Original Meaning
The Provision of Asylum for Innocent Manslaughter (19:1–3)
THE OPENING PARAGRAPH SERVES as a thesis statement for the entire unit. Echoing 12:29, verse 1 sets the context by citing three preconditions to when these instructions take effect: Yahweh has cut off the nations (cf. 7:1), the Israelites have dispossesd them, and they occupy their towns and houses. However, whereas in 12:29 Moses only spoke of occupying the Canaanites’ land, here he refers to living “in their towns and houses” (cf. 6:10–11). Apparently he did not envision the Israelites razing all the Canaanite towns.
Continuing his penchant for triadic expression, verses 2–3 prescribe three actions once the Israelites have occupied the land. (1) They must designate three towns in the heartland (NIV “centrally located”) to complement the three already set apart east of the Jordan (4:41–42) and complete the six called for in Numbers 35:9–15. (2) They must establish the routes to the towns of asylum.7 Since all six asylum towns eventually selected were also Levitical cities, they were invested with a sacral character (cf. Josh 20:7).8 Even so, it seems “the way/road” and “the land” have been intentionally juxtaposed, suggesting the boundaries of the regions falling under the influence of the respective towns were to be determined by the towns rather than vice versa. The towns were probably selected on the basis of their established significance rather than their centricity.9 (3) Having identified these three focal points, the Israelites were to divide the entire territory into three regions, for which the towns would function as umbrellas of protection for those fleeing from avengers of blood.
The last sentence of verse 3 declares the purpose of these towns: to serve as refuges for those who inadvertently cause another person’s death. Since “to kill” (rṣḥ) embraces both intentional and unintentional homicide, those who accidentally caused someone else’s death needed protection. This provision recognizes that cases involving unwitting homicide always produce two victims: the person whose life is lost and the one responsible for the act. The provision also recognizes that in the heat of passion the aggrieved family may seek revenge without investigating the circumstances of the tragedy. The asylum would prevent one who is already an emotional victim of his own act from becoming a physical victim of the avengers.10
Although ancient treaties included clauses governing the treatment of an overlord’s subjects who flee to the town of a vassal, the present humanitarian concern is missing in those texts.11 This extraordinary provision12 shielded unfortunate individuals against further distress.13
Bridging Contexts
THE SANCTITY OF LIFE. The foundation for the incommutability of capital punishment as the penalty for homicide is laid in Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” Because human life is sacred, no price is high enough to compensate for its loss. Except for the account of Joshua’s assignment of Hebron, Shechem, and Kedesh on the western side of the Jordan and the affirmation of Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan in the Transjordan (Josh. 20:1–9),29 evidence for cities used as places of asylum in later texts is lacking.
Although it is not specifically mentioned, this distinctively Israelite view of the land may explain why Naboth refused to sell his vineyard to Ahab (1 Kings 21:1–16). However, it also explains why Jezebel, Ahab’s wife, had no scruples about confiscating the property. The notion of the inviolability of land holdings, particularly its theological underpinnings, was foreign to this Tyrian princess. In Tyre kings did what they wanted. The notion of asylum remained alive into the monarchy, but rather than being linked to towns of refuge, it was associated with the temple and the horns of the altar. Adonijah’s (1 Kings 1:50–53) and Joab’s (1 Kings 2:28–29) efforts to save their lives by seeking refuge in the temple proved fruitless.
Boundary markers. Echoes of the ordinance involving land markers are heard in two texts in Proverbs.
Do not move an ancient boundary stone set up by your forefathers. (Prov. 22:28)
Do not move an ancient boundary stone or encroach on the fields of the fatherless. (23:10)30
The latter in particular links this ordinance with Deuteronomy’s concern for the poor. In Job 24:1–11 the patriarch from Uz cites how “men move boundary stones” as the first in a long series of exploitative crimes that the rich commit against the poor. While the language differs, the seriousness of the problem in later Israelite and Judaean history is reflected in the prophets, who pronounce woe on the greedy “who add house to house and join field to field” (Isa. 5:8), and who seize the fields and houses of the poor, robbing families of their hereditary possession.
Contemporary Significance
RESPECT FOR LIFE. ALTHOUGH Deuteronomy 19:1–13 deals with an institution that died long ago, its significance for an enduring theology are profound. While many understand the passage primarily in terms of justice, that justice is merely a subset of a higher and more encompassing value—righteousness. If righteousness is demonstrated first and foremost by unreserved love for God (cf. chap. 13; 16:20–17:2), love for God is demonstrated by the way we treat others, especially in our respect for human life.
The Decalogue affirms the right to life as a fundamental human right (Ex. 20:13; Deut. 5:17). This right is not reserved for those with superior intelligence or achievement or for members of one ethnic group; it belongs to all the sons and daughters of Adam via Noah, and by virtue of their status as image-bearers of God (Gen. 9:6). No crime against another human is as heinous as willful homicide, for it involves the intentional elimination of an image of God. Because the demand to execute the perpetrator is rooted in a divine charge to the ancestor of all (Noah), this principle may not be dismissed as an Israelite civil law abrogated in Christ. As Moses declared in Deuteronomy 19:13, personal dispositions, the intimacy of relationships, and sentimentality may not interfere with this righteous demand.
How cheap life has become in our world is reflected in the homicide rates. In the United States in 2008, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported 14,180 cases of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, 5.6 per 100,000 population.31 In our cities the rates are much higher, rising as high as 40 per 100,000 population. The statistics on the relationship between victim and perpetrator are especially troubling. Our text assumes that families will express solidarity and commitment to each other’s well-being. However, in our world family loyalties are often sacrificed in precisely this area of behavior. Homicide statistics for the United States in 2008 suggest that 23.3 percent of the murders were committed by family members, and 54.7 percent by other acquaintances (neighbors, friends, boyfriends, etc.).32 These figures reflect a drastic cheapening of life and the disintegration of the most fundamental relationships. The loss of the idea of covenant, whether it be in relationship to God or in relationship to one another, leads inevitably to a loss of commitment to righteousness.
If this text calls for uncompromising respect for human life, this respect extends also to those who inadvertently take another’s life. Whether we interpret these tragedies as chance events or providential acts, accidentally causing another person’s death involves no guilt at all.33 Righteousness and justice demand both that guilty persons be punished and the innocent not be victimized. For this reason, communities committed to righteousness will develop rigorous procedures and institutions designed to establish guilt and innocence, particularly in cases involving manslaughter. Conversely, customs and procedures designed to make the innocent look guilty and the guilty appear innocent are to be condemned as both unrighteous and unjust.
Love. This text reaffirms the importance of love as the underlying disposition toward other human beings. Hatred is an unrighteous disposition of the heart, and rage is her ugly sister. The progeny of these attitudes are hostile and violent acts against others. While we cannot expect neo-Canaanites to govern their lives after the ordinances of God, love for one’s fellow human beings, particularly toward members of the household of faith, is the mark of discipleship (John 13:35). Although passions of the unregenerate yield enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law” (Gal. 5:20–23).
Importance of community. This text illustrates the importance of community. For justice to reign the entire community must be committed to righteousness. This agenda may not be left in the hands of the professionals, who have a propensity to be driven by self-interest rather than the well-being of the community. At the same time, this passage affirms the culpability of the entire community for the crimes of the individual.
The paragon of virtue, Daniel, found himself in exile along with his countrymen; in his prayer in Daniel 9 he recognized that he was a part of the problem—note the preponderance of first person pronouns acknowledging his guilt. In the eyes of God, the guilt of individuals hangs over the community that refuses to deal with the crimes they commit. As a supreme act of grace, Yahweh revealed to ancient Israel a method whereby that guilt could be removed. But as an act of even greater grace, God has revealed to us the means whereby the guilt of humanity can be removed; this is accomplished through the atoning sacrifice of Christ, the ultimate gôʾēl, who secures the blessing and life of the righteous and purges them of their sin.
Greed. Finally, in every age God’s people need to combat the kind of greed addressed in the ordinance about land markers (v. 14). But the scope of the present ordinance is not restricted to greedy and powerful rulers. The law applies equally to the poor, who out of envy and their own greed may try to seize property held by others. As in the Decalogue, the second person “you” assumes the addressee is the greatest threat to others’ security and property. And the “you” here is unqualified. Nothing, not even poverty, justifies the violation of the next person’s rights. While this form of greed is rarely expressed in our technological and urbanized context by seizing the neighbor’s land, we witness it in the way investors swindle their clients’ money, caregivers confiscate the resources of those for whom they are supposed to care, and students claim the ideas of others as their own through the Internet. A community committed to righteousness is characterized by generosity, compassion, and commitment to others’ well-being rather than to self-serving avarice and greed.
Original Meaning
The Need for the Provision of Asylum for Innocent Manslaughter (19:4–7 , 10)
WHEREAS NUMBERS 35:16–23 focused on the legal rules of evidence,14 the present text pursues righteousness by providing an illustration of its necessity. Verses 4–7 are a self-contained subunit framed by a formal introduction (v. 4a) and conclusion (v. 7). The introduction illuminates the form and the function of the passage. In keeping with the sermonic nature of this address, verse 4 is best read something like, “Here is an illustration of the killer15 who flees there [to the town of asylum] that he might live, that is, a person who unintentionally strikes down his neighbor, without having exhibited any prior hostility toward him” (pers. trans.).
Verse 5 presents a concrete situation that might precipitate such a flight. The “killer” goes with his neighbor to the forest to chop wood. As he swings the axe16 to cut down a tree, the axehead flies off the handle and “finds” his neighbor and kills him. While the verb māṣāʾ means primarily “to find” that for which one is searching, here it refers to a chance encounter,17 necessitating protection for an innocent person in the form of a refuge to which the individual could flee (v. 5e). Assuming familiarity with the regulations in Numbers 35:24–28, Moses does not need to specify how the people in the town of asylum should respond to the fugitive. These regulations call for its citizens to hear the case, adjudicate between the fugitive and the avenger of blood, and respond accordingly to the judgment.18
In verse 6 Moses explains why the person would flee: the “avenger of blood” is after him. In the expression ”avenger [gôʾēl] of blood” (lit., “the redeemer of blood”),19 gôʾēl is a technical legal term, denoting a near kinsman responsible for maintaining the integrity of the family and its holdings.20 Based on an assumption of corporate solidarity, this provision was designed to maintain the wholeness of family relationships even after the person had died.21 Institutions like this developed in kinship-based societies that lacked a strong central authority.
However, the involvement of the elders as representatives of the community (v. 12) prevented “avengers of blood” from operating independently or being driven by thirst for vengeance. The purpose of the institution was not to foster revenge but to promote righteousness. In cases of murder, righteousness demanded the expiation of the bloodguilt incurred by the death.22 Moses recognizes that despite the lofty goal of communal righteousness and the expiation of bloodguilt, personal passion could drive avengers of blood (v. 6). In rage they might pursue the “killer,” overtake him, and kill him. But since the “killer” in this case has committed no crime and has not previously expressed hatred toward the victim, the sentence of death does not apply. This section concludes with an emphatic reminder to set aside three towns of asylum (v. 7).
Skipping over verses 8–9, which are parenthetical, verse 10 offers a rationale for the policy: Towns of asylum are needed to prevent innocent blood from being shed in the midst of the land. The expression “innocent blood” refers to the blood of the one responsible for the death of the victim; since the death was accidental, his blood is innocent. Employing the strong “bloodguilt formula,” Moses declares that if the community permits the avenger to slay an innocent “killer,” they will incur bloodguilt by violating the sanctity of life.
Bridging Contexts
THE SANCTITY OF LIFE. The foundation for the incommutability of capital punishment as the penalty for homicide is laid in Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” Because human life is sacred, no price is high enough to compensate for its loss. Except for the account of Joshua’s assignment of Hebron, Shechem, and Kedesh on the western side of the Jordan and the affirmation of Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan in the Transjordan (Josh. 20:1–9),29 evidence for cities used as places of asylum in later texts is lacking.
Although it is not specifically mentioned, this distinctively Israelite view of the land may explain why Naboth refused to sell his vineyard to Ahab (1 Kings 21:1–16). However, it also explains why Jezebel, Ahab’s wife, had no scruples about confiscating the property. The notion of the inviolability of land holdings, particularly its theological underpinnings, was foreign to this Tyrian princess. In Tyre kings did what they wanted. The notion of asylum remained alive into the monarchy, but rather than being linked to towns of refuge, it was associated with the temple and the horns of the altar. Adonijah’s (1 Kings 1:50–53) and Joab’s (1 Kings 2:28–29) efforts to save their lives by seeking refuge in the temple proved fruitless.
Boundary markers. Echoes of the ordinance involving land markers are heard in two texts in Proverbs.
Do not move an ancient boundary stone set up by your forefathers. (Prov. 22:28)
Do not move an ancient boundary stone or encroach on the fields of the fatherless. (23:10)30
The latter in particular links this ordinance with Deuteronomy’s concern for the poor. In Job 24:1–11 the patriarch from Uz cites how “men move boundary stones” as the first in a long series of exploitative crimes that the rich commit against the poor. While the language differs, the seriousness of the problem in later Israelite and Judaean history is reflected in the prophets, who pronounce woe on the greedy “who add house to house and join field to field” (Isa. 5:8), and who seize the fields and houses of the poor, robbing families of their hereditary possession.
Contemporary Significance
RESPECT FOR LIFE. ALTHOUGH Deuteronomy 19:1–13 deals with an institution that died long ago, its significance for an enduring theology are profound. While many understand the passage primarily in terms of justice, that justice is merely a subset of a higher and more encompassing value—righteousness. If righteousness is demonstrated first and foremost by unreserved love for God (cf. chap. 13; 16:20–17:2), love for God is demonstrated by the way we treat others, especially in our respect for human life.
The Decalogue affirms the right to life as a fundamental human right (Ex. 20:13; Deut. 5:17). This right is not reserved for those with superior intelligence or achievement or for members of one ethnic group; it belongs to all the sons and daughters of Adam via Noah, and by virtue of their status as image-bearers of God (Gen. 9:6). No crime against another human is as heinous as willful homicide, for it involves the intentional elimination of an image of God. Because the demand to execute the perpetrator is rooted in a divine charge to the ancestor of all (Noah), this principle may not be dismissed as an Israelite civil law abrogated in Christ. As Moses declared in Deuteronomy 19:13, personal dispositions, the intimacy of relationships, and sentimentality may not interfere with this righteous demand.
How cheap life has become in our world is reflected in the homicide rates. In the United States in 2008, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported 14,180 cases of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, 5.6 per 100,000 population.31 In our cities the rates are much higher, rising as high as 40 per 100,000 population. The statistics on the relationship between victim and perpetrator are especially troubling. Our text assumes that families will express solidarity and commitment to each other’s well-being. However, in our world family loyalties are often sacrificed in precisely this area of behavior. Homicide statistics for the United States in 2008 suggest that 23.3 percent of the murders were committed by family members, and 54.7 percent by other acquaintances (neighbors, friends, boyfriends, etc.).32 These figures reflect a drastic cheapening of life and the disintegration of the most fundamental relationships. The loss of the idea of covenant, whether it be in relationship to God or in relationship to one another, leads inevitably to a loss of commitment to righteousness.
If this text calls for uncompromising respect for human life, this respect extends also to those who inadvertently take another’s life. Whether we interpret these tragedies as chance events or providential acts, accidentally causing another person’s death involves no guilt at all.33 Righteousness and justice demand both that guilty persons be punished and the innocent not be victimized. For this reason, communities committed to righteousness will develop rigorous procedures and institutions designed to establish guilt and innocence, particularly in cases involving manslaughter. Conversely, customs and procedures designed to make the innocent look guilty and the guilty appear innocent are to be condemned as both unrighteous and unjust.
Love. This text reaffirms the importance of love as the underlying disposition toward other human beings. Hatred is an unrighteous disposition of the heart, and rage is her ugly sister. The progeny of these attitudes are hostile and violent acts against others. While we cannot expect neo-Canaanites to govern their lives after the ordinances of God, love for one’s fellow human beings, particularly toward members of the household of faith, is the mark of discipleship (John 13:35). Although passions of the unregenerate yield enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law” (Gal. 5:20–23).
Importance of community. This text illustrates the importance of community. For justice to reign the entire community must be committed to righteousness. This agenda may not be left in the hands of the professionals, who have a propensity to be driven by self-interest rather than the well-being of the community. At the same time, this passage affirms the culpability of the entire community for the crimes of the individual.
The paragon of virtue, Daniel, found himself in exile along with his countrymen; in his prayer in Daniel 9 he recognized that he was a part of the problem—note the preponderance of first person pronouns acknowledging his guilt. In the eyes of God, the guilt of individuals hangs over the community that refuses to deal with the crimes they commit. As a supreme act of grace, Yahweh revealed to ancient Israel a method whereby that guilt could be removed. But as an act of even greater grace, God has revealed to us the means whereby the guilt of humanity can be removed; this is accomplished through the atoning sacrifice of Christ, the ultimate gôʾēl, who secures the blessing and life of the righteous and purges them of their sin.
Greed. Finally, in every age God’s people need to combat the kind of greed addressed in the ordinance about land markers (v. 14). But the scope of the present ordinance is not restricted to greedy and powerful rulers. The law applies equally to the poor, who out of envy and their own greed may try to seize property held by others. As in the Decalogue, the second person “you” assumes the addressee is the greatest threat to others’ security and property. And the “you” here is unqualified. Nothing, not even poverty, justifies the violation of the next person’s rights. While this form of greed is rarely expressed in our technological and urbanized context by seizing the neighbor’s land, we witness it in the way investors swindle their clients’ money, caregivers confiscate the resources of those for whom they are supposed to care, and students claim the ideas of others as their own through the Internet. A community committed to righteousness is characterized by generosity, compassion, and commitment to others’ well-being rather than to self-serving avarice and greed.
Original Meaning
The Expansion of the Provision of Asylum for Innocent Manslaughter (19:8–9)
IN VERSES 8–9 Moses digresses momentarily, contemplating the future when Yahweh expands the Israelites’ territory, delivering into their hands all the land he promised on oath to their ancestors. Whereas verses 1–7 had in mind the core Promised Land west of the Jordan, the conditional construction raises the possibility of further expansion (v. 8). Should Israel’s territory expand beyond the original tribal allotments, three towns of asylum on each side of the Jordan would be inadequate. Therefore Moses calls for the addition of three more towns of asylum to serve the people living beyond the narrowly defined Promised Land (v. 9b).
However, verse 9 recognizes that just as Israel’s prosperity in the land depends on their pursuit of righteousness, so Yahweh’s expansion of their territory is contingent on fidelity. Therefore, with a challenge we have often heard before (6:5), Moses appeals for scrupulous devotion to Yahweh demonstrated in action.23 Yahweh owes nothing to those who do not receive his grace with gratitude and respond to his covenant with obedience.
Bridging Contexts
THE SANCTITY OF LIFE. The foundation for the incommutability of capital punishment as the penalty for homicide is laid in Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” Because human life is sacred, no price is high enough to compensate for its loss. Except for the account of Joshua’s assignment of Hebron, Shechem, and Kedesh on the western side of the Jordan and the affirmation of Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan in the Transjordan (Josh. 20:1–9),29 evidence for cities used as places of asylum in later texts is lacking.
Although it is not specifically mentioned, this distinctively Israelite view of the land may explain why Naboth refused to sell his vineyard to Ahab (1 Kings 21:1–16). However, it also explains why Jezebel, Ahab’s wife, had no scruples about confiscating the property. The notion of the inviolability of land holdings, particularly its theological underpinnings, was foreign to this Tyrian princess. In Tyre kings did what they wanted. The notion of asylum remained alive into the monarchy, but rather than being linked to towns of refuge, it was associated with the temple and the horns of the altar. Adonijah’s (1 Kings 1:50–53) and Joab’s (1 Kings 2:28–29) efforts to save their lives by seeking refuge in the temple proved fruitless.
Boundary markers. Echoes of the ordinance involving land markers are heard in two texts in Proverbs.
Do not move an ancient boundary stone set up by your forefathers. (Prov. 22:28)
Do not move an ancient boundary stone or encroach on the fields of the fatherless. (23:10)30
The latter in particular links this ordinance with Deuteronomy’s concern for the poor. In Job 24:1–11 the patriarch from Uz cites how “men move boundary stones” as the first in a long series of exploitative crimes that the rich commit against the poor. While the language differs, the seriousness of the problem in later Israelite and Judaean history is reflected in the prophets, who pronounce woe on the greedy “who add house to house and join field to field” (Isa. 5:8), and who seize the fields and houses of the poor, robbing families of their hereditary possession.
Contemporary Significance
RESPECT FOR LIFE. ALTHOUGH Deuteronomy 19:1–13 deals with an institution that died long ago, its significance for an enduring theology are profound. While many understand the passage primarily in terms of justice, that justice is merely a subset of a higher and more encompassing value—righteousness. If righteousness is demonstrated first and foremost by unreserved love for God (cf. chap. 13; 16:20–17:2), love for God is demonstrated by the way we treat others, especially in our respect for human life.
The Decalogue affirms the right to life as a fundamental human right (Ex. 20:13; Deut. 5:17). This right is not reserved for those with superior intelligence or achievement or for members of one ethnic group; it belongs to all the sons and daughters of Adam via Noah, and by virtue of their status as image-bearers of God (Gen. 9:6). No crime against another human is as heinous as willful homicide, for it involves the intentional elimination of an image of God. Because the demand to execute the perpetrator is rooted in a divine charge to the ancestor of all (Noah), this principle may not be dismissed as an Israelite civil law abrogated in Christ. As Moses declared in Deuteronomy 19:13, personal dispositions, the intimacy of relationships, and sentimentality may not interfere with this righteous demand.
How cheap life has become in our world is reflected in the homicide rates. In the United States in 2008, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported 14,180 cases of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, 5.6 per 100,000 population.31 In our cities the rates are much higher, rising as high as 40 per 100,000 population. The statistics on the relationship between victim and perpetrator are especially troubling. Our text assumes that families will express solidarity and commitment to each other’s well-being. However, in our world family loyalties are often sacrificed in precisely this area of behavior. Homicide statistics for the United States in 2008 suggest that 23.3 percent of the murders were committed by family members, and 54.7 percent by other acquaintances (neighbors, friends, boyfriends, etc.).32 These figures reflect a drastic cheapening of life and the disintegration of the most fundamental relationships. The loss of the idea of covenant, whether it be in relationship to God or in relationship to one another, leads inevitably to a loss of commitment to righteousness.
If this text calls for uncompromising respect for human life, this respect extends also to those who inadvertently take another’s life. Whether we interpret these tragedies as chance events or providential acts, accidentally causing another person’s death involves no guilt at all.33 Righteousness and justice demand both that guilty persons be punished and the innocent not be victimized. For this reason, communities committed to righteousness will develop rigorous procedures and institutions designed to establish guilt and innocence, particularly in cases involving manslaughter. Conversely, customs and procedures designed to make the innocent look guilty and the guilty appear innocent are to be condemned as both unrighteous and unjust.
Love. This text reaffirms the importance of love as the underlying disposition toward other human beings. Hatred is an unrighteous disposition of the heart, and rage is her ugly sister. The progeny of these attitudes are hostile and violent acts against others. While we cannot expect neo-Canaanites to govern their lives after the ordinances of God, love for one’s fellow human beings, particularly toward members of the household of faith, is the mark of discipleship (John 13:35). Although passions of the unregenerate yield enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law” (Gal. 5:20–23).
Importance of community. This text illustrates the importance of community. For justice to reign the entire community must be committed to righteousness. This agenda may not be left in the hands of the professionals, who have a propensity to be driven by self-interest rather than the well-being of the community. At the same time, this passage affirms the culpability of the entire community for the crimes of the individual.
The paragon of virtue, Daniel, found himself in exile along with his countrymen; in his prayer in Daniel 9 he recognized that he was a part of the problem—note the preponderance of first person pronouns acknowledging his guilt. In the eyes of God, the guilt of individuals hangs over the community that refuses to deal with the crimes they commit. As a supreme act of grace, Yahweh revealed to ancient Israel a method whereby that guilt could be removed. But as an act of even greater grace, God has revealed to us the means whereby the guilt of humanity can be removed; this is accomplished through the atoning sacrifice of Christ, the ultimate gôʾēl, who secures the blessing and life of the righteous and purges them of their sin.
Greed. Finally, in every age God’s people need to combat the kind of greed addressed in the ordinance about land markers (v. 14). But the scope of the present ordinance is not restricted to greedy and powerful rulers. The law applies equally to the poor, who out of envy and their own greed may try to seize property held by others. As in the Decalogue, the second person “you” assumes the addressee is the greatest threat to others’ security and property. And the “you” here is unqualified. Nothing, not even poverty, justifies the violation of the next person’s rights. While this form of greed is rarely expressed in our technological and urbanized context by seizing the neighbor’s land, we witness it in the way investors swindle their clients’ money, caregivers confiscate the resources of those for whom they are supposed to care, and students claim the ideas of others as their own through the Internet. A community committed to righteousness is characterized by generosity, compassion, and commitment to others’ well-being rather than to self-serving avarice and greed.
Original Meaning
The Exception to the Provision of Asylum for Manslaughter (19:11–13)
WHEREAS IN THE ANCIENT world protection was generally granted those who sought refuge in temples, Numbers 35 and Deuteronomy 19 insist that no guilty person should be secure in the town of asylum. In proposing a hypothetical scenario that is the opposite of verses 4–10,24 Moses recognizes the potential for criminals to abuse the institution and reaffirms the demand in Numbers 35 for discrimination between intentional murder and accidental death.
Whereas in verse 4 Moses had characterized the killer and his victim as neighbors on friendly terms, the description of the criminal’s actions in verse 11 opens with an announcement of his hostile disposition: “Suppose a man hates his neighbor” (pers. trans.; cf. Ex 21:14a) and plots to kill: He lies in wait, jumps up against his victim, delivers a fatal blow, and then flees to one of the towns of asylum. Omitting any reference to the fugitive’s plea for asylum or trial before the congregation (Josh. 20:4, 6), these instructions assume a guilty verdict. Moses demands that the elders of the criminal’s community dispatch men to fetch the murderer from the town of asylum and hand him over to the avenger of blood for execution.25
Moving from required action to disposition, Moses tries to fortify the community’s resolve to deal with the murderer as prescribed by citing the first half of the “no pity formula” (v. 13; cf. 13:8[9]). As a pastor, Moses is realistic; in cases involving relatives, it will be tempting to substitute the sentence of death with economic compensation.26 However, it is necessary to execute the murderer to purge the nation of the innocent blood of the victim;27 Israel has been contaminated by the blood of an innocent man. The purgation absolving them of the guilt of the crime can be achieved only by executing the murderer. Until that occurs, culpability for the crime hangs over all the people (v. 10).
Moses concludes these instructions with a reminder that Israel’s well-being depends on rigorous defense of innocent blood (v. 13b). Apart from the theological issues involved in purging the blood from Israel, protecting innocent manslayers and executing guilty murderers will serve their own interests. “That it may go well with you” links this passage with others that declare that obedience to the revealed will of Yahweh is “for our good” and credited as “righteousness for us” (6:24–25; cf. 5:33; 10:13).
Bridging Contexts
THE SANCTITY OF LIFE. The foundation for the incommutability of capital punishment as the penalty for homicide is laid in Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” Because human life is sacred, no price is high enough to compensate for its loss. Except for the account of Joshua’s assignment of Hebron, Shechem, and Kedesh on the western side of the Jordan and the affirmation of Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan in the Transjordan (Josh. 20:1–9),29 evidence for cities used as places of asylum in later texts is lacking.
Although it is not specifically mentioned, this distinctively Israelite view of the land may explain why Naboth refused to sell his vineyard to Ahab (1 Kings 21:1–16). However, it also explains why Jezebel, Ahab’s wife, had no scruples about confiscating the property. The notion of the inviolability of land holdings, particularly its theological underpinnings, was foreign to this Tyrian princess. In Tyre kings did what they wanted. The notion of asylum remained alive into the monarchy, but rather than being linked to towns of refuge, it was associated with the temple and the horns of the altar. Adonijah’s (1 Kings 1:50–53) and Joab’s (1 Kings 2:28–29) efforts to save their lives by seeking refuge in the temple proved fruitless.
Boundary markers. Echoes of the ordinance involving land markers are heard in two texts in Proverbs.
Do not move an ancient boundary stone set up by your forefathers. (Prov. 22:28)
Do not move an ancient boundary stone or encroach on the fields of the fatherless. (23:10)30
The latter in particular links this ordinance with Deuteronomy’s concern for the poor. In Job 24:1–11 the patriarch from Uz cites how “men move boundary stones” as the first in a long series of exploitative crimes that the rich commit against the poor. While the language differs, the seriousness of the problem in later Israelite and Judaean history is reflected in the prophets, who pronounce woe on the greedy “who add house to house and join field to field” (Isa. 5:8), and who seize the fields and houses of the poor, robbing families of their hereditary possession.
Contemporary Significance
RESPECT FOR LIFE. ALTHOUGH Deuteronomy 19:1–13 deals with an institution that died long ago, its significance for an enduring theology are profound. While many understand the passage primarily in terms of justice, that justice is merely a subset of a higher and more encompassing value—righteousness. If righteousness is demonstrated first and foremost by unreserved love for God (cf. chap. 13; 16:20–17:2), love for God is demonstrated by the way we treat others, especially in our respect for human life.
The Decalogue affirms the right to life as a fundamental human right (Ex. 20:13; Deut. 5:17). This right is not reserved for those with superior intelligence or achievement or for members of one ethnic group; it belongs to all the sons and daughters of Adam via Noah, and by virtue of their status as image-bearers of God (Gen. 9:6). No crime against another human is as heinous as willful homicide, for it involves the intentional elimination of an image of God. Because the demand to execute the perpetrator is rooted in a divine charge to the ancestor of all (Noah), this principle may not be dismissed as an Israelite civil law abrogated in Christ. As Moses declared in Deuteronomy 19:13, personal dispositions, the intimacy of relationships, and sentimentality may not interfere with this righteous demand.
How cheap life has become in our world is reflected in the homicide rates. In the United States in 2008, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported 14,180 cases of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, 5.6 per 100,000 population.31 In our cities the rates are much higher, rising as high as 40 per 100,000 population. The statistics on the relationship between victim and perpetrator are especially troubling. Our text assumes that families will express solidarity and commitment to each other’s well-being. However, in our world family loyalties are often sacrificed in precisely this area of behavior. Homicide statistics for the United States in 2008 suggest that 23.3 percent of the murders were committed by family members, and 54.7 percent by other acquaintances (neighbors, friends, boyfriends, etc.).32 These figures reflect a drastic cheapening of life and the disintegration of the most fundamental relationships. The loss of the idea of covenant, whether it be in relationship to God or in relationship to one another, leads inevitably to a loss of commitment to righteousness.
If this text calls for uncompromising respect for human life, this respect extends also to those who inadvertently take another’s life. Whether we interpret these tragedies as chance events or providential acts, accidentally causing another person’s death involves no guilt at all.33 Righteousness and justice demand both that guilty persons be punished and the innocent not be victimized. For this reason, communities committed to righteousness will develop rigorous procedures and institutions designed to establish guilt and innocence, particularly in cases involving manslaughter. Conversely, customs and procedures designed to make the innocent look guilty and the guilty appear innocent are to be condemned as both unrighteous and unjust.
Love. This text reaffirms the importance of love as the underlying disposition toward other human beings. Hatred is an unrighteous disposition of the heart, and rage is her ugly sister. The progeny of these attitudes are hostile and violent acts against others. While we cannot expect neo-Canaanites to govern their lives after the ordinances of God, love for one’s fellow human beings, particularly toward members of the household of faith, is the mark of discipleship (John 13:35). Although passions of the unregenerate yield enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law” (Gal. 5:20–23).
Importance of community. This text illustrates the importance of community. For justice to reign the entire community must be committed to righteousness. This agenda may not be left in the hands of the professionals, who have a propensity to be driven by self-interest rather than the well-being of the community. At the same time, this passage affirms the culpability of the entire community for the crimes of the individual.
The paragon of virtue, Daniel, found himself in exile along with his countrymen; in his prayer in Daniel 9 he recognized that he was a part of the problem—note the preponderance of first person pronouns acknowledging his guilt. In the eyes of God, the guilt of individuals hangs over the community that refuses to deal with the crimes they commit. As a supreme act of grace, Yahweh revealed to ancient Israel a method whereby that guilt could be removed. But as an act of even greater grace, God has revealed to us the means whereby the guilt of humanity can be removed; this is accomplished through the atoning sacrifice of Christ, the ultimate gôʾēl, who secures the blessing and life of the righteous and purges them of their sin.
Greed. Finally, in every age God’s people need to combat the kind of greed addressed in the ordinance about land markers (v. 14). But the scope of the present ordinance is not restricted to greedy and powerful rulers. The law applies equally to the poor, who out of envy and their own greed may try to seize property held by others. As in the Decalogue, the second person “you” assumes the addressee is the greatest threat to others’ security and property. And the “you” here is unqualified. Nothing, not even poverty, justifies the violation of the next person’s rights. While this form of greed is rarely expressed in our technological and urbanized context by seizing the neighbor’s land, we witness it in the way investors swindle their clients’ money, caregivers confiscate the resources of those for whom they are supposed to care, and students claim the ideas of others as their own through the Internet. A community committed to righteousness is characterized by generosity, compassion, and commitment to others’ well-being rather than to self-serving avarice and greed.
Original Meaning
Righteousness and Greed (19:14)
IF VERSES 1–13 build on the fifth command of the Decalogue, then verse 14 addresses the seventh and tenth commands (5:19, 21b). This verse seems oddly placed, but it is linked to the preceding by its theology of land and vocabulary. The plots of land marked by boundary markers are microcosms of the Promised Land as a whole: both represented inviolable “granted” properties. Inserted here, this fragment heightens the significance of respecting others’ right to property. Justice outside the town walls—in the fields—is as vital as justice inside the gates. The pursuit of righteousness extends to all of life.
The inviolability of boundary markers is fundamental to a settled agricultural economy, where ownership of land is critical for well-being. The present expression, “set up by your predecessors,” assumes a formal procedure allocating parcels of tribal lands to specific clans and families (Num. 26:52–56; 34:13–29; Josh. 14–19). Though evidence is lacking, records of these allotments may have been stored in the central sanctuary. Israelite law viewed Yahweh as the true owner of the land, and the allotments to tribes and families were inviolable.28 The gravity of these grants is reflected in the covenant curses (27:17) and the custom of kinsmen redeemers (gôʾēl) reclaiming land when someone outside the clan possesses it (Lev. 25:23–28).
Bridging Contexts
THE SANCTITY OF LIFE. The foundation for the incommutability of capital punishment as the penalty for homicide is laid in Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” Because human life is sacred, no price is high enough to compensate for its loss. Except for the account of Joshua’s assignment of Hebron, Shechem, and Kedesh on the western side of the Jordan and the affirmation of Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan in the Transjordan (Josh. 20:1–9),29 evidence for cities used as places of asylum in later texts is lacking.
Although it is not specifically mentioned, this distinctively Israelite view of the land may explain why Naboth refused to sell his vineyard to Ahab (1 Kings 21:1–16). However, it also explains why Jezebel, Ahab’s wife, had no scruples about confiscating the property. The notion of the inviolability of land holdings, particularly its theological underpinnings, was foreign to this Tyrian princess. In Tyre kings did what they wanted. The notion of asylum remained alive into the monarchy, but rather than being linked to towns of refuge, it was associated with the temple and the horns of the altar. Adonijah’s (1 Kings 1:50–53) and Joab’s (1 Kings 2:28–29) efforts to save their lives by seeking refuge in the temple proved fruitless.
Boundary markers. Echoes of the ordinance involving land markers are heard in two texts in Proverbs.
Do not move an ancient boundary stone set up by your forefathers. (Prov. 22:28)
Do not move an ancient boundary stone or encroach on the fields of the fatherless. (23:10)30
The latter in particular links this ordinance with Deuteronomy’s concern for the poor. In Job 24:1–11 the patriarch from Uz cites how “men move boundary stones” as the first in a long series of exploitative crimes that the rich commit against the poor. While the language differs, the seriousness of the problem in later Israelite and Judaean history is reflected in the prophets, who pronounce woe on the greedy “who add house to house and join field to field” (Isa. 5:8), and who seize the fields and houses of the poor, robbing families of their hereditary possession.
Contemporary Significance
RESPECT FOR LIFE. ALTHOUGH Deuteronomy 19:1–13 deals with an institution that died long ago, its significance for an enduring theology are profound. While many understand the passage primarily in terms of justice, that justice is merely a subset of a higher and more encompassing value—righteousness. If righteousness is demonstrated first and foremost by unreserved love for God (cf. chap. 13; 16:20–17:2), love for God is demonstrated by the way we treat others, especially in our respect for human life.
The Decalogue affirms the right to life as a fundamental human right (Ex. 20:13; Deut. 5:17). This right is not reserved for those with superior intelligence or achievement or for members of one ethnic group; it belongs to all the sons and daughters of Adam via Noah, and by virtue of their status as image-bearers of God (Gen. 9:6). No crime against another human is as heinous as willful homicide, for it involves the intentional elimination of an image of God. Because the demand to execute the perpetrator is rooted in a divine charge to the ancestor of all (Noah), this principle may not be dismissed as an Israelite civil law abrogated in Christ. As Moses declared in Deuteronomy 19:13, personal dispositions, the intimacy of relationships, and sentimentality may not interfere with this righteous demand.
How cheap life has become in our world is reflected in the homicide rates. In the United States in 2008, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported 14,180 cases of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, 5.6 per 100,000 population.31 In our cities the rates are much higher, rising as high as 40 per 100,000 population. The statistics on the relationship between victim and perpetrator are especially troubling. Our text assumes that families will express solidarity and commitment to each other’s well-being. However, in our world family loyalties are often sacrificed in precisely this area of behavior. Homicide statistics for the United States in 2008 suggest that 23.3 percent of the murders were committed by family members, and 54.7 percent by other acquaintances (neighbors, friends, boyfriends, etc.).32 These figures reflect a drastic cheapening of life and the disintegration of the most fundamental relationships. The loss of the idea of covenant, whether it be in relationship to God or in relationship to one another, leads inevitably to a loss of commitment to righteousness.
If this text calls for uncompromising respect for human life, this respect extends also to those who inadvertently take another’s life. Whether we interpret these tragedies as chance events or providential acts, accidentally causing another person’s death involves no guilt at all.33 Righteousness and justice demand both that guilty persons be punished and the innocent not be victimized. For this reason, communities committed to righteousness will develop rigorous procedures and institutions designed to establish guilt and innocence, particularly in cases involving manslaughter. Conversely, customs and procedures designed to make the innocent look guilty and the guilty appear innocent are to be condemned as both unrighteous and unjust.
Love. This text reaffirms the importance of love as the underlying disposition toward other human beings. Hatred is an unrighteous disposition of the heart, and rage is her ugly sister. The progeny of these attitudes are hostile and violent acts against others. While we cannot expect neo-Canaanites to govern their lives after the ordinances of God, love for one’s fellow human beings, particularly toward members of the household of faith, is the mark of discipleship (John 13:35). Although passions of the unregenerate yield enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law” (Gal. 5:20–23).
Importance of community. This text illustrates the importance of community. For justice to reign the entire community must be committed to righteousness. This agenda may not be left in the hands of the professionals, who have a propensity to be driven by self-interest rather than the well-being of the community. At the same time, this passage affirms the culpability of the entire community for the crimes of the individual.
The paragon of virtue, Daniel, found himself in exile along with his countrymen; in his prayer in Daniel 9 he recognized that he was a part of the problem—note the preponderance of first person pronouns acknowledging his guilt. In the eyes of God, the guilt of individuals hangs over the community that refuses to deal with the crimes they commit. As a supreme act of grace, Yahweh revealed to ancient Israel a method whereby that guilt could be removed. But as an act of even greater grace, God has revealed to us the means whereby the guilt of humanity can be removed; this is accomplished through the atoning sacrifice of Christ, the ultimate gôʾēl, who secures the blessing and life of the righteous and purges them of their sin.
Greed. Finally, in every age God’s people need to combat the kind of greed addressed in the ordinance about land markers (v. 14). But the scope of the present ordinance is not restricted to greedy and powerful rulers. The law applies equally to the poor, who out of envy and their own greed may try to seize property held by others. As in the Decalogue, the second person “you” assumes the addressee is the greatest threat to others’ security and property. And the “you” here is unqualified. Nothing, not even poverty, justifies the violation of the next person’s rights. While this form of greed is rarely expressed in our technological and urbanized context by seizing the neighbor’s land, we witness it in the way investors swindle their clients’ money, caregivers confiscate the resources of those for whom they are supposed to care, and students claim the ideas of others as their own through the Internet. A community committed to righteousness is characterized by generosity, compassion, and commitment to others’ well-being rather than to self-serving avarice and greed.