Deeper Commentary
Deu 19:1 When Yahweh your God shall cut off the nations whose land
Yahweh your God gives you, and you succeed them and dwell in their cities
and in their houses-
"Succeed" is s.w. "possess". We must note the difference between the
Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by
Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This
is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking
possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to
us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The
allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom
was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of
Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take
possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take
possession of all the land (Josh.
11:23 13:1; 16:10; 18:3; 23:4). The language of inheritance / possession
is applied to us in the New Testament (Eph. 1:11,14; Col. 3:24; Acts
20:32; 26:18; 1 Pet. 1:4 etc.). Israel were promised: "You shall possess
it" (Dt. 30:5; 33:23). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for
sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were
constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to
possessing the land (Dt. 30:16,18; 31:3,13; 32:47), but when they got
there they didn't possess it fully.
Deu 19:2 you must set apart three cities for you in the midst of your
land, which Yahweh your God gives you to possess-
The person who committed something worthy of death but didn’t as it
were willfully do it represents each of us. The language of the city of
refuge therefore becomes applicable to Christ, our refuge from the results
of our sin (Heb. 6:18).
Deu 19:3 You shall prepare the way, and divide the borders of your land
which Yahweh your God causes you to inherit, into three parts, that any
manslayer may flee there-
John the Baptist's
ideas of fleeing wrath and preparing a way are surely based upon the Law’s
command in Dt. 19:3 that a way or road should be prepared to the city of
refuge (symbolic of Christ- Heb. 6:18), along which the person under the
death sentence for manslaughter could flee for refuge. John was preparing
that way or road to Christ, and urging ordinary people to flee along it.
They didn’t like to think they were under a death sentence for murder. They
were just ordinary folk like the soldiers who grumbled about their wages,
and the publicans who were a bit less than honest at work. But they had to
flee.
The command to prepare a way along which to flee to the cities of refuge (Dt. 19:3) is expressed with the very same words used about God through the Angels preparing a way for Israel to flee along, out of Egypt to the promised land (Ex. 23:20). This was obviously done purely at God’s initiative. But now, Israel were asked to do the same- to prepare a way for their and others’ salvation. When we reflect upon our own way of escape from this world, it’s clear enough that it was by grace. By God’s sole initiative we came into contact with the Gospel, or were born into such a family at such a time as enabled us to hear it. Our response to that grace must be like Israel’s- to prepare a way for others to flee, when they like us find themselves in a situation that is spiritually against them, although not of their conscious choice.
Deu 19:4 This is the case of the manslayer that shall flee there and live.
Whoever kills his neighbour unawares and didn’t hate him in time past-
We are all in the position of the man who unintentionally committed
manslaughter and must therefore die. We are under sentence of death by
reason of being human, as well as for our actual sins. The avenger of
blood could be seen as God, for it is He alone who has the right to
execute judgment for sin. And we must note that the word ga'al
translated "avenger" is also that translated "redeemer" or 'ransomer'. The
cities of refuge are therefore understood in Heb. 6:18 as looking ahead to
refuge in the Lord Jesus: "Who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the
hope set before us". The allusion is to how the person who found
they had committed a sin worthy of death, yet without as it were wishing
to have done so, could flee to a city of refuge and be saved there by the
death of the high priest. The curse upon Levi was that the members of this
tribe were to be scattered in Israel (Gen. 49:7). However, this resulted
in the cities of the Levites being scattered throughout the land, thus
providing accessible cities of refuge to all who wished to escape the
consequences of sin. Those cities were evidently symbolic of the refuge we
have in Christ. Again and again, the curses and consequences of human sin
are used by the Father to mediate blessing. It is the sure hope before us
which is our refuge. "Hope", elpis, is a confident knowledge of a
future reality, rather than a hoping for the best. We should be confident
in our salvation. The 'guilty' person was made free totally through the
death of the High Priest, clearly looking forward to the significance of
the death of the Lord Jesus.
Deu 19:5 as when a man goes into the forest with his neighbour to chop
wood, and his hand fetches a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and
the head slips from the handle and hits his neighbour so that he dies; he
shall flee to one of these cities and live-
A theme of Deuteronomy is the way in which Moses visualizes
commonplace daily incidents which he could foresee occurring in Israel's
daily life: the man cutting down the tree and the axe head flying off and
hitting someone; finding a dead body in a lonely field; coming across a
stray animal on the way home from work; a man with two wives treating one
as his favourite; seeing your neighbour struggling to lift up his sick
animal; coming across a bird's nest and being tempted to take the mature
bird as well as the chicks home for supper; being tempted not to bother
building a battlement around the flat roof of your new house; the
temptation to take a bag with you and fill it up with your neighbour's
grapes; the need to have weapons which could be used for covering
excrement (Dt. 19:5; 21:1,15; 22:1,2,4,6,8; 23:13,24,25; 24:5,6,10,15,19;
25:11,13). The sensitivity of Moses was just fantastic! His eager
imagination of His people in daily life, his understanding of their
everyday temptations so superbly typifies that of our Lord!
Deu 19:6 lest the avenger of blood pursue the manslayer while his heart is
hot and overtake him because the way is long, and strike him mortally,
whereas he was not worthy of death because he didn’t hate him in time
past-
We note that hatred of a neighbour was to be the reason for death.
John appears to have this in mind when he reasons that hatred of our
brother is effectively a living death sentence (1 Jn. 2:11; 4:20). It was
to be that "whoever hates his brother is a murderer", not a manslaughterer
(1 Jn. 3:15). And that hatred can be in someone's heart, even if they have
not killed the object of their hatred. This is the principle which is
taught here.
But Israel were not to avenge (Lev. 19:18). But they
could avenge, and provisions were made for their human desire to
do so in some cases (see too Num. 35:12). These provisions must also be
seen as a modification of the command not to murder. The highest level was
not to avenge; but for the harshness of men's hearts, a
concession was made in some cases, and on God's
prerogative. We have no right to assume that prerogative. Rather
than continually make use of God’s many concessions to human weakness, we
should seek to live on a higher level.
Deu 19:7 Therefore I command you, saying, You must set apart three cities
for yourselves-
The emphasis was very much upon them making the cities of
refuge, and defining the paths which led to them from all settlements in
the land (Dt. 19:3): "I command you, saying, You must set apart three
cities for yourselves" (Dt. 19:7). Yet the record in Joshua 18-20 shows
that Israel didn't do this, because they didn't even capture all the
cities which were to be cities of refuge.
Deu 19:8 If Yahweh your God enlarges your border as He has sworn to your
fathers, and gives you all the land which He promised to give to your
fathers-
Deu 19:9 if you keep all this commandment to do what I command you this
day, to love Yahweh your God and walk always in His ways, then you shall
add three cities more for yourselves besides these three-
Those cities of refuge could have been increased in number, thereby
making salvation that much 'easier' or accessible; but there is no
evidence Israel availed themselves of this. Israel would be provided with
more cities of refuge if they were obedient; the way of escape from sin
would become easier, as it does for us the more we are obedient to God’s
principles.
Some time, read through the book of Deuteronomy in one or two sessions.
You'll see many themes of Moses in Deuteronomy. It really shows how Moses
felt towards Israel, and how the Lord Jesus feels towards us, and
especially how he felt towards us just before his death. For this is what
the whole book prefigures. "Love" and the idea of love occurs far more in
Deuteronomy than in the other books of the Law. "Fear the Lord your God"
of Ex. 9:30; Lev. 19:14,32; 25:17 becomes "love the Lord your God" in
Deuteronomy (Dt. 6:5; 7:9; 10:12; 11:1; 19:9; 30:6,16,20). There are 23
references to not hating in Deuteronomy, compared to only 5 in Ex. - Num.;
Moses saw the danger of bitterness and lack of love. He saw these things
as the spiritual cancer they are, in his time of maturity he warned his
beloved people against them. His mind was full of them. The LXX uses the
word ekklesia eight times in Deuteronomy, but not once in Moses' other
words (Dt. 4:10; 9:10; 18:16; 23:1,2,3,8; 32:1). Responsibility for the
whole family God had redeemed was a mark of Moses; maturity at the end of
his life, at the time of Deuteronomy. It is observable that both as a
community and as individuals, this will be a sign of our maturity too.
Deu 19:10 so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land which
Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance, and so guilt for blood be
upon you-
If Israel were indifferent to preparing the way for others’
salvation, then innocent blood would be shed and they would be responsible
for it (Dt. 19:10). This is powerful stuff. Indifference to providing
others with a way of escape from their sin and death means we are actually
guilty of their lack of salvation. And yet we tend to think that committed
sin is all we have to worry about / avoid. The lesson here, however, bites
far more caustically and insistently into our comfort zone. If we are
indifferent to marking out the way of escape for others, their blood will
be upon our heads. Our chief excuses for not witnessing enthusiastically
basically amount to laziness, indifference, not getting our act together
because we don’t see we have to… when actually, there is an intense
urgency about our task.
Deu 19:11 But if any man hates his neighbour, and lies in wait for him and
rises up against him and strikes him mortally so that he dies, and he
flees into one of these cities-
There are 23 references to not hating in Deuteronomy, compared to
only 5 in Ex. - Num.; Moses saw the danger of bitterness and lack of love.
He saw these things as the spiritual cancer they are, in his time of
maturity he warned his beloved people against them. His mind was full of
them.
Deu 19:12 then the elders of his city must send and bring him from there,
and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood that he may die-
The slayer of innocent blood was to be slain without pity: "you shall
put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with
you" (Dt. 19:13). But David seems to have stepped up to a higher level
when he told the woman of Tekoah that he would protect her son from
revenge murder, after he had slain another man (2 Sam. 14:8-10). The woman
pointed out that if her son was slain, the inheritance would be lost in
her husband's name. Here was a case where two principles seemed to be at
variance: the need to slay the guilty, and the need to preserve the
inheritance. The higher level was to forgive the slayer of innocent blood,
even though the Law categorically stated that he should be slain.
Deu 19:13 Your eye shall not pity him, but you must put away the innocent
blood from Israel-
We would rather expect that guilty blood must be put away. AV has
"the guilt of innocent blood", LXX "so shalt thou purge innocent blood".
The idea was that the guilt for innocent blood must be purged by blood.
The Lord's blood was the ultimate innocent blood, and so Israel were being
prepared to accept that blood was to be shed for His blood. And thus it
happened (Mt. 27:25; Acts 5:28).
That it may go well with you-
Deu 19:14 You must not remove your neighbour’s landmark, which those of
old time have set, in your inheritance which you shall inherit, in the
land that Yahweh your God gives you to possess it-
The law of Moses reasons as if each family of Israel had a specific
inheritance which was not to be sold or moved outside the family. Hence
the sin of Ahab in obtaining Naboth's vineyard. It would seem that there
was some unrecorded list made of each family and which land they were to
be given. This looks forward to our very personal and unique inheritance
in God's Kingdom, possibly based around spiritual family units.
This was "The inheritance of fathers", "your possession" (Lev. 25:27,28;
Num. 36:7,8). God had given specific inheritances to His people, that this
was not to be sold or traded.
The division by lot in Josh. 15:1 presumably meant that the tribal areas were defined
and then distributed by lot. And then within those areas, each family was
given a specific inheritance.
Deu 19:15 One witness must not rise up against a man for any iniquity or
for any sin that he commits. At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth
of three witnesses shall a matter be established-
Insisting on more than one witness before accepting
the truth of an allegation meant that gossip and slander were limited; and
Jesus applies this principle to dealing with disputes within His church
(Mt. 18:16). Although His teaching about not condemning our brethren meant
that He didn't advocate as it were 'putting to death', but rather stern
rebuke and damage limitation. Those who served other gods had to die on the testimony of
two or three witnesses. This idea is twice alluded to in the New Testament
in the context of making the decision to cease fellowship with someone
(Mt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1). The implication is that death under the Old
Covenant pointed forward to first century church discipline under the New
Covenant. But we must note that the reason for this was serving other gods
and wilful departing from covenant relationship with the Lord- not minor
reasons.
Deu 19:16 If an unrighteous witness rises up against any man to testify
against him of wrongdoing-
We have just read in :15 that the testimony of one man was not to be
accepted. So this foresees a case when more than one man makes false
testimony. What is in view here is a supporting witness who lives, and
this will then result in the two individuals accusing each other coming
"before Yahweh" (:17). In other words, the testimony of one man plus one
supporting witness still wasn't enough. In this case, the matter must come
before Yahweh (:17). There is here a strong sense of "innocent until
proven guilty", and an awareness that a supporting witness might also be
telling untruth.
Deu 19:17 then both the men in the controversy shall stand before Yahweh,
before the priests and the judges who shall be in those days-
David and Solomon appear to have concentrated all judgment in
themselves, setting themselves up effectively as both king and priest, for
the "judge" was to be a priest. Jehoshaphat reformed this by placing the
power of judgment in the hands of a group of Levites, priests and heads of
families as the higher court in Jerusalem (2 Chron. 19:5-8). But still
Jehoshaphat didn't appoint a singular senior judge, as required in Dt.
17:9. We note from Dt. 19:17 that this singular priestly supreme judge is
called "Yahweh", because he was to be Yahweh's supreme representative when
it came to judgment. But it seems even the best kings of Judah preferred
to keep that office in their own power.
Proverbs stresses that the man who loves wisdom will be able to judge wisely (Prov. 2:9; 31:9). Yet it was the priests who were the judges of Israel (Dt. 19:17), they were the ones to whom hard cases were brought. Yet Proverbs implies all could act as priests. "To do justice and judgment is more acceptable (a word elsewhere used concerning the priests' service, Dt. 21:5) than (the offering of) sacrifice" (Prov. 21:5). Loving wisdom would give the ordinary Israelite a crown on his head (Prov. 4:9), alluding to the High Priestly crown (Ex. 29:6; Zech. 6:11).
Deu 19:18 The judges shall make diligent inquisition, and if the witness
is a false witness and has testified falsely against his brother-
I suggested on :16 that the case in view is when a false witness
even has a false supporting witness. The "diligent inquisition" therefore
required that one witness plus a supporting witness was not to enough to
support a conviction. Further investigation and gathering of evidence was
required. Again we note a strong sense of "innocent until proven guilty",
and an awareness that a supporting witness might also be telling untruth.
Deu 19:19 then you must do to him as he had thought to do to his brother;
so you shall put away the evil from the midst of you-
“The evil one” in the Old Testament was always “the
evil man in Israel” (Dt. 17:12; 19:19; 22:21–24 cp. 1 Cor. 5:13) – never a
superhuman being, not any personal, superhuman Satan.
Deu 19:20 Those who remain shall hear and fear, and shall henceforth
commit no more any such evil in the midst of you-
There is repeated emphasis that false accusation is an "evil" which
must be removed. Pastoral leadership must take very seriously the practice
of false accusation in church communities. And yet churches divide over
and over because of this very issue of false accusation which isn't dealt
with. The "eye for an eye" judgment hits home hard in this context- for
typically the false accusation within churches is with a view to getting
the falsely accused removed from the church. And on this basis, removal
from the body of Christ is the judgment for those who do such things.
Although it is not for us to seek to see that done; it is for us to
forgive (see on :19).
Deu 19:21 Your eyes must not pity; life for life, eye for eye, tooth for
tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot-
See on :19. When the Lord Jesus gave His commandments as an elaboration of Moses'
Law, that Law was still in force. He didn't say 'When I'm dead, this is
how you should behave...'. He was showing us a higher level; but in the
interim period until the Law was taken out of the way, He was opening up
the choice of taking that higher level, even though making use of
the concessions which Moses offered would not have been a sin during that
period. Thus He spoke of not insisting on "an eye for an eye"; even though
in certain cases the Law did allow for this. He was saying: 'You can keep
Moses' Law, and take an eye for an eye. But there is a higher level: to
simply forgive'.
Previous Chapter
