Deuteronomy 21 – Various Laws

A. The law of unsolved murders.

1. (1) The presence of an unsolved murder.

“If anyone is found slain, lying in the field in the land which the LORD your God is giving you to possess, and it is not known who killed him,

a. If anyone is found slain: Presumably, this deals with a case where death from natural causes had been ruled out and it was evident that the deceased had been murdered. Yet, it was not known who killed him.

b. It is not known who killed him: An unsolved murder was important for Israel to deal with because of a principle stated in Numbers 35:33-34. That passage shows that the blood of unsolved, unavenged murder defiled and polluted the land. Therefore, if there is a murder unavenged, some kind of cleansing was necessary, so the land would not be defiled.

2. (2-6) The procedure for atoning for murder-polluted land.

Then your elders and your judges shall go out and measure the distance from the slain man to the surrounding cities. And it shall be that the elders of the city nearest to the slain man will take a heifer which has not been worked and which has not pulled with a yoke. The elders of that city shall bring the heifer down to a valley with flowing water, which is neither plowed nor sown, and they shall break the heifer’s neck there in the valley. Then the priests, the sons of Levi, shall come near, for the LORD your God has chosen them to minister to Him and to bless in the name of the LORD; by their word every controversy and every assault shall be settled. And all the elders of that city nearest to the slain man shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley.

a. The elders of the city nearest to the slain man: First, the matter of jurisdiction had to be settled. Measurements would be made, and the elders of the city closest to the scene of the crime were responsible to sacrifice a heifer to atone for and cleanse the land polluted by murder.

b. A heifer which has not been worked: Then, appropriate sacrifice had to be made. This heifer was sacrificed by the priests in the presence of the city elders, who washed their hands over the sacrificed animal.

i. “The heifer, the valley and the water were undefiled, because they had never been contaminated by common use.” (Thompson)

ii. This washing of the hands, done in the presence of the priests, who by their word every controversy and every assault shall be settled, was a powerful proclamation by the elders: “We have done all we could to settle this case, but cannot. We are clean from all guilt in the matter of this slain man.”

iii. “The act of washing hands as a sign of exculpation is known elsewhere in the Old Testament (cf. Psalm 26:6; 73:13).” (Merrill)

iv. Of course, this ceremony of washing the hands over the sacrificed animal meant nothing if the elders had in fact not done what they could to avenge the murder. Apart from that, this washing of the hands was just as much an empty gesture as Pilate’s washing of his hands at the trial of Jesus (Matthew 27:24).

3. (7-9) The prayer said by the elders as they washed their hands.

Then they shall answer and say, ‘Our hands have not shed this blood, nor have our eyes seen it. Provide atonement, O LORD, for Your people Israel, whom You have redeemed, and do not lay innocent blood to the charge of Your people Israel.’ And atonement shall be provided on their behalf for the blood. So you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you when you do what is right in the sight of the LORD.

a. Provide atonement, O LORD: Again, Numbers 35:33-34 makes the principle clear, that unavenged murders defile and pollute the land and atonement must be made for the land itself.

i. “Though the word kap̱ar (‘atone’) appears twice in Deuteronomy 21:8, the atonement mentioned is not an atonement within the sacrificial system; for the blood of the heifer was not offered. It is rather an atonement for justice; the heifer suffered death in place of the unknown criminal, in order to clear the land of guilt.” (Kalland)

ii. “Possibly the meaning of the ritual was that, since the murderer could not be found, an animal was put to death in place of the murderer (cf. Exodus 13:13), i.e. a kind of ceremonial judicial execution took place in which the heifer served as a substitute for the unknown murderer.” (Thompson)

b. So you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood: When Israel followed God’s instructions for atonement, He honored His word by taking away their guilt. But the removal of guilt was always based on blood sacrifice, on a substitutionary atonement – looking forward to the work of Jesus on the cross for the entire world.

B. Laws relevant to family and home situations.

1. (10-14) Laws regarding the taking of a wife from conquered peoples.

“When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hand, and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her and would take her for your wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall put off the clothes of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free, but you certainly shall not sell her for money; you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her.

a. And you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her: In the ancient world, it was not uncommon for a man to take a wife from among the captives, especially if she was a beautiful woman. Yet obviously, this custom could be used to terribly abuse the captive women. For this reason, God gave specific commands to govern this practice in Israel.

i. “Women taken prisoner as a result of conquest could be taken as wives by Israelites, another indication that they were not from among the Canaanite nations (Deuteronomy 21:11; cf. Exodus 34:16; Deuteronomy 7:3).” (Merrill)

ii. “No forcible possession was allowed even in this case, when the woman was taken in war, and was, by the general consent of ancient nations, adjudged as a part of the spoils.” (Clarke)

b. Shave her head and trim her nails: First, the captive woman had to be purified and humbled. This denoted a complete break with her past, and the willingness to start anew, humbly as a child.

i. Shave her head: “This was in token of her renouncing her religion, and becoming a proselyte to that of the Jews. This is still a custom in the East; when a Christian turns Mohammedan his head is shaven.” (Clarke)

c. Put off the clothes of her captivity, remain in your house: Second, the captive woman had to show a change of allegiance. This showed that the captive woman no longer regarded her former nation and her former family; now she was a citizen of Israel.

i. “Certainly the change of garments suggests a change of status.” (Thompson)

d. Mourn her father and mother a full month: Third, the captive woman had to mourn her past associations. This would be time when she could resolve issues in her heart regarding her family, and when her husband-to-be could live with her a month without intimate relations. In this time, he could see if he really wanted to take this woman as a wife, and to make sure he was not deciding based only on her attractiveness.

i. Taken together, all these requirements imply the willingness of the woman. “This presupposes a degree of willingness on the part of the maiden to forsake the past and to embrace a new and different way of life, for one can hardly conceive of all this taking place coercively.” (Merrill)

e. You certainly shall not sell her for money; you shall not treat her brutally: After the month of mourning, the potential husband was free to marry the captive woman – yet, he did not have to. But if he decided not to, he had to set her free with dignity. All this together provided remarkable protection of the rights of a captive woman.

i. “The relationship rested on a legal basis. If it were dissolved, the woman’s social status was not to be impaired. She was not a slave to be sold, but was free to go where she wished.” (Thompson)

2. (15-17) The protection of inheritance rights.

“If a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, and they have borne him children, both the loved and the unloved, and if the firstborn son is of her who is unloved, then it shall be, on the day he bequeaths his possessions to his sons, that he must not bestow firstborn status on the son of the loved wife in preference to the son of the unloved, the true firstborn. But he shall acknowledge the son of the unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

a. If a man has two wives: Obviously, there were going to be problems in a home like this, especially if one wife was loved and the other was unloved. Yet, God commanded that the inheritance rights of the firstborn son be respected, even if he were the son of the unloved wife.

b. A double portion of all that he has: This was the right of the firstborn in ancient Israel. The firstborn son was to receive twice as much inheritance as any other son. For example, if there were three sons, the inheritance would be divided into four parts, with the firstborn receiving two parts, and the other two sons each receiving one part.

i. “This rule was not followed in the case of Solomon.” (Kalland)

ii. A double portion: “According to this phrase, Elisha (2 Kings 2:9) doth not desire a greater measure of the spirit than rested upon his master; but only to excel the other children of the prophets by a right of primogeniture.” (Trapp)

3. (18-21) The penalty for a rebellious son.

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city. And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear.

a. A stubborn and rebellious son: This does not mean a small child, or even a young teen – but a son past the age of accountability, who set himself in determined rebellion against his father and mother.

i. Stubborn and rebellious: These words “occur paired together in Jeremiah 5:23 where Israelite wickedness, which was bringing on the destruction of the nation, is described. In Psalm 78:8 the forefathers who were not loyal to God are called ‘a stubborn and rebellious generation.’” (Kalland)

ii. Glutton and a drunkard: “The two vices occur together elsewhere (cf. Proverbs 23:20–21) and apparently serve as a cliché for self-indulgence and lack of constructive activity.” (Merrill)

b. Who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them: To call a rebellious son to account as described in this passage, the parents must have done a good job raising the son, calling him to obedience, and disciplining him as appropriate before the LORD.

c. Bring him out to the elders of his city: Such a stubborn and rebellious son was to be put on trial before the elders of the city. If they determined him to be chronically rebellious, then the son was to be stoned to death.

i. It is important to note that the parents could not, by themselves, carry out this penalty. They had to bring the son on trial before impartial judges. This contrasts with ancient Greek and Roman law, which gave fathers the absolute right of life or death over their children. This was a control of parental authority more than it was an exercise of it.

ii. “If the elders found the man guilty, the sentence was death by stoning. The parents were not required to participate, perhaps out of a sense of delicacy, although more likely in order to stress the point that the power of life and death over their children was not theirs.” (Thompson)

iii. The parents had to take the boy to the elders of the community; not only because the decision of life or death should be taken out of their direct hands, but because the sin of the stubborn and rebellious son was not only against his parents, but against the whole community. His rebellion against his parents sowed the seeds for cultural ruin in Israel.

d. And all Israel shall hear and fear: This law was clearly intended to protect the social order of ancient Israel. No society can endure when the young are allowed to make war against the old.

i. Perhaps just the presence of this law was deterrent enough; we never have a Scriptural example of a son being stoned to death because of these commands in the Law of Moses.

ii. “Yet the Jews say this law was never put into practice, and therefore it might be made for terror and prevention, and to render the authority of parents more sacred and powerful.” (Poole)

iii. “Stoning was the punishment appointed for blasphemers and idolaters; which if it seem severe, it is to be considered that parents are in God’s stead, and entrusted in good measure with his authority over their children; and that families are the matter and foundation of the church and commonwealth, and they who are naughty members and rebellious children in them, do commonly prove the bane and plague of these, and therefore no wonder if they are nipped in the bud.” (Poole)

iv. “If such a law were in force now, and duly executed, how many deaths of disobedient and profligate children would there be in all corners of the land!” (Clarke)

4. (22-23) The curse upon one who hangs on a tree.

“If a man has committed a sin deserving of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain overnight on the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day, so that you do not defile the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance; for he who is hanged is accursed of God.

a. And you hang him on a tree: In the thinking of ancient Israel there was something worse than being put to death. The worse fate was to die and have your corpse left exposed to shame, humiliation, and to scavenging animals and birds.

i. Hang him on a tree does not have the idea of being executed by strangulation but of having the corpse mounted on a tree or other prominent place. This would expose the executed one to disgrace and the elements.

b. His body shall not remain overnight on the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day: Therefore, if anyone was executed and deemed worthy of such disgrace (being hanged on a tree), the humiliation to his memory and his family must not be excessive. This was a way of tempering even the most severe judgment with mercy.

i. “The presence of the corpse hanging up to the public gaze, with crime, as it were, clinging to it and God’s curse resting on it, might result in untold calamities. Hence as soon as the necessary amount of publicity had been achieved and other likely offenders had been warned, the corpse was buried, and that before sunset.” (Thompson)

ii. “Its exposure for the space of one day was judged sufficient…. It is worthy of remark that in the infliction of punishment prescribed by the Mosaic law, we ever find that Mercy walks hand in hand with Judgment.” (Clarke)

c. For he who is hanged is accursed of God: The punishment of being hanged on a tree, and left to open exposure, was thought to be so severe, that it was reserved only for those for which it was to be declared, “this one is accursed of God.”

i. “The man was accursed of God because he was hanged on a tree. He was hanged on the tree because he was accursed of God. The hanging was the outward sign of the curse upon him.” (Morgan)

ii. Paul expounded on Deuteronomy 21:23 in Galatians 3:13-14: Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

iii. Jesus not only died in the place of His people; but He also took their place as the accursed of God, being hanged on a “tree” in open shame and degradation. He received this curse, which believers deserved, and He did not, so that His people could receive the blessing of Abraham, which He deserved, and believers did not.

iv. “But He became sin for us; cursed, that we might be blessed; cast out, that we might be for ever welcomed; naked, that we might be clothed; hungry, that we might feed on his flesh; poor, that we might be enriched; dying, that we might live beyond the range of the curse for evermore.” (Meyer)

v. God’s people are redeemed from the curse of the law by the work of Jesus on the cross in their place. Believers no longer need to fear that God will curse them. God wants to bless His people, not because of who they are, or what they have done, but because of what Jesus Christ has done on behalf of believers.

Pin2

2 Shares