Part IV: Oath/Sanctions (27-30)
66
LANDMARK AND CURSECursed be he that removeth his neighbour's landmark. And all the people shall say, Amen (Deut. 27:17).
This chapter begins with a command to set up stones on Canaan's side of the Jordan (v. 2). These stones would have the law of God written on them (v. 3). These stones would be made into an altar on which burnt offerings (negative) and peace offerings (positive) would be offered by the people (v. 6). The Levites would then pronounce a series of curses on specific acts (vv. 14-26). This chapter marks a shift from law to sanctions in the Book of Deuteronomy.
The theocentric focus of the landmark law is God's office as owner of the whole earth. He places boundaries around His property, beginning with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This required public confession was a recapitulation of the law governing landmarks: "This law 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" (Deut. 19:14).(1) The sin of removing a neighbor's landmark in order to enlarge one's own inheritance involves disinheriting one's neighbor. It is an act of theft. It violates the eighth commandment: "Thou shalt not steal" (Ex. 20:15). This was not a land law. It is universal.
Moses told the people the following: after the nation had crossed the Jordan and entered the land, they were to assemble at the dual mountains of the dual sanctions, Gerizim (blessing) and Ebal (cursing) (Deut. 27:12-13). The Levites were then to declare specific acts that would bring cursing to the violators. After each declaration, the assembled nation would respond, "Amen." That is, the people would ratify each law and its declared curse. This would constitute an act of national covenant renewal. The new generation would renew formally what their parents had ratified at Mt. Sinai a generation earlier (Ex. 19). This ratification was to be corporate; all the people would participate.
The law of the landmark is the only one in the list (vv. 15-26) that was explicitly economic. None of them was a land law or seed law. Two others may have had economic aspects, but they had to do with the perversion of justice: "Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the stranger, fatherless, and widow. And all the people shall say, Amen" (v. 19). "Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen" (v. 25). The presumption in these two instances is that the civil law would be misused for someone's benefit. The sought-for benefit would turn into a curse.
The list of curses ended with the requirement that the entire list be ratified: "Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen" (v. 26). That is, partial ratification would lead to a curse, and the nation was to invoke this curse. He who refused to invoke the whole of the law and its curses thereby placed himself under the covenant's curse. This fact was publicly to be declared by all the other participants. The nation would soon exercise the democratic right of sealing the national covenant on behalf of every member of this covenant, present and future.
The people could not exercise what might be called a pick-and-choose veto over God. They could not pick and choose from among a large list of provisions. They were confronted with a comprehensive list of provisions. God established the covenant. They could ratify all of its stipulations and thereby escape the curses.
Boundaries and Sanctions The landmark is a physical boundary, but it is also an ethical boundary. This corporate confession appears in a list of boundaries. The nation was required to confess that there were curses attached to violations of these ethical boundaries.
Those Christians who deny that the Mosaic law carries into the New Covenant should review this list of curses. Which of them is no longer operable?
Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen. Cursed be he that setteth light by his father or his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour's landmark. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that maketh the blind to wander out of the way. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the stranger, fatherless, and widow. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that lieth with his father's wife; because he uncovereth his father's skirt. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that lieth with any manner of beast. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that lieth with his mother in law. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that smiteth his neighbour secretly. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen (Deut. 27:15-26).
If all of these seem to be still in force, what about the concluding confession? "Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen" (v. 26). In other words, if these laws carry into the New Covenant, what about God's sanctions against their violation? If a man is cursed who violates them, what about the Mosaic law's civil sanctions against such acts? On what judicial basis have these been annulled? Are these sins today less heinous in God's eyes? Has the coming of the New Covenant made men less responsible before God than before Christ's revelation? Is it a biblical principle that less is expected from those to whom more has been given? Or is it rather the reverse (Luke 12:48)?
Conclusion This prohibition against moving the landmark appears in a passage that specified the judicial content of the corporate act of national covenant renewal by the conquest generation. It pronounced a curse against the person who moves his neighbor's landmark, thereby disinheriting his neighbor and his heirs.
The invocation of a curse marks each of these boundaries as covenantal. The commentator who denies that the Mosaic law applies in the New Covenant has a major problem with this passage: there is no known covenantal principle of discontinuity that annuls any of these sins. There is also no known covenantal principle that revokes their curses. Then on what judicial basis have the civil sanctions attached to these sins been annulled? This raises the issue of hermeneutics: the biblical principle of biblical interpretation.
Footnote:
1. Chapter 42.
If this book helps you gain a new understanding of the Bible, please consider sending a small donation to the Institute for Christian Economics, P.O. Box 8000, Tyler, TX 75711. You may also want to buy a printed version of this book, if it is still in print. Contact ICE to find out. icetylertx@aol.com