Deuteronomy 21:1

Here again, we have evidence of the miscellaneous, "shotgun" lack of organization in this great address by Moses. The Great Lawgiver included many things in this remarkable presentation that were not very closely related to each other. As Cousins stated it, "It is hard to distinguish any pattern in this section, although some laws are grouped together."[1] For example, Deuteronomy 21:10-21 concerns family affairs, and Deuteronomy 23:1-18 deals with the purity of the community. Keil wrote that:

"The reason for grouping these five laws which are apparently so different from one another, as well as for attaching them to the previous regulations, is found in the desire to bring out distinctly the sacredness of life and of personal rights from every point of view, and impress it upon the covenant nation.[2]

The "five laws" referred to by Keil in this chapter are as follows:

(1) expiation of a murder by an unknown person (Deuteronomy 21:1-9);

(2) rights of a wife who was taken from among prisoners of war (Deuteronomy 21:10-14);

(3) the right of the first-born (Deuteronomy 21:15-17);

(4) punishment of a rebellious son (Deuteronomy 21:18-21); and

(5) the right of prompt burial for those executed (Deuteronomy 21:22-23).

Kline pointed out that another classification of these laws may group several of them under the title of "Limiting the authority of the head of the household."[3] Thus, his authority is limited in regard to a captive made a wife (Deuteronomy 21:10,11), also in the matter of a preferred wife whose son was not allowed to preempt the rights of the first-born by the unloved wife (Deuteronomy 21:15-17), and in the prohibition against his putting a rebellious son to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

All of the speculations that one finds in commentaries regarding the "sources" of the material here may be safely rejected and ignored. Wright, for example, wrote that, "Most of these laws are quoted from older sources."[4] If this is true, why did he not name the sources? It is obvious that there are no older sources. Such sources of the alleged sources of the Pentateuch are merely the imaginations of men and have never had any actual existence in fact. If all of those "sources" had ever existed, why is it that not a single syllable from any one of them has ever been found upon any ancient monument, uncovered by the excavations of any ancient city, or referred to in any of the writings of all nations throughout all ages? It appears to us that any appeal to such non-existent "sources" is, whether intentional or not, an effort to deceive!

CEREMONY FOR AN UNSOLVED MURDER

"If one be slain in the land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who hath smitten him; then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is slain: and it shall be, that the city which is nearest unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take a heifer of the herd, and which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke; and the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a valley with running water, which is neither plowed nor sown, and shall break the heifer's neck there in the valley. And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them Jehovah thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of Jehovah; and according to their word shall every controversy and every stroke be. And all the elders of that city, who are nearest unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley; and they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. Forgive, O Jehovah, thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and suffer not innocent blood to remain in the midst of thy people Israel. And the blood shall be forgiven them. So shalt thou put away the innocent blood from the midst of thee, when thou shalt do that which is right in the eyes of Jehovah."

The conception here is clearly one of corporate responsibility. Every community is responsible for crimes committed within its boundaries, and any unpunished crime must inevitably leave traces of contamination upon the whole body of the people. "When the evil has been dealt with, usually when the crime has been punished, the contamination is removed."[5] The situation here, however, is one in which it was impossible to mete out the proper punishment for the murderer, due to the fact that he was unknown.

Some have complained that, "To the Protestant Christian this act appears as verging on the realm of cultic magic."[6] However, the instructions in this passage lift the whole procedure far above any of the essential features of magic. Forgiveness is indeed sought, but of whom? Of the one true and Almighty God, and herein is an impassable gulf intervening between what God commanded here and all of the magic ever practiced on earth.

Cook was correct in the discernment here that, "This transaction was figurative, and was so ordered as to impress the lesson of Genesis 9:5f."[7] Regarding no other responsibility has the human race been quite so rebelliously indifferent as they have been with regard to the Divine order to put ALL murderers to death.

The killing of the heifer here was in no sense a sacrifice, as indicated by the manner of killing it by breaking its neck. Sacrifices had to have their blood shed and sprinkled in a certain way upon the altar. There is no parallel whatever to this ceremony among any known ceremonies of the pagans, and many of the specifics here are not exactly clear as to why this or that was commanded. The entire ceremony was SYMBOLICAL, perhaps, of the punishment, that was due the unknown murderer.

The uncultivated valley mentioned in Deuteronomy 21:4 is, according to Orlinsky, "a wady with a perennial stream," and in Deuteronomy 21:5, he translated the comment about the Levites thus, "Every lawsuit and case of assault is subject to their ruling.[8]

A very undiscerning remark by Watts is that, "The introduction of the Levitical priests, Deuteronomy 21:5, adds nothing to the description."[9] Alexander pointed out the true reason for the appearance of the Levites in this ceremony: "The presence of the priests was due to their position as servants of Jehovah, on whom it devolved to see that all was done in the manner God's law prescribed."[10]

Kline read the comment in Deuteronomy 21:5 as, "A clear affirmation of the ultimate judicial authority vested in the priesthood, and their appearance here was purely judicial ... it was a ceremonial execution of the heifer substituted for the unknown murderer."[11] Jamieson pointed out that in the actual practice of Israel, the Sanhedrin, in such cases, ordered the magistrates (elders) of the responsible city, "to provide the heifer at the expense and to go through with the appointed ceremonies."[12]

Craigie thought that the last clause in Deuteronomy 21:7 signified more than the mere fact of the city's elders having not "witnessed" the crime. "It may indicate that they had not seen and did not know anything that might lead to the conviction of the guilty party."[13] "If the murderer was discovered afterward, of course, the punishment of death would still fall upon him."[14]

The prayer for forgiveness (Deuteronomy 21:8) was uttered by the priests, implying that the local citizens were guilty of the crime of "failure to make the roads safe for travelers."[15] "Corporate guilt is an alien concept in our modern world, but such passages as this challenge the reader to take it seriously."[16]