519 CHAPTER XII. DEUT.XIX.1-XXII.30. 725. D.xix.1-10. "When Jehovah thy God hath cut off the nations, whose land Jehovah thy God giveth thee, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their cities and in their houses, thou shalt separate three cities for thee in the midst of the land, which Jehovah thy God giveth thee to possess it. Thou shalt prepare thee a way, and divide the coasts of thy land, which Jehovah thy God giveth thee to inherit, into three parts, that every slayer may flee thither. Wherefore I command thee saying, Thou shalt separate three cities for thee. And, if Jehovah 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, . . . then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, beside these three, that innocent blood be not shed in thy land, &c.' 6 ... ... It seems plain that the writer contemplates only six cities of refuge altogether; first, thou shalt separate three cities for thee,' v.2, and then, when their land should be enlarged, thou shalt add three cities more for thee, besides these three,' v.9. And so we have the command to the same effect in N.xxxv. 9-15: 'And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come over Jordan into the land of Canaan, then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you. Ye shall give three cities on this side Jordan, and three cities shall ye give in the land of Canaan, which shall be cities of refuge. These six cities shall be a refuge.' Here also, as in the passage of Deuteronomy which we have now before us, the designation of the six cities is to be a future event, when ye be come over Jordan'; in both passages, first, the three cities on the East of Jordan are to be named, and then those on the West; and there is no sign whatever of more than six cities.. But then in D.iv.41-43 we are told, as of an act already past 'Then Moses severed three cities on this side Jordan toward the sun-rising. namely, Bezer in the wilderness, in the plain country, of the Reubenites, and Ramoth in Gilead, of the Gadites, and Golan in Bashan, of the Manassites.' 726. SCOTT supposes nine cities to be intended, when the territory of Israel should have reached its full extent: Three cities of refuge had already been, allotted on the East of Jordan; and the other three were ordered to be set apart, as soon as the people were settled in the country West of Jordan; and, in case their boundaries should in after ages be enlarged, three more were to be added. But this explanation, however at first sight plausible, is not consistent with the language of the Deuteronomist, v.2,7,9, which clearly speaks only of six cities, in accordance with N.xxxv.9-15. Besides which, it can hardly be thought that, if he himself had written D.iv.41-43, he would have written also the passage now before us, without making any allusion to the three cities already set apart. 727. But, assuming now that the later origin of this book has been demonstrated, the explanation of the matter may be as follows. We have seen already (611) that D.iv.41-43 is a fragment of the older narrative, which has been inserted here by the Deuteronomist. It would seem that the older writer meant these six cities to be named, as soon as the Conquest was complete, and to be reckoned at once as Levitical cities, to which forty-two more were to be added out of the different tribes. Now, as the conquest of the territories on the East of Jordan was already made, this writer went on to represent Moses himself as separating before his death three cities for this purpose. The Deuteronomist has removed this passage from its original connection, and placed it at the end of the first of the addresses, which he puts into the mouth of Moses. Here, perhaps, he may have originally intended to have brought his work to a close. But, afterwards, he begins again abruptly, v.1, another address, in the course of which he introduces the direc tions for the six cities being severed, xix. 1-10, without noticing, apparently, the contradiction thus caused with the passage of the older writer, iv.41-43, which he had previously inserted, and, perhaps, had retained by an oversight. 728. However this may be, it is plain that the anachronism exists. It may be observed also that no notice is taken in D.xix of the fact, that in the older document, N.xxxv.6, it is expressly ordered, that these six cities shall be among the cities which he shall give to the Levites'; and these cities are limited to forty-eight, which are afterwards mentioned by name in Jo.xxi, all situated in the districts lying immediately east and west of the Jordan. He adds the direction to prepare (keep in order) a way' to the refuge-cities, and omits all reference to the slayer's abiding in the city, which he had safely reached, ' unto the death of the High Priest, which was anointed with the holy oil,' N.xxxv.25. 729. There is no indication in the history that such cities of refuge ever really existed. But the Deuteronomist shows in this chapter, and elsewhere, (xix.10,13, xxi.8,9, xxii.8, xxvii.25), great earnestness in warning against the shedding of innocent blood,' by which the land would be defiled, and guilt lie upon them, with special reference, we may believe, to the crying sins of his own time. And Jeremiah refers repeatedly to such offences as common in his days, vii.6, xix.4, xxii.3,17, xxvi.15; and so we read, (perhaps, recorded, as we have said (574.v.), by the very same hand that wrote the solemn warnings of the book of Deuteronomy,)— 'Moreover, Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another,' 2K.xxi.16; 'Surely, at the commandment of Jehovah came this upon Judah, to remove them out of His sight, for the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he did; and also for the innocent blood that he shed, for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, which Jehovah would not pardon.' 2K.xxiv.3,4. 730. D.xix.14. '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 Jehovah thy God giveth thee to possess it.' This language is that of one writing long after the conquest and division of the land of Canaan, notwithstanding the reference to a future time in the last clause of the verse. Unless, however, we had already proved sufficiently the later age of the Deuteronomist, it would be unsafe to infer it merely from such a text as the above, as the Hebrew would, probably, allow of the translation, which they of old time shall have set, &c.' 731. D.xx.5,6. 'And the officers shall speak unto the people, saying, What man is there that hath built a new house, and hath not dedicated it? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man dedicate it. And what man is he that hath planted a vineyard, and hath not yet eaten of it? &c.' The Deuteronomist is plainly here referring to his own times, when houses were built and vineyards planted, and has lost sight of the fact that the wars, in which the people would be engaged for some years, according to the story, would be wars of conquest. And so writes BLEEK, p.210:— It is plain that this law could only refer to the later times, when the relations of the Israelitish people were already settled in the land. Here, however, there is no reference whatever to this; but the law is given in general terms, as if it were capable of immediate application. We might certainly assume that if Moses had laid down such a regulation at a time (as it would seem from Deuteronomy) when the people were yet on the other side of Jordan, and had still to drive out the Canaanitish tribes from the land promised by Jehovah, it would have been uttered quite differently, and that, if the lawgiver had here been regarding at the same time the later relations, he would at all events have distinguished the two, and would have especially made prominent what he laid down for the immediate pressure of the circumstances of the people. 732. D.xx.10-15. 'When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it. And, when Jehovah thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword. But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which Jehovah thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.' It is well that we are no longer obliged to believe that the above frightful command emanated from the mouth of the Most Holy and Blessed One. This does not apply to the cities of Canaan only. But any city, which the Israelites might decide for any cause to fight against,' if it did not surrender on the very first summons, ‘make an answer of peace,' and open to the foe, on the condition of becoming tributaries and servants,' was, according to this injunction, to be besieged and captured, and to this end the express aid of the Almighty is promised; and then all the males, except young children, are to be put ruthlessly to death. 6 733. SCOTT has, evidently, some difficulty in making his comments on the above. We must suppose, in the cases here intended, that the Israelites had some warrantable cause of levying war, which covetousness, ambition, and the thirst of dominion could not be. When, therefore, they had been injured or assaulted by any foreign nation, they were required to proceed in the manner here prescribed; for the Lord purposed by these means to enlarge their dominions, whilst they continued obedient. There were, doubtless, wise reasons why they were not only allowed, but, as it seems, commanded, to put to death all the males who were capable of resistance. The lives and property of all men are the Lord's, forfeited to His Justice, to be disposed of at His Pleasure, and for His Glory. These regulations, however, are not to be the rule of our conduct, which must be directed by the general law of love; and that prohibits unnecessary bloodshed and plunder, in war as well as peace. 734. D.xx.16–18. 'But of the cities of these people, which Jehovah thy God doth give thee for thine inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth, but thou shalt utterly destroy them, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as Jehovah thy God hath commanded thee; that they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against Jehovah your God.' Here also it is well for us to know that these are the words of the later Deuteronomist, and that such commands were never |