A Help for the Understanding of the Holy Scriptures, Deuteronomy · Chapter 19
CHAP. XIX.
Verſ. 2. THou ſhalt ſeparate three cities for thee in the midst of thy land, &c.]
That is, in the heart of the land: for the land being divided into three parts, in the middeſt of each of theſe partitions was a citie of refuge choſen. Moſes had himſelf already aſſigned them three cities of refuge in the land without Jordan, which they had already vanquiſhed, Deut. 4. 21. and now he gives order that when they had poſſeſſed themſelves of the land of Canaan within Jordan, they ſhould there alſo ſet apart three cities of refuge more.
Verſ. 3. Thou ſhalt prepare thee a way, &c.]
That is, thou ſhalt ſo order it, that from all parts of the countrey round about theſe cities of refuge, there be a direct, plain, fair high-way or cauſey leading to thoſe cities, and ſuch as either by the breadth and fairneſſe of the way, or by marks ſet up purpoſely to diſtinguiſh it from others, may be known to be the wayes leading to thoſe cities of refuge, to the end the man-ſlayer may not be hindered or incumbered by the uncertainty or foulneſſe of the way, but may ſpeedily flie thither, and ſo be ſafe.
Verſ. 4. Who ſo killeth his neighbour ignorantly, &c.]
The perſons here mentioned, that were to enjoy the priviledge of the cities ofrefuge, are onelyonly ſuch as killed a man unwittingly, by chance-medly, as we uſually call it: but by the rule of proportion we may probably conceive that the like priviledge was afforded to him that killed a man merely in his own defence, when he had no quarrell with him, but onelyonly ſought to ſecure his own life.
Verſ. 5. As when a man goeth into the wood with his neighbour to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a ſtroke, &c.]
And ſo ſtrikes with all his might, not fearing nor ſuſpecting any evil that ſhould be done thereby.
Verſ. 6. Lest the avenger of the bloud purſue the ſlayer while his heart is hot, and overtake him, becauſe the way is long, &c.]
This laſt clauſe, becauſe the way is long, ſheweth that this verſe follows as depending on the third verſe (the other two being inſerted as it were by way of parentheſis) and is added to ſhew thereaſon why they were appointed thus to chuſe the cities of refuge in three ſeverall diviſions of the land, namely, left if the man tha… killed one ignorantly had too farre to flie ere he could come to a city of refuge, the avenger, becauſe of the length of the way, ſhould overtake him before he could get thither.
Verſ. 8. And if the Lord thy God inlarge thy coast, &c.]
It is queſtioned by Expoſitours of what inlarging their coaſts this is meant: and becauſe it is ſaid, chap. 7. 22. that they ſhould not drive out the inhabitants of the land of Canaan at once, but by little and little, therefore ſome underſtand this of their full poſſeſſing of the land of Canaan, to wit, that however they did at firſt onelyonly ſet apart three cities of refuge in the land within Jordan, yet if afterwards they came to poſſeſſe the whole land of Canaan, they ſhould then ſeparate three cities of refuge more therein. But firſt, becauſe they never did ſeparate ſix cities of refuge more within Jordan, no not when they had the fulleſt poſſeſſion of the land; and ſecondly, becauſe thoſe three cities that were ſeparated within the land, to wit, Kedeſh, and Shechem, and Hebron, were ſituated in equall diviſions proportionably according to the full extent of the land of Canaan, therefore it is no way probable that God ever enjoyned them to have ſix cities of refuge in the land of Canaan within Jordan. Others again think that in theſe words, Moſes ſpeaks onelyonly of three cities more that were to be added beſides thoſe three without Jordan, to wit, thoſe three above mentioned which Joſhua ſeparated, Joſh. 20. 7. and ſo conceive that no other inlarging of their coaſts is here meant, but onelyonly the adding of the land of Canaan to that they had already▪ gotten without Jordan. But becauſe it ſeems evident that the charge which Moſe… gave before, verſ. 3. and verſ. 7. for ſeparating three cities in the midſt of their land, could not be meant of the three cities of refuge without Jordan, which he had already ſeparated, chap. 4. 41. and yet now he ſpeaks of three cities more, verſ. 9. that were to be ſeparated, if the Lord ſhould inlarge their coaſt, therefore I think the meaning of this place muſt be, that if the Lord ſhould inlarge their coaſt, to wit, by giving them the land promiſed, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, Gen. 15. 18. that then they ſhould ſeparate three cities of refuge more, to wit, beſides thoſe before enjoyned in the midſt of the land of Canaan they were now to enter upon; and that the reaſon why theſe were never ſeparated was, becauſe by their ſinnes they loſt the benefit of this promiſe, the Lord never ſo farre inlarging their coaſts.
Verſ. 14. Thou ſhalt not remove thy neighbours land-mark, &c,]
It may be not improbably conceived, that this law againſt removing of land-mark… is here inſerted together with thoſe concerning bloudſhed, becauſe this injury of removing landmarks was like to be a dangerous occaſion of quarrels and bloudſhed amongſt them.
Verſ. 15. One witneſſe ſhall not riſe up againſt a man for any iniquitie, &c.]
That is, the teſtimonie of one man, riſing up as a witneſſe againſt another, ſhall not be admitted as ſufficient to prove the crime laid to his charge, and to cauſe him to be condemned for it: and indeed though two or three witneſſesmay accuſe a man falſely, yet becauſe it is not ſo likely that two or three ſhould ſo combine againſt a man, as that one alone ſhould accuſe him falſely; and withall there would be more hope of diſcovering the falſehood of two or three witneſſes ſo combining together, by examining them ſingly apart by themſelves, therefore God allowed no man to be condemned under leſſe then the teſtimonie of two or three witneſſes.
Verſ. 17. Then both the men between whom the controverſie is ſhall stand before the Lord, &c.]
Both the men, that is, the partie accuſed, and the party accuſing, ſo that here is but one witneſſe mentioned, which makes ſome conceive the caſe for which direction is here given to be this, When there comes in but one witneſſe againſt a man, and takes an oath concerning ſome evil done by him, and the party accuſed denies that which is laid to his charge, and complains that he hath born falſe witneſſe againſt him, what ſhall be done in this caſe? I anſwer, the order which the Lord gives here when the caſe ſtands thus, is this, Becauſe it is a very hard thing to find out here whether the witneſſe ſpeak truly or falſely, therefore for his greater terrour, and to make him take heed what he ſayes, the Judges were to bring him into the place which God ſhould chuſe, and to ſet him before the Ark or Sanctuary, and there to examine him as in Gods preſence, and accordingly, to puniſh him if they found him falſe; and happely if they could not find it out by examination, the prieſt was then to enquire of the Lord according to that, 1. Kings 8. 31, 32. If any man treſpaſſe against his neighbour, and an oath be laid upon him to cauſe him to ſwear, &c. But becauſe it is expreſly ſaid before, that the teſtimoni… of one man riſing up as a witneſſe againſt another was not to be admitted in judgement, verſ. 15. therefore others, and I think moſt probably, conceive the law …ere given to be this, that in caſe two or more witneſſes did riſe up againſt a man, and onelyonly one of them ſpake home to the proof of that the accuſed partie was charged with▪ if here the party accuſed did alledge that this man bare falſe witneſſe againſt him, that then the Judges were to ſearch out the matter in the way here enjoyned before the Lord: yet withall the like by conſequence was to be done i… caſe the party accuſed did accuſe all the witn…ſſes of bearing falſe witneſſe againſt him.
Verſ. 21. Life ſhall go for life, eye for eye, &c.]
That is, ſuch puniſhment as ſhould have been infli…ted on the party accuſed, had he been found guilty, according to that law, Exod. 21. 23. the …ame ſhall be inflicted on him that bare falſe witneſſe againſt him, to wit, by the civil Magiſtrate. Indeed the Phariſees in Chriſts time expounded this of private revenge, namely that private perſon might take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, &c. and this is that which our Saviour condemnes, Matth. 5. 38, 3…. Ye have heard that it hath been ſaid, An eye for a… eye, and a tooth for a tooth; But I ſay unto you, that ye reſiſt not evil, &c.