question of death in warfare is dealt with, both as something to be faced by the people themselves, and then with regard to how to deal with a captured enemy, differentiating between neighbouring lands and native Canaanites. But the trees are not to be killed. c). In Deuteronomy 21:1-9 the question is dealt with as to what to do if a slain man is found and no one knows who did it. Chapter 19 The Setting Up Of Cities of Refuge For the Manslayer.

Treatment of False Witnesses. The section from Deuteronomy 16:18 to Deuteronomy 18:22 has dealt with setting up the powers in the land for the maintenance of justice and to ensure the keeping of Yahweh’s Instruction (Torah).

That had involved setting up the system of justice, the future possible king, the priests and Levites, and the prophets, but one major thing that had not been covered was the way of dealing with a violent death in the land brought about innocently, and thus out of the range of justice. Such a violent death in Yahweh’s land was seen as a serious matter, for it was a violation against God Himself Who had sovereignty over human life. A life over which He had full jurisdiction had been taken within His own land. The situation had to be righted. But it was also of concern to God that the innocent should not suffer. If the death had occurred accidentally then the death of the slayer was not required.

However, this could not be dealt with by an ordinary court because by the time the court convened the man might well be dead, slain by an avenger of blood. For the custom with regard to such deaths was that the dead man’s relatives were seen as having the right to avenge the blood of the dead man on the slayer the moment that they could find him.

Indeed it was seen as their duty to seek him out and take blood for blood (compare Genesis 4:14 where Cain was afraid of his father and his brothers. See also Genesis 4:23). They were considered to have the absolute right to avenge the blood of the slain man, so much so that no one, apart from those so appointed by God, would refuse it. Nor could they be found guilty of murder for what they did. It was the only effective method of practical policing and preventing murder available in early tribal societies and all were agreed on it. The problem was that it could then result in blood feuds or innocent persons being killed, something which the cities of refuge were designed to prevent.

This is the only possible real explanation of all the facts. Had the avenger of blood been an official or an independent party he would not have pursued the manslayer in anger.

So God had ordained that cities of refuge were to be appointed as soon as they were settled in the land, where manslayers who claimed to be innocent could flee for refuge and be safe, and where, if there was any dispute, a proper trial could be arranged so as to discover whether the killing was premeditated or accidental (Numbers 35:9-28; compare Exodus 21:12-14). Such cities had already been set up in the part of the country that they then were in, in Transjordan (Deuteronomy 4:41-43). But once they crossed the Jordan they would be necessary throughout the whole land. Details of these and their purpose is now given. These cities of refuge replaced the ancient idea of sanctuary at the altar (Exodus 21:13-14) which is testified to in many civilisations and gave the opportunity for a man who took advantage of it to be given the opportunity of a fair trial. If the man was clearly guilt, however, the sanctuary would not save him (see 1 Kings 2:30-34, where Solomon acted as both accuser and judge).

Entry into the city was probably seen as involving a punishment for the man for his carelessness, and as a safeguard in keeping him under observation in case he was more guilty than he seemed. He could not leave the city.

It also ensured that the avenger of blood could not slay an innocent man, and satisfied them that at least he could not kill again. It thus had a manifold purpose. Again in this chapter ‘thee, thou’ predominates, but ‘ye’ occurs in verse 19 where the thought turns to those in the locality.

Deuteronomy 19:1-21

III. THE OF BLOOD (Deuteronomy 19:1 to Deuteronomy 21:9). In this section the question of different ways of shedding blood is considered. Lying behind this section is the commandment, ‘you shall do no murder’. It should be noted that in some sense it continues the theme of the regulation of justice. The shedding of the blood of men was always a prominent issue with God (compare Genesis 9:5-6).

It is dealt with in a number of aspects. a). In Deuteronomy 19 the question is raised as to how to deal with deliberate murder and accidental killing through cities of refuge. And this is linked with the removal of ancient landmarks which could cause, or be brought about by, violence and death, and was doing violence to the covenant of Yahweh. The mention of it here demonstrates the seriousness of this crime. It is also linked with the need to avoid false witness which could lead to an unjust death or could bring death on the false witness. b). In Deuteronomy 20 the question of death in warfare is dealt with, both as something to be faced by the people themselves, and then with regard to how to deal with a captured enemy, differentiating between neighbouring lands and native Canaanites.

But the trees are not to be killed. c). In Deuteronomy 21:1-9 the question is dealt with as to what to do if a slain man is found and no one knows who did it.

Deuteronomy 19:15-21

The Evidence Required Before Conviction For A Crime: The Punishment of False Witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15-21). The section on justice and the governing of the land which began at Deuteronomy 16:18 now ends with the principles on which justice must be decided laid out, and with a warning to false witnesses. The first principle is that no one should be condemned simply on the testimony of one witness. The second that a man proved to be a false witness must be punished in accordance with the severity of the charge. What follows is a case where a man brings a charge against another, and explains what is to be done where that ‘witness’ is proved to have brought a false charge and to be a false witness. It thus also underlines the demand in all cases that one witness is not sufficient.

Two or three witnesses are required if a case is to be made satisfactorily. Analysis using the words of Moses. aOne witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sins.

At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established (Deuteronomy 19:15). bIf an unrighteous witness rise up against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before Yahweh, before the priests and the judges that shall be in those days (Deuteronomy 19:16-17). bAnd the judges shall make diligent inquisition, and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and have testified falsely against his brother, then shall you do to him, as he had thought to do to his brother (Deuteronomy 19:18). aSo shall you put away the evil from the midst of you, and those who remain will hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil in the midst of you, and your eyes shall not pity; life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot (Deuteronomy 19:19-21). Note that in ‘a’ the system of accepting testimony must be fair and reasonable, and not be dependent on only one witness, for that would be suspicious, and in the parallel any judgment will thus put away evil from among them. Note the abundance of charges in ‘a’, ‘for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sins’ and the abundance of comparisons in the parallel, ‘life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot’. In ‘b’ if the charge is brought that a man is a false witness it must be brought before the judges, and in the parallel if after examination he be found to be a false witness he shall be punished accordingly. Deuteronomy 19:15 ‘One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sins. At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established.’ No man must ever be condemned on the basis of one witness.

Indeed cases where there was only one witness could only be looked on with suspicion. At least two witnesses, and preferably three, were to be required before a matter could be seen as established (compare Deuteronomy 17:6).

This applied to all cases and was to be the basis of all justice so that men may not be falsely accused by one person out of spite or hatred. The danger that would arise from that is now exemplified by dealing with a case of false witness. “For any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sins.” The coverage is wide. It covers all offences, as does the final judgment in Deuteronomy 9:21. Deuteronomy 19:16-19 ‘If an unrighteous witness rise up against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before Yahweh, before the priests and the judges that shall be in those days, and the judges shall make diligent inquisition, and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and have testified falsely against his brother, then shall you do to him, as he had thought to do to his brother. So shall you put away the evil from the midst of you.’ The section began with a warning that justices must behave justly and rightly (Deuteronomy 16:18-20). It ends with the requirement for witnesses that they behave in the same way.

If a man accuses another of a serious offence, serious enough to be brought before the supreme court consisting of priests and judges in the presence of Yahweh at the Tabernacle, compare Deuteronomy 17:9 where judge is singular (here the local judges may have been called in), and on full and careful examination his accusation is seen to be false, then he himself will be punished with the punishment that would have fallen on the other if he had been found guilty. Thus will the evil of false witness be put away from among them.

The fact that a number of judges were called on confirms the seriousness with which this case was being viewed. It may well have been referred to the supreme court because it was a serious charge, and there was only one witness. But the plural may indicate that the judges local to where the men lived had also been called in. Deuteronomy 19:20 ‘And those who remain will hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil in the midst of you.’ And the result will be that all other members of Israel will hear, and fear, and will no longer behave in such an evil way. False witness was, and is, always a problem for justice. Even two or three witnesses might be in collusion, although hopefully an astute judge could question them to demonstrate whether they were reliable.

It was such a problem to the courts that this rather drastic treatment was meted out in respect of it. The accuser had desired to bring this punishment on an innocent party, instead it would come on themselves.

And the fact that there could be such a false witness evidenced why at least two witnesses must always be required. Deuteronomy 19:21 ‘And your eyes shall not pity; life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.’ No pity was to be shown to such a false witness. The punishment should be exactly according to what he was trying to bring on the other, whether life for life (for accusations which could cause the death penalty), eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. It should be noted that this law of retribution was actually a merciful one. It limited the punishment that could be given to a fair basis. Nothing worse must be done to a person than they had done to another.

It did not always mean that it had to be literally applied. Agreement could be reached on a lesser penalty or on compensation.

But in the final analysis it was the limit past which punishment could not go. The law was common throughout the Ancient Near East. Jesus stressed that the Christian should not use it in personal dealings (Matthew 5:38-39). Christians were to respond in love, even to their enemies and those who offended against them.