(The view expressed in this blog are my own and should not be taken as inspired in any way.)
Deut 19:14–21, “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. 1One 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. If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; 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; And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”
Even though Israel was promised tenure in the Promised Land, the Land still belonged to the Lord and He could apportion the Land as He would. This meant that no person should act fraudulently and change the ancient boundaries that would be set up soon after the Land was surveyed by the new occupants, Israel, of the Land. This would be taking the Lord’s name in vain. The Lord promised the Land and supervised the allocation. If a person changed the ancient boundaries they would trying to use the Lord’s authority to cover their own greed. Israel was also to have a judicial system that prevented the “he said...”, “she said...” situation that so often crops up in modern jurisprudence. A person needed to have witness to back up her statements against an accuser. On the other hand, if a person tried to accuse someone of a crime they hadn’t done, and it was proven, then the false accuser would be forced to pay the penalty that he had intended for the innocent person.
No comments:
Post a Comment