Deuteronomy chapter 19

vs 11

That is, someone who murders someone else in cold blood, or even hot blood.

vs 12

What I find most interesting about this rule is that the avenger must kill the person. There is no separation between the family grieved and the restitution of justice. They get their five minutes alone, as it were. The state-sanctioned death penalty is like an abbatoir of justice - it separates the call for final justice from those who seek it. God doesn't accept that. Of course, for a family of all girls whose husband/father is killed, this will present a problem of justice - who will kill the murderer?

vs 13

I was going to say that the next interesting thing is that there doesn't seem to be any mention of a clause to prevent the torturous stringing out of the suffering of such a person. Now we read here, "Show no pity." Yikes. Even I am afraid of the consequences there. The family really do get what they want, if what they want is to cause an extreme and terrible pain-filled death.

And no, I'm not reading all that into "Show no pity." I know that simply means, "Don't let them off with a death price or something." But the fact that there is no mention of sanctioned methods of death specific to this case makes me wonder. I suppose the idea of "Love your neighbour" could cover "Kill them as painlessly as possible", but it doesn't cover "Don't kill them at all", so in saying that it's really just an assumption that I don't think bears up.

vs 14

That's worth just throwing in there, while we're talking about murder and refuge. Honestly, where does this come from? Now, I will admit that in the (T)NIV it uses paragraph breakups to have this as a different section. It could be (although I think it unlikely) that the section on witnesses is related specifically to the moving of landmark stones.

vs 15

This does not preclude the need for considered judgment. This is more a caveat on such judgment, saying that without at least 2-3 witnesses, don't bother.

vs 16

Because they will. Important to have a rule for it. Interesting that the KJV calls it a "false" witness, but everyone else calls it a "malicious" witness. Having said that of course, the (T)NIV makes the wonderful eisegesis of reading in "takes the stand". Makes it sound like a Perry Mason drama.

vs 17

I thought this is what they would do anyway, but I think this is more along the lines of the final court of appeal - the big judges and priests who are at the place the Lord will name.

vs 18

So not only are they judging on the matter at hand, they are also judging whether the testimony of the witness is valid. This is kind of like the HCCC - when a doctor gets called up in front of them for a section 66 thing (like they were handing out benzodiazepam or having sex with patients), they don't just investigate that, they check their record-keeping abilities, they check their mentoring and reporting procedures, the cleanliness of their offices, whether they brush their teeth in the morning. It's quite invasive.

vs 19

Eep. So if you were trying to sue someone out of everything they own - you just made yourself a pauper. So when King Ahaz (or was it Ahab?) killed Naboth, he really should have been killed. Or at least the guys who were prepared to give false testimony should have been. God dealt with them, I'm sure.

vs 20

Again, control by fear. Godly.

vs 21

Eye for eye. In this context, it is not the punishment for simple crimes. It is the punishment for false witnesses. And I think it extends out to these things - so normally it would be financial claims or such, but even if they are seeking physical punishment, then that is what will be meted out on them. False witnesses are bad!