19:1–7 State law enforcement was not part of civil provisions in ancient societies. Such a force is the luxury of more affluent societies, in which provision for life essentials can be accomplished by a much smaller number of people. Protection at the community level came through family association, by which the kinship group was the primary defender for violations of life. It was the responsibility of a near relative to restore relations within the tribe. This person is referred to as a goʾel, a Hebrew word that carries the sense of restoration or redemption, such as the purchase of property by a relative when it has been sold for debt (Lev. 25:25–34). In the case of a death, the restoration of relations is carried out by a near relative referred to as a goʾel haddam, generally translated “avenger of blood” (Deut. 19:6).

Murder was dealt with by terminating the life of the murderer (Gen. 9:6; Ex. 21:12). In the absence of prisons, this is the only way to avoid repeat offences. The avenging of murder should not be interpreted as simple revenge, for vengeance belongs to God alone, not to the individual Israelite (Lev. 19:18). Nevertheless, among family members, feelings for revenge could be present (Deut. 19:6), creating a vengeful situation. The avenger need not be an immediate family member. In the case of a brother killing a brother, other members of the clan would seek to avenge the matter (2 Sam. 14:7, 11). The avenging of murder was a responsibility quite apart from personal feelings one might have on the matter. In the case of accidental homicide, provision was to be made for refuge to protect the innocent person and prevent a situation of continued retaliation.

Moses introduced cities of refugee in the first address to the people after the initial conquest of the Transjordan (Deut. 4:41–43). Three cities are named, distributed geographically from south to north as a place of asylum. In the exposition of this Torah, Moses provides the details of the designation of these cities and their function. The locations are determined by a survey of the land, dividing it into three areas; distance is the criterion for selection, not tribal affiliation. The purpose of these cities is to protect the innocent person, as explained by the example of a neighbor’s accidental death while cutting trees (19:5). The reason for situating the cities geographically is to provide for accessibility so the innocent person could escape and receive a proper trial.

19:8–10 These verses are a reminder that the promises of God are yet to be fulfilled, for with the expansion of the land would be the need for additional cities of asylum. The promises to the patriarchs could be fulfilled only on the condition that the Israelites love God according to the terms of the covenant. To this end, it is important for revenge and killing of the innocent to be prevented. Three additional places of refuge are to be added once the land is fully occupied in order to protect the innocent and prevent the guilt of murder.

Numbers 35 further explains that these places of refuge are Levitical cities given the technical designation miqlat. The Hebrew root qalat means “to take up, harbor.”47 Accused individuals will find safety in those cities until they appear before a general assembly (ʿedah, “congregation”) to face trial (Num. 35:12). If innocent, they will be returned to the city of refuge (Num. 35:25). They will remain there until the death of the high priest. This regulation is explained by the rule of biblical law that there can be no ransom or commutation for homicide. All human life is to be protected with equal sanctity, since all belong to God. The life of a slave is as sacred as any other’s; if a slave dies at the hands of a master, the death must be avenged (Ex. 21:20). If death occurs in a struggle, life must be given for life (Ex. 21:23). No ransom can be received for the accidental death of another person (Num. 35:32–34). In the case of accidental death, the manslayer must live in the city of asylum until the chance death of the high priest, signifying a penalty equal to the crime.48 This may have been a time of a general amnesty; none of this is specified in Deuteronomy. Practices regarding the function of asylum cities may have changed over time, or they may have varied depending on the circumstances of each situation.

19:11–13 Moses makes clear that the possibility of asylum for the accidental death of another human does not exist for intentional killing. The blood of the slain is rejected by the earth and attaches to the killer. The elders, representative leaders of the tribe, act on behalf of the victim’s family to bring the guilty person from the city of refuge for judgment. No mercy is possible in such cases. The sanctity of individuals made as God’s image (Gen. 9:6) and the necessary protection of the community from further violations of life allow for no exceptions. Execution of the murderer falls to the clan, as it is its responsibility to protect its own family members. Failure to execute such judgment brings the blood of the victim upon the community and becomes a violation of the covenant made with God.

19:14 As Moses taught in the words of the covenant at Sinai, property is closely related to life, since life depends on material sustenance. Land is the most fundamental of properties, for all acquisition in some manner depends on land. The boundaries of the tribes were set by Moses on the entrance to the land as determined by God in the casting of lots (Num. 26:53–56). The allotment given to each family unit was called its “inheritance” (Hb. nahalah). This ancestral inheritance is to be inviolable to each family. Wisdom writings warn against this violation in the context of plundering the poor or making land the security for risky or bad loans (Prov. 22:22–28).49 Theft by moving a boundary marker was regarded as an insidious sin in all ancient societies.

19:15–21 False accusations are a violation of life as destructive as the stealing of property. The ninth word of Moses at the mountain warns against falsifying testimony against another person. In this context a false testimony could result in execution, which would be the equivalent of taking a life. At minimum, two or three witnesses are required in the case of a dispute, since accountability for deliberate deception and safeguards against faulty perception are both needed.

Parties to the dispute are to appear before the Lord, an expression that often means going to the sanctuary. This is hardly the meaning intended in this instance, in that not all cases would be brought to the one central location envisioned by Deuteronomy. As indicated in the discussion on the festivals (e.g., Deut. 6:8), assemblies not involving sacrificial food took place apart from the temple. Whatever the location, the judges are God’s representatives, so that appearing before them is to be in the Lord’s presence.

A false witness is to be punished with the penalty that would have been laid on the accused. Penalties are to be carried out in a just fashion, the punishment being appropriate to the crime. The regulation “eye for an eye,” commonly called “lex talionis” (the law of retaliation), is to be executed by means of monetary payment except in the case of murder. This may be seen in the example of damage done to a fetus in Exodus 21:22–25, where a fine is specified. A literal application of the law would be impossible in that case, since a fetus could not be demanded from the assailant. Many situations would be similar, such as blasphemy (Lev. 24:10–16). The classic expression of the lex talionis is given as a general principle; it is not a prescription for particular cases or a rule naming all applicable cases. It is probably adopted from standard legal formulations as a principle of justice for the court. The standard of justice is reparation for damage done. In the case of a false witness, the reparation would follow this rule. The court would be required to administer the penalty to a false witness. In the case of murder, the offense is against the court, so it is only logical that the penalty the court would administer to the guilty would be applied to a false witness.