Deeper Commentary
Deu 21:1 If anyone is found slain in the land which Yahweh your God
gives you to possess, lying in the field and it isn’t known who has struck
him-
"Drive out" is s.w. "possess". We must note the difference between the
Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by
Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This
is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking
possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to
us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The
allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom
was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of
Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take
possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take
possession of all the land (Josh.
11:23 13:1; 16:10; 18:3; 23:4). The language of inheritance / possession
is applied to us in the New Testament (Eph. 1:11,14; Col. 3:24; Acts
20:32; 26:18; 1 Pet. 1:4 etc.). Israel were promised: "You shall possess
it" (Dt. 30:5; 33:23). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for
sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were
constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to
possessing the land (Dt. 30:16,18; 31:3,13; 32:47), but when they got
there they didn't possess it fully.
Deu 21:2 then your elders and your judges must come forth and measure to
the cities which are around him who is slain-
We note that the judges were to be involved in the physical work of
measuring. Any in a decision making position need to get their hands dirty
with the actual cases they are dealing with, understanding the situation
on the ground. Through this process, the judges would have seen the body,
or at least its location, and become very familiar with the territory
around it.
Deu 21:3 The elders of the city which is nearest to the slain man shall
take a heifer of the herd, which hasn’t been worked with and which has not
drawn the yoke-
The
Lord’s crucifixion “near to the city" (Jn. 19:20) connected with Jerusalem
thereby being guilty of His blood (Dt. 21:3). Heifers were used for work
(Jud. 14:18; Hos. 10:11; Jer. 50:11), so this was a heifer especially
reared for use in such sacrificial rituals.
Deu 21:4 and the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer to a
valley with running water, which is neither ploughed nor sown, and shall
break the heifer’s neck there in the valley-
The idea was that the flowing water in the river would as it were
bear away the guilt of the sin. But although the Bible teaches that there
is no immortal soul nor conscious survival of death, such wrong ideas were
likely clearly in the thoughts of paganic Israel. There was an idea that
departed spirits congregated in dry places (Lk. 11:24) but feared water,
just as ghosts in the old England were thought to never cross bridges. And
so the association of this flowing water with the corpse and heifer's
blood, the symbol of the man's life, was in part a concession to their
weakness of faith and understanding. The idea was that he was now carried
away and was not there any more.
Deu 21:5 The priests the sons of Levi must come near, for them Yahweh your
God has chosen to minister to Him and to bless in the name of Yahweh, and
according to their word shall every controversy be decided-
The system of judges proposed by Jethro didn't really work, because
Moses again felt the burden was too great for him (see on Num. 11:11), and
so the 70 Spirit filled elders were appointed (Num. 11:16). But this too
didn't really work; because in Dt. 17:11; 21:5 we seem to read of the
priests effectively being the judges, under the direct control of Moses
and Aaron. The simple truth was that there was hardly a wise man amongst
them.
Although the Levites had been set apart for Divine service immediately after God's meeting with Israel at Sinai, as outlined in Leviticus and Numbers, it seems that not until Aaron died at the end of the 40 years wandering did they actually in practice begin to serve as intended (Dt. 10:8). It could be that the reason was that the Levites were ever slow to accept their responsibilities. And they generally failed in their calling over Israel's history, climaxing in the priests arranging the murder of God's own Son.
Proverbs stresses that the man who loves wisdom will be able to judge wisely (Prov. 2:9; 31:9). Yet it was the priests who were the judges of Israel (Dt. 19:17), they were the ones to whom hard cases were brought. Yet Proverbs implies all could act as priests. "To do justice and judgment is more acceptable (a word elsewhere used concerning the priests' service, Dt. 21:5) than (the offering of) sacrifice" (Prov. 21:5). Loving wisdom would give the ordinary Israelite a crown on his head (Prov. 4:9), alluding to the High Priestly crown (Ex. 29:6; Zech. 6:11).
Deu 21:6 All the elders of that city who are nearest to the slain man must
wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley-
Washing hands was a protestation of innocence (Ps. 26:6; Mt. 27:24).
The comment that "the guilt of blood shall be forgiven them" (:8)
seems to suggest that they were somehow guilty until they protested their
innocence. This runs quite contrary to the spirit of 'innocent until
proven guilty' which we have observed elsewhere in the law of Moses. But
the idea seems to be that clearly a sin had been committed, which the
community had collective guilt and responsibility for. But God was eager
to forgive this, and from then on, the community need no longer worry
about any lingering sense of guilt or curse, of the kind which primitive
communities tended to have. So this procedure was in some ways a
concession to the weakness of Israel in having these pagan ideas and fears
of guilt for unresolved murder.
Deu 21:7 and they shall say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither
have our eyes seen it-
GNB "We did not murder this one, and we do not know who did it".
Deu 21:8 Forgive, Yahweh, your people Israel whom You have redeemed, and
don’t allow innocent blood to be among Your people Israel. The guilt of
blood shall be forgiven them-
See on :6. The red heifer is called a sin offering (Num. 19:9), but
we note that here it was not burnt neither was it offered upon an altar.
It seems to look ahead specifically to the work of the Lord Jesus. As
defined in more detail in Num. 19, the ashes of the red heifer purified
the impure / unclean, but defiled the clean. This is an intentional
paradox, and is meant to highlight how the Lord's work can only benefit
those who recognize their uncleanness. He is a doctor, and cannot heal
those who consider they need no doctor.
Deu 21:9 So you shall put away the innocent blood from the midst of you,
when you do that which is right in the eyes of Yahweh-
We must read in an ellipsis here: "put away [the guilt of] innocent
blood". We could read this as meaning that the community was guilty for
having allowed a culture to develop in which murder happened. This is not
the same as guilt by association, but the idea is that all of a society is
responsible in some way if murder is committed. This sounds strange to the
individualistic mindset of many modern people, but was appropriate to the
collective mindset of people of the time. And indeed it seems God does
recognize this as real guilt which needed some cleansing. Hence the guilt
would be put away when and if they did what was right as a community; the
ritual of itself would not cleanse, but it worked together, as it were,
with a community which followed the culture of kindness inculcated by the
law of Moses.
Deu 21:10 When you go forth to battle against your enemies and Yahweh your
God delivers them into your hands and you carry them away captive-
This presumably refers to the conquest of lands "far" from Israel, in
the rest of the land promised to Abraham, beyond the borders of Canaan.
For here it is envisaged that captives would be taken. Whereas the
legislation of Dt. 20:15,19 was to the effect that this would only happen
in the areas "far" from Canaan, and all within Canaan was to be destroyed.
God had spoken of the time when He would "enlarge" the land up to that
limit (Ex. 34:24; Dt. 12:20; 19:8). He presumably envisaged a 'stage two'
of the conquest of that territory, but stage two was to be more lenient.
The assumption was that all idolatry would be stamped out from Canaan, and
Israel would be totally faithful to Yahweh. But this didn't happen, and so
the planned "stage two" never happened. We see how God sets up potentials
in great detail, but they may never happen because they depend upon human
freewill. This is discussed more on Dt. 20:15,19.
Just as all the animals and everything in the eretz promised to Abraham was 'delivered into the hands' of Noah (s.w. Gen. 9:2), so the nations of that eretz were delivered into the hands of Israel (s.w. Ex. 6:8; 23:31; Dt. 2:24; 3:2,3; 7:24; 21:10; Josh. 2:24; Jud. 1:2). Tragically, like Adam in Eden [perhaps the same eretz promised to Abraham] and Noah in the new, cleansed eretz, Israel didn't realize this potential. What was delivered into the hand of Joshua (Josh. 2:24) actually wasn't delivered into their hand, because they disbelieved (Jud. 2:23); and this looks ahead to the disbelief of so many in the work of the Lord Jesus, who has indeed conquered the Kingdom for us. They considered the promise of the nations being delivered into their hand as somehow open to question, and only a possibility and not at all certain (Jud. 8:7; Num. 21:2 cp. Num. 21:34). Some like Jephthah (s.w. Jud. 11:32; 12:3), Ehud (Jud. 3:10,28), Deborah (Jud. 4:14), Gideon (Jud. 7:15) did, for a brief historical moment; but as individuals, and their victories were not followed up on. Instead they were dominated by the territory. And so instead, they were delivered into the hands of their enemies within the eretz (s.w. Lev. 26:25; Jud. 13:1).
Deu 21:11 and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have a
desire to her and would take her to you as a wife-
Throughout the Old Covenant there is the repeated
stress that Israel were not to marry Gentiles. This was so far from the
Biblical ideal of marriage. But then there is a concession to their likely
weakness in Dt. 21:11-15: If they saw a beautiful woman among their
enemies whom they liked, they had to put her through certain rituals, and
then they could marry her. See on Dt. 20:14. The legislation in :11-14 is
unique amongst the surrounding nations, where women were seen as objects
of booty and were treated with far less sensitivity than this and usually
raped in this situation. Likewise the law of :18-21 teaches equal
reverence for both parents and
not just the father.
Deu 21:12 then you shall bring her home to your house. She must shave her
head and pare her nails-
The only provision for marrying a Gentile involved her going through a
process of separation from her parents, reconciling herself to the fact
she would never see them again, and making her realize that because she
was outside the covenant, she was to be treated like a leper or defiled
person (Dt. 21:11,12 = Num. 6:9; Lev. 14:9). Only once she had learnt this
lesson could she enter into covenant with God's people and be married. The
woman was to remove all her cosmetic beauty, so that she were married for
who she was as a person and not because of any surface level attraction.
Deu 21:13 and put off the clothing of her captivity and remain in your
house and bewail her father and her mother a full month. After that you
shall go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife-
This was so radically different to the surrounding ideas of victory
and spoil, whereby women were grabbed as trophies and slept with
immediately as a sign of dominance. The value and meaning of the human
person is powerfully reflected throughout the Mosaic law.
Deu 21:14 If you have no delight in her, then you must let her go where
she will, but you must not sell her at all for money. Since you have
humbled her, you must not deal with her as a slave-
Deu 21:15 If a man has two wives, the one beloved and the other hated, and
they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated, and if the
firstborn son be hers who was hated-
This legislation was only operable if the man recognized that he
hated [possibly meaning 'to love less'] one of his wives. Husbands would
likely claim that this was not the case. The law of Moses is unique
amongst legal codes in that it judges the attitudes of the heart, and
legislation such as this requires total internal honesty in order to
function.
Deu 21:16 then in the day that he causes his sons to inherit that which he
has, he must not make the son of the beloved the firstborn before the son
of the hated, who is the firstborn-
This implies that a father could "cause his sons to inherit" before
his death, and we see this reflected in the parable of the prodigal son in
Lk. 15. We marvel at the internal corroboration within the Biblical
record. But in :18-20 we then notice another allusion to this section of
scripture by the Lord in His parable. We wonder whether the two sons of
the parable refer to the two sons envisaged here, the first male children
born by each of his two wives. And again we can no more than wonder
whether there is some reference to Jacob and Esau, Jacob being beloved by
God whereas Esau was hated or loved less (Rom. 9:13). One point of the
parable's allusions to this section is to show that God, the Father,
doesn't keep His own law because His grace and passionate love takes Him
beyond mere legalism.
Deu 21:17 He shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the hated, 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-
This means that in a situation where there were two sons, the younger
son’s share was one third. In the parable of the prodigal son, the younger
son is given half – such was the
Father’s love for him. This element of unreality in the parable is to
signpost the amazing level of love the Father has for us; even when He
knows that we will waste what He gives, still He gives, and gives
generously.
Deu 21:18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the
voice of his father nor the voice of his mother and, though they chasten
him, will not listen to them-
We are left to imagine in what tone of voice Moses said that. Israel
had rebelled against the commandment of Yahweh through disbelief, and
therefore couldn't enter Canaan (Dt. 1:26; 9:7,23,24; 31:27; Num. 27:4);
they were as the rebellious son who rebelled against his father's
commandment (s.w. Dt. 21:18,20). For he himself had rebelled against the
commandment of Yahweh and because of this was also barred from entering
Canaan (Num. 20:24; 27:14). One reason for this was that he had called the
Israelites "rebels" (Num. 20:10), and no sooner had he done so, than he
himself rebelled against Yahweh's commandment just like them, but in a
different way. I will explain on :21 that the judgment of stoning implied
false teaching. The terms "stubborn" and "rebellious" are associated with
idolatry, and so it seems to me that the disobedience was more than simple
disobedience to domestic commands, but rather an intentional, conscious
desire to teach idolatry and rebel against the covenant.
Deu 21:19 then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him and bring
him out to the elders of his city and to the gate of his town-
See on :20. "Then shall..." need not be read as absolute command; for
the parable of the prodigal son features the Father running beyond the
gate of the town in order to escort his wayward son home, rather than
allowing him to fall into the hands of the elders of the city as he passed
through the gates. We cannot just disregard Divine commandment, but it is
also so that the way of grace is above legalism and literalism.
Deu 21:20 They shall tell the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn
and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a
drunkard-
This is exactly how the prodigal son is described. And we have noted
many points of contact between that parable and this section of the law.
One point of the parable's allusions to this section is to show that God,
the Father, doesn't keep His own law because His grace and passionate love
takes Him beyond mere legalism. For instead of reporting the son to the
elders and having him stoned, the Father showers him with grace and
acceptance. The older brother is presented as the one who wished to follow
this law to the letter, and he thereby remains outside the Father's
fellowship- by his own choice.
Deu 21:21 All the men of his city must stone him to death with stones. So
you shall put away the evil from the midst of you, and all Israel shall
hear and fear-
The use of stoning (Dt. 13:10; 17:5; 21:21; 22:21,24) was to show
their connection with the death of the apostate. It was to also make them
realize that any attempt to deny the saving work of God in bringing them
out of Egypt, or attempt to reverse it by returning them to bondage, was
worthy of death (Dt. 13:10). We note that false teaching, enticing others
to sin, is seen as the most serious kind of sin. I suggest therefore that
the rebellious son in view was more than simply disobedient to his
father's voice. As noted on :18, the rebellion in view may well have been
in rebelling against the covenant and enticing others to worship other
gods. The New Testament teaching about church discipline takes a similar
approach; moral weakness of individuals was tolerated, although
criticized; but those teaching such behaviour were condemned. Stoning
resulted in the covering of the body with the dust of the earth, as if
recognizing that the death being brought about was also to be the fate of
all under the curse in Eden.
Deu 21:22 If a man has committed a sin worthy of death and is put to death
and you hang him on a tree-
These words (and :23) have been misunderstood as meaning that the
Lord as a living being was under one of the Law's curses of condemnation,
and "worthy of death". This cannot be. It must be remembered that
crucifixion was a Roman, not Jewish method. The Deuteronomy passage was
not written with reference to crucifixion, but rather to the custom of
displaying the already dead body of a sinner on a pole as a witness and
warning (cp. the display of Saul's body). Sin brought the curse; and so
every sinful person who died for their sin was bearing the curse of God.
They were to be buried quickly as a sign of God taking no pleasure in the
death of the wicked. The Lord died the death of a sinner; He bore our
sins, and therefore our curse (Gal. 3:13,14). Every condemned sinner whose
body had been displayed had been a type of the sinless Son of God. He was
exhibited there for one or two hours (until Joseph got the permission to
take the body), totally, totally united with sinful man. And then, because
God had no pleasure in this condemnation of sin, the body was taken and
buried.
Deu 21:23 his body must not remain all night on the tree, but you shall
surely bury him the same day (for cursed of God is he who is hanged on a
tree), so that you don’t defile your land which Yahweh your God gives you
for an inheritance-
The
Jews "slew (Jesus) and hanged (him) on a tree" (Acts 5:30). There seems to
be a distinction here; as if the 'slaying' was an ongoing process in His
ministry, crowned by the final hanging on the tree. Paul speaks similarly
in Galatians; as if the body was already dead when it was lifted up on the
tree; for he quotes the Mosaic law regarding the body of a dead criminal
being displayed on a tree as if it was descriptive of the Lord’s death
(Gal. 3:13 cp. Dt. 21:23).
An interesting point comes out of the Greek text of Lk. 23:39: "One of the criminals who were suspended reviled him" (Diaglott). Ancient paintings show the thieves tied by cords to the crosses, not nailed as was Christ. Hanging on a tree became an idiom for crucifixion, even if nails were actually used (Dt. 21:23 cp. Gal. 3:13; Acts 5:30; 10:39). If this were so, we see the development of a theme: that the whole ingenuity of man was pitted against the Father and Son. Christ was nailed, not tied; the tomb was sealed and guarded; the legal process was manipulated; the Lord was flogged as well as crucified.
We see here that one dimension of crucifixion on a tree was public shame and public instruction. These were all aspects of the Lord's death. Dt. 21:23 had commanded this taking down bodies of criminals from the tree where they were exhibited, by evening; even condemned criminals were to be shown some respect. For after dark wild animals and birds would have eaten them. We see here reflected how God truly takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. We need not unduly fear condemnation, for God doesn't want to condemn people.
These words have been misunderstood as meaning that
the Lord Jesus as a living being was under one of the Law's curses of
condemnation. This cannot be. Crucifixion was a Roman, not Jewish method.
The Deuteronomy passage was not written with reference to crucifixion, but
rather to the custom of displaying the already dead body of a sinner on a
pole as a witness and warning. Sin brought the curse; and so every sinful
person who died for their sin was bearing the curse of God. They were to
be buried quickly, as a sign of God taking no pleasure in the death of the
wicked. Jesus died the death of a sinner; He bore our sins, and therefore
our curse (Gal. 3:13,14). Every condemned sinner whose body had been
displayed had been a type of the sinless Son of God. He was exhibited
there for a few hours, totally united with sinful man. And then, because
God had no pleasure in this condemnation of sin, the body was taken and
buried.
Luke saw a link between the Lord’s death and His
whole life when he says that they had been “eyewitnesses" of the Lord’s
ministry, using the Greek word for autopsy- Luke saw his record of the
Lord’s life as being an autopsy of His death (Lk. 1:2). Perhaps this idea
explains why Paul likens the Lord on the cross to the body of the criminal
lifted up after death, not in order to lead to death (Gal. 3:13;
Dt. 21:23)- as if he understood the Lord to have been effectively dead
unto sin at the time the body was lifted up on the cross. He was there the
propitiation for our sins, and yet He is that now, each time we sin (1 Jn.
2:1; 4:10).
Previous Chapter
