Deuteronomy 19 Commentary

“Wherefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt separate three cities for thee.”

At equal, &c. This addition is not in Hebrew (Calmet) or the Septuagint, (Haydock) but is conformable to the regulation given, ver. 3. (Calmet)

“And if the LORD thy God enlarge thy coast, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, and give thee all the land which he promised to give unto thy fathers;”

And when. Septuagint, “but if.” This condition was never fulfilled at all times; (ver. 9,) and therefore the Israelites could blame only themselves, if the promises which God had made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, (Genesis xv., xxvi., xxviii., and xxxv.,) were not realized. (Haydock) — Though the country was conquered under David and Solomon, the Israelites did not drive out the former inhabitants, (Calmet) nor did they keep possession for any long time. (Haydock)

“Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.”

His city. Strict enquiry was made into the circumstances attending the manslaughter, Numbers xxxv. 12. If the refugee was proved guilty, he was delivered up to the next relation of the deceased to be put to death. (Haydock)

“Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee.”

Innocent. Many Latin copies have “guilty blood,” noxium. By putting the offender to death, Israel was expiated from the blood which had been shed unjustly. (Calmet)

“Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it.”

Landmarks, either which divided the tribes, or the inheritance of individuals. The former were strictly kept up till after the captivity. Those who removed the latter were to be scourged for theft, and again for disobeying this law. (Selden, Jur. vi. 3.) Josephus ([Antiquities?] iv. 8,) understands that encroachments on the territories of others, which give rise to many wars, are hereby prohibited. (Calmet) — So are likewise innovations in religion. The Romans had a superstitious veneration for these landmarks, which they adored under the name of the god Terminus, (Haydock) crowning them with flowers, and offering cakes and sacrifices to them. Spargitur et cœso communis Terminus agno. (Ovid, Fast.) — They punished the crime of removing them either with death, banishment, or a fine.

“One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.”

One would suffice to make an enquiry into the affair, and to oblige the person accused, in pecuniary matters, to take an oath that he owed nothing. (Maimonides) — Stand. This expression was become proverbial, to denote the certainty of a thing, Matthew xviii. 16., and 2 Corinthians xiii. 1. Two witnesses cannot so easily carry on a cheat, (Calmet) as was seen in the case of Susanna. [Daniel xiii.] (Haydock) — The law is satisfied with moral certainty. (Calmet)

“If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; that: or, falling away”

Transgression against the law, by apostacy or by idolatry, (Junius) or by any other grievous crime. The person accused might, in this case, be examined, but he could not be condemned unless another witness appeared. Demosthenes (contra Aristocrat.) informs us how (Calmet) the Athenians (Haydock) required the witness in criminal matters, to swear on the flesh of a wild boar, ram, and bull, that he spoke the truth, and to utter horrible imprecations against himself and family, if he did otherwise. (Calmet)

“Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;”

Lord, in the tabernacle. (Menochius) — Judges. Hence it appears evidently that the priests were to pass sentence in all difficult questions, as well in those which regarded individuals, as in those which attacked the worship of God; since the false accuser is to lose his life or limb, according as he had attempted to injure his neighbour; (ver. 21,) and the Lord ratifies their sentence. (Calmet)

“And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.”

Things. This is the design of penal laws, to render justice to the innocent, and to prevent the spreading of a contagious evil, by cutting off the hopes of impunity. (Grotius, Jur. ii. 10. 9.) — “I would cause the criminal’s throat to be cut, says Seneca, (de Ira ii.) with the same countenance and mind as I kill serpents and venomous animals.”

“And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”

Pity. This regarded the judge, who must act with impartiality. (Worthington) — The law admits of no mitigation, but inflicts the same punishment on the calumniating witness, as he intended should fall upon his brother. (Lyranus; &c.) — Some Rabbins (apud Fag.) pretend that this was executed with rigour, only when the innocent had sustained some real injury. See Exodus xxi. 24. (Calmet)