Deuteronômio 19
Bob Utley · Citado em PreceptAustin
Deuteronômio 19
Utley - God was now giving them the land as He had promised Abraham (Gen. 12:1; 15:12–21; Ex. 6:8), but they had to possess it. Notice the conditional aspect of even this foundational covenant (e.g., Dt 4:1; 5:33; 6:18; 8:1; 16:20; 30:16, 19)..(Deuteronomy 19 Commentary) Utley - SPECIAL TOPIC: COVENANT PROMISES TO THE PATRIARCHS This initial promise of a special covenant relationship was made to: 1. Abraham, Gen. 12:1–3 a. land, Gen. 12:7; 13:4–15; 15:18–21 b. people, Gen. 13:16; 15:4–5; 17:2–6; 22:18 c. blessing to the world, Gen. 18:18; 22:18 2. Isaac, Gen. 26:2–4 a. land b. people c. blessing to the world 3. Jacob, Gen. 28:2–4, 13; 35:9–12; 48:3–4 a. land b. people 4. the nation of Israel (a land), Exod. 3:8, 17; 6:8; 13:5; 33:1–3; Deut. 1:7–8, 35; 4:31; 9:3; 11:25; 31:7; Josh. 1:6 Deuteronomy 19:2 you shall set aside three cities for yourself in the midst of your land, which the LORD your God gives you to possess. three cities: De 4:41-43 Ex 21:13 Nu 35:10-15 Jos 20:2-7 Heb 6:18 Deuteronomy 18 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passages: THREE CITIES OF REFUGE ON THE EAST SIDE... Deuteronomy 4:41-43+ Then Moses set apart three cities across the Jordan to the east, 42 that a manslayer might flee there, who unintentionally slew his neighbor without having enmity toward him in time past; and by fleeing to one of these cities he might live: 43 Bezer in the wilderness on the plateau for the Reubenites, and Ramoth in Gilead for the Gadites, and Golan in Bashan for the Manassites. Numbers 35:10-15 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan, 11 then you shall select for yourselves cities to be your cities of refuge, that the manslayer who has killed any person unintentionally may flee there. 12 ‘The cities shall be to you as a refuge from the avenger, so that the manslayer will not die until he stands before the congregation for trial. 13 ‘The cities which you are to give shall be your six cities of refuge. 14 ‘You shall give three cities across the Jordan (EAST SIDE) and three cities in the land of Canaan (WEST SIDE); they are to be cities of refuge. 15 ‘These six cities shall be for refuge for the sons of Israel, and for the alien and for the sojourner among them; that anyone who kills a person unintentionally may flee there. Joshua 20:2-9 “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘Designate the cities of refuge, of which I spoke to you through Moses, 3 that the manslayer who kills any person unintentionally, without premeditation, may flee there, and they shall become your refuge from the avenger of blood. 4 ‘He shall flee to one of these cities, and shall stand at the entrance of the gate of the city and state his case in the hearing of the elders of that city; and they shall take him into the city to them and give him a place, so that he may dwell among them. 5‘Now if the avenger of blood pursues him, then they shall not deliver the manslayer into his hand, because he struck his neighbor without premeditation and did not hate him beforehand. 6‘He shall dwell in that city until he stands before the congregation for judgment, until the death of the one who is high priest in those days. Then the manslayer shall return to his own city and to his own house, to the city from which he fled.’” 7 So they set apart (1) Kedesh in Galilee in the hill country of Naphtali and (2) Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim, and (3) Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron) in the hill country of Judah. 8 Beyond the Jordan east of Jericho, they designated (4) Bezer in the wilderness on the plain from the tribe of Reuben, and (5) Ramoth in Gilead from the tribe of Gad, and (6) Golan in Bashan from the tribe of Manasseh. 9 These were the appointed cities for all the sons of Israel and for the stranger who sojourns among them, that whoever kills any person unintentionally may flee there, and not die by the hand of the avenger of blood until he stands before the congregation. Grant has an interesting comment but be a Berean - the names of the cities are significant. Kedesh (holy) implies the holiness of the Lord Jesus, our refuge; Shechem (shoulder) that the government is upon His shoulder (Isa 9:6); Hebron (fellowship) that believers are called into the fellowship of Christ; Bezer (a fortress) that Christ is a fortress to all who trust in Him; Ramoth (high) that God has exalted Him to His right hand; Golan (joy) that we "exult with joy unspeakable and filled with the glory" (1 Pet 1:8, JND). Levitical Cities (Green Dot) and Cities of Refuge (Red Square) - click to enlarge From Holman Bible Atlas (available for purchase in digital or Hardcover) © 1998 B&H Publishing Group used by permission. Please do not reproduce. THREE CITIES OF REFUGE ON THE WEST SIDE you shall set aside three cities for yourself in the midst (middle) of your land, which the LORD your God gives you to possess - NIV says the cities are to be "centrally located," which would make them easily accessible. These three cities are Kedesh of Galilee, Shechem, and Hebron (Josh 20:7–9) and are in addition to the 3 on the east side of the Jordan River. Grant - the ultimate purpose of the cities of refuge was that innocent blood was not to be shed in the land. To do so would as much break the Law as would the act of murder. There is always the danger of committing further sin when seeking to deal with alleged sin in others. (What the Bible Teaches) Henry
Deuteronômio 19
Utley - These were Levitical cities of refuge, discussed in Nu 35; Josh. 20, where someone accused of murder (i.e., “manslayer”) could flee to protect himself from the dead person’s relatives (i.e., “blood avenger”). The leaders of these cities were to hold a trial (cf. vv. 11–13) to determine the facts of the case. A list of the cites of refuge is found in Joshua 20:7–8: Trans-jordan - Bezer in Reuben, Ramoth-Gilead in Gad, Golan in Manasseh (Bashan) and Canaan - Kadesh in Naphtali (Galilee), Shechem in Ephraim, Hebron in Judah. The idea of a place of safety or refuge was not unique to Israel. Most ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean cultures provided these special places. Usually they were located at religious shrines. Israel also had this concept by one grabbing the “horns of the altar” (cf. Ex. 27:2; 30:10) at the central shrine (cf. Ex. 21:14; 1 Kgs. 1:50–53; 2:28–34). However, special cities were unique to Israel. YHWH was concerned with the death of innocent manslayers..(Deuteronomy 19 Commentary)
Deuteronômio 19
Utley - This is an expansion of Exod. 21:12–14, which relates to the central sanctuary. This expanded the safety of the central sanctuary to the six Levitical cities of refuge. (Deuteronomy 19 Commentary)
Deuteronômio 19
Utley - “unintentionally” The negated term refers to the death of a fellow Israelite accidentally, without premeditation or prejudice. We would call it manslaughter. The lack of evil motive is the key element. It becomes the theological heart of the sacrificial system. Any sin committed intentionally had no sacrifice available (cf. Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 4:2, 22, 27; 5:15–18; 22:14; Num. 15:27, 30; Deut. 17:12–13; Josh. 20:1–6). Even the national sacrifice by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16) did not cover premeditated sin (cf. Ps: 51:14–17)! Are you not glad we are under the NT sacrifice of Jesus?! At this point I would like to add a quote from NIDOTTE, vol. 2, discussing the concept of: “ ‘Unintentionally’ or ‘inadvertently’ (Lev. 4:2) is both strategic and problematic (cf. Dt 4:13, 22, 27; 5:15, 18; 22:14; Num. 15:22, 24–29). Because of it some scholars have concluded that the sin offering only treated inadvertent sin, that is, sins that were committed by mistake or sins which were done not knowing that the particular act was sinful (see Melgrom, 1991, 228–29). However, the word ‘unintentionally’ means basically ‘in error’ (the vb. means to commit an error, go astray). Although it can also mean that the error was unintentional or inadvertent (see e.g. Num. 35:11, 15, 22–23; Josh 20:9), this is not necessarily the case (see 1 Sam. 26:21; Eccl. 5:6)” (p. 94).(Deuteronomy 19 Commentary) THOUGHT - Keep in mind that the cities of refuge are a picture of Christ, our refuge from death and from the storms and threats of life. The enemy that would seek to kill us is Death, but because of Jesus' death in our place, we no longer need to fear death. "For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory. 55 “O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?” 56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; 57 but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ (OUR KINSMAN REDEEMER). 58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord." (1 Cor 15:53-58+) Deuteronomy 19:5 as when a man goes into the forest with his friend to cut wood, and his hand swings the axe to cut down the tree, and the iron head slips off the handle and strikes his friend so that he dies--he may flee to one of these cities and live; head: 2Ki 6:5-7 flee: Nu 35:25 Pr 27:12 Isa 32:2 Deuteronomy 18 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries EXAMPLE OF A FLYING AXEHEAD Here is an "ironclad" example. as when a man goes into the forest with his friend to cut wood, and his hand swings the axe (Heb = he raises his hand with the iron) to cut down the tree, and the iron head slips off the handle and strikes his friend so that he dies--he may flee to one of these cities and live - Note that while he has his life, he himself does not have use of his land (his family of course would have access) as long as the high priest was alive (Nu 35:25+) "After the death of the high priest the manslayer shall return to the land of his possession." (Nu 35:28+)
Deuteronômio 19
Utley - not deserving of death” This is a theological development of Gen. 9:5–6. Here the motive behind the action is taken into consideration. That which was accidental and unpremeditated is reprieved from “eye-for-an-eye” retaliation. There were consequences (had to live in the city of refuge until the death of the current High Priest). Israel, like YHWH, was to be concerned with justice and revenge!.(Deuteronomy 19 Commentary) Since he had not hated him previously - Not premeditated. Two modes of execution were specified in the Mosaic Law: (1). Death at the hand of the blood avenger (Nu 35:19, 26, 27; Dt 19:11-12) (2). Death by stoning (Ex 21:29; Lv 20:2, 27; Nu 15:32-36; Dt. 13:6-10; 17:2-5; 21:18-21; 22:13-21), neither of which would have been as painless as present-day methods. Avenger (01350) (goel/ga'al) The main word is the verb gaal (01350). Goel (01350) is the active participle of the verb gaal and conveys a primary sense of “restored to an original state”. A Goel therefore was one who not only delivered but who effected restoration to an original state. The Goel is to do the part of a kinsman and thus to redeem their kin from difficulty or danger by the payment of a price. Ga'al = Blood Avenger in Dt 19:6, which describes the individual who had the duty to execute the murderer of his relative. Ga'al is used with this same sense in Nu 35:19, 21, 24, 27 35:12 (see Commentary). Apparently the idea is that the next of kin must effect the payment of life for life. As a house is repurchased or a slave redeemed by payment, so the lost life of the relative must be paid for by the equivalent life of the murderer. The kinsman is the avenger of blood. This system of execution must be distinguished from blood feuds for the blood avenger was a guiltless executioner and not to be murdered in turn. BDB - A primitive root, to redeem (according to the Oriental law of kinship), that is, to be the next of kin (and as such to buy back a relative's property, marry his widow, etc.) Goel - Gen. 48:16; Exod. 6:6; Exod. 15:13; Lev. 25:25; Lev. 25:26; Lev. 25:30; Lev. 25:33; Lev. 25:48; Lev. 25:49; Lev. 25:54; Lev. 27:13; Lev. 27:15; Lev. 27:19; Lev. 27:20; Lev. 27:27; Lev. 27:28; Lev. 27:31; Lev. 27:33; Num. 5:8; Num. 35:12; Num. 35:19; Num. 35:21; Num. 35:24; Num. 35:25; Num. 35:27; Deut. 19:6; Deut. 19:12; Jos. 20:3; Jos. 20:5; Jos. 20:9; Ruth 2:20; Ruth 3:9; Ruth 3:12; Ruth 3:13; Ruth 4:1; Ruth 4:3; Ruth 4:4; Ruth 4:6; Ruth 4:8; Ruth 4:14; 2 Sam. 14:11; 1 Ki. 16:11; Job 3:5; Job 19:25; Ps. 19:14; Ps. 69:18; Ps. 72:14; Ps. 74:2; Ps. 77:15; Ps. 78:35; Ps. 103:4; Ps. 106:10; Ps. 107:2; Ps. 119:154; Prov. 23:11; Isa. 35:9; Isa. 41:14; Isa. 43:1; Isa. 43:14; Isa. 44:6; Isa. 44:22; Isa. 44:23; Isa. 44:24; Isa. 47:4; Isa. 48:17; Isa. 48:20; Isa. 49:7; Isa. 49:26; Isa. 51:10; Isa. 52:3; Isa. 52:9; Isa. 54:5; Isa. 54:8; Isa. 59:20; Isa. 60:16; Isa. 62:12; Isa. 63:9; Isa. 63:16; Jer. 31:11; Jer. 50:34; Lam. 3:58; Hos. 13:14; Mic. 4:10 Anchor Bible Dictionary has an interesting note - The “blood avenger” was literally “taker back of the blood,” that is, a redeemer with a specialized function. The killing of one clan member was construed by the remaining members not only as a shedding of the group’s blood (de Vaux 1965:11) but as misappropriation of blood which properly belonged to the entire group. The responsibility of the blood avenger was to win back that misappropriated blood by killing the original blood shedder (Daube 1969:123–24). Although blood vengeance for a relative slain in battle was not justified (2 Sam 3:27–30), return of other blood was required by the clan (Heb mišpāḥâ), or by an agent acting on its behalf even when both slayer and victim were clan members (2 Sam 14:6–7). It appears that the rise of the monarchy limited blood vengeance in that the king could, in effect, pardon the slayer by restraining the avenger of blood (2 Sam 14:5–11). Blood Avenger - Hastings Dictionary - The practice of blood-revenge has been very widely spread among societies in a certain stage of civilization, where there has been no central authority to enforce law and order, and where the certainty of retaliation has been the only guarantee for security of life. Among the Semites the custom was in full force from the earliest times, and it is still the only spring of order in Arabia. It depends for its maintenance upon the solidarity of the clan or tribe. All the members of the tribe, whatever may be the immediate parental relationship, are counted as being of one blood; a wrong done to one is a wrong done to all, to be avenged if necessary by all the offended clan upon all the clan of the offender. The phrase used by the Arabs is, ‘Our blood has been shed.’ Of the form of blood-revenge that involved the whole clan or tribe in the murder of a single individual there are still traces in the OT (Joshua 7:24 , 2 Kings 9:25 ). Naturally, however, the duty of avenging the shedding of blood fell primarily upon him who was nearest of kin to the slaughtered man. This next of kin was called the gô’çl . The word in Hebrew law was used in a wide sense for him whose duty it was to redeem the property or the person of an impoverished or enslaved relative ( Leviticus 25:26; Leviticus 25:47-49 , Ruth 4:1 ff.), but it came to be used specially of the man who had to perform this most tragic duty of kinship. The steady effort of Hebrew law was to limit this ancient custom so as to ensure that a blood feud should not perpetuate itself to the ruin of a whole clan, and that deliberate murder and accidental homicide should not come under the same penalty. It is possible to trace with some definiteness the progress of this sentiment by which the gô’çl was gradually transformed from being the irresponsible murderer of a possibly blameless manslayer to being practically the executioner of a carefully considered sentence passed by the community. Watson's Biblical & Theological Dictionary Avenger of Blood - He who prosecuted the manslayer under the law was called the avenger of blood, and had a right to slay the person, if he found him without a city of refuge. IVP Bible Background Commentary - While the biblical law clearly indicates the responsibility of the “blood avenger” to avenge the death of a kinsman, this practice of blood feud could be disruptive to the administration of justice, and thus the six cities of refuge were established to provide a “cooling off” phase as well as due process for the accused. Two witnesses were necessary to convict (Num 35:30), and then it became the responsibility of the “blood avenger” to execute the felon (Num 35:19–21; Deut 19:12). No ransom for the convicted murderer was possible (Num 35:31–32). This contrasts with laws formulated elsewhere in the ancient Near East. Both the Hittite laws and the Middle Assyrian laws provide for the payment of a ransom to buy back the life of the murderer. The Assyrian law reflects a middle ground, giving the deceased’s next-of-kin the option of executing the murderer or accepting a ransom.... It is possible that the title “avenger of blood” evolved out of the family obligation to engage in blood revenge when one of their clan members was slain. Such a process, while typical of tribal society, is extremely disruptive to the maintenance of order within an organized state. As a result, the “avenger of blood” (a term which appears only in the context of the cities of refuge) may have been appointed by the government to serve the needs of both the family and the state by apprehending the accused and then carrying out the sentence if the verdict was murder. Jewish Encyclopedia - (Hebrew "go'el"): The Hebrew name for the clansman, "next of kin," upon whom devolved the duties: (1) of avenging, on the person of the murderer, the blood of a murdered kinsman—in this capacity the more specific term "go'el ha-dam" (blood-avenger) was generally used—and (2) of redeeming the property or the person of a relative that had fallen into debt. Among Primitive Peoples. (1) Among primitive peoples of low political development—such as the ancient Greeks, Germans, and Slavs, some North American tribes, the modern Sicilians, Corsicans, and Arabs—the clan or family had to assume the right to protect itself. One of the most important clan duties then was plainly for the nearest of kin to hunt down and carry out the death-penalty on a person that had slain a member of the sept or family. That this idea of family retribution—which even to-day is by no means extinct in some comparatively civilized communities—was also current among the ancient Hebrews may be seen from Genesis 27:45, where the existence of the custom is clearly taken for granted. It appears, furthermore, from Joshua 7:24, and 2 Kings 9:26, that, in the most primitive period, such a vendetta was extended to the entire family of the murderer, as is still the custom among the desert Bedouins. The Hebrew religious justification for the system of family blood-revenge was undoubtedly the firm belief that God, in order to insure the sacredness of human life, had Himself fixed the death penalty for murder (Genesis 9:5 et seq.; Leviticus 24:17). In the earliest times blood-money was not accepted either for murder or for excusable homicide. Such a payment would have made the land "polluted by blood" (Numbers 35:31 et seq.). Una venged blood "cried out" for vengeance to God (Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 26:21; Ezekiel 24:7 et seq.; Job 16:18). The Avenger of Blood, then, was regarded as the representative, not only of the murdered man's family, but of Yhwh Himself, who was the highest avenger (Psalms 9:13 [A. V. 12]). Modification of the System. Such a stern system, however, could not, of course, survive unmodified after the community had begun to advance from the purely savage state. Abuses of the privilege of blood-revenge must have soon become evident to the tribal chiefs, as one finds in Exodus 21:12 (compare Genesis 9:6) that the commonly accepted formula that a life must be given for a life is modified by a careful legal distinction between wilful murder and accidental manslaughter. In order to establish a case of wilful murder, it must be shown that weapons or implements commonly devoted to slaughter were used, and that a personal hatred existed between the slayer and his victim (Exodus 21:12; compare Numbers 35:16; and Deuteronomy 19:4). The law enumerates three exceptions to this general principle: (a) The slaying of a thief caught at night in flagrante delicto is not punishable at all; but if he is captured by day there is blood-guilt which, however, is not liable to the blood-revenge (Exodus 22 et seq.). (b) If a bull gored a human being to death, the punishment was visited upon the animal, which was killed by stoning. Its flesh in such a case might not be eaten. If gross contributory negligence could be proved on the part of the animal's owner, he was liable only for blood-money(Exodus 21:28). (c) Where the master kills his slave, the offense is punishable only when the latter dies at once, and then probably not by the death-penalty, as some of the rabbinical writers thought (Exodus 21:23). Six Cities of Refuge. The later codes develop at some length the very just distinction between wilful murder and accidental homicide (see see MURDER). Six CITIES OF REFUGE were appointed for the purpose of affording an asylum to the homicide, where he might be secure from the hand of the avenger (Deuteronomy 19:12) until the elders of the community of which the accused was a member should decide whether the murder was intentional or accidental (Numbers 35:9-34; Deuteronomy 19:1-13; Joshua 20). According to the later procedure, at least two witnesses were necessary to establish a case of wilful murder (Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 19:15). In case, however, it was not possible to apprehend the murderer or manslayer, the adjudication might take place and a verdict be rendered in his absence. It appears from Joshua 20:4 that the elders of the city of refuge chosen by the slayer had the right to decide as to whether he should be permitted to have a temporary asylum or not. If the case were simply one of unintentional manslaughter the slayer was immediately accorded the right of asylum in the city of refuge, where he had to remain until the death of the reigning high priest (Numbers 35:25), whose death, in ancient Hebrew law, marked the end of a legal period of limitation (Numbers 35; Deuteronomy 19; Joshua 20). If the "go'el ha-dam" were to find the slayer of his kinsman outside the limits of the city of refuge, he had the right to kill him at sight. The Family Executioner. In a case in which the verdict against the slayer was one of wilful murder, the murderer incurred the blood-revenge without any restrictions. If he were already in a city of refuge, the elders of his own city were obliged to fetch him thence by force if necessary, and to deliver him formally to the Avenger of Blood, who thus became little more than a family executioner (Deuteronomy 19:11 et seq.). Two very important restrictions should here be noticed: (a) Although the entire family or gens to which the murdered man belonged were theoretically entitled to demand the blood-revenge (2 Samuel 14:7), still, in the practise of later times, only one member—for example, the next of kin, who was also legal heir—might assume the duty of carrying it out. According to the later Jewish tradition, when there was no heir, the court had the right to assume the position of the "go'el." (b) The law expressly states that the blood-revenge was applicable only to the person of the guilty man and not to the members of his family as well (Deuteronomy 24:16; compare 2 Kings 14:6). This is a most significant advance on the primitive savage custom that involved two gentes in a ceaseless feud. Anent this advance, it is interesting to note that, in the time of the kings, the king himself, as the highest judicial authority, was entitled to control the course of the blood-revenge (2 Samuel 14:8 et seq.). It is difficult to decide exactly how long the custom of blood-revenge by the "go'el" remained in vogue among the Hebrews. According to 2 Chronicles 19:10; Deuteronomy 17:8, the law of Jehoshaphat demanded that all intricate legal cases should come before the new court of justice at Jerusalem. It is not probable, however, that this regulation curtailed the rights of the "go'el ha-dam," which must have continued in force as long as there was an independent Israelitish state. Of course, under the Romans, the right of blood revenge had ceased (John 18:31). The Redeemer of His Kinsmen. (2) As indicated above, the term "go'el" had also a secondary meaning. From the idea of one carrying out the sentence of justice in the case of blood-shed, the word came to denote the kinsman whose duty it was to redeem the property and person of a relative who, having fallen into debt, was compelled to sell either his land or himself as a slave to satisfy his creditors (compare Leviticus 25:25,47-49). It would appear from Jeremiah 32:8-12 that the "go'el" had the right to the refusal of such property before it was put up for public sale, and also the right to redeem it after it had been sold (Ruth). From the Book of Ruth (4:5) it would appear that the duty of the nearest of kin to marry the widow of his relative in case of the latter's dying without issue was included in the obligations resting upon the "go'el"; but inasmuch as the term is not used in the passage in Deut. (25:8-10) in which this institution is referred to—the obligation resting upon the brother to marry his deceased brother's widow—the testimony of so late a production as Ruth can not be pressed. The usage in the book may not be legally accurate. From this idea of the human "go'el" as a redeemer of his kinsmen in their troubles, there are to be found many allusions to Yhwh as the Divine Go'el, redeeming His people from their woes (compare Exodus 6:6, 15:13; Psalms 74:2), and of the people themselves becoming the "redeemed" ones of Yhwh (Psalms 107:2; Isaiah 62:12). The reference to God as the "go'el" and as the one who would "redeem" His people was applicable to the relationship between Yhwh and Israel in the exilic period, when the people actually looked to their God to restore their land for them, as the impoverished individual looked to his kinsman to secure a restoration of his patrimony. Hence, of thirty-three passages in which "go'el" (as a noun or verb) is applied to God, nineteen occur in the exilic (and post-exilic) sections of Isaiah—the preacher par excellence of "restoration"—for example, in 48:20, 49:26, 52:9, 62:12, etc. See ASYLUM; see CITIES OF REFUGE; JOB; MURDER J. Jr. J. D. P. Bibliography: A. H. Post, Studien zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des Familienrechts, 1890, pp. 113-137; W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, pp. 22 et seq., 38, 47, 52 et seq.; idem, Religion of the Semites, 2d ed., pp. 32 et seq., 272 et seq., 420; Nowack, Lehrbuch der Hebr. Archäologie, , ch. , 1894; Kohler, Zur Lehre von dèr Blutrache, 1885; Bissell, The Law of Asylum in Israel, 1884; Jastrow, Avenger, Kinsman, and Redeemer in the O. T., in The Independent, Aug. 27, 1896; Benzinger, Hebräische Archäologie, p. 335. Norman Geisler - When Critics Ask - NUMBERS 35:19—Why did God permit avenging blood and yet forbid murder? PROBLEM: God forbade murder (Ex. 20:13). Yet here He says, “The avenger of blood himself shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death.” SOLUTION: First of all, this was not an act of murder, but an act of capital punishment which God had ordained before the law (Gen. 9:6), and Moses had reaffirmed it under the Law (Ex. 21:12). Further, notice that it was only to be done to a “murderer,” not simply to anyone. Also, the avenger had to be the nearest male relative of the one who was murdered, not just anyone who wished to take justice in his own hands. In short, what is forbidden in Exodus 20 is the recognized crime of murder, and what is permitted in Numbers 35 is the recognized responsibility of capital punishment. These are not in conflict. Nave's Topical - Avenger of Blood Premosaic Genesis 9:5,6 Cain fears Genesis 4:14,15 Law concerning, set aside. by David 2 Samuel 14:4-11 SCRIPTURES RELATING TO Genesis 9:5,6; Numbers 35:19-29; Deuteronomy 19:4-13; Joshua 20:1-9 Jesus Christ - Our Blood Avenger "goel haddam." As outlined in the table on Kinsman-Redeemer (click), Jesus Christ is the NT fulfillment of the OT shadow of the Kinsman Redeemer as portrayed by Boaz in the book of Ruth. In the NT we learn that our Kinsman Redeemer will redeem and restore all that man lost when Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden and will avenge Adam's "murder." What happened as a result of man's fall in the Garden? When Adam and Eve sinned in that garden they became slaves to the power of Sin. (Ro 6:16+) What else happened in the Garden? Adam and Eve were "'murdered''! You may never have thought of their "death" in the Garden as "murder", but God called it that in the NT. They were alive but when they sinned they died spiritually and from that time on they were dead in their trespasses and sins Ge 2:17, Ro 5:12+, Eph 2:1+). In John 8:43 we learn that Jesus turns to the Jewish religious leaders and asks them... Why do you not understand what I am saying? (And before they can answer Jesus explains that...) It is because you cannot hear My word. You are of your father the Devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a MURDERER FROM THE BEGINNING, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature; for he is a liar, and the father of lies." And thus before the Fall of man, the earth was under the dominion of Adam and Eve, but Satan crept in the perfect environment and craftily deceived them, tempting them to commit sin, and in effect (to use Jesus' words) "murdered" them "in the beginning". (Ge 3:1-6+). Having accomplished his goal, Satan, the great usurper, became the ruler, the prince over the world (Eph 2:2+) For more thorough discussion click Jesus Christ - Our Blood Avenger What is an avenger of blood in the Bible? (see also Law of Retribution below) In the Bible, an avenger of blood is a person legally responsible for carrying out vengeance when a family member has been unlawfully killed or murdered. The avenger of blood is usually the nearest male relative of the murdered person. This family executioner seeks justice by killing the individual responsible for the death of his relative. Mosaic Law allowed vengeance killings carried out by an avenger of blood: “The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death; when the avenger comes upon the murderer, the avenger shall put the murderer to death” (Numbers 35:19; see also 26–27 and Deuteronomy 19:11–12). If a family member was murdered, it became the duty of the avenger of blood to restore justice to the family and the land by pursuing and ultimately carrying out the death penalty on the person responsible. This Old Testament law is rooted in God’s requirement of a life for a life in cases of murder: “And I will require the blood of anyone who takes another person’s life. If a wild animal kills a person, it must die. And anyone who murders a fellow human must die. If anyone takes a human life, that person’s life will also be taken by human hands. For God made human beings in his own image” (Genesis 9:5–6NLT). The word translated “avenge,” in Hebrew, is related to the word for “redeem,” “reclaim,” or “restore.” As a representative of God and the family, the avenger of blood “redeemed” or “reclaimed” the blood of the relative by killing the original blood-shedder. An avenger of blood was to act only in cases of deliberate murder or the unlawful taking of an innocent life. Intent is a necessary element of murder. Six examples of intentional homicide are outlined in Numbers 35:16–21. The avenger of blood was not given license to act in instances of accidental manslaughter. The Mosaic Law regulated the actions of the avenger of blood by providing cities of refuge for the accused. An individual who committed manslaughter, or the unintentional and accidental killing of a person, could find sanctuary in any of the six designated cities of refuge throughout the land of Israel (Numbers 35:10–15, 22–25; Deuteronomy 19:4–6; Joshua 20:1–6). In these towns, the avenger of blood’s quarry was legally protected and guaranteed a fair trial. Gideon became the avenger of blood for his brothers who had been murdered on Mount Tabor by the Midianite kings Zebah and Zalmunna (Judges 8:18–21). Joab avenged the blood of his brother Asahel (2 Samuel 3:27–30). The men of Gibeon avenged the deaths of their countrymen at the hands of Saul by executing seven of the king’s sons (2 Samuel 21:1–9). The avenger of blood concept also figures into the account of King Amaziah, who put to death the officials who had assassinated his father (2 Kings 14:5–6). The story of the Tekoite woman involved a plea for King David to stop the actions of the avenger of blood (2 Samuel 14:8–11). In the New Testament, the apostle Paul instructs, “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Romans 12:17–19). Scripture promises that God will punish evildoers (1 Thessalonians 4:6). God has also appointed government authorities to execute vengeance on His behalf: “The government is God’s servant working for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid. The government has the right to carry out the death sentence. It is God’s servant, an avenger to execute God’s anger on anyone who does what is wrong” (Romans 13:4, GWT). Ultimately, the Lord is the Restorer and Redeemer of His people (Isaiah 41:14). In several places in Scripture, God is portrayed as the avenger of blood: “Rejoice, you nations, with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants; he will take vengeance on his enemies and make atonement for his land and people” (Deuteronomy 32:43; see also Judges 9:23–24; 2 Kings 9:7; Psalm 9:12; 79:10; Revelation 6:10; 19:2). GotQuestions.org Related Resources: Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible Avenger of Blood Morrish Bible Dictionary Avenger, Avenger of Blood 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica Avenger of Blood McClintock and Strong's Bible Encyclopedia Avenger of Blood The Jewish Encyclopedia Avenger of Blood What is the law of retribution? | GotQuestions.org What is the significance of burning coals in the Bible? What does the Bible say about retaliation? Deuteronomy 19:7 "Therefore, I command you, saying, 'You shall set aside three cities for yourself.' cities: Nu 35:6 Charles Feinberg - Cities of Refuge - Part 1; Cities of Refuge - Part 2 - journal articles THREE ADDITIONAL CITIES OF REFUGE Therefore, I command you, saying, 'You shall set aside three cities for yourself. - These are 3 in addition to the 6 already named. There is no record of Israel ever establishing 3 more cities. Nu 35:14 says "You shall give three cities across the Jordan." Moses records them in Dt 4:41-43 "Then Moses set apart three cities across the Jordan to the east, 42 that a manslayer might flee there, who unintentionally slew his neighbor without having enmity toward him in time past; and by fleeing to one of these cities he might live: 43 Bezer in the wilderness on the plateau for the Reubenites, and Ramoth in Gilead for the Gadites, and Golan in Bashan for the Manassites." Joshua 20:8 also records these 3 cities - "Beyond the Jordan east of Jericho, they designated Bezer in the wilderness on the plain from the tribe of Reuben, and Ramoth in Gilead from the tribe of Gad, and Golan in Bashan from the tribe of Manasseh." Nu 35:14 adds "and three cities in the land of Canaan; they are to be cities of refuge" - Joshua records three cities west of the Jordan - "So they set apart Kedesh in Galilee in the hill country of Naphtali and Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim, and Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron) in the hill country of Judah." (Joshua 20:7) The three cities promised here would have made 9 if they had ever come to fruition, but as stated there is no evidence that they did. Grant comments "It is true that the authority of David and Solomon extended to the lands beyond the east bank of the Jordan, but this was of short duration. These lands were to be given to Israel only if the nation obeyed His word to "keep all these commandments to do them ... to love the Lord thy God, and to walk ever in his ways" (v. 9). The nation failed to do this and therefore three further cities of refuge were not necessary." (What the Bible Teaches) Deuteronomy 19:8 "If the LORD your God enlarges your territory, just as He has sworn to your fathers, and gives you all the land which He promised to give your fathers-- De 11:24,25 12:20 Ge 15:18-21 28:14 Ex 23:31 34:24 1Ki 4:21 Ezr 4:20 Deuteronomy 18 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries If the LORD your God enlarges your territory, just as He has sworn to your fathers, and gives you all the land which He promised to give your fathers- As Israel expanded, there were to be more cities of refuge. If a city of refuge was too far to be readily reached by the manslayer, it did him no good—the avenger of blood would overtake him before he could reach the city of refuge. (Guzik) POSB - Note that another provision was made for three more cities of refuge if the territory was enlarged by God (Deut. 19:8-10). This point again stresses the importance of justice and shows God's concern for justice among His people. God looked ahead to the day when the promised land would be enlarged and His people would need three more cities of refuge, need the cities in order to assure justice for innocent people. Note that the enlarged territory was promised to the forefathers, but it was conditional. The people had to obey and love God, walking in His ways (Deut. 19:8-9). The reason for the additional cities is clearly stated: to prevent the death of innocent people and to avoid personal responsibility for the death of the innocent. There is national responsibility for this law. God was speaking to the nation as a whole: every person must make sure that innocent blood was not shed in the land. If innocent blood was shed, every person became guilty. For this reason, every person had to make sure that the cities of refuge were built and made available as asylums or places of safety for persons guilty of accidental murder. (Preacher's Outline & Sermon Bible – Deuteronomy) Deuteronomy 19:9 if you carefully observe all this commandment which I command you today, to love the LORD your God, and to walk in His ways always--then you shall add three more cities for yourself, besides these three. If: De 11:22-25 12:32 then: Jos 20:7,8 Deuteronomy 18 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries POTENTIAL FOR UP TO NINE CITIES OF REFUGE If - “If” The hypothetical PARTICLE expresses the conditional nature of YHWH’s covenant with Israel (cf. v. 9). He had given them the trans-jordan area and now if they obeyed He would give them Canaan. (Utley) You carefully observe all this commandment which I command you today, to love the LORD your God, and to walk in His ways always--then you shall add three more cities for yourself, besides these three - All this commandment refers here to the entire covenant in the Book of Deuteronomy as encapsulated in the Shema (Deut 6:4–5) and emphasizes the unity of the Law. In other words it is consider as if it were One Commandment for it had to be obeyed in its entirety. And James is based on this concept of the unity of the Law " For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. (James 2:10+) NET Note - You will add three more cities. Since these are alluded to nowhere else and thus were probably never added, this must be a provision for other cities of refuge should they be needed (cf. v. 8). Ryrie - three more cities. In addition to the six already designated. These were never added, because Israel did not occupy all the territory promised to Abraham (cf. Gen. 15:18). David subdued and took tribute from that larger area, and Solomon inherited it (cf. 1 Kings 4:21), but it remained foreign and was soon lost. Deuteronomy 19:10 "So innocent blood will not be shed in the midst of your land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, and bloodguiltiness be on you. De 19:13 21:8 1Ki 2:31 2Ki 21:16 24:4 Ps 94:21 Pr 6:17 Isa 59:7 Jer 7:6,7 Joe 3:19 Jon 1:14 Mt 27:4,5 Deuteronomy 18 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries MORE CITIES WOULD PREVENT SHEDDING INNOCENT BLOOD So innocent blood will not be shed in the midst of your land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, and bloodguiltiness be on you - NLT - "That way you will prevent the death of innocent people in the land the LORD your God is giving you as your special possession. You will not be held responsible for the death of innocent people." NIV - "Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land, which the LORD your God is giving you as your inheritance, and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed." He is explaining why God would provide 3 additional cities if the boundaries of Israel increased. The point of the additional 3 cities is to assure that there would always be a city within reach of the man who had brought about an accidental death. If the cities were not close enough for him to flee for refuge, the avenger of blood might catch him, kill him and in so doing shed innocent blood in the land. If that happened the bloodguiltiness would be on you, meaning you the people of Israel. Bloodguilt (Heb. dām, dāmîm “blood”).is the condition of being culpable for bloodshed, guilt incurred through an unnecessary shedding of blood (Deut. 19:10). Bloodguilt in NASB - Exod. 22:2; Exod. 22:3; Lev. 17:4; Lev. 20:9; Lev. 20:11; Lev. 20:12; Lev. 20:13; Lev. 20:16; Lev. 20:27; Deut. 19:10; Deut. 21:8; Deut. 22:8; Ps. 51:14; Hos. 12:14 Philip Logan - Bloodguilt made a person ritually unclean (Num. 35:33–34) and was incurred by killing a person who did not deserve to die (Deut. 19:10; Jer. 26:15; Jon. 1:14). Killing in self-defense and execution of criminals are exempted from bloodguilt (Exod. 22:2; Lev. 20:9). Bloodguilt was incurred (1) by intentional killing (Judg. 9:24; 1 Sam. 25:26, 33; 2 Kings 9:26; Jer. 26:15); (2) by unintentional killing (See Num. 35:22–28 where one who accidentally kills another may be killed by the avenger of blood implying that the accidental murderer had bloodguilt. See Avenger.); (3) by being an indirect cause of death (Gen. 42:22; Deut. 19:10b; 22:8; Josh. 2:19); (4) a person was under bloodguilt if those for whom he was responsible committed murder (1 Kings 2:5, 31–33); and (5) the killing of a sacrifice at an unauthorized altar imputed bloodguilt (Lev. 17:4). The avenger of blood could take action in the first two instances but not in the latter three. When the murderer was known in instance (1) above, the community shared the guilt of the murderer until the guilty party had paid the penalty of death. No other penalty or sacrifice could substitute for the death of the guilty party, nor was there any need for sacrifice once the murderer had been killed (Num. 35:33; Deut. 21:8–9). The one who unintentionally killed another [(2) above] might flee to a city of refuge and be safe. If, however, the accidental killer left the boundaries of the city of refuge, the avenger of blood could kill in revenge without incurring bloodguilt (Num. 35:31–32; Deut. 19:13). The community was held to be bloodguilty if it failed to provide asylum for the accidental killer (Deut. 19:10). In cases where the blood of an innocent victim was not avenged, the blood of the innocent cried out to God (Gen. 4:10; Isa. 26:21; Ezek. 24:7–9; cp. Job 16:18), and God became the avenger for that person (Gen. 9:5; 2 Sam. 4:11; 2 Kings 9:7; Ps. 9:12; Hos. 1:4). Even the descendants of the bloodguilty person might suffer the consequences of God’s judgment (2 Sam. 3:28–29; 21:1; 1 Kings 21:29). Manasseh’s bloodguilt and Judah’s failure to do anything about it was the cause of Judah’s downfall over 50 years after Manasseh’s reign (2 Kings 24:4). Judas incurred bloodguilt by betraying Jesus (“innocent blood,” Matt. 27:4). Those who called for the crucifixion accepted the burden of bloodguilt for themselves and their children (Matt. 27:25). Pilate accepted no responsibility for the shedding of innocent blood (Matt. 27:24). (Holman Bible Dictionary) HCSB - Innocent blood defiled the land so that the land figuratively became hostile toward the guilty person and resisted his attempts to make use of it. When Cain killed Abel, Abel's blood cried out to the Lord from the ground. It would thereafter withhold its yield from Cain (Gen 4:10-12). The soil of Israel would likewise become polluted by the blood of innocent victims (Num 35:33-34; Dt 19:13). NET Note - Heb “innocent blood must not be shed.” The Hebrew phrase דָּם נָקִי (dam naqiy) means the blood of a person to whom no culpability or responsibility adheres because what he did was without malice aforethought (HALOT 224 s.v. דָּם 4.b). Utley - YHWH is concerned about the death of people who do not deserve to die (i.e., “innocent blood,” cf. 2 Kgs. 21:16; 24:4; Jer. 22:17). In the OT there is no distinction between ethical and ritual purity. Life is precious! Its loss has consequences (“blood-guiltiness,” cf. Num. 35:33–34). It is this consequence and other ritual uncleanness that is dealt with (1) annually by the Day of Atonement, described in Leviticus 16 and (2) locally by the sacrifice of a heifer (cf. 21:1–9). As the cities of refuge dwelt with individuals, Deut. 21:1–9 deals with the ritual guiltiness of communities..(Deuteronomy 19 Commentary) Inheritance (possession, heritage) (05159) nachalah from nāḥal = signifies giving or receiving property which is part of a permanent possession and as a result of succession) means Inheritance, heritage, possession. A possession is any piece of property that passes by law to an heir on the death of the owner. It also speaks of God's promises to His people, such as the promise of the land to national (redeemed remnant) Israel. In Dt 4:20 we read “But the LORD has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, from Egypt, to be a people for His own possession, as today." Nachalah in Deut - Deut. 3:28; Deut. 4:20; Deut. 4:21; Deut. 4:38; Deut. 9:26; Deut. 9:29; Deut. 10:9; Deut. 12:9; Deut. 12:12; Deut. 14:27; Deut. 14:29; Deut. 15:4; Deut. 18:1; Deut. 18:2; Deut. 19:10; Deut. 19:14; Deut. 20:16; Deut. 21:23; Deut. 24:4; Deut. 25:19; Deut. 26:1; Deut. 29:8; Deut. 32:9; Deuteronomy 19:11 "But if there is a man who hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him and rises up against him and strikes him so that he dies, and he flees to one of these cities, De 27:24 Ge 9:6 Ex 21:12-14 Nu 35:16-21,24 Pr 28:17 Deuteronomy 18 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries PREMEDITATED MURDER NOT PROTECTED But - Term of contrast. Striking contrast (pun intended) for the foregoing manslayer's "striking" was not intentional but this man's "striking" is intentional. See premeditated murder in Wikipedia. if there is a man who hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him and rises up against him and strikes him so that he dies, and he flees to one of these cities - Note hates, lies, rise, strikes, flees are all willful active verbs. This man is guilty of premeditated murder. The cities of refuge must not harbour murderers who deserved to die; they were not a refuge from the righteous retribution of the Law. Deuteronomy 19:12 then the elders of his city shall send and take him from there and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. 1Ki 2:5,6,28-34 Deuteronomy 18 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries NO PROTECTION FOR THE GUILTY then the elders of his city shall send and take him from there and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood (goel/ga'al), that he may die - In contrast to elders protecting the manslayer, they are to hand over the murderer to the avenger of blood. This is interesting as there is no description of a trial. Somehow the elders know he is guilty of murder. NET NOTE - The גֹאֵל הַדָּם (go’el haddam, “avenger of blood”) would ordinarily be a member of the victim’s family who, after due process of law, was invited to initiate the process of execution (cf. Num 35:16–28) Hubbard adds "concerning the law of asylum (Num 35; Deut 19; Josh 20) treat a special family duty. If a relative is murdered, the גֹּאֵל הַדָּם, avenger of blood (usually the son of the deceased), has the duty to kill the murderer or a member of the latter’s clan (Num 35:19). In essence this redeems the blood of the dead clansman, that is, it restores the clan’s equilibrium and wholeness disrupted by the murder. If the killing was accidental, however, the killer may find protection from the avenger in one of the designated cities of refuge (Num 35:12, 22–25; Deut 19:4–7; Josh 20:2–3, 5, 9; see also the parable in 2 Sam 14:11). R. Hubbard, NIDOTTE = "Instructional texts concerning the law of asylum (Num 35; Deut 19; Josh 20) treat a special family duty. If a relative is murdered, the גֹּאֵל הַדָּם, avenger of blood (usually the son of the deceased), has the duty to kill the murderer or a member of the latter’s clan (Num 35:19). In essence this redeems the blood of the dead clansman, that is, it restores the clan’s equilibrium and wholeness disrupted by the murder. If the killing was accidental, however, the killer may find protection from the avenger in one of the designated cities of refuge (Num 35:12, 22–25; Deut 19:4–7; Josh 20:2–3, 5, 9; see also the parable in 2 Sam 14:11." Utley - “the elders of his city” This refers to either the city nearest the crime or the city of the man’s residence..(Deuteronomy 19 Commentary) Deuteronomy 19:13 "You shall not pity him, but you shall purge the blood of the innocent from Israel, that it may go well with you. You shall not pity him: De 7:16 13:8 25:12 Eze 16:5 but thou: De 21:9 Ge 9:6 Lev 24:17,21 Nu 35:33,34 2Sa 21:1,14 1Ki 2:31 Deuteronomy 18 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries JUSTICE MAKES THINGS GO WELL FOR A NATION You shall not pity him, but you shall purge the blood of the innocent from Israel, that it may go well with you - NLT - "Do not feel sorry for that murderer! Purge from Israel the guilt of murdering innocent people; then all will go well with you." The verb purge (baar) means to burn, consume destroy and here is used figuratively as it is in Dt 13:5; 17:7, 12; 19:13, 19; 21:21. Note that the purge is from Israel because murder affects others and alters the blessings of Yahweh to the entire covenant community!
Deuteronômio 19
Utley - “You shall not pity him” This (Qal IMPERFECT) is a recurrent theme in Deuteronomy (cf. Dt 7:16; 13:8; 19:13, 21; 25:12). Human compassion or national feelings cannot change YHWH’s laws. Israel must be holy! Israel’s future prosperity (and even her remaining in the Promised Land) is conditioned on her obedience..(Deuteronomy 19 Commentary)
Deuteronômio 19
Utley - boundary mark” In the ancient world villages farmed the land together (i.e., plowing, sowing, reaping). From a passerby’s observation it looked like one big field. However, each family had its own field, which was marked by white stones. That family, though working the entire field with the village, received the produce of their land. If someone moved the stones, thereby giving themselves more land (i.e., produce), it was a crime against the whole community and YHWH, because He gave the land as an inheritance for each tribe and family (cf. Dt 27:17; Pro. 22:28; 23:10; Hos. 5:10)..(Deuteronomy 19 Commentary) TSK - Before the extensive use of fences, landed property was marked out by stones or posts, set up so as to ascertain the divisions of family estates. It was easy to remove one of these landmarks, and set it in a different place; and thus a dishonest man might enlarge his own estate by contracting that of his neighbour. Hence it was a matter of considerable importance to prevent this crime among the Israelites; among whom, removing them would be equivalent to forging, altering, destroying, or concealing the title-deeds of an estate among us. Accordingly, by the Mosaic law, it was not only prohibited in the commandment against covetousness, but we find a particular curse expressly annexed to it in Dt 27:17. Josephus considers this law a general prohibition, intended not only to protect private property, but also to preserve the boundaries of kingdoms and countries inviolable. Morris on boundary mark - Evidently, even though the children of Israel were to receive their promised inheritance by driving out the Canaanites who then inhabited the land, they were to divide it up on the basis of ancient "landmarks" already established. These were probably the same as "the border [same Hebrew word] of the Canaanites" (Genesis 10:19), established when "by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood" (Genesis 10:32). Inheritance (possession, heritage) (05159) nachalah from nāḥal = signifies giving or receiving property which is part of a permanent possession and as a result of succession) means Inheritance, heritage, possession. A possession is any piece of property that passes by law to an heir on the death of the owner. It also speaks of God's promises to His people, such as the promise of the land to national (redeemed remnant) Israel. In Dt 4:20 we read “But the LORD has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, from Egypt, to be a people for His own possession, as today." Nachalah in Deut - Deut. 3:28; Deut. 4:20; Deut. 4:21; Deut. 4:38; Deut. 9:26; Deut. 9:29; Deut. 10:9; Deut. 12:9; Deut. 12:12; Deut. 14:27; Deut. 14:29; Deut. 15:4; Deut. 18:1; Deut. 18:2; Deut. 19:10; Deut. 19:14; Deut. 20:16; Deut. 21:23; Deut. 24:4; Deut. 25:19; Deut. 26:1; Deut. 29:8; Deut. 32:9; Grant - One sorry example of this behaviour was that of King Ahab who wished to possess the vineyard of Naboth (1 Kings 21:1-29). The murderous means used by Jezebel, his wife, and the childish resentfulness of the king show the length to which they were prepared to go to obtain that which Naboth rightly stated was "the inheritance of my fathers". Lust and covetousness led to the death of Naboth and to the judgment of God upon the royal couple, resulting in their deaths as well. A happier example of how valuable the Children of Israel considered their portion of the Land to be is seen in the request of the daughters of Zelophehad (Num 27:1-11; 36:1-13; Josh 17:3-6). These five, Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah, feared that their family would get no land allocated to them in Canaan because their father had died and he had no son to take up the family's inheritance. The solution was to give each of them a portion in the Land, but with the condition that they must marry within their own tribe so that the land did not pass to another tribe. The woman valued the land and claimed their portion. The inheritance given to Israel in Canaan is but a picture of the great inheritance that believers enjoy today. This inheritance is enjoyed presently and consists of "all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ" (Eph 1:3). Those who removed the landmarks, the boundary posts, are like any today who act to cause other believers to lose some of their enjoyment of their spiritual inheritance. We must be careful to ensure that our conduct does not cause needless distress to others and reduce their joy in the things of the Lord. It ill behoves anyone to rob others of truth that they have practised and enjoyed in past. The purpose of teaching and shepherd care is to lead others to the full of enjoyment of the blessings that were inherited at the moment of being born again, and to encourage obedience to the Word of God.(What the Bible Teaches) IVP Bible Background Commentary - moving boundary stones. Since the land had been given to the people by God and apportioned according to a God-given formula, to move boundary stones and thus appropriate territory unlawfully was a crime of theft against God. The antiquity of laws concerning property rights is affirmed by inscriptions on sixteenth-century B.C. Kassite kudurru boundary stones, admonitions in eleventh-century B.C. Egyptian wisdom literature against relocating a surveyor’s stone (Teachings of Amenemope) and in the curse in Hosea 5:10. Each example calls on the gods to protect the owner’s rights against encroachment. Deuteronomy 19:15 "A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed. De 17:6 Nu 35:30 1Ki 21:10,13 Mt 18:16 26:60,61 Joh 8:17 2Co 13:1 1Ti 5:19 Heb 10:28 Rev 11:3-7 Deuteronomy 18 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passages: Matthew 18:15-17 “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16“But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 17“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. EVERY FACT IS TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES. Nu 35:30 ‘If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death at the evidence of witnesses (MORE THAN ONE), but no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness. LAWS FOR WITNESSES IN COURT OF LAW A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity ('avon) or any sin (chattat/chattath) which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed - Note this applies not just to murder but to any iniquity or any sin. This law is so important for justice in the land that Moses repeats Dt 17:6 “On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness."
Deuteronômio 19
Utley - This verse shows how careful they were to be in their judicial process (cf. 17:6; Nu 35:30). The VERB “rise up” (Qal IMPERFECT) is used three times in Dt 19:15-16..(Deuteronomy 19 Commentary) Ryrie - Dt 19:15-21 The requirements concerning evidence, already given for capital cases (cf. Dt 17:6), were extended to all criminal cases. On the lex talionis (v. 21), see note on Lev. 24:20. Grant - When the Lord Jesus sent His disciples out two by two this verified the truth of what was being preached (Mk 6:7). At the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, when the women came early to the tomb, "two men stood by them in shining garments: And ... they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen" (Lk 24:4-6). As the disciples watched the Lord Jesus ascend up to heaven "two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, 'Ye men of Galilee, Why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven'" (Acts 1:10-11). The resurrection and the return of the Lord Jesus are both attested by "two men", a sound and reliable witness. It is recorded in Revelation that in the future there will be two witnesses who will prophecy for "a thousand two hundred and threescore days". At the end of their days of testimony they will be put to death. After three and a half days their bodies lying in the street will stand up and be taken up to heaven (Rev 11:3-11). Again the principle of reliable witness will be displayed. (Ibid) IVP Bible Background Commentary - the role of witnesses in the ancient judicial system. Witnesses were an essential part of the judicial system in the ancient world. One sign of this is that Israelite law required two witnesses to convict a person of a crime (Num 35:30; Deut 17:6; 1 Kings 21:13). Both Hammurabi’s code and the Middle Assyrian laws rely heavily on the presence of witnesses to certify business transactions and to testify in civil and criminal cases. G Campbell
Deuteronômio 19
Utley - “malicious witness” The NOUN “malicious” basically means “violence,” but here it denotes a purposeful, false judicial witness (cf. Ex. 23:1; Ps. 27:12; 25:11), they speak in YHWH’s name (legal oath), but knowingly distort the truth. Verse 19 shows the consequences of a false witness (cf. Deut. 5:20 and chapter 11).(Deuteronomy 19 Commentary) Malicious (02555) chamas/hamas from the verb chamas = to treat violently or wrong) means wrong, violence (to God's law = Ezek 22:26, Zeph 3:4, "violent hatred" = Ps 25:19), malicious (witness - Ex 23:1, Dt 19:16), , and is used almost always in connection with sinful violence, not with the violence of natural catastrophes. Chamas signifies extreme wickedness and the first two uses are very instructive (especially God's reaction)…(Ge 6:11) Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. (Lxx translates with adikia = an act that violates the standards of right conduct)(Ge 6:13) Then God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence (Lxx translates with adikia) because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth. Deuteronomy 19:16-21 Alternatives to Revenge One Sunday while preaching, a pastor was accosted and punched by a man. He continued preaching, and the man was arrested. The pastor prayed for him and even visited him in jail a few days later. What an example of the way to respond to insult and injury! While there is a place for self-defense, personal revenge was forbidden in the Old Testament: “You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18; see also Deut. 32:35). It was also forbidden by Jesus and the apostles (Matt. 5:38-45; Rom. 12:17; 1 Peter 3:9). The Old Testament law exacted like for like (Ex. 21:23-25; Deut. 19:21), which ensured that judicial punishment was not unjust or malicious. But there was a larger principle looming when it came to personal revenge: Justice must be done, but it must be left in the hands of God or the authorities ordained by God. Lord, when I’m troubled by the insult of another, help me to let go of my desire for revenge. May I seek justice but also realize that it will happen in Your time. I want to learn to overcome evil with good. Amen. Leave final justice in the hands of a just God. Deuteronomy 19:17 then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days. De 17:9 21:5 Mal 2:7 Mt 23:2,3 Deuteronomy 18 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries STANDING IN GOD'S PRESENCE then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days - NET = "then both parties to the controversy must stand before the LORD, that is, before the priests and judges who will be in office in those days." So here is the situation where one witness accuses another man. As
Deuteronômio 19
Utley - “the priests and judges” This refers to: local judges, Dt 16:18–20; 17:8–13 and Levitical priests of the central sanctuary, Dt 18:1–8. Notice that appearing before these appointed judges is the same as appearing before YHWH (cf. 17:9, 12)..(Deuteronomy 19 Commentary) Deuteronomy 19:18 "The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, De 13:14 17:4 2Ch 19:6,7 Job 19:16 Deuteronomy 18 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries FALSE WITNESS FOUND OUT The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely - NET = " The judges will thoroughly investigate the matter, and if the witness should prove to be false and to have given false testimony against the accused." Investigate thoroughly is two words in Hebrew (darash yatab) is the Greek verb exetazo meaning to make a careful effort to get information search out, inquire diligently (Mt 2.8) as when interrogating someone (Jn 21.12). Investigate - 1875. דָּרַשׁ dārašh: A verb meaning to examine, to seek, inquire, consult, find out, i.e., learn information not previously known (Ex 18:15). Try to find out information about a person or event (Dt 4:29).The meaning “to seek with care” (cognitive) occurs in Lev 10:16. where Moses seeks to find out in detail what happened to the sin-offering, and in II Sam 11:3 where David seeks to find out who Bathsheba was (cf. Deut 23:6; Jer 29:7). Israel is told to seek carefully the place God would choose (Deut 12:5) and justice (Isa 1:17; cf. 16:5!). In the eschaton Jerusalem, the place no one seeks (Jer 30:17), will be the place “sought out” (Isa 62:12; or “cared for,” Deut 11:12). Furthermore, it is the Gentiles who would seek out the messianic king (Isa 11:10). His place of rest (Num 10:33; Deut 12:9) is glorious. Thoroughly 3190. יָטַב yāṭaḇ: A verb meaning to be good, to be well, to be pleasing. In the causative stem, it means to do good, to do well, to please, to make pleasing. In this context it means be thorough, be very, formally, do real good, i.e., perform an action to a complete degree (Dt 13:15). False (08267) sheqer deception, disappointment, falsehood, lie, vanity. Speaks of words or activities which are false in the sense that they are groundless, without basis in fact or reality (Ps 38:19). The false witness of Exodus 20:16 (Dt. 19:18) involves a false accusation, an accusation that is groundless, not based on fact. The first use is by Satan's tool the Pharaoh in Ex 5:9 where the Septuagint translates sheqer with the word kenos which means empty, without truth, futile, without result. Sheqer defines a way of life that goes contrary to the law of God. The psalmist, desirous of following God, prayed: "Remove the false way from me" (Ps 119:29; cf false way in Ps. 119:104, Ps 119:128). Vine says "As "faithfulness" is a relational term, "falsehood" denotes "one's inability to keep faith" with what one has said or to respond positively to the faithfulness of another being. ONLY USE IN DEUTERONOMY. DBL Hebrew - 1. LN 31.8–31.13 deception, misleading falseness, i.e., a state or condition which is utterly false, and causes a mistaken belief (Ex 20:16), see also domain LN 33.251–33.255; 2. LN 33.251–33.255 lie, i.e., a verbal communication which is false (Job 13:4); 3. LN 33.251–33.255 liar, i.e., one who utters falsehoods and lies (Pr 17:4); 4. LN 89.15–89.38 for no reason, formally, vanity, i.e., pertaining to there being no cause (Ps 119:86); 5. LN 65.30–65.39 vanity, uselessness, i.e., what has no value and is of no use (1Sa 25:21), note: for Pr 17:4 Deuteronomy 19:19 then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. shall: Pr 19:5,9 Jer 14:15 Da 6:24 shall purge the evil: De 13:5 17:7 19:20 21:20,21 22:21,24 24:7 Deuteronomy 18 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries PURGE THE PERJURERS! then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother - Equal justice executed on the perjurer! In other words the accuser would receive the punishment that would have been given to the one he accused and so he reaps what he sows! This also recalls the idea of an eye for an eye (Dt 19:21 below). Talk about a proverbial "boomerang" returning to hit you in the head! This is similar to the instruction in Leviticus 24:19 which says "If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him." Why equal justice? (1) purge away the evil and (2) deterrent to evil. This reminds us of the punishment the accusers of Daniel reaped for sowing a false witness... The king then gave orders, and they brought those men who had maliciously accused Daniel, and they cast them, their children and their wives into the lions’ den; and they had not reached the bottom of the den before the lions overpowered them and crushed all their bones. (Da 6:24+) Thus you shall purge (ba'ar) the evil from among you - Purge is the verb ba'ar which literally means to burn (as the "burning bush" in Ex 3:2), but in this context is used figuratively and is translated in the Lxx with the verb exairo which means to remove, drive away, drive out and thus to exclude or remove someone from a group (as this verb was used in 1 Cor 5:13+). The NET Note says the Hebrew literally reads “you will burn out” (בִּעַרְתָּ, bi’arta). Like a cancer, unavenged sin would infect the whole community. It must, therefore, be excised by the purging out of its perpetrators who, presumably, remained unrepentant (cf. Deut 13:6; 17:7, 12; 21:21; 22:21–22, 24; 24:7). The Hebrew word for evil (ra) pertains to that which is not morally pure or good according to a proper standard, implying this evil hinders or severs a relationship to a person or principle which is proper. Purge the evil - used only in Deuteronomy - Deut. 13:5; Deut. 17:7; Deut. 17:12; Deut. 19:19; Deut. 22:21; Deut. 22:22; Deut. 22:24; Deut. 24:7 Remove the evil - Dt 21:21, Isa 1:16 Evil - 7451. רַע raʿ, רָעָה rāʿāh: An adjective meaning bad, evil. The basic meaning of this word displays ten or more various shades of the meaning of evil according to its contextual usage. It means bad in a moral and ethical sense and is used to describe, along with good, the entire spectrum of good and evil; hence, it depicts evil in an absolute, negative sense, as when it describes the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:9; 3:5, 22). It was necessary for a wise king to be able to discern the evil or the good in the actions of his people (Eccl. 12:14); men and women are characterized as evil (1 Sam. 30:22; Esth. 7:6; Jer. 2:33). The human heart is evil all day long (Gen. 6:5) from childhood (Gen. 8:21); yet the people of God are to purge evil from among them (Deut. 17:7). The Lord is the final arbiter of whether something was good or evil; if something was evil in the eyes of the Lord, there is no further court of appeals (Deut. 9:18; 1 Kgs. 14:22). The day of the Lord’s judgment is called an evil day, a day of reckoning and condemnation (Amos 6:3). Jacob would have undergone grave evil (i.e., pain, misery, and ultimate disaster) if he had lost Benjamin (Gen. 44:34). The word can refer to circumstances as evil, as when the Israelite foremen were placed in a grave situation (Ex. 5:19; 2 Kgs. 14:10). F B
Deuteronômio 19
Utley - The “eye-for-an-eye” justice of Israel, which seems so cruel (i.e., Lex taliomis, which is also characteristic of the Code of Hammurabi, see Old Testament Times, by R. K. Harrison, pp. 57–59) was in reality meant to stop “revenge wars” between families and tribes as well as maintain the ritual purity of God’s covenant people. One wonders about how literally this law was actually carried out. It seems that physical mutilation was replaced by appropriate compensation. This is based on the surrounding context of the parallel in Exod. 21:23–25. The immediately preceding and following contexts deal with compensation. The later rabbis assigned appropriate compensation for actions resulting in personal damage. However, murder retained its religious taboo. It negatively impacted the covenant of blessings from YHWH and had to be dealt with appropriately!.(Deuteronomy 19 Commentary) IVP Bible Background Commentary - lex talionis. The legal principle of “an eye for an eye” or lex talionis (“law of retaliation”) is found in both the biblical law codes and the codes of Mesopotamia. Biblical examples (Ex 21:24; Lev 24:20) express the desire to eliminate a corrupting or unclean element in society. The admonition is to have “no mercy” on the culprit. Mesopotamian law contains both the idealized version of lex talionis and an amelioration to set limits of compensation. For instance, the law collection of Eshnunna sets a fine of one mina of silver for the loss of an eye. In the personal liability laws found in Hammurabi’s code, reciprocity for injury may be an exactly equivalent injury, a fine or mutilation, depending on the social status of the injured party and the accused. Even in the cases where exact reciprocity is required by Mesopotamian law, it is quite possible that a monetary equivalent was taken in compensation (if not explicitly included in the law), rather than an eye or a tooth being actually removed. Related Resources: McClintock and Strong's Bible Encyclopedia Talionis, Lex The Jewish Encyclopedia Lex Talionis What is the law of retribution? The law of retribution, also called the law of retaliation or lex talionis, was part of the Old Testament Law given to Israel through Moses. Retribution was one of the cornerstones of Israel’s penal code. The punishment was supposed to mirror the crime. The principle of lex talionis is clearly stated in Leviticus 24:19–21: “Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury. Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a human being is to be put to death.” Monetary damages are to be paid for killing an animal belonging to someone else, but, if a person is murdered, then the murderer must forfeit his life in return. Exodus 21:23–25 and Deuteronomy 19:16–21 echo the same stipulations. In ancient Israel, part of the law’s enforcement fell to the family of the murder victim. According to Numbers 35:16–21, in some cases the “avenger of blood” (normally a close family member of the deceased) would be charged with carrying out the death sentence, possibly even tracking down the murderer if the murderer had fled. There was no police force in ancient Israel, so kinship posses were called upon to enforce the law. It is important to keep in mind that this system of retaliation operated within the legal system as it existed. The law of retribution was not a simple pretext for revenge, although it is easy to see how it could descend to that level. “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, and life for life” was the penal code and was never intended to justify a personal code of revenge or vigilantism. In fact, the Law warned against personal hatred: “Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in their guilt. Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:17–18). In the New Testament, Christians in the Roman Empire lived under a different penal code. In Romans 12:17–13:4, Paul warns believers that they must not take the law into their own hands, but he also maintains that the government has the right and responsibility to enforce penalties, including the death penalty, for criminal acts. In that passage, quoted below, you will notice how Paul moves from personal vendettas to governmental enforcement of justice. Because the switch happens at a chapter break, many readers may not realize the connection. (Remember, the chapter and verse divisions are not inspired. They were added later to help facilitate easy study and reference, but sometimes a chapter break can obscure the connection with the previous chapter.) Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. It is easy to see how, in ancient Israel, personal revenge and penalties administered under “due process” might be somewhat mingled. That’s one of the reasons God chose the cities of refuge in Joshua 20:7–8. In New Testament times, Paul tells believers that they cannot take personal revenge. They must love and even serve their enemies, allowing God to retaliate in His time as He sees fit. Divine retribution may come through some “act of God” in this life (or certainly in the next), but it is also possible that the government functioning in its God-given role will be the agent God uses to bring about justice. It may be morally right for a government to execute a murderer, but it would be morally wrong for a family member of the victim to ambush the murderer and kill him, even if he had already been convicted and sentenced to death in court. The personal response is to offer love and forgiveness while the governmental response is to enforce justice. In Matthew 5:38–48 (during the Sermon on the Mount), Jesus rejects the “eye for an eye” principle as applied to personal ethics. As is clear from the explanation He gives, He is not rejecting or even commenting upon penalties administered by the government after “due process.” He is rejecting a personal code of revenge that would “do unto others as they have done unto me.” Rather than enforce the law of retribution in personal matters, Jesus requires individuals to love their enemies, “go the extra mile,” and “turn the other cheek.” In Matthew 7:12 He says, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you.” This code of conduct leaves no place for personal revenge or even resentment. In summary, the law of retribution or the law of retaliation may be a legitimate guide for criminal penalties administered by governmental authorities, but it is not to be used as the basis for personal revenge. Personal revenge puts the avenger in the place of God as Judge and Executioner making the avenger a usurper of divine authority. GotQuestions.org