Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Deuteronomy 21:1
If [one] be found slain in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, [and] it be not known who hath slain him:
1. If one be found ] So Deu 17:2; Deu 24:7, also Sg. passages.
which the Lord thy God is to give thee ] see on Deu 19:14.
lying ] Heb. falling but with perfect sense, fallen, cp. Num 24:4, Jdg 3:25; Jdg 5:27.
in the field ] sadeh, as in Deu 22:25; Deu 22:27, in its earlier meaning (see on Deu 5:21), the wild uncultivated country, remote from habitations.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Deu 21:1-9
If one be found slain.
Gods value of individual life
This narrative, says one, sets forth the preciousness of human life in the sight of God. Dr. Jamieson believes this singular statute concerning homicide is far superior to what is found in the criminal code of any other ancient nation, and is undoubtedly the origin or germ of the modern coroners inquests.
I. Discovered in the loss of one man. Only one missing! But God counts men as well as stars, and gathers one by one. Ancient philosophy and modern socialism overlook personality, and legislate for men in a mass. The individual exists only for the race, has no rights, and becomes a tool or slave of society. Christianity does not belittle man, but recognises and renews individuals, exalts them to responsibility, and appeals to them for right. Adam, where art thou?
II. Discovered in the injury to one man. One man was missing, but he was murdered. His blood, like that of Abel, Was crying for justice. Society was wounded in one of its members. An inquiry was demanded, and the reproach must be wiped away.
III. Discovered in the interest which the community should take in one man. Am I my brothers keeper? Formerly heavy fines were inflicted on districts to prevent the murder of Danes and Normans by exasperated Englishmen. We are members one of another; related one to another, and none of us can turn away like Cain.
IV. Discovered in the provision made for every mans salvation. Christ died for one and for all. It is not the will of God that one of these little ones should perish. If one sheep goes astray, the ninety and nine are left by the shepherd. He seeks the one that is lost, and its restoration brings greater joy than over all the remainder. Dost thou believe? (J. Wolfendale.)
Expiating unknown murder
We shall endeavour–
I. To explain the ordinance. In doing this we must notice–
1. Its general design. God intended by this law–
(1) To prevent the commission of murder.
(2) To provide means for removing guilt from His land.
2. Its particular provisions: the victim, the death, the place; the protestations and petitions of the elders.
II. To point out some lessons which may be learned from it.
1. The importance of preventing or punishing sin.
2. The comfort of a good conscience.
3. The efficacy of united faith and prayer. (C. Simeon, M. A.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER XXI
If a man be found slain in a field, and the cause of his death
be unknown, the murder shall be expiated by the sacrifice of a
heifer in an uncultivated valley, 1-4.
The rites to be used on the occasion, 5-9.
The ordinance concerning marriage with a captive, 10-14.
The law relative to the children of the hated and beloved wives:
if the son of the hated wife should be the first-born he shall
not be disinherited by the son of the beloved wife, but shall
have a double portion of all his father’s goods, 15-18.
The law concerning the stubborn and rebellious son, who, when
convicted, is to be stoned to death, 19-21.
Of the person who is to be hanged, 22.
His body shall not be left on the tree all night; every one that
is hanged on a tree is accursed of God, 23.
NOTES ON CHAP. XXI
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
In the field, or, in the city, or any place, only the field is named, as the place where such murders are most commonly committed, and most easily concealed.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1-6. If one be found slain . . .lying in the field, and it be not known who hath slain himTheceremonies here ordained to be observed on the discovery of aslaughtered corpse show the ideas of sanctity which the Mosaic lawsought to associate with human blood, the horror which murderinspired, as well as the fears that were felt lest God should avengeit on the country at large, and the pollution which the land wassupposed to contract from the effusion of innocent, unexpiated blood.According to Jewish writers, the Sanhedrin, taking charge of such acase, sent a deputation to examine the neighborhood. They reported tothe nearest town to the spot where the body was found. An order wasthen issued by their supreme authority to the elders or magistratesof that town, to provide the heifer at the civic expense and gothrough the appointed ceremonial. The engagement of the publicauthorities in the work of expiation, the purchase of the victimheifer, the conducting it to a “rough valley” which mightbe at a considerable distance, and which, as the original implies,was a wady, a perennial stream, in the waters of which the pollutingblood would be wiped away from the land, and a desert withal,incapable of cultivation; the washing of the hands, which was anancient act symbolical of innocencethe whole of the ceremonial wascalculated to make a deep impression on the Jewish, as well as on theOriental, mind generally; to stimulate the activity of themagistrates in the discharge of their official duties; to lead to thediscovery of the criminal, and the repression of crime.
De21:10-23. THETREATMENT OF A CAPTIVETAKEN TO WIFE.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
If one be found slain,…. After public war with an enemy, Moses proceeds to speak of a private quarrel and fight of one man with another, in which one is slain, as Aben Ezra observes:
in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it; where murders might be committed more secretly, and remain undiscovered, when they came to live in separate cities, towns, and villages, with fields adjacent to them, than now encamped together:
lying in the field; where the quarrel begun, and where the fight was fought: or, however, where the murderer met with his enemy, and slew him, and left him; it being common for duels to be fought, and murders committed in a field; the first murder in the world was committed in such a place, Ge 4:8. The Targum of Jonathan is,
“not hidden under an heap, not hanging on a tree, nor swimming on the face of the waters;”
which same things are observed in the Misnah i, and gathered from some words in the text:
in the land, and so not under a heap;
lying, and so not hanging;
in the field, and so not swimming on the water:
and it be not known who hath slain him; the parties being alone, and no witnesses of the fact, at least that appear; for, if it was known, the heifer was not beheaded, later mentioned k; and one witness in this case was sufficient, and even one that was not otherwise admitted.
i Sotah, c. 9. sect. 2. k Maimon. Hilchot Rotzeach, c. 9. sect. 11, 12.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The reason for grouping together these five laws, which are apparently so different from one another, as well as for attaching them to the previous regulations, is to be 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.
Deu 21:1-2 Expiation of a Murder Committed by an Unknown Hand. – Deu 21:1 and Deu 21:2. If any one was found lying in a field in the land of Israel ( fallen, then lying, Jdg 3:25; Jdg 4:22), having been put to death without its being known who had killed him ( , a circumstantial clause, attached without a copula, see Ewald, 341, b. 3), the elders and judges, sc., of the neighbouring towns, – the former as representatives of the communities, the latter as administrators of right, – were to go out and measure to the towns which lay round about the slain man, i.e., measure the distance of the body from the towns that were lying round about, to ascertain first of all which was the nearest town.
Deu 21:3-4 This nearest town was then required to expiate the blood-guiltiness, not only because the suspicion of the crime or of participation in the crime fell soonest upon it, but because the guilt connected with the shedding of innocent blood rested as a burden upon it before all others. To this end the elders were to take a heifer (young cow), with which no work had ever been done, and which had not yet drawn in the yoke, i.e., whose vital force had not been diminished by labour (see at Num 19:2), and bring it down into a brook-valley with water constantly flowing, and there break its neck. The expression, “ it shall be that the city,” is more fully defined by “ the elders of the city shall take.” The elders were to perform the act of expiation in the name of the city. As the murderer was not to be found, an animal was to be put to death in his stead, and suffer the punishment of the murderer. The slaying of the animal was not an expiatory sacrifice, and consequently there was no slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood; but, as the mode of death, viz., breaking the neck (vid., Exo 13:13), clearly shows, it was a symbolical infliction of the punishment that should have been borne by the murderer, upon the animal which was substituted for him. To be able to take the guilt upon itself and bear it, the animal was to be in the full and undiminished possession of its vital powers. The slaying was to take place in a , a valley with water constantly flowing through it, which was not worked (cultivated) and sown. This regulation as to the locality in which the act of expiation was to be performed was probably founded upon the idea, that the water of the brook-valley would suck in the blood and clean it away, and that the blood sucked in by the earth would not be brought to light again by the ploughing and working of the soil.
Deu 21:5 The priests were to come near during this transaction; i.e., some priests from the nearest Levitical town were to be present at it, not to conduct the affair, but as those whom Jehovah had chosen to serve Him and to bless in His name (cf. Deu 13:5), and according to whose mouth (words) every dispute and every stroke happened (cf. Deu 17:8), i.e., simply as those who were authorized by the Lord, and as the representatives of the divine right, to receive the explanation and petition of the elders, and acknowledge the legal validity of the act.
Deu 21:6-8 The elders of the town were to wash their hands over the slain heifer, i.e., to cleanse themselves by this symbolical act from the suspicion of any guilt on the part of the inhabitants of the town in the murder that had been committed (cf. Psa 26:6; Psa 73:13; Mat 27:24), and then answer (to the charge involved in what had taken place), and say, “ Our hands have not shed this blood (on the singular , see Ewald, 317, a.), and our eyes have not seen ” (sc., the shedding of blood), i.e., we have neither any part in the crime nor any knowledge of it: “ grant forgiveness (lit., ‘cover up,’ viz., the blood-guiltiness) to Thy people…and give not innocent blood in the midst of Thy people Israel,” i.e., lay not upon us the innocent blood that has been shed by imputation and punishment. “ And the blood shall be forgiven them,” i.e., the bloodshed or murder shall not be imputed to them. On , a mixed form from the Niphal and Hithpael, see Ges. 55, and Ewald, 132, c.
Deu 21:9 In this way Israel was to wipe away the innocent blood (the bloodshed) from its midst (cf. Num 35:33). If the murderer were discovered afterwards, of course the punishment of death which had been inflicted vicariously upon the animal, simply because the criminal himself could not be found, would still fall upon him.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Undetected Murder. | B. C. 1451. |
1 If one be found slain in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who hath slain him: 2 Then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is slain: 3 And it shall be, that the city which is next unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take a heifer, which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke; 4 And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley, which is neither eared nor sown, and shall strike off the heifer’s neck there in the valley: 5 And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the LORD thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the LORD; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried: 6 And all the elders of that city, that are next unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley: 7 And they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. 8 Be merciful, O LORD, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel’s charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them. 9 So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the LORD.
Care had been taken by some preceding laws for the vigorous and effectual persecution of a wilful murderer (ch. xix. 11, c.), the putting of whom to death was the putting away of the guilt of blood from the land but if this could not be done, the murderer not being discovered, they must not think that the land was in no danger of contracting any pollution because it was not through any neglect of theirs that the murderer was unpunished; no, a great solemnity is here provided for the putting away of the guilt, as an expression of their dread and detestation of that sin.
I. The case supposed is that one is found slain, and it is not known who slew him, v. 1. The providence of God has sometimes wonderfully brought to light these hidden works of darkness, and by strange occurrences the sin of the guilty has found them out, insomuch that it has become a proverb, Murder will out. But it is not always so; now and then the devil’s promises of secresy and impunity in this world are made good; yet it is but for a while: there is a time coming when secret murders will be discovered; the earth shall disclose her blood (Isa. xxvi. 21), upon the inquisition which justice makes for it; and there is an eternity coming when those that escaped punishment from men will lie under the righteous judgment of God. And the impunity with which so many murders and other wickednesses are committed in this world makes it necessary that there should be a day of judgment, to require that which is past, Eccl. iii. 15.
II. Directions are given concerning what is to be done in this case. Observe,
1. It is taken for granted that a diligent search had been made for the murderer, witnesses examined, and circumstances strictly enquired into, that if possible they might find out the guilty person; but if, after all, they could not trace it out, not fasten the charge upon any, then, (1.) The elders of the next city (that had a court of three and twenty in it) were to concern themselves about this matter. If it were doubtful which city was next, the great sanhedrim were to send commissioners to determine that matter by an exact measure, Deu 21:2; Deu 21:3. Note, Public persons must be solicitous about the public good; and those that are in power and reputation in cities must lay out themselves to redress grievances, and reform what is amiss in the country and neighbourhood that lie about them. Those that are next to them should have the largest share of their good influence, as ministers of God for good. (2.) The priests and Levites must assist and preside in this solemnity (v. 5), that they might direct the management of it in all points according to the law, and particularly might be the people’s mouth to God in the prayer that was to be put up on this sad occasion, v. 8. God being Israel’s King, his ministers must be their magistrates, and by their word, as the mouth of the court and learned in the laws, every controversy must be tried. It was Israel’s privilege that they had such guides, overseers, and rulers, and their duty to make use of them upon all occasions, especially in sacred things, as this was. (3.) They were to bring a heifer down into a rough and unoccupied valley, and to kill it there, Deu 21:3; Deu 21:4. This was not a sacrifice (for it was not brought to the altar), but a solemn protestation that thus they would put the murderer to death if they had him in their hands. The heifer must be one that had not drawn in the yoke, to signify (say some) that the murderer was a son of Belial; it must be brought into a rough valley, to signify the horror of the fact, and that the defilement which blood brings upon a land turns it into barrenness. And the Jews say that unless, after this, the murderer was found out, this valley where the heifer was killed was never to be tilled nor sown. (4.) The elders were to wash their hands in water over the heifer that was killed, and to profess, not only that they had not shed this innocent blood themselves, but that they knew not who had (Deu 21:6; Deu 21:7), nor had knowingly concealed the murderer, helped him to make his escape, or been any way aiding or abetting. To this custom David alludes, Ps. xxvi. 6, I will wash my hands in innocency; but if Pilate had any eye to it (Matt. xxvii. 24) he wretchedly misapplied it when he condemned Christ, knowing him to be innocent, and yet acquitted himself from the guilt of innocent blood. Protestatio non valet contra factum–Protestations are of no avail when contradicted by fact. (5.) The priests were to pray to God for the country and nation, that God would be merciful to them, and not bring upon them the judgments which the connivance at the sin of murder would deserve. It might be presumed that the murderer was either one of their city or was now harboured in their city; and therefore they must pray that they might not fare the worse for his being among them, Num. xvi. 22. Be merciful, O Lord, to thy people Israel, v. 8. Note, When we hear of the wickedness of the wicked we have need to cry earnestly to God for mercy for our land, which groans and trembles under it. We must empty the measure by our prayers which others are filling by their sins. Now,
2. This solemnity was appointed, (1.) That it might give occasion to common and public discourse concerning the murder, which perhaps might some way or other occasion the discovery of it. (2.) That it might possess people with a dread of the guilt of blood, which defiles not only the conscience of him that sheds it (this should engage us all to pray with David, Deliver me from blood–guiltiness), but the land in which it is shed; it cries to the magistrate for justice on the criminal, and, if that cry be not heard, it cries to heaven for judgment on the land. If there must be so much care employed to save the land from guilt when the murderer was not known, it was certainly impossible to secure it from guilt if the murderer was known and yet protected. All would be taught, by this solemnity, to use their utmost care and diligence to prevent, discover, and punish murder. Even the heathen mariners dreaded the guilt of blood, Jon. i. 14. (3.) That we might all learn to take heed of partaking in other men’s sins, and making ourselves accessory to them ex post facto–after the fact, by countenancing the sin or sinner, and not witnessing against it in our places. We have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness if we do not reprove them rather, and bear our testimony against them. The repentance of the church of Corinth for the sin of one of their members produced such a carefulness, such a clearing of themselves, such a holy indignation, fear, and revenge (2 Cor. vii. 11), as were signified by the solemnity here appointed.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
DEUTERONOMY – CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE
Verses 1-9:
This text provides for the expiation of guilt incurred by death of a human being, who died from a wound inflicted by an unknown assailant. If a body were discovered in an open field, and it was not known who the killer was, certain steps were taken to cleanse the land of blood-guilt.
(1) The “elders” and “judges” of near-by cities met to determine which was the city nearest the location of the corpse. The former were magistrates representing the communities, and the latter represented the administrators of law. Once the distance to the nearest city was determined, that city and its officials had the duty of expiating the crime.
(2) A young cow which was ceremonially clean was led to a “rough valley,” a valley through which a stream flowed, a valley neither plowed nor sown.
(3) The heifer was slain in that valley, by breaking its neck, compare Exo 13:13. This was not in the nature of a sacrifice, which required ceremonial shedding of blood. It was a symbolic acknowledgment of death by an unknown assailant.
(4) The priests were present, as representatives of Jehovah, to assure that all was carried out in accordance with Divine law.
(5) The city officials then washed their hands over the dead heifer and proclaimed their innocence of death of one slain.
In the event the identity of the killer could be determined, his death would be the expiation for the crime of murder. But if the killer were not known, the above procedure sufficed to cleanse the land from this guilt.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
1. If one be found slain in the land. This Supplement: is of a mixed character, relating partly to the civil, and partly to the criminal law. We are informed by it how precious to God is the life of man; for, if a murder had been committed by some unknown person, He requires an expiation to be made, whereby the neighboring cities should purge themselves from the pollution of the crime. Whence it appears that the earth is so polluted by human blood, that those who encourage murder by impunity, implicate themselves in the guilt. The question here is as to a secret crime, the guilt of which attaches to the neighboring cities, until, by the institution of a diligent inquiry, they can testify that the author is not discovered; how much less excusable, then, will they be, if they allow a murderer to escape with impunity? The rite prescribed is, that the elders of the nearest city should take a heifer which had not drawn in a yoke, and bring it into a stony and barren valley, cut off its neck with the assistance of the priests, wash their hands, and bear witness that their hands as well as their eyes are pure, as not being cognizant of the criminal. God chose a heifer that had not born a yoke, in order that the satisfaction made by innocent blood might be represented in a more lively manner; whilst it was to be killed in a desert place, that the pollution might be removed from the cultivated lands. For, if the blood of the heifer had been shed in the middle of the market-place of the city, or in any inhabited spot, the familiarity with the sight of blood would have hardened their minds in inhumanity. For the purpose, therefore, of awakening horror, it was drawn out into a solitary and uncultivated spot, that they might be thus accustomed to detest cruelty. But although, properly speaking, this was not a sacrifice which could be offered nowhere except in the sanctuary, still it nearly approached to the nature of a sacrifice, because the Levites were in attendance, and a solemn deprecation was made; nevertheless, they were not only employed as ministers of the altar, but also as judges, for their office is expressed in the words, that they were “chosen to minister to God, to bless the people, and to pronounce sentence as to every stroke.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
THE RECAPITULATION OF THE LAW
Deu 5:1 to Deu 26:19 record for us a recapitulation of the Law. The study of this section sets out clearly certain fundamental truths.
The Decalog is repeated with significant variations. Chapter 5, fundamental to all the laws of God is the Decalog. In Exodus, Moses delivered the same as he brought it from the tip of the fingers Divine. In Deuteronomy, the Law is given again. From the first to the tenth commandment, the very language of Exodus is employed, save in the instance of the fourth. Here, the reason assigned to the Jew for keeping the Sabbath, is strangely and significantly changed, namely, from because the Lord in six days made heaven and earth and rested on the seventh day, to Remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm; therefore, the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day (Deu 5:15).
This change is so strange and so unexpected that it arrests immediate attention and demands adequate explanation. Why did God shift the reason for keeping the Sabbath from the finished creation to a completed redemption? The answer is not difficult. In the Divine plan, redemption is a far greater event than creation; the soul of man exceeds the weight of the world; for that matter, of all worlds. The Law was given by Moses, but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ. The Law was given for Jews; the Gentiles were never in bondage to it, and above all, believing Gentiles are not bound by it. To them, the Law is not a great external or outside force created for practices of restraint. Its spirit is transcribed to their souls rather; they walk at liberty while seeking Divine precepts. This is not to inveigh against the Law. The Law is just, and true and good, but by Law no man has ever been redeemed. It is to exalt Grace, which God hath revealed through Jesus Christ, in whom men have redemption from sin. If I only love my father and mother because the Law commands it, I do not love them at all; if I refrain from making images and bowing down before them because this is the demand of the Law, my heart may yet be as full of idolatry as a heathen temple. Redemption is not by the Law; it is by Grace in Jesus Christ!
The early Church was shortly called upon to settle this question of salvation by Law or Grace, and in the Jerusalem Conference Peter rose up and said unto them,
Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the Word of the Gospel, and believe.
And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as He did unto us;
And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (Act 15:7-10).
Later he said, We believe that through the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ (not by Law) we shall be saved, even as they (Act 15:7-11). Mark you, in that very sentence, Peter, the Apostle, proves his realization of the fact that the Law had failed as a savior and the very Jew himself had hope alone in grace. How strange, then, for men of the Twentieth Century to turn back to Law and proclaim the Law as though it were a redeemer, and protest that men who ignore the Jewish Saturday as the Sabbath will plunge themselves into the pit thereby, when the Law never saved! The keeping of the Sabbath was the one Law that contained in itself no ethical demand. The Law to worship, the Law to honor father and mother, the Law against killing, stealing and covetousnessthese are all questions of right and wrong; but to tithe time by the keeping of the Sabbath was a command solely in the interest of mans physical life. When, therefore, by the pen of inspiration the reason for it was shifted from a finished creation to a finished redemption, the act was lifted at once to a high spiritual level and became a symbol of the day when Christ, risen from the grave, should have completed redemptions plan. That great fortune to mankind fell out on the first day of the week, creating not so much a Christian Sabbath as making forever a memorial day for redemption itself, for the eighth day, or the first day of the week, clearly indicated the new order of things, or the new creation through Christ.
We have no sympathy whatever with secularizing each one of the seven days; but we would have the first day of the week kept in the spirit of rejoicing as redemptions memorial. On that day our Lord rose from the dead; on that day He met his disciples again and again; on that day the brethren at Troas assembled with the Apostles and broke bread; on that day the Christians laid aside their offerings; on that day they met for prayer and breaking of breadthe fellowship of the saints; on that day John was caught up in the spirit and witnessed the marvels recorded in his apocalyptic vision. Oh, what a day! No legal bondage, for what have we to do with holy days, sabbaths and new moons; but salvations memorial, a day of special service to the Son of God, our Saviour, a day for the souls rejoicing in Jesus. Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
But as we pass on in the study of this section of Scripture, we find Moses defends the Decalog in character and consequence. He reminds them of the glory out of which the voice spake (Deu 5:24). He reminds them of the obligation in the words themselves (Deu 5:32). He reminds them of the relationship of the possession of the land to obedience of the precepts. He pleads with them as a father, Hear, therefore, O Israel (Deu 6:4). He anticipates the day of prophecy and begs that these words have place in their hearts (Deu 6:6), to be diligently taught to their children (Deu 6:7); bound for a sign upon their hands and frontlets between their eyes, lest they be forgotten (Deu 6:8); written upon the posts of the house and on the gates, where they could not be unobserved (Deu 6:9). Moses knew the relationship of law-keeping to national living. It is doubtful if modernists now have or will ever again entertain the same sacred reverence for Law that characterized the ancients, even the heathen of far-off days.
We cannot forget how Socrates, when he was sentenced to death and, after an imprisonment of thirty days, was to drink the juice of the hemlock, spent his time preparing for the end; friends conceived and executed plans for his escape and earnestly endeavored to prevail upon him to avail himself of the opportunity, but he answered, That would be a crime to violate the law even when the sentence is unjust. I would rather die than do evil. If a heathen philosopher could treat unjust laws with such reverence, Moses was justified in pleading with his people to regard the laws that were true and just and good, and such were the mandates of Deuteronomy.
It is easy enough for one to pick out some one of these precepts and, by detaching it from its context, create the impression that it was foolish or superficial or even utterly unjust; but when one reads the whole Book, he sees the effectual relationship of laws, general and particular, to the life Israel was leading, and for that matter, catches the supreme spiritual significance of the same as they interpret themselves in the light of New Testament teaching. There is not a warning that was not needed, nor an exhortation which, if heeded, would have failed to profit the people. It all came to one conclusion for Israel.
What doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all His ways, and to love Him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul (Deu 10:12)?
And as there was not a law in the Old Testament but was fitted for the profit of Israel, so there is not a command in the New Testament but looks to the conquest of the Christian soul.
Among these enactments were personal and significant suggestions. They gave dietary and sanitary suggestions (Deuteronomy 14); they established the Sabbatic year (Deuteronomy 13); they fixed the time of the Passover (Deuteronomy 16); they set forth the character of the offerings (Deuteronomy 17); they determined the duties of the Levites (Deuteronomy 18); they gave direction concerning the cities of refuge (Deuteronomy 19); they determined the way of righteous warfare (chap. 20); they established a court of inquest (Deuteronomy 21); they announced the law of brotherhood (Deuteronomy 22); they descended to the minute instances of social life and regulations of the same (Deuteronomy 23); they dealt with the great and difficult question of divorce (Deuteronomy 24); they ended (Deuteronomy 23) in an almost unlimited series of regulations concerning the social life of the people knowing a wilderness experience, including the law of the first fruits (Deuteronomy 26).
It is interesting to study not alone the laws enacted here, but the penalties declared, including the blessings and curses from Ebal to Gerizim. There is about them all an innate righteousness that has been unknown to those purely human codes for which God never assumed responsibility. From the curse against bribery to the curse against brutal murder to this day the sentences are justified in the judgment of the worlds most thoughtful men.
In all they contrast the injustice and inordinately severe punishments often afflicted by godless governments. Plutarch, in writing about Solon, tells us that he repealed the laws of Draco except those concerning murder. Such was the severity of their punishments in proportion to the offense that we are amazed as we read them. If one was convicted of idleness, death was the penalty. If one stole a few apples or potherbs, he must surely die, and by as ignominious a method as did the murderer. And out of that grew the saying of Demades that Draco wrote his laws, not with ink but with blood. And when Draco was asked why such severe penalties, he answered, Small ones deserve it, and I can find no greater for the most heinous. Such were human laws in contrast to these laws Divine.
But a further study of these laws involves a third lesson.
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
CRITICAL NOTES.The reason for grouping these five laws, 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.(Keil).
Deu. 21:1-9. Expiation of unknown murder. Lying, fallen, then lying (Jdg. 3:25). Deu. 21:2. Elders. Representing citizens. Judges. Administrators of right. City. The nearest responsible for cleansing rites. The heifer, which had done no work, strong and of full growth, not ceremonially profaned by human use (cf. Exo. 20:25), had to die instead of the murderer who could not be found. Deu. 21:4. Rough. A valley through which water constantly flowed, suitable for cleansing. Eared. Neither ploughed nor sown. Deu. 21:5. Priest. Whom Jehovah had chosen to serve Him, was present, not to conduct the affair but to see that the rite was duly performed and accredit it when done so. Deu. 21:6. Wash. A symbolic act declaring innocence and repudiating connection with the crime. Deu. 21:7. Answer for all the people. Merciful. Be propitiated towards us; lit., cover this guilt (Lev. 1:4). Blood., i.e., bloodshed; the murder forgiven.
Deu. 21:10-14. A Captive Wife. Customary in ancient war for the victor to make a female captive a slave. Moses checks severities and shows superior treatment. Shave, pare, lit., prepare, by cutting her nails to proper size and form. (2Sa. 19:25.) Both customary signs of purification (cutting the hair cf. Lev. 14:8; Num. 8:7). Symbols of passing out of the state of a slave into reception of fellowship with the covenant nation. This obvious by her laying aside prisoners clothes.Keil. Bewail. This prescribed from motives of humanity that the woman might have time and leisure to detach her affections from their natural ties and prepare her mind for new ones.Speak. Com. Merchandize, lit., treat her with constraint, or as a slave. Humbled in taking her captive and then refusing the place and honour of a wife.
Deu. 21:15-17. The Right of the Firstborn. If a man had two wives, one beloved the other hated, loved less (cf. Leah and Rachel, wives of Jacob), the firstborn by the hated one must be treated as such. In the division of property he must have double (Deu. 21:17), a portion equal to that of two; consequently the firstborn inherited twice as much as the other sons. Paternal authority could set aside these rights on just grounds (Gen. 27:33), but must not do so from mere partiality.
Deu. 21:18-21. Punishment of a disobedient son. Rebellious whom milder measures failed to reclaim. Elders, as magistrates of a domestic kind, received the accusation of parents and upheld their authority; but prevented private acts of injustice. Gate. He was stoned by all the men of the town and treated as a blasphemer. Rebellion against parental authority struck at the social fabric and must be severely punished.
Deu. 21:22-23. Burial of those hanged. Sin, lit., a right of death; i.e., capital offence. Hanged. a curse of God, inflicted by God. Remain, the preceding command to put away evil, must now be observed. Defiled by exposing the corpse, especially the body of one guilty of such a crime as to deserve this fate (cf. Gal. 3:13).
UNKNOWN CRIME.Deu. 21:1-9
Preceding laws indicate vigorous and effectual punishment of wilful murder. But if the murderer escaped they were not free, and the land was not unpolluted. A great ceremony was appointed to put away guilt and express detestation and innocence.
I. The criminal escaping. Not known who hath slain him. Crime may be committed in darkness and concealment. Men may evade laws most vigilant and severe, and think they can escape; but Gods providence brings dark deeds to light, and strange things have led to the detection of guilt. The earth may disclose her blood (Isa. 26:21) in time; if not, the future will reveal the righteous judgment of God when that which is past will be required (Ecc. 3:15).
II. The community responsible for his crime. Blame is attached to Israel in some form or other, and they had to cleanse themselves. Society is bound together for mutual help and good government. We are responsible not only for what we can do, but for what we can prevent. We must not only reform abuses and remove grievances, but prevent evils. Many among us are physically and morally dead. Have we done what we could to prevent death or restore to life? Is not our indifference a crime in the sight of God? These ought ye to have done and not leave the other undone.
III. The whole community should endeavour to prevent crime. A sense of responsibility should quicken its action. Immorality and outrages drive away capital, create discontent and insecurity. There must be no impunity of murder, no impunity of any public crime. All classes of the community are concerned. Elders, judges, and priests should be anxious for public purity. Society, with its governors and laws; governors commissioned from heaven, and laws rooted in the revealed will of God; not only claim, but enforce obedience. The land must be purged from blood by public confession, prayer, and righteous conduct. So shalt thou purge away the guilt, etc.
EXPIATION OF UNKNOWN MURDER
The sanctity of human life is still the leading thought, and when a corpse is found lying in the field and it be not known who hath slain him, the land is regarded as guilty before God (Deu. 21:8) until a solemn rite of expiation be gone through. Deu. 21:1-9 of this chapter prescribe the mode and form of this expiation, which, from the nature of the case, could take place only when the people were settled in Canaan, and so is prescribed first in Deuteronomy.Speak Com.
I. The imputed guilt of murder. The law increased the horror of the crime. The administrators of law measured the distance from the slain man to the nearest city, and laid upon it the duty of expiation. A sense of guilt fills all classes of the community, and the people by their representatives cleanse themselves by appointed rites.
II. The solemn expiation of imputed guilt. When crime cannot be traced to it originwhen it is committed in open day and in defiance of law; it is most humiliating. All must purge themselves from suspicion and connivance. Be not partakers of other mens sins.
1. By animal sacrifice. An heifer strong and vigorous, unaccustomed to the yoke and not profaned by labour had to be killed.
2. By public confession. The elders by a significant act repudiated the charge of bloodguiltiness and confessed their innocence.
3. By direct intercession. Mercy was implored for the cities and the nation. We have great need to cry to God for our land filled with iniquity and stained with guilt. Be merciful O Lord to Thy people Israel (Deu. 5:8).
The important lessons of this expiation. The ceremony was public, impressive and admonitory.
1. The extreme guilt of murder. The people were to dread blood which defiled the hands which shed it. Your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean (Isa. 1:15-16); and crime which polluted the land in which it was committed.
2. The necessity of atonement for guilt. The crime was not passed in silence. The people were not permitted to be unconcerned. Justice must be done and satisfaction given.
3. The provision made by God for the pardon of guilt. Many think this is a symbol of atonement in Christ, to whom our guilt was imputed and in whom we receive pardon and peace. The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
GODS VALUE OF INDIVIDUAL LIFE.Deu. 21:1-9
This narrative, says one, sets forth the preciousness of human life in the sight of God. Dr. Jamieson believes this singular statute concerning homicide is far superior to what is found in the criminal code of any other ancient nation, and is undoubtedly the origin or germ of the modern coroners inquests. (Cf. Com. in loco.)
I. Discovered in the loss of one man. Only one missing! But God counts men as well as stars, and gathers one by one. Ancient philosophy and modern socialism overlook personality, and legislate for men in a mass. The individual exists only for the race, has no rights, and becomes a tool or slave of society. Christianity does not belittle man, but recognises and renews individuals, exalts them to responsibility, and appeals to them for right. Adam, where art thou?
II. Discovered in the injury to one man. One man was missing, but he was murdered. His blood, like that of Abel, was crying for justice. Gods image was defaced in humanity. Society was wounded in one of its members. An enquiry was demanded, and the reproach must be wiped away.
III. Discovered in the interest which the community should take in one man. Am I my brothers keeper? Formerly heavy fines were inflicted on districts to prevent the murder of Danes and Normans by exasperated Englishmen. We are members one of another; related one to another, and none of us can turn away like Cain.
IV. Discovered in the provision made for every mans salvation. Christ died for one and for all. He is not willing that any should perish. It is not the will of God that one of these little ones should perish. If one sheep goes astray, the ninety and nine are left by the shepherd. He seeks the one that is lost, and its restoration brings greater joy than over all the remainder. Dost thou believe?
HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Deu. 21:4. The place where the remembrance of blood is, is not suited for cultivation and joy, but for sorrow and awe, and penitential desolation; it is an Aceldama!Wordsworth. The spot of ground on which the sacrifice was made must be uncultivated, because it was to be a sacrifice to make atonement for the murder, and consequently would pollute the land. This regulation was calculated
(1) to keep murder in abhorrence,
(2) to make the magistrates alert in their office, that delinquents might be discovered and punished, and that public expense saved.A. Clarke.
Deu. 21:1-9. Expiating unknown murder. We shall endeavourI. To explain the ordinance. In doing this we must notice
1. Its general design. God intended by this law
(1) to prevent the commission of murder;
(2) to provide means for removing guilt from His land.
2. Its particular provisions: the victim, the death, the place; the protestations and petitions of the elders. II. To point out some lessons which may be learned from it.
1. The importance of preventing or punishing sin.
2. The comfort of a good conscience.
3. The efficacy of united faith and prayer.C. Simeon.
THE CAPTIVE WOMAN.Deu. 21:10-14
When a female was taken from surrounding nations and not of the Canaanites and the victor, captivated by her beauty, contemplated marriage, a month was allowed to elapse, that she might bewail the loss of parents and become reconciled to her altered condition. Learn from this
I. The Divine protection of woman. She was allowed to mourn, not to be abused, and might be set at liberty or become the wife of a Jew. The oppression of woman has been a crying evil in all countries. In the Old Testament we have hints concerning her equality, dignity and influence. But Christianity has exalted her to her lawful position as the help meet of man.
II. The mitigating power of love. Even in war woman may captivate by beauty and relieve by compassion. Man must control unlawful passion and defend the helpless. Love rules the court and the camp, removes mighty evils and wins great victories.
What love can do, that dares love attempt.Shakespeare.
II. The consummation of honourable marriage. She shall be thy wife, not through lust but real love. Marriage has always been the conclusion of love, said Napoleon. Men should not be drifted into marriage, nor enter it with sordid motives. Mutual society, help and comfort, both in prosperity and adversity, is the chief end of marriage. Marriage is honourable, etc.
DIGNITY AND NEEDFUL DISCIPLINE
The captured slave had prospects of conjugal union. But time was to intervene, natural feeling respected, and the contemplated elevation gained by lawful steps.
I. Prospective elevation. A higher life and real dignity were before her. From a slave, mere property, she could become a Jewish mistress, invested with inalienated rights and shielded by sacred law. Gods providence opens wonderful prospects to meanest subjects and elevates them to rank and dignity. Womans creation indicates the benevolent purpose of God. She is not given for grovelling and selfish ends, which many philosophers and some professed Christians declare to be the chief design of her existence. Christianity elevates her to equal spiritual dignity, to be the mental and moral companion with man. She has yet to bless our homes, enrich our literature and rule our empires.
II. Needful discipline and delay. Delay often required, for haste in this matter is risky. Early marriage a curse. Married in haste repent at leisure.
1. In kindness to the woman. She was to receive considerate treatment. Incidents of war no excuse for undue licence. Kindness must be shown to all placed at our mercy. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence.
2. As a test to the man. Love cools and men become indifferent. This measure calculated to test the feeling. If no delight in her, let her go whither she will.
THE RIGHTS OF PRIMOGENITURE.Deu. 21:15-17
Moses did not originate these rights, but recognised them, since he found them pre-existing in the general social system of the East. Paternal authority could set aside these rights on just grounds (Gen. 27:33), but is forbidden here to do so from mere partiality.Sp. Com.
I. The rights of primogeniture defined. A double portion of all that he hath. As head of the family, the eldest son would be put into power and privilege, be heir of his fathers rank and wealth. He was not to be limited in his allowance, nor deposed from his authority. The Divine Ruler entrusts him with possessions and entails them by his will.
II. The rights of primogeniture upheld. Individual preferences and partialities are not to set aside the rights of the firstborn.
1. Rights upheld through successive marriage. When an Israelite had two wives together or in succession, one might be loved and the other hated (Deu. 21:15). God might tolerate polygamy, but right must be upheld.
2. Rights upheld against human partiality. The influence of the second wife was later and more permanent. Justice must not bend to personal like or dislike. Amid divided affections and divided authority, God and not caprice must rule.
3. Rights upheld by Divine injunction. Man is changeable; entails discord, feud and litigation in his family; but God is just and impartial. He will protect our rights and vindicate our character. He shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the first-born (Deu. 21:17).
HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Deu. 21:10-14. These regulations given
1. as a protest against common crimes in war.
2. As a check to unbridled passion.
3. As a protection to the defenceless. Compare the Mosaic regulations concerning female slaves with the universal and abominable licentiousness of every heathen nation in their intercourse with slaves. Do not such regulations, at that early period, in an Asiatic nation, bespeak a wisdom and benevolence far superior to a mere human legislator?Graves.
Deu. 21:15-17. Mischief of home partiality.
1. In the family itselfjealousy, strife and confusion.
2. In the distribution of property. Interest of some consulted to the detriment of others. Bitterness created and parental honour despised. The right of the first-born. I. Consider the circumstances implied here. The first wife dead; her children living. She is forgotten in a new love. Her children slighted. The second wife living and loved. Her children take the chief place in the fathers love. II. Consider the Divine rule. The first-born not to lose their place through their mothers fault, or their fathers new affection. LearnJustice to rule over fatherly caprice. This old law needs often to be remembered.Biblical Museum.
THE REBELLIOUS SON.Deu. 21:18-21
In former verses parents were urged to be careful of the rights of children; now very suitably children must not forget their duty and withhold their respect from parents. But here is a common case, a sad picture of a rebellious son.
I. Parental authority defied. Young persons become wayward and self-willed. Domestic life loses its attraction, home is a prison, and unlawful demands are urged. Give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. Then follow disobedience, rebellion and exile.
II. Parental authority failing in its purpose. Parental government is a creation of God and should be upheld with prudence, affection and firmness. Parents err in capricious and tyrannical government. Hence sometimes reactionthe father a fanatic, the son an nfidel; the father too severe, the son immoral and profligate. Children may be spoiled, disheartened and provoked. My father treats me like a brute, was the saying of a poor bright boy. But children fail in obedience and filial duty, bring dishonour and disgrace to parents. Wild sons become a fathers burden and a mothers grief (Pro. 10:1). Home government restrains not, parental discipline fails. Fathers like Howard in the lazaretto at Venice, and David in the palace, exclaims, Oh, my son, my son!
III. Parental authority upheld by the nation. A wicked son is a peril to society. Rebellion is considered a public crime, not a private wrong. Roman laws were severe against rebellious children; Athenians pronounced worthy of death those who beat their parents or suffered them to want in old age, and in China incorrigible children are delivered up to the magistrates. The law must be honoured and upheld. The State cannot sacrifice its authority and interests to drunkards and criminals.
ACCURSED OF GOD.Deu. 21:22-23
When a criminal was put to death and hanged on a tree, his body was not to remain exposed all night, but buried the same day. He died under the curse of God, and the land was not to be defiled by his exposure.
I. Hanging a disgraceful punishment. The body was exposed to insult and assault. Shameful deeds were kept in public memory, and the dead was a spectacle to the world. It was only inflicted on most infamous offenders. Cicero calls it a nameless wickedness. Its pain and disgrace were extreme.
II. Hanging a defilement of the land. That thy land be not defiled. The vices of the living and the bodies of the dead defiled the land (Numbers 35, 34).
1. Physically it would be defiled. In the hot climate its decomposition would injure the health and peril the life of others.
2. Morally, as the land of Jehovah, it would be polluted. Remembrance of crime would harden the heart and breed familiarity. Hence
III. Hanging a warning to others. The punishment was designed to deter others. They saw the terrible consequences of guilt. Alas! hanging is no warning, and men leave the very gibbet or the gallows to commit their crimes.
IV. Hanging, a type of the death of Christ. The apostle distinctly refers to this in illustration of the shame and curse of the crucifixion. We were guilty and deserved death. Christ was put to an open shame, slain, and hanged on a tree (Act. 5:35). Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made (having become) a curse for us (Gal. 3:13).
1. He became our substitute.
2. He was buried in the evening (Joh. 19:31).
3. As the land was cleansed by removal of curse, so the conscience and the Church purified by Christ.
THE ACCURSED TREE
I. A shameful death awaits abominable crime. Worthy of death lit., if there be on a man a right of death, he was hanged upon a tree.
II. Public ignominy expressed in this shameful death. Penalty for crime, detestation of the perpetrator and the curse of God.
III. The desirability of taking away the memory of this shame. He shall not remain all night, take him down from the tree and bury him; blot out his name and remove the curse.
IV. Christ alone removes the curse. The best of men treated as one of the vilest, died the just for the unjust, who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree.
HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Deu. 21:20-21. The connection of gluttony and drunkenness. Both enslave the body, degrade the soul and abuse the gifts of God. Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh: For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty. (Pro. 23:20-21). Matthew Henrys note is suggestive He (impious son) is particularly supposed to be a drunkard or a glutton. This intimates either
1. that his parents did in a particular manner warn him against these sins, and therefore in these instances there was plain evidence he did not obey their voice. Lemuel had this charge from his mother (Pro. 31:4). Note in the education of children, great care should be taken to suppress all inclinations to drunkenness, and to keep them out of the way of temptations to them; in order hereunto they should be possessed betimes with a dread and detestation of these beastly sins, and taught betimes to deny themselves. Or
2.That being a glutton and a drunkard was the cause of his insolence and obstinacy to his parents. NoteNothing draws men into all kind of wickedness and hardens them to it, more certainly and fatally than drunkenness does. When men take to drink they forget the law (Pro. 31:5), even that fundamental law of honouring parents.
Deu. 21:22-23. Hangeth.
1. The worlds judgment.
2. The laws penalty.
3. Christs treatment. The law which required this answered all the ends of public justice, exposed the shame and infamy of the conduct, but did not put to torture the feelings of humanity by requiring a perpetual exhibition of a human being, a slow prey to the most loathsome process of putrefaction. How excellent are all these laws! How wonderously well calculated to repress crimes by shewing the enormity of sin! 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.A. Clarke.
ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER. 21
Deu. 21:1-7. One slain.
Other sins only speak; murder shrieks out:
The element of water moistens the earth,
But blood mounts upward.J. Webster.
Deu. 21:10-14. Beautiful woman. In great crises it is womans special lot to soften our misfortunes.Napoleon I.
The artillery of her eye.A. Cowley.
Deu. 21:12. Head. The hair is one of the finest ornaments women have. Of old, virgins used to wear it loose, except when they were in mourning.Luther.
Deu. 21:15-17. Inherit. Education is of infinitely more importance to a son than the patrimony of his ancestors, or thousands of gold and silver. The latter is enjoyed in time only; the former goes with him into eternity.Dr. Davies.
Deu. 21:18. Son.
Unhappy is the son
Who to his parents pays no ministry. Euripides.
Stubborn. I never saw so much essence of devil put into so small a vessel.Foster.
Deu. 21:20. Glutton. A glutton will defend his food like a hero.Napoleon I. Drunkard. All the crimes on earth do not destroy so many of the human race, nor alienate so much property, as drunkenness.Bacon.
Deu. 21:21. Stone him. The curse pronounced on Mount Ebal against him that setteth light by his father or his mother, still hovers around the rebellious child on his pathway through life, and the character developed by disobedience at home provokes in the world outside assault and revenge, quarrels and death.Fred. Perry.
Deu. 21:22-23. Death. Justice proportions the smart to the fault; so that we may behold the greatness of the offence in the fitness of the punishment.W. Secker.
Murder may pass unpunished for a time,
But tardy justice will oertake the crime.
Dryden.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
(b) Expiation for an Unknown Murderers Crime (Deu. 21:1-9)
If one be found 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; 2 then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is slain: 3 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, which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke; 4 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 heifers neck there in the valley. 5 And the priests the son 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. 6 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; 7 and they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. 8 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. 9 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.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 21:19
316.
Responsibility was such a vital part of the life of all Israel, all human life was of supreme importance. How are these two thoughts dramatized in this text?
317.
Who was to pay for the heifer?
319.
Why specify the particular type of heifer?
319.
Why: the running water?; a field that has never been plowed nor sown?
320.
The washing of hands to clear guilt is found elsewhere, name two.
321.
How is the expression innocent blood used in Deu. 21:8-9?
AMPLIFIED TRANSLATION 21:19
If one be found slain in the land which the Lord your God gives you to possess, lying in the field, and it is not known who has killed him.
2 Then your elders and judges shall come forth and measure the distance to the cities around him who is slain;
3 And the city which is nearest to the slain man, the elders of that city shall take a heifer, which has never been worked, never pulled in the yoke;
4 And the elders of that city shall bring the heifer down to a valley with running water, which is neither plowed nor sown, and shall break the heifers neck there in the valley.
5 And 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 [and presence] of the Lord, and by their word shall every controversy and every assault be settled.
6 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;
7 And they shall testify, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it.
8 Forgive, O Lord, Your people Israel whom You have redeemed, and do not allow the shedding of innocent blood to be charged to Your people Israel, And the guilt of blood shall be forgiven them.
9 So shall you purge the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when you do what is right in the sight of the Lord.
COMMENT 21:19
Note that in Deu. 21:3, the citys leaders nearest the slain man were responsible for making expiation. The ritual outlined here was applicable to cases where murder was not (and perhaps could not be) expiated by the apprehension, conviction, and execution of the murderer. Until the mystery was unravelled, this formula would exonerate the citys inhabitants.
THE ELDERS . . . SHALL TAKE A HEIFER (Deu. 21:3)It is to be one in full vigor and health, which has not seen domestic work, and consequently expressed in the fullest form the life-producing power to which the violent death stood as a contrast.
THE ELDERS . . . SHALL WASH THEIR HANDS (Deu. 21:6)An assertion of their innocence and repudiation of their guilt. Cf. Ph. 26:6, 73:13; Mat. 27:24.
SO SHALT THOU PUT AWAY INNOCENT BLOOD (Deu. 21:9)Or, (as in Deu. 19:13) the guilt of shedding innocent blood. By the formula prescribed, they would not be held guilty for the blood already shed, nor of taking another mans blood before he was proved guilty. When the process of justice was properly carried out, no innocent persons blood would be shed.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
XXI.
Deu. 21:1-9. UNDETECTED HOMICIDES.
(1) If one be found slainIt is remarkable that in our own time the most effectual remedy against outrages of which the perpetrators cannot be discovered is a fine upon the district in which they occur.
(2) Thy elders and thy judges shall come forth.Rashi says these were to be special commissioners, members of the great Sanhedrin.
(3-4) An heifer, which hath not been wrought with . . . a rough valley which is neither eared nor sown.Rashis note on this is curious: The Holy One, blessed be He! said, A yearling heifer which hath borne no fruit shall come and be beheaded in a place which yieldeth no fruit, to atone for the murder of the man whom they did not suffer to bear fruit. Some have thought that the valley was neither to be eared (ploughed) nor sown from that time forward. The verbs are not past in the Hebrew, and the words may bear this meaning. If so, the district in which the murder occurred would be mulcted in that portion of land for ever.
(5) And the priests.See on Deu. 21:8.
(7) Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it.Not that the chief magistrates of the city are supposed to have shed this blood; but that they have not contrived or procured the murder by any maintenance or partnership in the deed (Rashi). We cannot but feel how impossible such solemn public declarations would be if the murderer had been harboured by the inhabitants of the place.
(8) Be merciful, O Lord.In the sense of the publicans prayer in St. Luke 18 be propitiated, literally, cover. The mercy seat is the covering of the Law, which protects Israel from it. The sacrifices are a covering for the sinner from a punishment of sin. According to Rashi, the prayer in the eighth verse is spoken by the priests; and it seems probable enough. No part in the transaction is assigned to them, unless it be this. And their presence was certainly necessary.
And the blood shall be forgiven them.Literally, shall be covered for them. Not the same expression as Lev. 4:20; Lev. 4:26; Lev. 4:31; Lev. 4:35. But we can hardly follow the Jewish commentators into the question whether, if the perpetrator of the murder were afterwards discovered, the blood of the heifer which had been shed already could be allowed to atone for it, so that the murderer need not be punished.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
FORMS TO BE OBSERVED WHEN ONE WAS FOUND SLAIN, Deu 21:1-9.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Regulation Concerning Violent Death Where The Murderer Is Not Known ( Deu 21:1-9 ).
While for convenience we are splitting up Moses’ speech into parts it should be noted that it is our arrangement and not his. In fact as we have already noted chapter 19 connects back to what has gone before, but also to here. There are some close parallels between the verses that follow here and that chapter. Both stress the gift of the land (compare Deu 19:1 with Deu 21:1), both deal with a problem raised by a death; both refer to the putting away of innocent blood from among them (Deu 19:13 with Deu 21:9); both stress that all Israel must play their part in remedying the situation. Thus there is a continuation in themes
So it should be noted here that Moses whole speech is interwoven and cannot be fitted quite so easily into our patterns. In this chapter the theme of violent death, which began at Deu 19:1 is continued, by dealing first with the question of the discovery of a dead body (Deu 21:1-9), and then that of the body of executed criminals which are publicly displayed (Deu 21:22-23). Also continued is the theme of warfare in chapter 20, by dealing with the question of marriage in relation to captive women (Deu 21:10-14). Contained within this are important regulations concerned with inheritance (Deu 21:15-17) and authority (Deu 21:18-21).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
An Unidentified Murder ( Deu 21:1-9 ).
The first part of Deuteronomy 21 follows in the train ofdeu Deu 19:1-13 and Deu 20:1-18 in each of which chapters blood had been shed, in the first case innocently, with a proviso that where it turned out to be deliberate murder the death of the murderer should result, in the second by war, where it was not murder. Neither therefore required immediate satisfaction. The principle established here in deu 21-1-9, along with Deu 19:11-13, is that the deliberate violent shedding of blood illegally must be requited by a death. There must be immediate fulfilment of the principle, a life for a life. Blood had been spilt in Yahweh’s land, and there must be a recompense (not an atonement, it is not a sacrifice). If the culprit cannot be found then a substitute or representative is required which itself must be totally innocent. This must be provided by the nearest city. It is an acknowledgement by those closest to the murder that they are partly at fault for having allowed it to happen in their vicinity, but it is also a declaration before Yahweh that they are totally innocent and do not know who the guilty party is. It is a declaration that if the murderer is ever discovered he will be executed.
By this the taking of a life was distinguished from all other crimes. That crime alone demanded immediate reparation whether the guilty party was discovered or not. It was a direct crime against God.
The whole of this chapter is ‘thee, thou’.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Undetected Murderer ( Deu 21:1-9 ).
Analysis using the words of Moses:
a If one be found slain in the land which Yahweh your God gives you to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who has smitten him, then your elders and your judges shall come forth, and they shall measure to the cities which are round about him who is slain (Deu 21:1-2).
b And it shall be, that the city which is nearest to the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take a heifer of the herd, which has not been worked with, and which has not drawn in the yoke, 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 (Deu 21:3-4).
c And the priests, the sons of Levi, shall 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 and every stroke be (Deu 21:5).
c And all the elders of that city, who are nearest to 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, nor have our eyes seen it” (Deu 21:6-7).
b “Forgive (cover), O Yahweh, your people Israel, whom you have redeemed, and do not permit innocent blood to remain in the midst of your people Israel.” And the blood shall be forgiven them (Deu 21:8).
a So shall you put away the innocent blood from the midst of you, when you shall do that what is right in the eyes of Yahweh (Deu 21:9).
Note that in ‘a’ someone has been slain, but it is not known who has smitten him, and in the parallel the innocent blood will be put away from them when they do what is right in the eyes of Yahweh. In ‘b’ they shed innocent blood non-sacrificially and in the parallel they ask that they may be ‘forgiven’ so that innocent blood might be put way from the midst of them. In ‘c’ the priest come near and their word is to be heard on the issue, and in the parallel the elders of the city respond with their word that their hands have not shed the blood and their eyes have seen nothing concerning it.
Deu 21:1-3 a
‘If one be found slain in the land which Yahweh your God gives you (thee) to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who has smitten him, then your elders and your judges shall come forth, and they shall measure to the cities which are round about him who is slain,’
If a dead body of someone killed violently was found anywhere in Yahweh’s land, lying out in the open country, and enquiry did not reveal a culprit, the elders and judges of the surrounding towns must be called in, together with the priests (Deu 21:5) from the Central Sanctuary. This would be something that affected all Israel. No doubt they would first of all make enquiries. But then they had to assess which city or town was nearest to the spot. The probability must be that someone in that city and town was responsible. Furthermore it was a slight on that city or town that it had happened in their neighbourhood.
Deu 21:3-4
‘And it shall be, that the city which is nearest to the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take a heifer of the herd, which has not been worked with, and which has not drawn in the yoke, 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.’
Once the particular city had been selected, the elders of that city were to take a heifer from the herd which had never toiled and which had never worn a yoke. Thus it was to be in pure form, and untainted by earthly activity. It was then to be taken down into a valley where there was running water, something not man made and a symbol of purity and life, and a valley which was not at the time either ploughed ready for sowing, or actually sowed, thus itself being ‘virgin land’. And there the heifer’s neck was to be broken.
We note first the continual emphasis on the fact that all connected with this was to be pure and untainted by the activity of man. What died was not to be connected with the activity of the city and its inhabitants, nor with the people of Israel. While of earth it was to be totally neutral. It was to represent the death of an ‘unknown’ which had no connection with the city. The running water probably indicated a valley that was being constantly renewed with purity and life by Yahweh. Nothing that was utilised was contaminated by the recent use of it by man.
Secondly we note that the slaughter of the heifer had no direct connection with where the body had been found. It was the whole land that was being cleansed, not that particular spot.
Deu 21:5
‘ And the priests, the sons of Levi, shall 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 and every stroke be.’
All this was to be overseen by the levitical priests. This is the first time they have been called ‘the sons of Levi’ (compare Deu 31:9) but it is very little different in significance to ‘the priests, the levites’ (Deu 17:9; Deu 17:18; Deu 18:1; Deu 24:8; Deu 27:9), except that it lays stress on their source and explains the phrase ‘the priests the levites’ as simply meaning the same. For also stressed is that they were chosen by Yahweh to minister to Him, and to bless ‘in the name of Yahweh’, a right restricted to the levitical priests (Num 6:23-27). These men must oversee every discussion, every decision, and every action with regard to the matter. In the end it will be they who declare the land to be again ‘blessed’. It is clear therefore that some actual ritual would be performed. But consonant with Moses’ approach in Deuteronomy he only expands on the part that the people have to play.
Deu 21:6-7
‘ And all the elders of that city, who are nearest to 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, nor have our eyes seen it.” ’
The elders of the city were then to wash their hands over the heifer whose neck had been broken. The breaking of the neck specifically revealed that it was not a sacrifice, compare Exo 13:13. This washing of hands declared them to be innocent of any connection with the death of the slain man (see Psa 26:6; Psa 73:13, and compare Mat 27:24). Thus they were then to answer and say, ‘our hands have not shed this blood, nor have our eyes seen it’. By this they meant ‘we as a city’ for they were speaking on behalf of the whole city before Yahweh. ‘Nor have our eyes seen it’ signified that they were swearing before Yahweh that they had not seen the actual shedding of the blood. None of the city (as far as they were aware) had been present at the scene when the murder was committed. One purpose in this was to put the elders to the test before Yahweh as to whether they really were innocent. They would be aware that to do this before Yahweh, if in fact they knew who the murderer was, would be blasphemy.
“Answer and say” may indicate giving Yahweh an answer to His unspoken question about their ‘guilt’, but more probably it indicates that it was a response to a charge from the priests, following a ritual pattern.
Deu 21:8
“ Forgive (cover), O Yahweh, your people Israel, whom you have redeemed, and do not permit innocent blood to remain in the midst of your people Israel.” And the blood shall be forgiven them.’
They were then to seek Yahweh’s forgiveness that it had happened in the territory for which they had oversight. The word signifies ‘to cover’ and is elsewhere connected with atonement. But here a different kind of covering was sought, a covering that would hide what had been done in the eyes of Yahweh. No one was actually taking the blame. But note that the ‘covering’ was for the whole of Israel who needed to have the stain removed from them. All were involved in a violent death that had taken place in Yahweh’s land, and would not remain satisfied until the murderer was caught and executed. For in the last analysis they were responsible for what happened in the land. But meanwhile they would be forgiven for the blood that had been shed. It would not be counted against them.
Note also the emphasis on the fact that they were the redeemed people of Yahweh. He had redeemed them in the past, He would surely therefore now redeem them from and help them in this situation.
Deu 21:9
‘ So shall you put away the innocent blood from the midst of you, when you shall do that what is right in the eyes of Yahweh.’
By acting in this way and doing what was right in Yahweh’s eyes (executing the guilty person by proxy in a neutral environment) they put away ‘the innocent blood’, that is the shed blood concerning which they were innocent, from the midst of them (compare Deu 19:13). One importance of this would be that no avenger of blood could now blame the city. Another, of course, was that neither would Yahweh.
It is of interest that both the law code of Hammurabi and the law codes of the Hittites allowed for compensation in such cases from the nearest city to the family of the slain. In the case of the Hittites the city was only responsible if within a certain range. But no ceremony like this is known. In the Ugaritic Aqhat legend Danel located the place where his son was slain and cursed both the murderer and the cities which were nearby.
As far as we are concerned the lesson for us is that God does look on us as partly responsible for what happens in our own environment. If we do not do all that we can to maintain the purity from sin of our own towns and cities and countryside we must share the blame. It is not sufficient to say, ‘we did not know’, if God can reply, ‘you should have known’.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
III. REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD ( Deu 19:1 to Deu 21:9 ).
In this section the question of different ways of shedding blood is considered. Lying behind this section is the commandment, ‘you shall do no murder’. It should be noted that in some sense it continues the theme of the regulation of justice.
The shedding of the blood of men was always a prominent issue with God (compare Gen 9:5-6). It is dealt with in a number of aspects.
a). In Deuteronomy 19 the question is raised as to how to deal with deliberate murder and accidental killing through cities of refuge. And this is linked with the removal of ancient landmarks which could cause, or be brought about by, violence and death, and was doing violence to the covenant of Yahweh. The mention of it here demonstrates the seriousness of this crime. It is also linked with the need to avoid false witness which could lead to an unjust death or could bring death on the false witness.
b). In Deuteronomy 20 the question of death in warfare is dealt with, both as something to be faced by the people themselves, and then with regard to how to deal with a captured enemy, differentiating between neighbouring lands and native Canaanites. But the trees are not to be killed.
c). In Deu 21:1-9 the question is dealt with as to what to do if a slain man is found and no one knows who did it.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Deu 21:6-7 Comments The Washing of the Hands – The elders of Israel were charged to wash their hands as a outward sign of their innocence. This practice is mentioned a number of times in Scriptures (Psa 26:6; Psa 73:13, Mat 27:24).
Psa 26:6, “I will wash mine hands in innocency: so will I compass thine altar, O LORD:”
Psa 73:13, “Verily I have cleansed my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency .”
Mat 27:24, “When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.”
Deu 21:23 “for he that is hanged is accursed of God” Comments – According to Paul, Deu 21:23 was ultimately fulfilled when Christ hung upon the tree and died for our sins. Paul quotes this verse in his epistle to the Galatians.
Gal 3:13, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree :”
Deu 21:23 “that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance” Scripture References – Note similar verses:
Lev 18:24-25, “Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled : therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.”
Num 35:34, “Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I the LORD dwell among the children of Israel.”
Deu 21:22-23 Comments The Punishment of Hanging – There are a number of occasions in the Scriptures when men were punished by hanging.
Jos 8:29, “And the king of Ai he hanged on a tree until eventide: and as soon as the sun was down, Joshua commanded that they should take his carcase down from the tree, and cast it at the entering of the gate of the city, and raise thereon a great heap of stones, that remaineth unto this day.”
Jos 10:26, “And afterward Joshua smote them, and slew them, and hanged them on five trees: and they were hanging upon the trees until the evening.”
Joh 19:31, “The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Case of an Unknown Murder
v. 1. If one be found slain in the land which the Lord, thy God, giveth thee to possess it, v. 2. then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, v. 3. and it shall be that the city which is next unto the slain man, even the elders of that city, shall take an heifer, v. 4. and the elders of that city, v. 5. and the priests, the sons of Levi, shall come near, v. 6. and all the elders of that city that are next unto the slain man shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley, v. 7. and they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it, v. 8. Be merciful, O Lord, unto Thy people Israel, whom Thou hast redeemed, v. 9. So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the Lord.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
EXPIATION OF UNCERTAIN MURDER. TREATMENT OF A CAPTIVE TAKEN TO WIFE. RIGHTS OF THE FIRSTBORN. A REBELLIOUS, REFRACTORY SON TO BE JUDGED AND PUNISHED. A MALEFACTOR WHO HAS BEEN HANGED TO BE BURIED ERE NIGHTFALL.
One general idea, viz. the sacredness of human life and of personal rights, connects the laws in this chapter together, as well as connects them with the laws in the two preceding chapters.
Deu 21:1-9
If a body was found lying dead from a wound, and it was not known by whom the wound had been inflicted, the whole land would be involved in the guilt of the murder, unless it was duly expiated as here directed. First, the elders and judges (presumably of the neighboring towns; of Josephus, ‘Antiq.’ 4.8, 16) were to meet, the former as magistrates representing the communities, the latter as administrators of the law, and were to measure the distance from the body of the slain man to each of the surrounding towns, in order to ascertain which was the nearest. This ascertained, upon that town was to be laid the duty of expiating the crime.
Deu 21:3
An heifer, which hath not boon wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke; a young cow which had not been rendered unfit for consecration, nor had its vital force impaired, by being subjected to forced labor (cf. Num 19:2).
Deu 21:4
A rough valley; literally, a stream of perpetuity, a perennial stream (cf. Psa 74:15, Authorized Version, “mighty rivers;” Amo 5:24); but here rather the valley or wady through which a stream flowed, as is evident from its being described as neither earedthat is, ploughed (literally, wrought, tilled)nor sown; a place which had not been profaned by the hand of man, but was in a state of nature. “This regulation as to the locality in which the act of expiation was to be performed was probably founded on the idea that the water of the brook-valley would suck in the blood and clean it away, and that the blood sucked in by the earth would not be brought to light again by the ploughing and working of the soil” (Keil). Strike off the heifer’s neck there in the valley; rather, break the heifer’s neck. As this was not an act of sacrifice, for which the shedding of blood would have been required, but simply a symbolical representation of the infliction of death on the undiscovered murderer, the animal was to be killed by breaking its neck (cf. Exo 13:13).
Deu 21:5
And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near. The presence of the priests at this ceremony was due to their position as the servants of Jehovah the King of Israel, on whom it devolved to see that all was done in any matter as his Law prescribed. The priests present were probably those from the nearest Levitical town. And by their word shall every controversy and every stroke he tried; literally, And upon their mouth shall be every strife and every stroke, i.e. by their judgment the character of the act shall be determined, and as they decide so shall the matter stand (cf. Deu 10:8; Deu 17:8). In the present case the presence of the priests at the transaction gave it sanction as valid.
Deu 21:6
The elders of that city. The elders, by the significant act of washing their hands, indicated that they threw off from them, utterly repudiated, the charge of blood-guiltiness on the part of the town which they represented (cf. Psa 26:6; Psa 73:13; Mat 27:24).
Deu 21:7, Deu 21:8
This act they were to accompany with a solemn declaration of their innocence of this crime, and of their entire ignorance of the perpetrator of it; and with an earnest cry to God that the sin which had been done might be forgiven. Be merciful unto; be propitiated towards (literally, cover, ; for the phrase, , see Le Deu 1:4). And lay not innocent blood; the blood of the innocent man who has been slain.
Deu 21:9
In this way they were to deliver themselves as a nation from blood-guiltiness. “Expiation was made by the killing of the transgressor when he could be found (Deu 19:13; Num 35:33); when he was not known, by the process here described. Of course, if afterwards he were apprehended, he would suffer the penalty he had incurred” (Knobel); so also Keil, Herxheimer, etc; after the Talmud (‘Sota,’ 9.7).
Deu 21:10-14
If an Israelite saw among captives taken in war a woman, fair of aspect, and loved her, and took her to be his wife, he was to allow her a full month to mourn her lost kindred, and become accustomed to her new condition, before he consummated his union with her. This refers to captives from other nations than those of Canaan, with whom the Israelites were to form no alliance, and whom they were not to take captive, but either wholly destroy or render tributary (cf. Deu 7:3; Num 21:1, etc.; Jos 11:19).
Deu 21:12
She shall shave her head, and pare her nails. The shaving of the head and the paring of the nails, as well as the putting off of the garments worn when taken captive, were signs of purification, of separation from former heathenism, preparatory to reception among the covenant people of Jehovah (cf. Le Deu 14:8; Num 8:7). Pare her nails; literally, make or prepare her nails, i.e. by cutting them down to a proper size and form (cf. 2Sa 19:25, where the same word is used of dressing the feet and trimming the beard). The Targum of Onkelos takes this in quite an opposite sense, rendering, as in the margin of the Authorized Version, “suffer to grow,” and the rabbins who adopt this meaning suppose that the design of the prescription was that the woman, being rendered unlovely, the man might be deterred from taking her to be his wife. But this is altogether alien from the spirit and scope of the passage.
Deu 21:13
The raiment of her captivity; i.e. the raiment she had on whoa taken captive; this she was to lay aside, that she might put on garments of mourning. A full month; literally, a month of days; the period of mourning was forty days (cf. Gen 50:3).
Deu 21:14
Should the man afterwards come no longer to have pleasure in her, he was to let her go whither she would, but he was not to sell her for money or use any violence to her. Thou shalt not make merchandise of her. The verb in the form here used occurs only hero and in Deu 24:7; derived from a root which signifies to gather or press, it properly means to press for one’s self, to lay hands on one, to use violence to one.
Deu 21:15-17
If a man have two wives, one of whom is a favorite and the other disliked, and if his firstborn son be the child of the latter, he is not to allow his love for the other to prejudice the right of the son, but must allow him, both in his own lifetime and in the disposition of his property after death, the full privilege and right of a firstborn son.
Deu 21:16
He may not make; literally, is not able to make; i.e. is legally incapable of making.
Deu 21:17
A double portion; literally, a mouth of two; i.e. a portion (so “mouth” is used in 2Ki 2:9; Zec 13:8) equal to that of two; consequently, the firstborn inherited twice as much as any of the other sons. Amongst all nations and from the earliest times, the right of the eldest son to pre-eminence among his brethren has been recognized; and in legislating for Israel, Moses so far simply sanctioned a usage he found already existing; the assignment, however, of a double share in the inheritance to the eldest son is a new and special provision, mentioned only here. Beginning of his strength (cf. Gen 49:3).
Deu 21:18-21
If a son was refractory and unmanageable by his parents, if, given to sensual indulgence, he would yield neither to reproof nor to chastisement,the parents were to lay hold on him, and lead him to the ciders of the town, sitting as magistrates at its gates, and there accuse him of his evil ways and rebelliousness. The testimony of the parents was apparently held sufficient to substantiate the charge, and this being received by the elders, the culprit was to be put to death by stoning.
Deu 21:20
He will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. Gluttony and drunkenness were regarded by the Hebrews as highly criminal. The word rendered by “glutton,” however (, from , to shake, to shake out, to squander), includes other kinds of excess besides eating. It designates one who is prodigal, who wastes his means or wastes his person by indulgence. In Pro 23:30, the whole phrase ( ) is givensquanderers of flesh, i.e. wasters of their own body, debauchees. In Pro 28:7, the word is translated “riotous men” in the Authorized Version. Disobedience to parents was deemed an offense, which struck at the roots of the whole social institute.
Deu 21:21
The penalty of such crimes was death; but the power of inflicting this was not among the Hebrewsas among some other ancient peoples, the Greeks and Romans, for instanceleft with the father; the punishment could be inflicted only by the community, with the sanction of the magistrate. A Hebrew parent might chastise his child with severity, but not so as to affect his life (Pro 19:18, “Chasten thy son while there is hope, but raise not thy soul [let not thy passion rise so high as] to slay him”). While parental authority was sacredly preserved, a check was by the Law imposed on hasty passion.
Deu 21:22, Deu 21:23
When a criminal was put to death and was hanged upon a tree, his body was not to remain there over-night, but was to be buried the same day on which he was executed.
Deu 21:22
If a man have committed a sin worthy of death; literally, If there be on a man a judgment of death; if he lie under sentence of death. Hang him on a tree. This refers not to putting to death by strangling, but to the impaling of the body after death. This was an aggravation of the punishment, as the body so impaled was exposed to insult and assault (cf. Num 25:4; Gen 40:19).
Deu 21:23
He that is hanged is accursed of God; literally, a curse of God. Some take this as meaning an insult to God, a contemning of him, “since man his image is thus given up to scorn and insult” (Rashi). But the more probable meaning is “a curse inflicted by God,” which the transgressor is made to endure (cf. Gal 3:13). That thy land be not defiled. The land was defiled, not only by sins committed by its inhabitants, but also by the public exposure of criminals who had been put to death for their sins (cf. Le 18:24, 25; Num 35:33, Num 35:34). On this law Joshua acted (cf. Jos 8:29; Jos 10:26, Jos 10:27).
HOMILETICS
Deu 21:1-9
The preciousness of one human life in the sight of God.
The value of this paragraph can be duly appreciated only as the indifference with which pagan nations of old regarded human life is studied and understood. As a piece of civil legislation, it is far superior to anything in the code of the nations around at that time. Dr. Jameson remarks that in it we have undoubtedly the origin or the germ of modern coroners’ inquests. The following points in it are worthy of note.
1. It is a rule to be observed when they should be settled in the land of Canaan.
2. It indicates that from the first, each human life should be regarded as an object of common interest to the whole people, and that it was to be one of their prime points of honor, that no human life could be tampered with without arousing national indignation and concern.
3. God would teach them, that if it should be found that any one’s life had been trifled with, it was a sin against Heaven as well as a crime against earth.
4. That this sin could be laid at the door of all the people if they were indifferent to the fact of its commission, and if they did not make full inquiry respecting it, and solemnly put it away from among them. At the back of this piece of civil legislation, yea, as the fount from which it sprang, we get this beautiful, sublime, and comforting truth”Each human life an object of Divine concern.”
I. IN WHAT WAY HAS GOD MANIFESTED HIS CARE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL?
1. This passage is pregnant with blessed teaching thereon. We have:
(1) The fact of man’s ill-treatment of men recognized.
(2) Rebuked.
(3) Marked out as a brand of shame on any community which tolerates it.
(4) In demanding an account thereof, God foreshadows his own coming judgment.
2. The Lord Jesus Christ taught it in terms more beautiful, more clear (Luk 12:1-59.; Mat 18:1-35.; Luk 15:1-32.). How often does Christ lay stress on “one!”
3. The death of the Lord Jesus Christ for every man, is a standing proof of every man’s worth before God; so the apostle argues (2Co 5:16).
4. The Spirit of God stirreth in every man to move his sluggish nature that it may rise toward heaven. Materialism merges the man in his accidents. Pantheism drowns him in the All. Deism hides him in vastness. Ultramontanism smothers him in the Church. Caesarism makes the State all, the individual nothing. Christ rescues the one from being lost in the many, and cries aloud, “It is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.”
II. WHAT SHOULD BE THE EFFECT ON US OF GOD‘S CARE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL?
1. It should fill us with intense thankfulness that we are not lost in the crowd (see Isa 40:27). We are so apt to say, “God has too much to do to think of us,” that we need to meditate often on the words, “He careth for you.”
2. It should impress us with the dignity of man. When God fences every man round with such a guard against ill treatment from others, it may well lead us to “honor all men.”
3. It should teach us the solidarity of the race. The weal of one is a concern to all.
4. It should teach us to cultivate the spirit of a universal brotherhood. “Have we not all one Father?”
5. It should lead us to aim at saving man. If God cares for all, well may we.
6. It should make us very indignant at any doctrines concerning the constitution and destiny of man, that would put him, or even seem to put him, on a level with the brute creation.
7. We should take every opportunity of warning men that, if ever they trifle with the interests and destinies of their brother man, God will call them to account at his bar. The voice of Abel’s blood cried unto God from the ground. If a neglected, mutilated, slain body of any one, however obscure, was found in Israel’s fields, they were responsible to the God of nations for inquiry and for expiation. No one is at liberty to cry, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” When he maketh inquisition for blood, he forgetteth not the cry of the humble (see Psa 94:1-23.). And terrible beyond all power of expression, will be the shame and dismay, at the bar of God, of those who have trifled with human interests, and who go into eternity laden with the guilt of their brothers’ blood!
Deu 21:10-14
The female captive; or, Divine regard for woman’s safety and honor.
Any one who is acquainted with the fearful license practiced among many nations towards female captives taken in war, can surely appreciate the humanizing influence which the injunction in this paragraph was intended to exert. The law here laid down may or may not be abstractly the best; but if it was the best that the people could bear: if it would certainly lift up the people a step higher in their regard for womanly honor: if, moreover, it would have the effect of enforcing a restraint upon the passions of men at that most perilous of all times, even that of war,then the hallowed influence which was shaping Hebrew legislation becomes clearly manifest. A woman taken captive as a prisoner of war was not to be a plaything of passion, but was to be dealt with honorably; to feel that she might part with the symbols of slavery, enter into relation with the covenant people, become invested with the rights of a daughter of Israel, and learn to worship, love, and glorify Israel’s God! (For details, see the Exposition, and also valuable remarks in Keil and Jameson.) And if, in the issue, there was no true and proper home for her, she was to have that most precious of blessingsliberty! In opening up the theme suggested hereDivine care for woman‘s safety and honorsome seven or eight lines of thought may be taken up and worked out by the preacher.
1. Here is a Divine protest against the tendency of men to make woman a mere tool of passion. This book is the charter of woman’s honor and happiness.
2. Our God would aim at bringing about the true nobility of woman, by means of educating the people up to the standard at which it shall be a point of honor with them to insist upon it.
3. To secure this end, Spate laws should be stringently framed.
4. Not even in war-time, nor in connection with our soldiery, is it ever to be tolerated that woman should be at the mercy of the stronger sex.
5. The right place of woman is in the love and protection of one to whom she is dearer than his own soul; and no more honorable place need she desire than that assigned her by Solomon in his description of “a virtuous woman.” Many of the holy women of Scripture illustrate this.
6. Under the gospel, woman’s position is yet more strikingly asserted. “In Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female.” In religious relationship man and woman are, caeteris paribus, on an equal footing.
7. While, in the home, the wives are to be in subjection to their own husbands, yet the sway of the husband is to be with a love pure and tender, like that of the Lord Jesus Christ. And it is only where the purifying and love-creating power of the gospel is known, that woman rises to her right position in the home, the family, the social circle, and the nation. The legislation on her behalf, which Moses began, has been going on under Judaism and Christianity for long ages, with what results we know in our happy homes. But how much we are indebted for these happy homes to the influence of Jewish and Christian law, can best be told by those who know the dark places of the earth, still “full of the habitations of cruelty.”
Deu 21:15-17
Home partialities never to warp home justice.
This paragraph indicates deep insight into human nature, and a far-seeing wisdom which surely indicates its superhuman origin. It is designed to restrict the action of the father with reference to the inheritance of the children, in cases where there were two families, not, apparently, by two wives living at the same time (as is the passage favored polygamy), but rather by two of whom the second became the wife after the death of the first (comp. Jameson and Keil). It would probably, nay, almost certainly, occur, that one of the two would be thought more of than the other; the influence of the second wife, being later and withal continuous, might be exerted with the husband in favor of her own children, to the detriment of his by the former wife. And thus a son who was the father’s firstborn might be put at a disadvantage through later preferences coming athwart his proper claims. Moses here teaches that he may not be dispossessed of the right of the firstborn, even though another should come on the scene who should be the firstborn in a second family. The principle on which this is based is indicated in the title of this Homily”Home partialities never to warp home justice.” The following lines of thought may serve as a plan on which to enforce this principle.
I. It is an acknowledged duty of parents to care for the temporal weal of their children (see 2Co 12:14). There is indeed, on the part of some, a consuming desire to leave large fortunes to their familiesa desire so great as to be inconsistent with faith in God’s care. This is to be avoided on the one hand, while at the same time the opposite extreme is to be shunned on the other.
II. There are certain rights which belong to the children, supposing their father is possessed of an inheritance which he can leave them. Of course, if he has none, this paragraph in detail does not apply. Even in such a case, however, a parent owes it to his family to leave them the best of all heritagesa holy example, God’s blessing, and a father’s prayers. If he leaves them this, they will not want.
III. It is not impossible, nor even improbable, that circumstances may occur giving rise to partialities in a parent, which may lead him to consult the interest of some of his children to the detriment of that of others. Cases like that named in this paragraph are notoriously fraught with peril in this respect. And where such is the case there should be a special guard.
IV. These partialities are dangerous. They are so even during the father’s lifetime, but the results thereof after his death are likely to be serious and even disastrous. It is not possible to calculate the mischief wrought upon children, when the earthly name which should ever stand to them dearest in affection and highest in honor, is associated with an inequality by which some are advantaged and others wronged. No bitterness of feeling can surpass that which is thus engendered. It will wrap in shade an otherwise most venerated name.
V. God would teach us that he is ever watchful over the right in families, in every respect. The same Being who says to the children, “Honor your parents,” says also to the parents, “Honor your children.” As he would guard the heads of the house from being trifled with by the sons, so would he guard the sons from any injustice on the part of their parents. A wrong on either side towards the other is a sin against God. And so largely does the observance of the right in the family concerning money and property, affect the well-being of the State, that it is here made a part of the civil code of the “commonwealth of Israel,” that no parent shall be at liberty, whatever his preferences, to ignore the standing claims of his children.
Deu 21:18-21
A bad son a State peril.
This is a very remarkable provision. It is based on the well-known fact that there are some who need a strong deterrent to keep them from being a plague and peril to a State, and also on the all-important principle, that whoever is a pest and nuisance in the home, is the bane of the commonwealth to which he belongs. Moses had just laid down the duty of the parent to deal justly with his sons, whatever his personal partialities might be. He now lays down the extent and limits of parental authority over the son. He does not give the father the absolute power of life and death in reference to the child, as some ancient codes did, but, without abolishing that power altogether, he places such checks upon it that while, on the one hand, if a bad son became so outrageous that his life was putting others in peril through its poisonous influence, he would have before him the possibility of capital punishment; yet, on the other hand, this penalty could only be inflicted with the sanction of the elders of the city; the consent of both parents was required ere he could be brought before them; and they (the parents) were expected to be able to say that they had exhausted every known means of reclaiming him before they brought him to that tribunal. It is evident that the law is enacted with the intention of being so deterrent that it may never need to be put into execution. And thus indeed it seems to have proved. For there is no known instance in Jewish history of its having been carried out. Forming part, as it did, of an ancient civil code for the Hebrew nation only, it is not in force with us now, and we are not called upon to appreciate its real worth as a guard to the stability of the Hebrew nation. But here, as elsewhere, even in obsolete statutes, we discover permanent principles, which it behooves preachers to develop and enforce, if they would not “shun to declare the whole counsel of God.” The truth here taught is thisA bad son is a State peril. Five lines of thought may with advantage be followed out here, with the view of impressing this truth upon the hearts of the people.
I. A STATE IS WHAT ITS HOMES MAKE IT. It cannot be otherwise. It is made up of its own cities, towns, villages, and hamlets. Each one of these is made up of its homes. If they axe all good, little legislation will be required; if they are all bad, no legislation will avail, even if it could be secured. And according as the good or bad element preponderates, will a State be secure and prosperous or otherwise.
II. AN INCORRIGIBLE SON IS THE BANE OF ANY HOME. It is not within our present province to illustrate or even take up the truth that it is extremely unlikely any son will become incorrigible, unless there is some grievous failure in duty on the part of the parents in not correcting him betimes, and in not keeping the reins in their own hands. It is, unhappily, too often true”his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not.” But, however it may come about, the truth is the same, that where a son hearkens not to the voice of his father, and despises to obey his mother, there will be in any home in which such is the case, a source of deep sorrow and indescribable misery; there will be an example fraught with evil influence to the other members of the family. “One sickly sheep infects the flock.”
III. SUCH A HOME, SO POISONED, MAY BECOME A CENTER OF UNSPEAKABLE MISCHIEF. For the sons who act so mischievously in the house are, as a rule, those who wander far and wide in pursuit of forbidden pleasure, giving way to the lusts of the flesh, and to sins of the tongue, polluting others wherever they go. Thus a moral miasma, pestilential and even deadly, may be carried from street to street, and from town to town.
IV. THOSE THUS POLLUTED WILL TAKE THE POISON TO OTHER HOMES, One home will infect others. Each infected home will spread the contagion. And so the evil will spread far and wide, not only in an arithmetical, but in a geometrical progression, till even in the course of one or two generations, it will assume a proportion which baffle all powers of calculation to formulate it, and a virulence which may defy the most powerful legislation to arrest it.
V. HENCE THE VERY EXISTENCE OF SUCH A CENTER OF EVIL OUT OF WHICH SUCH COMPLICATED AND WIDESPREAD MISCHIEF MAY ARISE, IS A SOURCE OF GRAVE PERIL TO ANY COMMONWEALTH IN THE WORLD! It may not be seen nor even suspected when in germ. But germs of evil are fraught with all the evil of which they are the germs.
1. Learn how far-seeing are the provisions of this Mosaic law! What seems severity to the individual is really mercy to the nation. Preventive measures, though severe, may be most genuinely philanthropic.
2. Learn how great is the importance of wisdom and firmness in maintaining parental authority.
3. Learn the need of early habits of obedience to parents. An obedient son is a joy and honor to his parents, a credit to the home, an element of safety in a State. But “God never smiles on a boy that breaks his mother’s heart.” So said Richard Knill. Finally: What we have said thus far is valid, even if this life were all. But if to this life we add on the next, and bethink us of the amazing issues projecting themselves from time into eternity, who can adequately set forth the importance of taking heed to those early steps on which depend the direction of this earthly life, when on it depends the weal or woe of the life which is to come?
Deu 21:22, Deu 21:23
Upon the tree!
These words form part of the criminal code of the Hebrews, and though as such they may be regarded as practically obsolete, yet they contain principles which will never wax old, and are, moreover, so frequently alluded to in the New Testament, that they furnish us with a starting-point of no mean interest for a devout Christian meditation. The case supposed in the text is not that of a man being put to death by crucifixion, but of his having suffered capital punishment, and of his body being afterwards hung upon a stake and put to an open shame by the exposure, as having been one of the vilest of criminals. Such an exposure after death was to be, so to speak, the expression of the execration of the people. It would be their public brand upon detestable guilt. And, when thus the public detestation and horror of wickedness had been expressed, that accursed thing was to be taken down that night and buried out of sight forever, as a sign that the curse had spent itself. This vox populi was vox Dei. “He that is hanged is accursed of God.”
Now, it may be asked, “Why take up the time of a congregation by recalling an obsolete enactment like this?” Our reply is, Let us now turn to Act 5:30. Peter knew how the Jews would regard these words”whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.” They would understand their significance to be, “You put him to an open shame, as though he, the best of men, were one of the vilest malefactors.” Shall we call this the “irony of history?” How was it that God let the treatment of the basest of criminals be accorded to the holiest of our race? We often speak of it as a “mystery of Providence” when some great trouble befalls a good man. But of all such mysteries there is none so great as this. As a bare piece of history unexplained, there is no fact which in all its surroundings is so inexplicable as this, that Jesus Christ of Nazareth should have died amid such deep disgrace and shame. “Hanged on a tree!” Let us go further on. Read 1Pe 2:24. Note the emphasis, “who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree.” Here is an explanation of the strange fact. He was pressed down with others’ woes, and burdened with the guilt of others’ sins. And why? What was the effect of all? Read again. In Gal 3:13, Gal 3:14, the apostle, quoting these words of Moses, shows us that in the fact of the ignominious death of the Lord Jesus Christ upon the tree, we are to see at once
(1) the Divine execration of sin, and
(2) the Divine redemption of the sinner.
I. Under a moral government, a righteous governor will, yea, must append blessing to good, and affix a curse to evil. If anyone asks Why? we do not know that any one can answer further than to say that suffering is the desert of ill, and gladness the appropriate consequence of well-doing. No other theory would be workable in any well-ordered family, or nation, or city. In the family, paternal punishment expresses the father’s sense of wrong done in the State, punishment marks the nation’s sense of wrong done. And these are but echoes of that Divine disapproval of sin to which the conscience of man with certainty points. And it is well known and understood that the disapproval and condemnation of wrong on the part of any government is never to be confounded with, but is very far removed from, personal vindictiveness. No government, indeed, would command the confidence of the people under which crime could be carried on with impunity. Without branding crime against a State, no government could long exist. That brand is “the curse of the law.”
II. There is a law above all human laws. The latter are partial and defective, and may become obsolete. The everlasting law of righteousness is co-eternal with the Great Supreme. He judges the world in righteousness. Every child of man is answerable to his tribunal. Every deed, word, and thought are scanned by his all-seeing eye, and are estimated rightly by his unerring judgment. And he, the Great Judge, brings against each and all the charge of being law-breakers (see Rom 1:1-32; Rom 2:1-29.). The Jew is so because he has broken a written Law; the Gentile, because he has broken an unwritten one. All the world is guilty before God. Under such circumstances, what is a righteous Being to do to secure the stability of his throne? To connive at sin? To pass it by, and take no notice of it? To let the sinner have the same grace as if he had never sinned? No; there must be a declaration, a demonstration, of his righteousness, as Paul calls it. And the demonstration of righteousness certainly involves the condemnation of sin.
III. If we are sinners, as we are, the Divine condemnation of sin places us under a curse. We must be careful to understand that in the Divine curse there is nothing vindictive, excessive, defective, or ineffective; there is nothing in it out of harmony with the everlasting love of righteousness which is the bulwark and safeguard of the Divine government of souls. As many as are of the works of the Law arecontinue to beunder the curse. As long as a man’s life is unright, by God’s law he abides under condemnation.
IV. Guilty men are under the curse; a Guiltless One comes under it. So Gal 3:13, “being made a curse for us,” rather, “having become a curse.” (Let the student note here, as in Joh 1:1-51; the careful use of, and the distinction between, the words for” being” and “becoming.”) The Son of God, the Law-maker, comes and dwells with the lawbreakers, and becomes as one of them. Joyfully taking their place, he bears their burdens and accepts their liabilities as if they were his own! He is pressed down as with a great weight. His sweat is as it were great drops of blood. He goes to the tree. The deepest indignity the Law knows is his. He is numbered with the transgressors. He is put to “an open shame.” He dies as the worst of male. factors diedon the tree! The One who stands pre-eminent among men for the purity of his life stands out also conspicuously among men for the humiliation which attends on his death! He hangs on a tree, as if accursed of God!
V. Our Lord Jesus Christ then represented our race, and for them had become a curse. A stupendous transaction was then and there effected, to which we know of no parallel in heaven or on earth (cf. Mat 20:28; 1Pe 2:24; 2Co 5:21; Joh 1:29).
Note:
1. He was of such dignity that he could represent the race.
2. His act was entirely spontaneous; he willed to do it.
3. It was the Father’s appointment that he should do it.
4. Foreseeing the result of his work, he rejoiced to do it (Isa 53:11 (Hebrew); Heb 12:1, Heb 12:2).
Amid the external humiliation, the thought of saving men thereby, bore him on and bore him through.
VI. By bearing the curse on himself upon the tree he bore it off from us. He has redeemed us therefrom. He has bought us up out of it. He who deserved it not, was pressed down by it, that we who deserved it might be lifted up out of it. Sin having been, in him, condemnedonce, completely, righteously, eternallythe righteousness of the Lawgiver was demonstrated. Then was his love free to act towards us apart from Law, on the principle of grace.
VII. The curse being thus rolled away, the way is prepared for the coming in of the blessing. However fully and freely infinite love now heaps blessing on blessing on the vilest sinner, not from one quarter of the universe can the murmur rise up that God thinks lightly of sin, when, in order to lift its weight off the guilty sinner, the Infinite Son of God has taken the whole load upon himself, and atoned for sin by his own sacrifice!
VIII. The blessing comes to men when they repent and believe. So argues Paul in both his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians. See especially Rom 4:16, and the wonderful parallel between the first and the second Adam in Rom 5:1-21.
IN CONCLUSION.
1. Let us adore and magnify the grace and righteousness of God in the atoning work of Christ on the tree. The manifold perfections of the Divine nature shine forth here in combined luster. Thousands have objected to the doctrine of’ the atonement. No one ever objected to it who did not first misapprehend it.
2. Let us cultivate deep, serious, and earnest thinkings as to the evil of sin, thus branded with the curse of God. Only low moral conceptions can consist with the denial of the necessity for an atonement.
3. Let us see that we rely entirely and penitently on the work of the Son of God on our behalf.
4. Let us defend the manifold glories of the cross against all deniers and opponents.
5. Let us, before whom this Divine act of self-surrender stands as the warrant of our hope, have it ever before us also as the model and standard of our life. And, in studying ever more and more fully the meaning of Christ’s self-surrender to God for us, shall we find the inspiration of our self-surrender to God for others!
HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR
Deu 21:1-9
Atonement for unknown sin.
We have here a ritual applicable to cases where murder has not been expiated by the apprehension and execution of the murderer. The mystery has remained unraveled. The elders and judges, in such a case, are to come and measure which city is nearest the slain man, and the elders of that city are then required to take the heifer prescribed and make atonement, that the country may be delivered from the guilt of innocent blood. The heifer is to be one in the full vigor of life, which has not been wrought with, and consequently expressed in the fullest form the life-producing power to which the violent death stood as a contrast. She is to be taken down into a “rough valley,” or, as the words ( ) more accurately mean, “a perennial stream,” and there is her neck to be struck off, and the blood thus violently shed is to pass away in the never-failing stream. While this is taking place, the eiders of the city are to wash their hands over her, in protestation of their innocence, and to pray for deliverance from the guilt, and it shall be forgiven them.
I. AN UNDISCOVERED MURDER IS PROPERLY IMPUTED TO THE DISTRICT WHERE THE VICTIM HAS BEEN FOUND. In a well-ordered society life should be safe. When it is proved unsafe, society cannot plead “Not guilty.” Locally, it must be allocated, and so the city nearest the victim has the crime imputed to it. The sense of guilt is distributed territorially, and the elders, or representatives of the people, are required to clear themselves by the special rite here described.
Sin has thus wider relations than to the individual who has committed it. It may lie at the door of a city, or of a neighborhood, and in their collective capacity they may be required to deal with it.
II. THE DISTRICT THUS GUILTY THROUGH IMPUTATION IS MOST PROPERLY SUMMONED TO A RELIGIOUS SERVICE. It is surely a matter for general humiliation that such a crime could be secretly committed, and the murderer escape. It should lead to special religious exercises. It would be a very seemly thing if neighborhoods where great crimes have gone undiscovered were to unite in supplicating God’s mercy, in view of the guilt thus contracted.
III. A WAY OF DELIVERANCE FROM THE IMPUTED GUILT IS GRACIOUSLY PROVIDED. It consisted of the following elements.
1. The violent death of an innocent and full-blooded animal. The cruel killing of the heifer was a repetition of the tragedy, and was well fitted to bring its guilt before them. Thus was a sense of sin deepened.
2. Its shed blood was carried away on the surface of the never-failing stream. In this beautiful, poetic way, the providential removal of innocent blood, did God convey the idea of removing the guilt from the district concerned.
3. Over the heifer so slain the elders were to wash their hands and protest their innocency. In this way the most solemn sanctions were associated with their plea of “Not guilty.”
4. And they were further to intercede for the removal of the imputation against Israel. Only after this minute ritual had been gone through was the assurance of forgiveness pronounced by the priest.
IV. IN THIS WAY WE DISCOVER A TYPIFICATION OF THE PARDON PROVIDED BY CHRIST. And here we do well to notice, as facts incapable of dispute
1. That people who are innocent have often to incur imputation along with the guilty. The children of evil-doers incur an evil repute, although they may be perfectly innocent. It is a law of society as at present constitutedthe innocent are grouped with the guilty.
2. Jesus Christ is One who has voluntarily accepted of the imputation of sin, though innocent, and suffered in consequence. Just as the innocent heifer was paraded with the guilty district, and alone suffered because of the committed and undiscovered sin, so Jesus takes up his position in the sad procession, and is the selected, yet voluntary, Victim.
3. The Holy Spirit, as a perennial stream, carries the sense and sight of blood-guiltiness away. For, without the Spirit’s help, the shed blood of Jesus might only increase human guilt; with his help it takes all the guilt away.
4. Those who wish pardon must not be too proud to ask for it. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” So have we the gospel vividly presented to us.R.M.E.
Deu 21:10-14
Through love to liberty.
We have here a regulation or law of war. Captives might be sold as slaves, but through love they might reach the position of a wife in a Jewish household, and if she did not please her conqueror, then she was to be made free again. So that the possible fate of the captive was “through love to liberty.”
I. LOVE IS THE BEST CURE FOR THE ILLS OF WAR. The men were to be slain: women might be kept as a prey (Deu 20:14). It was a blessed issue when the conqueror was himself conquered by his captive. Then slavery was over, and love brought liberty. The passion of hate had given place to the passion of love. The better time had come.
II. BUT THE PASSION MUST RE SUBJECT TO WISE RESTRAINT. A month’s mourning is allowed the beautiful captive, during which her person is sacred in the house of her captor. She bids farewell to her relations, whether living or dead, for she is going to be the wife of a Jew; and her intended husband has time to think quietly over his passion of love, and to see whether it is lasting or no.
III. HER PRIVILEGE WAS TO BECOME THE FREE WIFE OF HER JEWISH LORD. If a happily ordered marriage, it must have been a joyful issue of the war. The terrible ordeal had proved to her the path to honor and social blessedness and peace. All the agony had given place to enlarging love.
IV. AT THE VERY WORST, SHE REGAINED HER LIBERTY. The love had in this case proved transientshe had not pleased himthey would not be happy together. In such a case she was given a legal title to liberty. If not loved, she had the next best privilege of being free.
In this arrangement, consequently, we have love and liberty in the house of a husband; or liberty, if the love proves fickle and the match ill arranged. This was a beneficent arrangement compared with the licentiousness which usually accompanied war.
V. WE MAY CONTRAST THIS WITH THE LOVE AND LIBERTY GUARANTEED US BY CHRIST JESUS. Our Lord, in fact, offers us his love, oh, how strong and bow true! And in his love there is liberty, the liberty wherewith he makes his people free. No uncertainty hangs over his offer to us; no slavery is possible in his house. We shall, in fact, have reason to bless him for conquering us for loving purposes, and any anguish his conquest may have cost us, will be amply compensated in his royal and limitless love.
Conquest, love, and liberty forever is the experience through which we pass in the hands of Jesus, the Conquering Hero, and no one ever regrets entering upon it, for it is enjoyment indeed!R.M.E.
Deu 21:15-17
The rights of the firstborn in the house of a bigamist.
Bigamy was not encouraged by the Mosaic Law. Where it took place in man’s passion, the Law stepped in to regulate the relations in the household impartially. The house of a bigamist may be the scene of sudden jealousies and dispeace, but God steps in to forbid it being the scene of injustice. The discomfort is providentially inseparable from the bigamyit would have been a pity had it been otherwise! But the Lord steps in to prevent flagrant injustice being done to the children solely through the father’s caprice. Caprice may be permitted up to a certain point, with all its painful checks, but it will not be suffered to perpetuate undeserved wrong.
I. THE RIGHTS OF THE FIRSTBORN CONSISTED IN A DOUBLE SHARE OF THE FAMILY PROPERTYTWICE AS MUCH AS THE OTHER CHILDREN. This was that he, as the beginning of his father’s strength, and as acknowledged head of the family, might be able to sustain its honor properly. It was for this portion Elisha prayed when he desired a double portion of Elijah’s spirit; not twice as much, but twice as much as the other sons of the prophets (2Ki 2:9). And this is what Jesus gets from the Father, according to the promise, “I will make him my Firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth” (Psa 89:27). There was another right of the firstborn, in having a seed raised up for him in case of his premature decease. This also has its import in the case of Jesus.
II. BECAUSE A FIRSTBORN‘S MOTHER WAS HATED WAS NO REASON WHY HE SHOULD BE DENIED HIS RIGHTS. The dark cloud of hate was not to envelop him, and keep him out of his double portion, or his right to a seed, if he prematurely died. And yet this was what Jesus received in the way of treatment. “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.” As the Firstborn of humanity, he deserved the double portion, yet had not where to lay his head. He was denied his rights among men.
III. FROM THE CAPRICE OF MEN WE MAY ALWAYS LOOK UP TO THE IMPARTIAL JUSTICE OF GOD. This was the protection of the firstborn in the house of a bigamist. God was on his side. This was the protection of Jesus amid the injustice of menthe Father was along with him. He always did what pleased him. And whenever we feel aggrieved through the capricious conduct of our fellows, let us always look up confidingly to our Father above.
The Lord is just, at all events. We may rely on his vindication of our case in the great day, if not before.R.M.E.
Deu 21:18-23
Parental authority enforced.
It is plain that parents are to deal with their children to the best of their ability: but in case a stubborn and rebellious son would not hearken to father or mother, would not appreciate chastisement, and had become a drunkard and glutton, then the parents were directed to bring the case before the elders of the city, and the impenitent, licentious son was to be taken away from the earth by public stoning. The public law was thus, in the last resort, to back up parental authority and to remove the “scapegrace.”
I. PARENTAL AUTHORITY IS TO BE EXERCISED TO THE UTMOST. Father and mother are both to do their best to save their son from being a public disgrace. They are to use the rod, to chasten him, if nothing milder will do. Only after they have prosecuted their parental authority to the last degree are they to seek the public officers.
II. GLUTTONY AND DRUNKENNESS ARE TREATED AS CAPITAL OFFENCES UNDER THE THEOCRACY. They are incompatible with membership in God’s kingdom. Hence they are deemed worthy of death. Because they are not now so severely visited by public law does not imply that they are less heinous in God’s sight than they were then.
III. IT MUST HAVE BEEN THE LAST RESORT WHEN PARENTS WOULD BRING FORTH THEIR SON FOR PUBLIC EXECUTION. What a wearying of love and patience there must have been before such a commandment as this would be carried out! The father and mother would bear long before they would bring themselves to make of their child a public infamy.
IV. THE EXECUTION OF THE SCAPEGRACE WAS A SOLEMN DEDICATION OF HIM, BY IMPOSITION OF HANDS, TO DEATH BY STONING. Such a public disgrace must have had a very wholesome effect in deterring reckless children from self-abandonment. We do not hear of any instance of such an execution. Drunkenness and gluttony were not common crimes in Israel.
V. IT WOULD SEEM THAT GIBBETING WAS ADDED TO THE STONING, TO EMPHASIZE STILL MORE THE DISGRACE IN SUCH CASES. When this was carried out, it was understood that the gibbeted person was taken down at sundown, so as not to defile the land, and was buried without delay. As accursed of God, the corpse was as soon as possible put out of sight into the tomb.
VI. IT IS INSTRUCTIVE TO THINK OF JESUS CHRIST BEING EXPOSED TO JUST SUCH A PUBLIC INFAMY. He was made a curse for us. He was hanged on a tree, gibbeted as a malefactor. What love led him to place himself in such a position! The authorities took him, and in his Father’s and mother’s presence they did him to death, as if he bad been a disobedient and disgraceful Son. Thus did he deliver us from the curse of the Law. We receive honor because he accepted shame. The “holy Child Jesus” was nailed to the cross, was suspended on a tree, as if he were accursed of God. May we all profit by his voluntary humiliation, and imitate him as the holy, consecrated Child!R.M.E.
HOMILIES BY J. ORR
Deu 21:1-9
Purification from guilt of an uncertain murder.
The explanation commonly given of this peculiar ceremony seems unsatisfactory. Keil’s view, that “it was a symbolical infliction of the punishment that should have been borne by the murderer, upon the animal which was substituted for him,” is contradicted by the fact that, for deliberate murder, the Law, as he admits, provided no expiation, while the object of this ceremony was plainly in some way to remove blood-guiltiness. Fairbairn’s explanation (in his ‘Typology’) is even more far-fetched, that the heifer was “a palpable representative of the person whose life had been wantonly and murderously taken away.” The key to the ceremony is, we think, to be sought for in another direction. The central idea is that a responsibility attaches to a whole community for crimes committed in its midst. The members of the community are implicated in the guilt of the murder till they absolve themselves by bringing the murderer to justice (Deu 21:8, Deu 21:9). In the case here treated of, the murderer is unknown, and a rite is appointed by which the share of the community in his blood-guiltiness, which cannot be removed in the ordinary way, by executing justice on the criminal, is otherwise abolished. The heifer, in this view, represents neither the murdered man nor his murderer, but the people of the city, who seek to purge themselves from guilt by putting it to death. It is their own guilt they seek to get rid of, not the criminal’s. Expiation was not admitted for the actual murderer, but the responsibility for the crime, which, failing the visitation of justice on the criminal, devolved on the communityfor that, expiation was admitted. The animal, suffering vicariously, in full possession of its vital powers, while the elders of the city washed their hands over it, and declared their innocence of all knowledge of the murder, sufficed to secure that “the blood should be forgiven them”forgiveness implying previous imputation. The valley, “neither eared nor sown,” was, in its desolation and sterility, a fit place for such a transaction, which, while it cleansed the city, left the curse upon the murderer, and indeed made the spot a sort of witness of his yet unexpiated guilt.
We learn:
1. That responsibility attaches to each and all in a community for crimes committed in its midst.
2. That the community is not absolved till every effort has been made to discover the perpetrators of crime and to bring them to justice.
3. That the punishment of murder is death.
4. That to ignore, connive at, or encourage crime in a community, involves the authorities in the criminality of the deeds connived at.
5. That all parties, the people (represented by the elders), the magistrates (judges), the Church (priests), are alike interested in bringing criminals to justice.J.O.
Deu 21:10-15
The captive wife.
The kindness, thoughtfulness, and strict justice of the Mosaic laws is very striking. The Law here interposes to secure
I. CONSIDERATE TREATMENT OF ONE BEREAVED. (Deu 21:10-14.) The case supposed comes under the law of Deu 20:14. The woman was a captive in war and a heathen, yet the Israelite is required to respect her chastity, and, if he conceive a passion for her, must not only make her his wife in a proper manner, but must allow her a full month to bewail her dead relatives. The question of religion is a difficult one in such cases, but we may suppose that no force was applied to captives and strangers further than forbidding to them the outward practice of idolatry. The laying aside of the symbols of captivity, and the purificatory rites of cutting the hair and nails, could only imply reception into the fellowship of the covenant nation in the event of the woman freely accepting Jehovah as her God (cf. Rth 1:15, Rth 1:16).
Learn:
1. That the tumult and disorder of war is no excuse for immoral license.
2. We are to consider the situation and feelings of those whose circumstances place them at our mercy.
3. Natural affections are to be respected underneath all differences of creed and race.
II. PROTECTION FOR ONE UNFRIENDED. (Deu 20:14.) The captive stranger wedded to an Israelite was not left to be treated by him as he listed. Her unfriended position exposed her to the risk of suffering from her husband’s caprice and unfeelingness. While, therefore, he is permitted, if he lose delight in her, to divorce herfor the “letting her go” must be construed in the light of Deu 24:3he must on no account sell her or detain her as a captive. Another instance of God’s care for “the stranger.” Hasty marriages, founded on passion inspired by mere external attractions, seldom result in lasting happiness.J.O.
Deu 21:15-18
The firstborn of the hated wife.
The firstborn, in patriarchal and tribal societies, had recognized rights and honors, correlative with the duties and responsibilities which his position as prospective head of the household entailed on him. The principle is here asserted that individual preferences and partialities are not to be allowed to set aside the rights of the son who is lawfully the firstborn. Men would fain, sometimes, bend justice to their likings. Where an Israelite had two wives, either together or in succession, the one loved and the other hated, he might be tempted to pass by the son of the hated, and confer the rights of the firstborn on the son of the wife whom he loved, though it was the son of the hated wife who was entitled to that honor. With strict impartiality, the Law steps in and forbids this act of injustice. It demands that the son of the hated wife have all his rights. It will tolerate no tampering with them.
Lessons:
1. The evils of polygamy.
2. The sin of allowing likes and dislikes to influence us to acts of injustice.
3. The danger of natural preferences degenerating into blameworthy partialities.
4. The duty of doing always what is right, whatever the bent of our private inclinations.J.O.
Deu 21:18-21
The rebellious son.
A law of this kind, which left it to the parents themselves to impeach their disobedient son, while ordaining that, when the charge was proved against him, and it could be shown that the parents had duly corrected him, the offender should be put to death, would, we may believe, very rarely be enforced. In cases so aggravated that its enforcement was necessary, the penalty, judged by the usages and state of feeling of the time, would be thought anything but severe. The law, whether enforced or not, was a standing testimony to the enormity attaching in the eyes of God to the sin of filial disobedience. We learn
I. INSUBORDINATION TO PARENTS IS A GRAVE OFFENCE AGAINST SOCIETY. It is treated here, not simply as a private wrong, but as a crime. Hebrew society rested so largely on the patriarchal basis that the due maintenance of parental authority was a necessity of its existence. The theocratic principle, according to which parents were invested with a peculiar sacredness as representatives of God, likewise called for the repression of incorrigible disobedience. But, whatever the form of social order, a spread of the spirit of insubordination to parents is the invariable prelude to a universal loosening of the ties and obligations of corporate existence. “It has been found,” says Dr. Fleming, in his ‘ Moral Philosophy,’ “in the history of all nations that the best security for the public welfare is a wise and happy exercise of parental authority; and one of the surest forerunners of national degradation and public anarchy and disorder is neglect or contempt of domestic happiness or rule.”
II. PARENTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO COMPLAIN OF THE DISOBEDIENCE OF CHILDREN, SAVE WHERE THEIR OWN DUTIES TO THEIR CHILDREN HAVE BEEN FAITHFULLY DISCHARGED. TO secure a conviction, the parents had to show, not only that they had done their best to bring the son up in right ways, but that they had corrected him, and otherwise endeavored to reclaim him from his vices. Before parents are entitled to complain of the disobedience of children, they must have done their utmost
(1) by instruction,
(2) by admonition,
(3) by correction,
(4) by example,
(5) by a firm assertion of parental authority generally, to keep them from error.
Parents who neglect these duties have little cause to wonder at a son turning out ill; the wonder would be if he should turn out well. It is they, as much as the son, who deserve blame. Lesson: Compare with the behavior of this rebellious son our own treatment of our heavenly Father.J.O.
Deu 21:22, Deu 21:23
Accursed of God.
The criminal who had committed a sin worthy of death, and was put to death under the law, was viewed as dying under the ban or curse of God. When the crime was very execrable, and the criminal might be regarded as perishing under God’s most awful curse, the fact was intimated by exposing the body on a tree. Compare the old custom of hanging a notorious criminal in chains. The placing of the body on a tree was not that which made the person accursed, but was an external sign or token of his being an accursed one. It was, therefore, a singular and striking feature in God’s providential arrangements, not only that the death of Christ should be brought about as a result of judgment passed on him by the constituted authorities of his nation, pronouncing him guilty of the worst of all crimes under the theocracy, that of blasphemy, but that in the manner of his death even this external token of ignominy should not be wanting. In this act, the placing of Jesus on the cross, the sin and madness of the world were overruled, as in several other instances, to give unwitting expression to the highest truth. “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree” (Gal 3:13). The crucifixion of Jesus signifies to us:
1. The world‘s judgment upon Christ. It put him to death as one accursed of God. It treated him as the worst of malefactors, and interpreted his death upon the cross as a sure token of God having forsaken him (Mat 27:43). To many it may have appeared as if the inference were just. The Sanhedrim had convicted him of blasphemy, and their verdict seemed confirmed by the failure of Christ to deliver himself out of their hands. A true Christ would not thus have succumbed before his enemies. The cross was the refutation of his claims, and the proof of his being an impostor, justly doomed to die. “We did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted” (Isa 53:4). The world was wrong, for Jesus was never dearer to his Father than in that hour when he hung upon the tree; but, in a sense unknown to itself, it gave utterance to a truth.
2. Christ‘s submission to a cursed death for the world. The subjection of the sinless Christ to the death of the cross is a fact which requires explanation. If the world put him to death as one accursed, it is none the less true that he voluntarily submitted to this suffering and ignominy, and that the Father permitted him so to be “made a curse.” A yet more mysterious feature in the death of Christ is that, in the direst hour of his agony, the Father seemed to side with the world, by withdrawing from him the light and comfort of his presence (Mat 27:46). Christ was dealt with by Heaven, not less than by men, as One under a curse; if not a sinner, he was treated as if he were one. The apostolic writings lay stress on this as a fact of essential importance in the work of Christ for man’s salvation (2Co 5:21; Gal 3:13). Subjection to the curse of the Law in the name of the world of sinners with whose lot he had identified himself, was not all that was necessary for their redemption from that curse, but it was involved in what was necessary. Any theory of atonement which leaves out the recognition of Christ “made sin” for us by voluntary endurance of sin’s doom, must, on scriptural grounds, be pronounced at least incomplete.J.O.
HOMILIES BY D. DAVIES
Deu 21:1-9
The creation of righteous, public sentiment.
The influence of man upon man is omnific; it touches him at every point. The potency of influence depends on character, rank, age, station. The character of kings is soon reflected on their courtiers. From this principle is born the adage, “Like priest, like people.” Crimes proceed from depraved sentiment, and sentiment can be purified by righteous influence.
I. CRIME COVETS CONCEALMENT. All crime is cowardly, base, mean. It fears the light. This may furnish a test for acts that lie near the boundary lines of morality, and admit of question. If the fierce light of righteous opinion is dreaded, the thing is already condemned. So lacking in fortitude and courage is the murderer, that he will seldom confess the truth unless conscience scourges him with intolerable remorse. Yet it is, in well-organized society, an exceptional thing if the murderer escapes. The movements of Divine providence usually furnish some clue to the red-handed man. Still, if amid the infirmities of human government the culprit should escape, he is amenable to another jurisdiction where concealment is impossible. Every crime shall eventually be seen in a blaze of noontide light.
II. MAGISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY IS INDICATED. Crime is not merely injury against an individual, it is an assault upon society. If murder pass with impunity, no life will soon be safe. In the human race there is a solidarity of interest. Men constitute a family. Cities have a character as well as persons. The real leaders in society are laden with heavy responsibility. It is their paramount duty to foster healthy public sentiment; and if this sentiment does not penetrate far enough to prevent crime, it should penetrate far enough to detect crime. Every man can contribute something to influence public morals, and magistrates should lead the way.
III. PUBLIC ABHORRENCE OF CRIME IS IMPRESSIVELY SHOWN. The minds of men are more impressed by deeds than by words, especially by symbolic acts surrounded by the sanctions of religion. It was of the first importance that the city elders should be beyond any suspicion of connivance with the deed. Therefore they must publicly purge themselves by solemn attestation. A valuable heifer was to be selected, and the elders were required to decapitate the victima public protest that this would be their own desert if in any degree they had been accessories to the crime. The natural scene selected for this rite was significant. It was to be done in a rugged valley given over to barrenness or natural desolation; being an impressive picture of sin’s effect. Accompanying this solemn immolationthis appeal of innocence to Heaventhere was the most explicit utterance of words; so that the honor of the rulers might shine out clear and bright. Magisterial authority is founded on public regard. It was, moreover, a representative act. Every citizen spoke through these elders.
IV. MEDIATION IS HERE FORESHADOWED. It is possible by our thoughtlessness to “become partaker of other men’s sins.” We all share, in greater or lesser measures, in the guilt of the race. There are sins of ignorance, and to these a measure of culpability belongs. Evils might have been prevented if we had been more faithful. But, by God’s appointment, substitution is permitted. Other blood may be shed, by virtue of which we may be redeemed. “The blood of bulls and goats can never take away sin;” nor can the blood of man. No material compensation can be made for moral wrong. But moral effects may be produced by substitution, which shall be equally just and more beneficent. As the priests of olden time were mediators between God and the Jews, so we have a Great High Priest, who is a real Mediator, having royal interest for us with God.
V. PENITENCE AND PURITY ARE TWIN SISTERS. (See Deu 21:9.) There is an appeal for mercy: “Be merciful, O Lord, unto thy people Israel.” Some measure of culpability must be felt in every solicitation of mercy. For mercy is that principle in God which conveys blessing when no merit exists. And if true penitence moves in the breast, it is the parent of reformation; its purpose is amendment. It seeks not only removal of burdens, but the destruction of the evil thing. In the hour of penitence, new love and new hate are born. Unless fruits of righteousness appear, penitence is only pretence. The sincere cry for mercy is always followed by “doing that which is right in the sight of the Lord.”D.
Deu 21:10-14
The captor captured.
God’s laws are accommodations to human infirmities. To require from men summarily, and as the result of law, perfect conduct of life is impracticable. Hence legislation, to be successful, must be adapted to the case, and must lead by gradations to a nobler life. This law, though tolerant of lesser evil, is a marked amelioration of earlier customa step towards order and purity.
I. FEMALE BEAUTY WINS THE HEARTS EVEN OF WARRIORS. There are other conquests, and nobler, than military conquests. Beauty snatches the palm from strength. In the very hour of victory the conqueror has laid all his spoils at the feet of a gentle woman. Love rules the camp. External beauty has its uses. Real beauty is the exponent of some hidden worth. It eloquently says, “There is some goodness here: search and find it out.” And beauty has its perils tooit may excite sexual passion which cannot be controlled.
II. CONJUGAL UNION IS TO RESULT, NOT FROM SUDDEN. PASSION, BUT FROM WELL–TRIED LOVE. This sudden desire to have his captive as his wife was required to be tested by time. Calm reflection is to precede a union so full of possible results. Beauty may fling her robe of color about the haze of dawn, but the gray haze of dawn does not constitute the day. Mere bloom on summer fruit will not meet the hunger of the man. Marriage is a temple of God, and must not be built on an imaginary foundation. The charm of the fair captive’s locks was to be temporarily removed, so that the lover’s desire might rest, not on fleeting accessories, but on personal worth. Ill-assorted marriages are a fertile curse. Sympathy in religion is essential to a prosperous marriage union.
III. THE NATURAL FEELINGS OF WOMAN, AS WOMAN, ARE TO BE SCRUPULOUSLY RESPECTED. We may not understand all the purposes this Jewish law was designed to serve; but certain it is that, though a captive, the natural feeling of filial sorrow was to be allowed, yea, expected. To repress or root out the affectionate feeling of a daughter would be mutilation of the soul. A forgetful daughter will never be a worthy wife. Nothing in our external fortunesnot even success in warwarrants our playing the tyrant. It is for the benefit of the human race that woman should be treated on equal terms. Her fine endowments have a noble part to play in the culture of humanity.
IV. MARRIAGE HAS ITS DUTIES AS WELL AS ITS ENJOYMENTS. By the custom of that barbarous age, the captive, whether male or female, became the absolute property of the captor. He could reduce her to slavery. But if he chose to make her his wife, he conveyed to her rights which could not be alienated. It became henceforth his duty to protect her and all her interests. She was secure against the lust of avarice. God threw around her the shield of his sacred Law. But the very necessity for this commandment disclosed the rampant greed for gain which rules in some men. Thankful ought we to be that God removes such a possible temptation out of our way. Not by God’s consent is marriage ever contracted or terminated for the sake of money gain.D.
Deu 21:15-17
Monogamy essential to domestic peace.
Every indication of God’s will is a finger-post to felicity. A wise man will not wait for peremptory law. The faintest whisper of Jehovah’s will is law to him. Without doubt, that each man should be the husband of one wife was the ordination of God.
I. THE FIRSTBORN SON IS PLACED IN A POSITION OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE AND POWER. All human government is built upon the model of the family. Within the compass of the family the firstborn was a sovereign, had sovereign rule and responsibility. In families like Jacob’s, where there were many children and dependents, this was a position of eminence and power. In every case, special duties devolve upon the firstborn. He has often to act as the representative of the family, and to defend family rights. He becomes the natural arbitrator in family disputes. His influence, for good or for evil, is great. Therefore, to sustain his position and power, a double portion of the ancestral estate was his.
II. THE PRIVILEGE OF THE FIRSTBORN IS INALIENABLE. For a time the firstborn son is sole heir to his father’s rank and riches; hence, for reasons external to him, it would be unjust to depose him. And injustice always leads to strife, disorder, and mischief. Filial reverence would be undermined. Seeds of hatred would be sown. The removal of the father’s authority by death would be the sign for feud, litigation, and waste. What God has ordained let not man disturb. Our earthly possessions are entrusted to us temporarily by God, and the entailment has been determined by the Divine Proprietor. For the just management of our secular estates and of our family concerns, we are accountable at the great assize. Favoritism among children is a prolific evil.
III. THIS PROSPECTIVE MISCHIEF ISSUES FROM A PLURALITY OF WIVES. God has often tolerated among men what he has not approved. He does this, in some respect, every day. If he had imposed capital punishment upon the violation of monogamy, the effect, in many cases, would have been unchastity. Law, in order to be effectual, can never transcend the highest level of moral sentiment prevalent in the age. Otherwise judges themselves would be culprits, and no one could be found to administer the law. But the family intrigues, quarrels, and miseries which spring from a plurality of wives are God’s visible brands and scourges on disobedience. What works best for society, for the human race, is (in the absence of other instruction) the revealed will of God. Wherever there is more than one wife there must be divided affection, divided interests, divided authority. The house is divided against itself.D.
Deu 21:18-21
A slippery path to ruin.
It is of the first importance that a child should begin life well. A twist in the young stem will develop into a gnarled and crooked tree. A slight divergence at the outset of a voyage may end in a complete reversal of the ship’s course. Early obedience is the pathway to a prosperous life; disobedience leads to death. The tongue that curseth its father shall be scorched with devouring flame.
I. SELFISH INDULGENCE DESTROYS FILIAL REVERENCE. The human body is to be the servant of the mind. If the appetites and lusts of the body are allowed to rule, the mind becomes a slave, and all the better principles are manacled and enfeebled. We begin life as dependent children, and the fresh sense of loving obligation should be an antidote for selfishness. But if we set out in life with a resolve to please self, we are already on the way to ruin. Reverence for the parental character, and regard for parental authority, are the only solid foundations for a noble life. To feed unduly the body, and for gratification alone, is to starve the soul. Sensuality fosters self-will.
II. REBELLION IN THE CHILD DESTROYS SONSHIP. Disregard of authority soon chokes and strangles filial feeling. The tie of sonship is snapped. The qualities and attributes of a son are wanting. There is a relationship of body, but no true relationship of soul. Alienation has sprung up instead of vital union. The lad may dwell under the old roof-tree, but in reality there is a great gulf between him and his parents: he is a descendant, but not a son. To be the children of God there must be resemblance of character.
III. UNFRUITFUL CHASTISEMENT IS A TREMENDOUS CURSE. The medicine that does not do good, does harm. The flame that does not melt, hardens. Parental chastisement, when needed, is an imperative duty, but should be administered with wisdom, self-restraint, and pity. The obstinacy of the son is not infrequently due to the foolish leniency or unrestrained severity of the parent. Chastisement is a serious experiment, and always produces some effect, either favorable or unfavorable. We are not the same men after trial or pain that we were before.
IV. THE STATE MUST SUPPORT PARENTAL AUTHORITY. SO valuable is human life that the State wisely claims the sole power of capital punishment. If the disciplines and chastisements of home have failed to produce a virtuous citizen, the whole community must deal with the incorrigible reprobate. The State cannot afford, for its safety’s sake, to allow a firebrand to be let loose in its midst. The example and influence of such a miscreant would be fatally mischievous. The whole State has vital interests to serve, and it would be sheerest folly to sacrifice them to a drunken madman.
V. PERSISTENT REBELLION LEADS TO AN IGNOMINIOUS END. It must be a duty, the most painful for human nature to perform, to surrender a son to public execution. Yet it sometimes is a duty. The hope of amendment has been quenched. To continue such a one in life has become a bane to himself and to others. If all remedies have failed, destruction must ensue. All the men of the city shall put their hand to the deed. This may be done by personal service or by representation. The mad career of the culprit ends in pain, loss, and perpetual disgrace. It is a symbol of the great judgment doom.D.
Deu 21:22, Deu 21:23
The doom of law the embodiment of Divine curse.
The suspension of a human body on the gallows-tree is the utmost climax of ruin and disgrace. It is the fullest exponent of the public detestation and horror for the deed. In this case the curse of men is the curse of God. But this curse was not to continue. Blessing was to be perpetual, abiding, uninterrupted; but the curse was to endure for a moment. The body so accursed was to be buried before sunset. Many reasons have been assigned for this.
I. BECAUSE VINDICTIVE ANGER SHOULD BE KEPT WITHIN DUE BOUNDS. Anger against monstrous crime is a great assistance in the performance of painful duty. We are braced to do under stress of anger what we could scarcely do in calmer moods of feeling. Anger has its use, but should not be prolonged. When the painful deed is done, vengeful passion should cease. To this end let the lifeless body be buried out of sight.
II. BECAUSE THE HUMAN FORM IS SACRED AS GOD‘S TEMPLE. The temple may be in ruins, yet sentiments of veneration hover round the ruined shrines. We know that yonder executed man was the workmanship of the living God. Every vein, and artery, and muscle, and nerve in that mutilated body was the handiwork of God. With that man’s history God had taken pains; and over his mistaken course God had grieved. We think of what that man might have been, how fruitful in goodness and virtue! how meet for Divine service and honor! And the spectacle of that man’s doom should arouse our fear. We may well stand in awe of sin. To commit such a corpse with gentle pity to the grave will do us good.
III. BECAUSE MORAL DEFILEMENT WOULD OTHERWISE RESULT. The exposure of a dead body in that climate beyond a single day would taint the atmosphere and damage health. But to accustom the minds of men to such a ghastly spectacle would tend to moral defilement. It would serve to harden their better feelings, and make too familiar the exhibition of Jehovah’s curse. In our present condition sacred things may become too common. Here especially “familiarity breeds contempt.” No greater evil can befall the soul than when it becomes heedless of Divine judgments.D.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
The Sixth Command
Deu 19:1 to Deu 21:9
Deu 19:1-21
1When the Lord thy God hath cut off the nations, whose land the Lord thy God giveth thee, and thou succeedest them, [possessest them (their land)] and dwellest in their cities, and in their houses; 2Thou shalt separate three cities for thee in the midst of thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it. 3Thou shalt prepare [restore, put in good condition] thee a way, and divide the coasts of thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee to inherit, into three parts, that every 4slayer may flee thither. And this is the case [word] of the slayer [what avails for him] which shall flee thither, that he may live [and live, remain]: Whoso killeth his neighbour ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past;1 5As when a man [And (indeed) whoever] goeth into the wood with his neighbour to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head [iron] slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon [striketh]2 his neighbour, that he die; he shall flee unto one of these cities, and live: 6Lest the avenger3 of the blood pursue the slayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him;4 whereas he was not worthy [there is not to him judgment] of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past. 7Wherefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt separate three cities for thee. 8And if the Lord thy God enlarge thy coast, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, and give thee all the land which he promised 9[spake] to give unto thy fathers; If thou shalt keep all these commandments [this whole commandment] to do them [it] which I command thee this day, to love the Lord thy God, and to walk ever in his ways; then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, beside these three: 10That innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and so blood be upon thee. 11But [And] if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally [to the life] that [and] he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: 12Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch [take] him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that [and] he may die. 13Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee.5 14Thou shalt not remove thy neighbours land-mark, which they of old time [thy forefathers] have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee 15to possess it. One witness [only] shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter [word] be established. 16If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him, that which is wrong [a falling away, apostasy]; 17Then both the men between whom the controversy is shall stand before the Lord, before the priests 18and the judges, which shall be in those days; And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; 19Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. 20And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil [word] among you. 21And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
Deu 20:1 to Deu 20:1.When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the Lord thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. 2And it shall be when ye are come nigh unto the battle, that the priest shall approach and speak unto the people, 3And shall say unto them, Hear, O Israel, ye approach this day unto battle against your enemies: let not your hearts faint [be weak, soft]6 fear not, and do not7 tremble, neither be ye terrified because of them; 4For the Lord your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you. 5And the officers [shoterim] shall speak unto the people, saying, What man is there that hath built a new house, and hath not dedicated it? let him go [he shall go] and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man dedicate it. 6And what man is he that hath planted a vineyard, and hath not yet eaten8 of it [taken into use]? let him also go [he shall go] and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man eat of it. 7And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go [he shall go] and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her. 8And the officers [shoterim] shall speak further unto the people, and they shall say, What man is there that is fearful and faint-hearted? let him go [he shall go] and return unto his house, lest his brethrens heart faint [melt, flow down] as well as his heart. 9And it shall be, when the officers [shoterim] have made an end of speaking unto the people, that they shall make captains of the armies9 to lead the people. 10When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. 11And 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. 12And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war [battle] against thee, then thou shalt besiege it [close, enclose it]: 13And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof 14with the edge of the sword: But [only] the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take [spoil, plunder] unto thyself: and thou shalt eat [enjoy] the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee. 15Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which 16are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But [Only] of the cities of these people which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: 17But thou shalt utterly destroy them, namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee: 18That they teach you not to do after all their abominations which they [do] have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the Lord your God. 19When thou shalt besiege a city a long time in making war against it to take it [conquer it] thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them; for thou mayest eat of them: and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is mans life) to employ them in the siege [for O man, the tree of the field is there to go before thee (through thee) (in the) siege].10 20Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat [fruit trees] thou shalt destroy and cut them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until [its fall] it be subdued.
Deu 21:1 to Deu 9:1. If one be found slain in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying [fallen] in the field, and it be not known who hath slain him: 2Then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is slain: 3And it shall be that the city which is next unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take an heifer which hath not [yet] been wrought with, and which hath not [yet] drawn in the yoke; 4And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley [a perennial brook]11 which is neither eared nor sown, and shall strike off 5[break] the heifers neck there in the valley; And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near, (for them the Lord thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the Lord,) and by their word [mouth] shall every controversy and every stroke be tried; 6And all the elders of that city that are next unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded [whose neck is broken] in the valley: 7And they shall answer and say, Our hands have not 8shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. Be merciful [Forgive] O Lord, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israels charge [into the midst of thy people Israel]. And the blood shall be forgiven them.12 9So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the Lord.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. Deu 19:1-13. With chap. 19 the discourse passes unquestionably to the sixth commandment. Other commands are alluded to only as they may be connected with this. Deu 19:1. Comp. Deu 12:29; Deu 17:14. Deu 19:2 refers undoubtedly to Canaan. Comp. upon Deu 4:41 sq. [The three East Jordan cities had been already named. Moses now gives direction for the three West of Jordan.A. G.]. Deu 19:3 directs that the way to the cities of refuge (collectively) should be put into a proper condition, and kept in it, so that there should be no hindrance in this respect. According to tradition, the way must be level, thirty-two cubits broad, and marked by fingerposts, bearing the words Refuge, Refuge Herxheimer. [The same tradition tells us that the magistrates were to send out surveyors and repair these ways annually on the 15th of the month Adar; that every obstacle must be removed, and no stream left unbridged.A. G.]. The direction, Num 35:14, was carried out, through the threefold division of Canaan, with reference to the point in view. The there prescribed three refuge cities in Canaan are placed now one each, in the smaller parts, equally near to all sides, and thus the way first becomes practical. Thee, as Deu 19:2, brings out the personal use and obligation in regard to the designed preservation of life, and prevention of bloodshed in Israel. Comp. further upon Deu 1:38; (Deu 3:28; Deu 12:10) Deu 4:42. Deu 19:4, as Deu 15:3. Comp. upon Deu 4:42. Deu 19:5 illustrates by example the more general statement in Deu 19:4. Compare Num 35:22 sq. wood for burning or building, 7:1, casts out, here used intransitively, falls off. Others (transitively) and the iron is drawn from the wooda piece which hits. At its close Deu 19:6 discloses the object of the arrangement. is the redeemer who both on account of some possession belonging to the family is a member interested, and in a special sense, on account of blood kindred, has to save, redeem, avenge the bloodshed of the family according to the divine, as according to the human and natural right of retaliation. This private justice, as is very natural, must be somewhat restrained both on account of the personal feelings of the subject, and from the first heat of grief and anger. The refuge offers its convenient situation to the pursued generally, but especially to those overtaken, (Deu 14:24). , the prominence of life, for whose sacredness it is here provided, and to which the succeeding words whereas he was not worthy of death, Schroeder, literally, and there is not to him the right of death, correspond, i.e., death does not belong to him as a right, as a legal right, or the judgment of death, death penalty, or the case is no legal case of life and death, no breach worthy of death. Deu 19:7. The more emphatic statement with regard to the three cities in Canaan, while the three East of Jordan, as set apart, and arranged by Moses, are not again alluded to. Deu 19:8 connects itself with Deu 19:7, but passes on to that which is still wider, and in a way to recall Deu 11:24; Deu 1:7. Comp. Deu 12:20 (Gen 15:18). The method of the discourse, Deu 19:9 (Deu 4:6; Deu 5:1; Deu 6:5; Deu 8:6; Deu 11:22.) also forbids us to hold with Hengstenberg that the three cities more are the three cities in Canaan, mentioned, Deu 19:2, beside these three described, Deu 4:41 sq. Neither is it true that the three new cities (Knobel) are those West of the Jordan, and the three East of the Jordan those spoken of in Deu 19:2. The three cities here are rather in the prospect of the promised future, which prospect was obscured by the failure to fulfil the conditions with which it was connected. (If thou shalt keep, sq.). There remain thus only six (instead of the nine, to which the prospect here enlarges) of which the discourse treats. Schultz rightly emphasizes the wider horizon of Deuteronomy in this regard as Mosaic. [It is obvious that such a passage as this could not have been penned in the times to which rationalist critics assign Deut. No one living in those times would think of treating as a future contingency (If the Lord thy God enlarge, sq.) an extension of territory which at the date in question had in fact taken place long ago, and been subsequently forfeited. Bib. Com.A. G.], Deu 19:10 resumes now the thread broken off at Deu 19:7; Deu 19:8-9, being regarded as a parenthesis. Innocent blood was that of the slayer, upon whom death is visited, not with judgment or right, (Deu 19:6). Comp. Deu 19:3. In such cases, if there were no refuge, blood, i.e., the guilt of blood would be upon Israel. Deu 19:11-13. Insert the contrast. Comp. Gen 4:8; Exo 21:14; Num 35:16 sq. Private justice must follow upon, be connected with, and subordinated to public justice. The elders form the fitting mediation for this purpose, partly as they are the (more revered) fathers, corresponding to the domestic element in the blood-revenger, partly as the city magistrates who represent in general the executive power of the State, and from whom also, as from the priests and Levites the judges were to be chosen (Deu 16:18). Thus the still ruling custom among the Arabians, of blood-revenge, was legally bounded and civilized, just as out of the predominant family life by and by the orderly state springs. Deu 19:13, as Deu 7:16; Deu 13:9; Deu 13:6; Deu 5:30 (Deu 15:16). Comp. Num 35:31 sq.
2. Deu 19:14. It is characteristic for the Mosaic view of the wife as a possession, that the discourse passes over the seventh command, and in Deu 19:14 comes on the contrary to speak of the eighth command, from the point of view of the sixth command, i.e., of the earthly life. Thus light is thrown upon the eighth command from the application of the sixth; significant both for Deut. and for the total view of the law.Each district, as it comes into your inheritance, with thy neighbors as with thine own, is thus connected with the family life, and comprises its livelihood; the lessening or disturbance of these limits is simply a question of existence therefore. The possession, particularly the landed, is the ground which yields to man its produce for his support. Thus it shares in the sacredness of life, which is preserved by it; entirely like Deu 20:19-20. The penalty of the offence is hinted, Deu 27:17. They of old. Schroder, predecessors. Either in time, and thus also in succession, or in honor, the leaders. What the first possessors, the fathers, Joshua and the renowned elders, determined, should be observed down to the most distant future. Comp. still upon Deu 19:3 and Intro., 4, I. 17. [They of old time, is an unfortunate rendering, as it seems to imply a long residence in Canaan, when this direction was given. The original contains no such intimation. It is the heads, chiefs. Vulg., priores. The immediately following clauses make it clear that the direction was given while the land was not yet in possession.A. G.].
3. Deu 19:15-21. A similar illumination of the ninth command from the sixth. In the first place, the importance of the witnesses before the court, in regard to the life of a neighbor, is established by this, that the testimony of one was not sufficient for condemnation. Num 35:30. Deu 19:15. perverseness, wrong, guilt; as sin is a deviation from the right, from the law. denotes the reference generally. the concrete case. Comp. Deu 17:6. In the second place, in the special case of false witness, Moses places life for life, in any case the like punishment. Deu 19:16. Treats a peculiar case; a witness of violence, who will do violence to his neighbor by his testimony, designates both the beginning and the reply in conversation, hence; to answer before the court in regard to any falling away (comp. Deu 13:6; Deu 17:7) from God, or the law. The suspicion against the witness has been proven in the lower court, as the Talmud understands of a case which was far off from the witness, strange to him, since he cannot prove his presence at it. Deu 19:17. Comp. Deu 17:8 sq., an example of the causes which were difficult or hard. [Both the men, the parties to the original suit. Before Jehovah cannot be, as Knobel, the lower court. The false witness was borne in the court below, and now comes before the supreme court at the sanctuary.A. G.]. Deu 19:18 as Deu 13:15. Deu 19:20. Comp. upon Deu 13:12 (Deu 17:13). It is not the punishment as such, which is the means of alarm, but that before Jehovah the purpose, is as the deed (Deu 19:19) and generally the decided earnestness of the lextalionis, as it is solemnly and impressively announced in Deu 19:21. (Exo 21:23 sq.; Lev 24:19 sq.). The rest as in Deu 19:13.
4. Deu 20:1-9. Out of the sacredness which attaches to human life, light is thrown upon the warfare (chap. 20) which Israel even in the occupation of Canaan (Intro., 4, I. 17) could not avoid. Israel should rejoice especially in the protection of God, to whom the life of man among his people is of such value. [Bib. Com.: Reverence for human life was to show itself with respect to the Israelites levied for war, Deu 20:1-9; to the enemy (1015) the Canaanites excepted, (Deu 20:16-18) and in respect to the property of the vanquished, 19, 20.A. G.]. Deu 20:1. Horses and chariots. These forces are those which would strike the eye of Israel, not equipped in a like way (Deu 17:16), and make the impression of superior power on the part of the enemy, (Deu 7:17); at the same time are characteristic of the Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines (Jos 17:16; Jdg 4:3; 1Sa 13:5) and Syrians (2Sa 8:4). With thee was illustrated and proved historically. Deu 20:2. As they are now, having departed from their homes, drawn up in order, to advance to the battle. The priest is the one commissioned for the purpose, according to the Talmud one anointed for the war, as Phinehas, Num 31:6; the field preacher, not the high-priest. (Num 10:8-9). The Lords servants, give to His people a more definite, solemn, and formal expression of the duty of fearlessness out of regard to Him (Deu 20:1). Deu 20:3, (Deu 1:21; Deu 1:29; Deu 7:21). Israel its name of honor, Isa 41:8; Isa 41:14 (Gen 32:28). Deu 20:4, (Deu 3:21) comp. Deu 1:30. Represented by the taking of the ark of the covenant, 1Sa 4:3. Save, to rescue you, and generally to insure the victory. Schultz lays undue force upon the expression. Religious encouragement follows the worldly conduct, as it appears in the actual relations (Deu 20:5-7), and in the personal deportment in the case (Deu 20:8). Officers, Shoterim: Comp. upon Deu 1:15. These officers might have the genealogies and tribal rolls. (Comp. Hengstenberg: The Books of Moses, p. 90.) How truly the idea of the sixth command is the animating idea here, appears in the statement of the independent human life in the three beginnings: house building as the first foundation; the planting of the vineyard as the first enlargement of the relations of life; the betrothal as the first completion of the independent position in life. may also signify whoever the man is, who, sq., thus: whoever, any one. He shall (not barely may) go. Every one in Israelthere were no involuntary levies hereif he had made efforts for life, should first rejoice in the result of his efforts. It was as humane as prudent. Such a depletion of the host not merely prevented the disheartening of the others through a homesick soldier, but testified on the part of God in this actual way, His high estimate of the value of life, so that it might inspire confidence in the timid, and increase the courage of the brave. to fit, thus to arrange, to occupy, Keil and Schultz, remind us of a consecration, and by a transfer from the temple, (1Ki 8:63) of a solemnity, at least a feast, for which there is no occasion other than the fancies of the Rabbins. The three times repeated lest he die brings out clearly the purpose in view. Deu 20:6. is any field of noble plants; an olive, or fruit garden. according to Gesen. refers to common use in the fifth year, since in the fourth year it was sanctified to the Lord (Lev 19:23 sq.). According to others, with the same reference, it is to release. Knobel: To open, to enter upon. (Perhaps also to cut, to take the clusters). Deu 20:7 completes Deu 24:5. For the whole, comp. Deu 28:30, and perhaps also Luk 14:18 sq. Deu 20:8 introduces the other class, who in like manner are to be dismissed with this distinction, that here the reference to the other soldiers comes into view, and indeed as the object, (lest his brethren, sq.). The faintness of heart may be explained as fearfulness, as natural weakness, and not so much moral cowardice, or as Deu 1:28. Deu 20:9. to inquire, inspect, to muster, and so it may be rendered: and thus the captains of the host shall hold a muster. The distinction between and the Shoterim (officers) which indeed is obvious, may somewhat account for the absence of the article which Keil so misses. But the Shoterim have scarcely finished speaking, the doing may still follow, and according to Num 3:10 (although the there is wanting here) and Deu 4:27, the meaning is, to take order for a still closer inspection. The mustering also actually occurs after the dismissal of those previously mentioned. Schultz: The captains of the host should lead, carry out the command, which is not demonstrable, rather: should have the oversight. The captains of the host are the chiefs of particular bands, which the Shoterim are not named, so much as they are simply appointed under charge of the Supreme Head (Jos 1:10 sq.; Deu 3:2 sq.), so that upon them rests the obligation to secure the preparedness for war.
5. Deu 20:10-20. The required dismissal of the two classes in Israel, Deu 20:5 sq., applies, the importance of human life in relation to God, as it was shown in war, to the advantage of his neighbor, namely, in Israel itself. Deu 20:10 sq. now makes this reference availing over against the enemy, first with regard to his person, then as to his property. They are summoned by heralds to the walls, in order to bring about a peaceful surrender and subjection. The first case is that of a corresponding answer and conduct. Deu 20:11. tax, tribute, thus an obligatory tribute, and that indeed of personal service. Thus a sparing of life. In the second case, ver 12 may be viewed altogether as the antecedent: And thou shalt besiege it, and the Lord thy God hath delivered, sq.the destruction, Deu 20:13, is simply of the males (Deu 13:16) who would otherwise threaten Israel with death; on the other hand the others might contribute to his enjoyment of life, and were therefore to be spared. Deu 20:14. The following limitation shows that the previous two cases could only occur with enemies, not Canaanites. Deu 20:15. For the third case: Canaan Deu 20:16, the curse rules. Deu 20:17 : Comp. Deu 7:1 sq. all living, i.e., all men (Jos 10:40; Jos 11:11; Jos 11:14). Deu 20:18. Comp. still Deu 12:31; Deu 18:9. Eternal life is of more value than the temporal. Mat 16:26.Nevertheless (comp. Deu 14:21) the fruit trees are to be spared because, and so far as, they are useful to life. Deu 20:19 presupposes the more comprehensive directions for the siege, and hence the temptation to use even the fruit trees for the purpose (Schultz). Comp. Deu 19:5. Since denotes the fruit trees in the gardens and orchards of the cities, it is clear that is used with reference to the wild trees in the region around, the field in the wider sense, which is made more definite in Deu 20:20. Other renderings: for (the life) of man is the tree of the field (synonymous with ) thou mayest eat thereof, for the life of man is preserved through the tree, thou mayest not cut it down. Schultz: For man is connected with (depends upon) the tree of the field, Deu 24:6. Knobel and Keil: For is the tree of the field a man, to come before thee in the siege? using the interrogative. Thus: thou mayest besiege men, but trees are not thy enemies; thou mayest rather eat of them, they are useful in thy purpose with the city in the work of the siege and destruction. Others still render it in the vocative: for O man the tree of the field cannot offer resistance, sq., or: it is there for this purpose, namely, your support, that it (the city) may be besieged by you. Some regard as a parenthesis and connect with : thou shalt not cut down the tree that it may serve in the works of the siege. The last clause is also explained: that the tree of the field go from thy face (be destroyed) in the siege; or: must go from before thee (be saved) in the fortifications. Deu 20:20. until it be overthrown, cast down, Deu 28:52. Others: Until thou hast subdued it. [While there is this variety in the renderings, in order to meet the necessities of the text, the sense is clear and substantially the same whichever construction may be adopted. The contrast between Deu 20:19-20, as to the trees alluded to, makes it clear that the trees in Deu 20:19 are fruit trees, and that they were to be spared in the siege. The rendering in our version accords well with the original text, and brings the sense out clearly, and is therefore to be preferred. See further Bib. Com.A. G.].
6. Chap. 21. Deu 21:1-9. Closes the treatment of the sixth command, with a ceremony impressively symbolizing the sacred worth of human life. Deu 21:1. comp. upon Deu 5:16. The case is that of unknown murder. Hence Deu 21:2, beside the elders of Israel (19, 12) i.e. those supposed especially to have knowledge in the case, judges also come into view, both probably from the neighboring cities. The elders of the city, ascertained by these as nearest to the dead, are laid under obligation and indeed as its civil representatives. Not that the murderer was probably from that city (Knobel), nor because it has maintained so poor a police (Schultz), but because blood-guiltiness was upon Israel generally (Deu 19:10), so especially upon the places in the neighborhood of the murder. Hence the transaction with the young heifer, like the institution of the cities of refuge, is to be viewed as a solemnity expressing the abhorrence in Israel, at the shedding of innocent blood. Deu 21:8-9 show that in the nature of the heifer, the sacrificial qualities are near at hand. Comp. upon Deu 15:19, and Num 19:2. The reference of the requisites in Deu 21:3 to the not enfeebling of the vital force by toil (Keil), is too remote, in any case the necessary thought of a peculiar sanctification for the end in view lies nearer, since the thought of life is symbolized, both in the age, and in the female (life-bearing) sex. To this sanctity of the victim corresponds the locality to which it is to be led, Deu 21:4, the common (Deu 5:13 sq.) toil of men (as Deu 21:3) can neither plough nor sow there; generally a waste valley where nothing fruitful is done, where there was no arable ground for seed; it can at the same time represent the absence of any human participation and knowledge in the murder (Deu 21:7) and give a vivid representation of the shedding of the blood of the fallen unknown man. For that there, in the bottom of that valley, untouched by men, the heifers neck was to be broken, plainly states the assassin-like manner in which the one found fallen back wards was killed. The elders by their acts, partly express for their city, that as it lies nearest it comes into account with respect to the murdered one, partly announce their abhorrence as to what has occurred (Exo 13:13; Isa 66:3); not so much that they may symbolically execute the punishment due to the murderer, (Keil), nor even testify in act as much as in them lies, that they are pure from any participation in the guilt, as they have devoted to death something of their own, from which they have not enjoyed any gain, all its profit being still in anticipation (Schultz). The latter ideas scarcely entered into the truly profoundly thoughtful, and yet simple rite. The abhorrence of the murder, as it is directly announced in the mode of the victims death, has clearly the object, on the part of the city, represented by its elders, of removing in the most formal and solemn manner the guilt of blood. According to the form the valley must be , i.e. a brook-valley (wady) which has everflowing (from firm, strong, enduring) water (Psa 74:15; Exo 14:27) which may take away for ever the shed blood of the heifer, in resemblance of the murder, (comp. Deu 21:6). [There is no incongruity between the rendering rough valley and perennial stream, since the narrowest gorge would be skirted by some barren, rocky strips which could not be ploughed or sown.A. G.]. We may either render with Johlson: hard, rocky ground, which is the positive side, of which the following expressions are the negative, or with Herxheimer: the firm ground, which designates very little the firm administration of justice by the judge, which does not come into view here, but rather the firmness of the elders in their abhorrence of the deed. The idea of life in the warding off of death, the thought of the living water (Knobel) indeed upon the lasting verdure (Schultz), must have been derived from Num 19:17; Lev 14:5. The presence of the priests, who could be brought from the nearest Levitical cities, (comp. Intro. 4, I. 22, and upon Deu 10:8; Deu 18:5; Deu 17:8-12) is in entire accordance with the ceremony. They appear with respect to the transaction itself, its religious and symbolical character, as well as with respect to the ethical and legal case to which the transaction refers. As to the first, it is apparent from the close approach to a sacrificial act; they represent in some sense the sanctuary. Comp. Num 19:3-4. The further ceremony, the washing of the hand with water from the brook in the valley, a symbolical declaration of innocence (Psa 26:6; Psa 73:13; Mat 27:24), is performed, by the elders of the nearest city, with reference to its participation in the guilt, over the heifer, which had been treated like the murdered man, and with direct reference to him. But the solemnity of the whole ceremony culminates in the prayer which follows, and in which the explanation of the washing of the hands appears. Deu 21:7. Answer (Deu 19:16) to the question to them contained in the murder, i.e., the accusation, or, they mutually speak, the elders, Deu 21:7, and the priests, Deu 21:8 (Deu 27:14). They neither did the crime, nor knew of it. This blood, as it was represented in that of the heifer, which would otherwise be laid upon them as a capital crime, as if they would say, we know not the murderer, so that we can meet his guilt with a corresponding punishment, Deu 21:8., to cover, conceal, here; the blood, the guilt of it, i.e., to forgive. The essential significance of the ceremony is thus apparent. It represents on one hand what was done by the murderer to the murdered, and on the other hand expresses in the most solemn form the abhorrence of the crime, and the innocence of the city called to account for it. The nature of the act was expiatory, not because the heifer was the substitute of the murderer, but because the city most concerned substituted it for the share of the guilt cleaving to it. Hence the prayer, out of the very nature of the transaction, grounds itself in the redemption from Egypt, whose import with regard to expiation in Israel, for the whole sacrificial service down to its fulfillment in Christ, is thus made apparent. (Comp.Deu 15:15) either with most, lay not the guilt and punishment of innocent blood upon Israel, or, literally, let not such blood appear further in Israel. The result is the actual expiation in every case of the specified crime. The granting of the request cannot be assured. There will ever be innocent blood in its midst, but Deu 21:9, Israel as far as possible should put it away (Deu 19:13) if not through an expiation upon the murderer, still through the prescribed expiatory act, either, because it should do right, sq. or: when it will do right, sq. (Deu 12:25-28). The latter interpretation opens, at the same time, a view as to all the consequences.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. Since the refuge cities are expressly cities of the Levites (Num 35:6) they share in the significance of the dispersion of the Levites among Israel; that they may be a great but divided place of testimony: (Bahr II. 51) i.e. they may afford in particular places what the dwelling of Jehovah, the altar, affords generally. (1Ki 1:50 sq.; Deu 2:28 sq.; Exo 21:14). As knowing the law, and truly as judges, the priests and Levites are brought into view; they knew whether it was murder or a mere casual killing. The separation of these cities of refuge 1) reminds us of the distinction between wilful and unintentional sins, and also of a distinction as to the punishment of sins. Piscator. The O. T. city of refuge is no asylum for the murderer, still less for the insolvent debtor, or the fugitive slave as among the Greeks and Romans; neither was it merely to secure the manslayer from the avenger of blood, for if he left the city before the high-priests death (Num 35:26 sq.) he was exposed to the avenger, but held over him an exile, which was merely an expiation of his deed. (The separation of the cities 2) is a type of our wretched condition, and of our redemption through Christ our High-Priest. Piscator.
2. Since the discourse takes this occasion to treat of war, under the sixth command, the objections against war drawn from this command are without force. The word of God takes the world, as it lies in wickedness, and so regards war as a necessary evil for the present. It speaks to the individual and aids him to peace, it holds out firmly the final prospect of peace generally, only however through crises and wars, which cannot endure. What is possible and what ought to be are different things, Rom 12:18. There are unrighteous wars, which grow out of hatred, selfishness, lust of power, etc. But wars of conquest may also be carried on in the service of a great idea, and rightly become destructive. The war against Canaan (Deu 20:16 sq.) was a sacred war. Comp. Doct. and Eth. upon Deu 1:6; Deu 4:40; par. 9, and upon chap. 7. par. 2. Was it a war expressly commanded by God, Exo 17:14 sq.; Num 24:20; Num 31:2 sq.; Deu 25:17, then it is not merely permitted as the Rabbins distinguish, to make war. It is a duty to make war if there is no possible deliverance otherwise. Defensive wars are necessary. Offensive wars may become obligatory. The so-called blood-letting carried on under the plea of political advantage, the most demoralizing civil wars, should be prevented, but viewed in their higher relations, they have their missionary character, even civilization and Christianity follow them. What does not Christendom, as to its spread in the world, owe to those dialectical popular movements, which are wars, leaving out of view even the fact that war has its destination, to reveal the finite nature of all things, to raise the world to greater piety, and to help it to the knowledge of the one thing needful. (Marheineke theol. moral, p. 329). [The wars of Israel generally though not always were wars of the Lord. Their enemies were His since they were His people. But the war with the Canaanites was peculiarly a war of the Lord. These nations had filled up the measure of their iniquities. The time of judgment had come, and Israel was called to execute that judgment. The command to kill everything that breathed was a judicial sentence. There is nothing in such a command more difficult to explain than in any of the judicial providences of God. And this character of the war must be borne in mind when we are considering the unwonted severity which marked it.A. G.].
3. Moses insists as little as any other writer upon ordinary courage. The O. T. indeed has not cultivated that idea. It puts confidence in God generally in its room; and in the room of warlike courage more definitely confidence in God, who regards human life as sacred and valuable, and therefore preserves it. It corresponds alone also with its religious peculiarity, by virtue of which it was not fitted to cultivate the usual warlike virtues as such, but truly the other less conspicuous but doubtless higher virtues. The rules of war which chap. 20 contains, bear a decided religious stamp upon the ground of the sacredness of life, do not spring from the lower sources of prudence, but from the high, sacred fountain in God.Schultz.
4. The following commands spring especially from two fundamental thoughts 1) Israel is the people of God, and carries on war therefore only in His name; therefore it should not trust to an arm of flesh, but release from duty in war, every one who either had formed a new relation, or even only whose faint-heartedness had taken away that courage of faith which is the strength of the hosts of the Lord. 2). Peace should be dearer to the people of God than war. It never needed to yield to the lust of conquest, and with the exception therefore of the righteous punishments, which as a trust of the Lord it must execute, it must offer peace constantly, and even spare the fruit trees in the fortification and siege.V. Gerlach.
5. Since all expiation in Israel is connected with a sacrifice (Lev 17:11), the expiatory rite, chap. 21 must have a sacrificial character. But as Baumgarten remarks it cannot possibly be literally a propitiatory sacrifice since then it might easily mislead to the idea that a murder could be expiated by a sacrifice. The guilt also is only indirect and relative. It is therefore on the other hand correct to regard the ceremony (Deu 21:5) as belonging to the sphere of law and justice into which the murderer has fallen.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
1. Chap. 19 Deu 19:3. Starke: Thus God prepares the way by His word and Spirit, and by His servants, to His refuge, His Saviour, that nothing may prove a hindrance in the way; as he did through John the Baptist, Mat 3:3. But Christ is equally near all His servants, Mat 11:28; Joh 6:37. Berl. Bib: How excellent is the refuge which tempted and troubled sinners have in Him, in whom is the whole fulness of the Godhead; so that no sin, no law, curse, nor Satan, death or hell, can reach them ! The finger posts point to Him. Joh 1:29. But whoever will have safety in Him must forsake father, mother and all. Psa 45:10; Luk 14:26. Wurth. Bib., Deu 19:10 : Magistrates ought not only to punish the guilty, but protect and save the innocent, Deu 19:1-13. The place of refuge in Israel a security, but no protection for sin. Deu 19:14. Piscator: God cares not only for the body and life of our neighbor, but for all that is necessary for his abode, and purposes that no one shall injure another in this respect. Baumgarten: With these directions the prohibition as to the landmark is so far connected, as it also has its deepest ground in the character of the land as the possession of Jehovah. Hence Moses returns immediately to the judicial investigation of the murder. Berl. Bib.: In Deu 19:14 to prevent civil wars among His people, God forbids any alteration of the limits, once fixed by lot in the division of the land. Each family and tribe should keep within its inheritance. Osiander, Deu 19:20. If the magistrates cannot see the heart, they may prevent the crime from becoming common.
Deu 20:1. Richter. This is not the mere natural encouragement of the war songs. Baumgarten: As the heathen occupy all the land, Israel must enter through contest; but its peaceful and happy life, in its most sensitive points, is not disturbed by war. Deu 20:2-3. Piscator. Example and form of a live field preacher and sermon; is the cause good, are they contending for the word of God and the fatherland, God is present with them and assures the victory. [So especially with Christs soldiers, and in His cause.A. G.]. Starke: Although Gods hand is in wars displeasing to Him, still He is only to be looked for in His gracious presence, in righteous wars. Osiander: If it is not every mans duty to accustom himself to wars, it is every Christians duty to carry on continual warfare with the devil, etc. These rules for natural wars are also for the spiritual; they are in force in the wars of the Lord and will be practically shown in the believer. Deu 20:4. Schultz: The Lord will do the work, His people reap the fruits. How are wars victorious: when in the soldiers there is no other fear than the fear of God, when there is no other trust in weapons than trust in God; when above all the Lord is the captain of the host. Deu 20:5 sq., Richter: God chooses and will have no constrained soldier, Psa 110:3. There is in Deu 20:5-7 at the same time a full estimate of earthly joys which charm the heart only at the beginning, but whose vanity is soon recognized. Deu 20:8, comp. Rev 21:8 and also Jdg 7:3 sq. Deu 20:10. Schultz: Israel, although conquering and transforming the world (Deu 2:25) is a peaceful people. Its final destination, great end, not destruction, but from the beginning the mediator of blessings. Gen 12:3, (Isa 45:14; Isa 49:23) Mat 10:12-13. Deu 20:11-12. Berl. Bib.: Has the Lord for so long a time in his patience invited us to peace! But we choose peace in the flesh. He offers that only through righteousness. Isa 32:17. Let us receive it while there is time. For the Jews who reject Him there remains nothing but the sword, Deu 20:18. Here only tolerance is injurious and blameworthy. Deu 20:19. May be spiritually explained that we should not contend against those who are for us and not against us. Baumgarten: The primitive destination of the fruit tree. Gen 1:29; Gen 2:9; Gen 2:16 sq.; Deu 3:2; Deu 3:22. Israel a tree, Exo 15:17. Humanity even to its extremest limits a charge for Israel. The kingdom of the world is later presented as animal, the kingdom of Israel as a kingdom of men.
Deu 21:2. Piscator. The public highways should be safe. The organic connection in Israel must appear prominently, precisely when a member has been broken off. God lays the duty upon men, does not refer to the lot, to discover the murderer; he should let himself be recognized, or make himself known, to which the ceremony in its publicity and solemnity might contribute. God is the God of order. The extraordinary interventions of God are kept back, behind the order of salvation for the individual and the world, at the same time behind the order of the magistrates for all. Deu 21:3 sq. Lange: For the rest we learn here how we may deal with the sins of others, but should not be partakers in them. Rom 1:32; 2Jn 1:11. Deu 21:6. Calvin: As if they placed the corpse of the dead before God. Deu 21:9. Berl. Bib.: We learn among other things that we should from the heart ask God to pardon our unknown sins of spiritual murder against our neighbor, 1Jn 3:15, and even against ourselves, Eph 4:17-19 (Psa 90:8), for the sake of the blood of Christ, which was poured out in the deep valley of humiliation and in the great thirst of the forsaking of His heart; that God would not impute to us our blood-guiltiness, but be gracious to us for the sake of His dear Son, and forgive our sin.
Footnotes:
[1]Deu 19:4. Margin literally; from yesterday, the third day, or the day before yesterday.A. G.].
[2]Deu 19:5. Literally: findeth.A. G.].
[3]Deu 19:6. Heb. goel.A. G.].
[4]Deu 19:6. Smite him, in life, as the margin, or: to the life, mortally.A. G.].
[5]Deu 19:13. Literally: and good to thee.A. G.].
[6]Deu 20:3. Margin: be tender.]
[7]Deu 20:3. Heb.: make haste.]
[8]Deu 20:6. Make common from laying it open for common use, which was not allowed for the first three years.A. G.].
[9]Deu 20:9. Literally: In the head of the people.A. G.].
[10]Deu 20:19. Literally: for man the tree of the field to come from thy fare in the siege. For the variety of renderings and the plausibility of each, see the Exegesis. Perhaps that chosen by our translationusing the parenthesiswill commend itself as the best.A. G.].
[11]Deu 21:4. The literal rendering is that of Schrder, but the other part of the verse seems to require that of our version, and the Hebrew admits of it.A. G.].
[12][Deu 21:8. Shall be covered to them, atoned for, in this way.A. G.].
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
Provision is made in this chapter for various circumstances, of such things as might arise in the government of Israel. Here are appointments for the discovery of murder: for the marriage of captives taken in war: for preserving the birthright of inheritance to the eldest son of a wife not beloved: for the punishment by stoning of a rebellious son: and for the taking down the bodies of malefactors before sun-set. Such are the contents of this chapter.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
I pause at these verses to remark the particularity of feature in the beast, which was doomed as a victim on this occasion; that it must be one which hath not been wrought with. Is not this typical of him who was doomed to have his blood shed as expiatory, to do away human offences, both those that are known and those that are secret? Did not the SON of GOD, with whom nothing had been wrought of labour or of sin, come down to the valley of this our world, and was he not taken by the elders and rulers of the people, and crucified and slain?
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
(See the Deuteronomy Book Comments for Introductory content and Homiletic suggestions).
XIII
SECOND GREAT ORATION, PART 2
Deuteronomy 12-26
This section is on the second part of the second great oration of Moses, as embodied in Deuteronomy 12-26 inclusive, of the book of Deuteronomy. If you have carefully read all this section, it will be easier for me to emphasize in the brief limits of this chapter the most salient points and easier for you to grasp and retain them. By the grouping of correlated matters under specific heads, the important distinction between many statutes and the constitutional principle from which they are logically derived will become manifest. A constitution is a relatively brief document of great principles, but legislative enactments developing and enlarging them become a library, which continually enlarges, as new conditions require new statement and application.
Yet again you must note that while one discussion arranges in order many statutes, it necessarily leaves out much of the homiletical value of each special statute. Each one of them may be made a text for a profitable sermon. Indeed these fifteen chapters constitute a gold mine of texts for the attentive preacher.
First of all, it should be noted that Moses is speaking here to the whole people as a national unit and concerning the future national life in the Promised Land which they are about to occupy. He carefully puts before them the national ideal of a people belonging to Jehovah separated from other nations and devoted to a special mission. Because addressing the whole people he recalls the history and law in Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers much more particularly than the special legislation of Leviticus relating mainly to the official duties of a single tribe.
Secondly, when he touches the tribe of Levi in Deuteronomy, it is as a part of the nation rather than about their specific duties as priests and Levites. On this account Deuteronomy is called the people’s code and Leviticus the priest’s code. This fact will help us much to understand tithing in Deuteronomy when compared with tithing in the preceding books. Note carefully this point.
While it is difficult to classify satisfactorily such a multitude of topics and laws, we may profitably group the whole section under the following heads:
I. Unity in the Place of National Worship, Deu 12:5
In their pilgrimage history the cloud and the ark, shifting from place to place according to the exigency of travel, designated day by day the central place of worship. But the people are here admonished that when they conquer the land and become a settled people, God himself will designate one fixed locality as the center of national unity and one permanent place of national worship. In Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and I Samuel, when we get to those books, we shall find only a temporary central place, and occasionally, more than one at the same time, the land not yet all conquered, the people not yet all settled, but in David’s time everything prescribed about the central place of worship is fulfilled, Jerusalem is the place thenceforward throughout their history until Jesus, that prophet like unto Moses, comes and says to the woman of Samaria, “Believe me, the hour cometh when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem shall ye worship the Father. Ye worship that which ye know not; we worship that which we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and Truth.”
To this place, that is, the central place of worship, three times a year must the tribes come in national assembly to keep the great festivals of the Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles, and as a nation they must observe the great day of atonement. In this connection observe particularly that the tithing in Deuteronomy, to which we have before referred, is not the first tithe of the other books, which was the Lord’s inheritance and devoted to the general support of the great festivals, in which indeed the Levites share as a part of the people. Hence the Levites’ share of this tithe does not correspond to their title to the whole of the first tithe, and hence the third year’s provision in Deuteronomy for the poor is unlike any provision of the first tithe. If you have that point fixed in your minds, you are able to answer one of the gravest objections ever brought against Deuteronomy, that is, that it contradicts, on the question of tithes, what had been previously said in other books.
The marvelous effect of this one fixed place of national worship, and of these great festivals, on national unity, on the preservation of a pure worship, appears in all their subsequent history and becomes the theme of psalm, song, and elegy. When we get over into the Psalms and the Lamentations of Jeremiah, we will see backward references to this central place of worship. It is in the light of this law that we discover the sin in the later migration of the Danites and their setting up a new place of worship (Jdg 18 , particularly verses Jdg 18:27-31 ); the sin of Jeroboam (1Ki 12:26-33 ); the sin of the Samaritans later, and the sin of a temple in Egypt. That is the first thought, the unity in national worship. For an account of the Samaritan Temple see Josephus, “Antiquities,” Book XI, chapter 8, and for the Egyptian Temple see “Antiquities,” Book XIII, chapter 3.
2. Unity in the Object of Worship
The second thought in this oration is unity in the object of worship, the exclusive worship of Jehovah. Under this head the section prescribes the death penalty on the following:
(1) The false prophet, who however attested by signs and wonders, shall seek to divert the people to the worship of some other god.
(2) Any member of a family, however near and dear the tie of kindred, who sought to induce the rest of the family to turn away from the worship of Jehovah to worship another god, that member of the family had to die.
(3) Any city that turned aside as a municipality to other worship, that city must be placed under the ban and blotted out. If you have been much of a student of classic literature, you must have noticed how each city stresses the worship of some particular patron divinity, as Minerva at Athens, Diana in the City of Ephesus and Venus at Corinth. Now, this law teaches that any city, in its municipal life, turning aside from the worship of Jehovah to worship a false god for local advantage shall be blotted off the face of the map. The underlying principle here is of immense importance in our times. Cities are tempted continually to sacrifice the paramount spiritual and moral interests of the community in order to promote material interests. So in their annual fairs which bring local advantage in commercial affairs, they lose sight of God and handicap what is commendable in these enterprises by overloading them with poisonous and corrupting attachments, and count any man an enemy to his home place, however much he may approve the good, if he protest against the bad. See the striking examples and illustrations in the cases at Philippi and Ephesus (Act 16:19 ).
(4) To show more emphatically that Jehovah alone is God and must be worshiped, the death penalty was assessed on any necromancer, soothsayer or wizard who sought by illicit ways to understand and interpret the future. To Jehovah alone must the people come to know secret things. What he chose to reveal was for them and their children. What he withheld must remain hidden. All prurient curiosity into Jehovah’s domain of revelation must be rebuked; all seeking unto the dead, all fortunetelling and divinations were mortal sins and punishable by death in every case.
(5) All persons guilty of crimes against nature; the nature of the subject forbids me to specify. They were such outrageous violations of the dignity of man made in God’s image, and indicated such disregard for Jehovah that capital punishment alone would meet the requirements of the case.
(6) Every breaker of the covenant must be put to death. If any had knowledge that another had violated the covenant, it became his duty to investigate the case and bring the attention of the magistrates to it. There is a reference to that in the letter to the Hebrews, where it is said, “He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God [offense against the Father], and hath counted the blood of the everlasting covenant an unholy thing [sin against the Son], and hath done despite unto the Spirit of Grace [sin against the Holy Spirit, and an unpardonable sin]?” (Heb 10:28-29 ).
(7) To impress still more this thought of the exclusive worship of Jehovah: There must be no borrowing from other religions in bewailing the dead; Jehovah’s law alone was the one exclusive standard. The custom of cutting themselves, and disfiguring themselves in the days of their mourning as practiced in other religions, finds here a positive prohibition. I stop to say, Oh, what a pity that so soon after apostolic times, in the great apostasy which Paul predicted and which took place in the Roman Catholic development, there was borrowing old robes of every religion in the world.
3. All Administrations of Law Subject to Jehovah
Whether ceremonial law, moral or civil and criminal law, all administration of law was subject to Jehovah. The government was a theocracy pure and simple, no matter whether it remained a republic or became a kingdom, as it did in the days of Saul, it was a theocracy, God was the only real King and governed all officers himself, whether executive, judicial, or religious.
(1) They were representatives of Jehovah and must first of all consider his honor, justice, and mercy. This fact determined the prescribed character and qualifications of every prince, ruler, elder, judge, sheriff and scribe. These officers must be God-fearing men, hating covetousness, impartial and fearing not the face of any man.
(2) They must in judging hear all evidence fairly.
(3) They must not convict except upon adequate testimony.
(4) It took two good witnesses to prove any point.
(5) They must justify the innocent and condemn the guilty without any regard for age, sex, social position, or financial position. Even and exact justice must be administered to all.
(6) Decision when given must be enforced speedily.
(7) If the case was too hard for them, they must appeal to Jehovah and no other for light. A provision was made by which Jehovah would give the right answer in every such case of appeal. What a pity we have not that kind of a supreme court!
(8) The conduct of all their wars must be under the laws prescribed by Jehovah. War must not be declared against any nation except upon his direction. Their later history furnishes many examples of referring the declaration of war to Jehovah, and it furnishes many examples of disaster befalling them when they went to war in their own wisdom and strength. The regulations touching war covered all material points, such as sanitary measures in camp, treatment of prisoners, conducting sieges, and sparing fruit trees when besieging a city. The boasted progress of modern civilization falls far short of the Mosaic code in ameliorating the sufferings and horrors of war. A great Federal general of the War Between the States well said, in view of his own practice in conducting it, “War is hell!”
(9) On account of this subordination to Jehovah, note the remarkable paragraph Deu 21:1-9 , touching civic responsibility in a case of murder where the offender is unknown. In my prohibition speech in the last prohibition contest in Waco, I used that paragraph as a principle upon which prohibition is based. If you will look at the passage in your Bible and mark it, you will notice that the case is this: A man is found murdered and it is not known who killed him; the nearest city thereto is determined by measurement and must purge itself of responsibility for the crime. The municipal officers in that city must come in the presence of that dead body, hold up their hands before God and swear that they are innocent of the blood.
In my speech I recalled the case of the County Attorney of Tarrant County who was shot down on the streets of Fort Worth, his murderer also being killed; nobody could be held directly responsible for the murder. I said, “Suppose the mayor, the city council, and all the other city officers had been required to place their hands on that dead body and swear that no negligence on their part was resposnible for that murder. They could not have taken the oath. Every one would have been convicted, because they were responsible for the conditions that not only made that particular murder possible, but made murder in some cases certain.”
(10) The numerous statutes concerning charities, mercy, and humanity constrain the people to imitate Jehovah himself in dealing with the poor and with the unfortunate. Indeed some of the most beautiful and pathetic of these laws relating to treatment of the lower creatures embody principles capable of application in a wider range of higher things. They reprobate all cruelty and the infliction of all unnecessary suffering as hateful to Jehovah, for example: “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn”; and “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk.”
Once in Waco a young man whom I had known when he was a little fellow came to me bringing a letter purporting to be from his father, commending this young man to me and asking me to help him in any way I could. When he next came and asked me to endorse a paper for thirty dollars, I endorsed it. When it matured, I had to pay it. I wrote to the father about it and he replied that his son had forged that letter, and that is was only one case out of many. That son had broken him up. The boy was arrested on a similar case at Corsicana and sent to the penitentiary. When it was suggested that I testify against him, I would not, because of this scripture, “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.” The only way I could help to convict that boy would be to submit his father’s testimony to prove that he was a forger.
(11) In like manner all laws regulating business, such as weights and measures. Once I called upon a man whose name I will not give, and asked him why, when he bought goods, he weighed on one scale and when he sold goods he sold by another. He said. “They are all right.” I said, “No, sir, you have loaded the one you sell by and whoever buys from you does not get full weight.” All laws touching business, such as weights and measures, the restraints on exacting pledges for debt, the withholding of wages for day laborers which they have fairly earned, the limitations on usury and the like are but expressions of divine mercy and justice and tended to build up an honest and righteous people, not forgetful of mercy.
(12) The social laws concerning marriage, slavery, parental power over children, while far from the highest expression of God’s will, do yet in every particular prohibit many current evils freely practiced in other nations. Our Lord himself explains that on account of their hardness of heart and low order of development imperfect laws were suffered. “The people but recently were a nation of slaves, with much more of the slave spirit remaining. It cannot be denied that even the civil and criminal codes on these points were far superior to the codes of other nations. The sanctity of human life, the sanctity of the home, and the sanctity of the family are marvelously safeguarded in these laws. And wherever this code touched an evil custom, it never approved the evil but limited the power and scope of the evil, as far as the unprepared people were able to bear it.
(13) Restrictions on entering the covenant, Deu 23:1-7 , constitute a paragraph very few people understand. This applied to proselytes from other nations. The body politic must not be corrupted by alien additions that could not be easily assimilated. On that line our own nation is gravely troubled by loose naturalization laws that permit the scum and offscourings of other nations to be absorbed into our national life and so fearfully endanger the perpetuity of free institutions and make our great cities cesspools of iniquity. An orator once prayed, “O that an ocean of fire rolled between us and Europe!” The Pacific Slope seems also praying ,”O that an ocean of fire rolled between us and the Orient!”
(14) The governing Jehovah idea appears in an emphatic way in the paragraph Deu 24:1-11 , where by an offering of a basket of firstfruits the Israelite must confess Jehovah’s absolute ownership over his products and his own unworthy derivation. The oration concludes with his general result: “Thou hast avouched Jehovah this day to be thy God, and that thou wouldest walk in his ways and keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his ordinances, and hearken unto his voice: and Jehovah hath avouched thee this day to be a people for his own possession, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments, etc.”
QUESTIONS
1. What the importance of grouping correlated matters under specific needs and what is a constitution?
2. What the homiletic value of these fifteen chapters?
3. What two things especially noted concerning the second part of Oration Two?
4. Under what three heads does the author group all the material of these fifteen chapters?
5. Under the first head, when was the central place of worship to be established; when, where and by whom actually established; how long continued?
6. How often and at what festivals must the nation assemble at this central place of worship?
7. What bearing has this fact on the tithing question of Deuteronomy?
8. What the marvelous effects of this one fixed place of national worship?
9. Give examples of the violation of this law, and what their particular sin?
10. Under the second head, what cases of violation called for capital punishment?
11. What underlying principle governing the cities is of great importance in our times? Illustrate.
12. What reference to the covenant breaker in the New Testament, and what the threefold sin therein described?
13. Which of these prohibitions are Romanists most guilty of violating?
14. Under the third head (1) What must be the qualifications of all officers? (2) What their several duties? (3) If the case was too hard for them what were they to do? What the provision for Jehovah’s answer? (4) What prescriptions concerning war? (5) How determine civic responsibility in the case of murder where the murderer was unknown? Present day application and illustrate. (6) What laws relating to the poor and to lower animals? (7) What laws regulating business? (8) What social laws? (9) What the restrictions on entering the covenant and the present day application? (10) How does the governing Jehovah idea appear emphatically
15. How does the oration conclude?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Deu 21:1 If [one] be found slain in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, [and] it be not known who hath slain him:
Ver. 1. In the field. ] Or elsewhere; the field is instanced, because in places more frequented, murders are not so easily concealed, or so commonly committed.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Deu 21:1-9
1If a slain person is found lying in the open country in the land which the LORD your God gives you to possess, and it is not known who has struck him, 2then your elders and your judges shall go out and measure the distance to the cities which are around the slain one. 3It shall be that the city which is nearest to the slain man, that is, the elders of that city, shall take a heifer of the herd, which has not been worked and which has not pulled in a yoke; 4and the elders of that city shall bring the heifer down to a valley with running water, which has not been plowed or sown, and shall break the heifer’s neck there in the valley. 5Then the priests, the sons of Levi, shall come near, for the LORD your God has chosen them to serve Him and to bless in the name of the LORD; and every dispute and every assault shall be settled by them. 6All the elders of that city which is nearest to the slain man shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley; 7and they shall answer and say, ‘Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it. 8Forgive Your people Israel whom You have redeemed, O LORD, and do not place the guilt of innocent blood in the midst of Your people Israel.’ And the bloodguiltiness shall be forgiven them. 9So you shall remove the guilt of innocent blood from your midst, when you do what is right in the eyes of the LORD.
Deu 21:1-9 This is a context about how to cleanse the land when a murdered person is found in an open field, away from any city. Murder pollutes YHWH’s land (e.g., Deu 7:13; Deu 11:9; Deu 11:21; Deu 28:11; Deu 30:20) and must be dealt with in an appropriate manner (i.e., sacrifice).
Deu 21:2 elders and judges There are local appointed leaders who sat in the gates of the city and tried the cases of the community. Only if they had a problem did they take the cases to a higher authority (i.e., Levitical priests, cf. Deu 21:5). They measured the distance from the found body to the cities around. The nearest town had to perform certain rituals (cf. Deu 21:3-8). This demonstrates their sense of guilt by proximity. The closest city was responsible for the blood-guiltiness, which could affect YHWH’s blessings on the whole region (cf. Deu 19:13).
Deu 21:3 heifer. . .which has not been worked and which has not pulled in a yoke This means a heifer which has not been used for agricultural work.
Deu 21:4 a valley with running water which has not been plowed or sown The valley, too, had to be unpolluted by human activity or in a natural state. The water symbolized carrying the guilt away (similar to the goat of Leviticus 16).
shall break the heifer’s neck Later rabbis said chopped head off with an ax because breaking the neck was a difficult task (cf. Exo 13:13; Exo 34:20). However, blood does not seem to be involved in the ritual, but the concept of substitution. The innocent heifer ceremonially takes the place of the unknown murderer. The purpose was to rid the land of innocent bloodguiltiness (cf. Num 35:33-34).
Deu 21:5 the priests They may refer later to local Levites.
to bless in the name of the LORD Blessing was one of the functions of priests/Levites (cf. Deu 10:8; 1Ch 23:13). One example of a priestly blessing is recorded in Num 6:22-26. This blessing is related to Israel’s covenant keeping (cf. Num 6:27; Deu 28:3-6). YHWH’s personal presence (i.e., name) was honored or rejected by each Israelite’s obedience or willful disobedience to YHWH’s revelation (i.e., covenant). Israel’s blessing, both individual (cf. Exo 19:5-6) and corporate, was determined not by arbitrary or capricious choice, but by personal faith in YHWH, demonstrated by covenant obedience (lifestyle). YHWH wanted to bless (cf. Exo 20:24; 2Ch 30:27).
every dispute and every assault shall be settled by them The VERB is the common one, to be (BDB 224, KB 243, Qal IMPERFECT). The translation be settled comes from the previous NOUN phrase, by their word (BDB 804).
There are two types of legal problems mentioned:
1. dispute (i.e., lawsuit) – BDB 936, cf. Deu 1:12; Deu 19:17; Deu 21:5; Deu 25:1; Exo 23:2-3; Exo 23:6
2. assault – BDB 619, cf. Deu 17:8. Here it refers to physical attack, but the term can mean disease, cf. Deu 24:8 (many times in Leviticus).
Deu 21:6 wash their hands over the heifer This symbolizes cleansing (cf. Psa 26:6; Psa 73:13) from guilt by the proximity of the dead body. The elders represent the whole community as they corporately wash the guilt away from the village and area.
Deu 21:7 Our hands did not shed this blood nor did our eyes see it The rabbis relate this to help for the stranger, poor, orphan, or widow. Since the villagers did not see the stranger’s need for help they were absolved from meeting that need. This may have been a way to stop the victim’s family (i.e., blood avenger) from killing an innocent member of the nearest village in retaliation.
Deu 21:8
NASB, TEV,
NJBForgive
NKJVProvide atonement
NRSVAbsolve
REBaccept expiation
This is the Hebrew VERB cover ( BDB 497, KB 493, Piel IMPERATIVE). It is used twice in this verse (the second use is a Nithpael PERFECT). This term, so common in Leviticus and Numbers, is used only three times: Deu 21:8[twice] and Deu 32:43). Its basic meaning is to ritually cover by means of a sacrifice.
redeemed This VERB (BDB 804, KB 911, Qal IMPERFECT, but JUSSIVE in meaning) is parallel to forgive (i.e., cover). See Special Topic: Ransom/Redeem .
NASBdo not place the guilt of innocent blood in the midst of Your people
NKJVdo not lay innocent blood to the charge of Your people
NRSVdo not let the guilt of innocent blood remain in the midst of your people
TEVdo not hold us responsible for the murder of an innocent person
NJBlet no innocent blood be shed among your people
The VERB (BDB 678, KB 733, Qal IMPERFECT, but in a JUSSIVE sense) is a prayer for ritual absolution from the consequences of an unsolved murder. Notice how NJB translates the phrase as a JUSSIVE.
Deu 21:9 The ritual (cf. Deu 21:1-8) was seen as purging (BDB 128, KB 145, Piel IMPERFECT) the effects of corporate sin (i.e., unsolved murders) from the whole community (similar to the rituals of the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16). Sin, even unintentional corporate sin, affects the blessing of YHWH and even brings collective wrath (i.e., curses, cf. Deuteronomy 27-29).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
the LORD. Hebrew. Jehovah. App-4.
God. Hebrew. Elohim. App-4.
lying = fallen down.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Now in the 21st chapter.
If you find a dead body out in the field and you don’t know the circumstances of the death; here’s a man; he’s dead in the field. Then they are to measure from that dead body to the closest cities and you are to bring the elders of the city out. They are to sacrifice a bullock and they are to each one swear that they don’t know how this person died. And thus, the cities would be cleared from this person who had been slain and whose body left there in the field. And so it was sort of an inquest kind of a thing for the dead, in order that there might be sort of the innocency, from the declaration of the innocency from the guilt.
Now if you go to war against your enemies,… and you happen to see a beautiful women among the captives, and you want her for your wife: You may take her for your wife, but first of all she has to shave her head, and to pare her nails; and then [for 30 days] she is to put off her robes of captivity, and after 30 days you may take her as your wife. But when you’ve taken her for your wife, then you find out you don’t like her, then you can’t sell her ( Deu 21:10-14 ),
Now in those days, of course, they had slaves and they sold people, and the captives were usually sold as slaves. But the fact you have taken her for your wife, you can put her away. You don’t have to stay with her, but you can’t sell her as a slave.
you can’t make merchandise or money off her, now a man has two wives, and he loves one, and hates the other; if the one he hates has his first born son: [and the one he loves has the second born son. You can’t reverse the inheritance.] you can’t give the second son who was from the wife you loved the first inheritance ( Deu 21:14-16 ).
You can’t reverse the inheritances on these sons. It doesn’t matter if you didn’t care for her so much, you got to give the first born son the first inheritance.
Now of course, in those days, stubborn and rebellious kids got into real trouble.
[Because] if you had a child who is stubborn and rebellious,… you spank him [you’ve done every thing you can to correct him], and he doesn’t behave:… Then you bring him before the elders ( Deu 21:18 , Deu 21:20 ),
And say I have a stubborn and rebellious kid here and I’ve done everything I can to correct him. He is incorrigible. I can’t handle him, then they would stone him to death.
So you would say,
My son is stubborn, he is rebellious, he will not obey; he is a glutton, he’s a drunkard ( Deu 21:20 ).
So the penalty was being stoned.
Now the man is committed a sin worthy of death, and he needs to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged on a tree is accursed of God;) that the land be not defiled, which the Lord God gives you for an inheritance ( Deu 21:22-23 ).
Now this of course becomes interesting to us. Any man who was hung on a tree was cursed of God. Paul tells us that Christ became a curse for us because it is written, “cursed is he who hangs on a tree” ( Gal 3:13 ). Paul was referring to this particular verse here in Deuteronomy.
But showing that Christ became the curse for us in that He took our sins upon Himself when He was hung there upon the tree, He took the curse of God. He bore the curse of God against sin.
When Adam sinned, Adam brought the curse of God upon man, upon woman, and upon the earth itself. God said to Adam that he would be cursed, that the earth would no longer just bring forth for him but actually with the sweat of his brow, would he earn his bread. The earth would actually bring forth thorns, and briars, and thistles. Harvesting your crops is not gonna be easy, your going to have to do it now by the sweat of your brow. Up until then the earth had been just producing, you could go out and get just whatever you want, just enjoy it. Now the curse brought the thorns, the briars, the thistles, and it brought the hard labor for a man to eke out a living from the ground.
To the woman, the curse in childbearing, the labor pains and all: To the ground the curse in bringing forth the thorns and the thistles. And thus there was sort of a three fold curse: upon man, upon woman, and upon the earth itself and of course the forth upon the serpent. It shall go in the dust of the earth on its belly and so forth.
Now Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law being made a curse for us, for it is written cursed is everyone who hangs upon a tree. So you see the law actually cursed me. Man if I was living under this thing I would be stoned to death. The law condemned me to die. But Christ has redeemed me from the curse of the law, because He became a curse for me. He bore the curse for me, because it is written accursed is everyone that hangs upon a tree. By Him being crucified there He bore God’s curse.
Actually it is interesting that when the Roman soldiers made a crown for Him, what kind of a crown did they make? A crown of thorns. And where did the thorns come from? They came from the curse. So the crown that He bore upon His brow was really a sign of the curse of God against the earth because of sin. Really the crown of thorns was a very fitting crown because He came to bear God’s curse against your sin, then hanged upon the tree, redeeming you from the curse of the law.
“
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Sundry laws affecting the life of the people in the land after the conquest were now uttered. The sin of murder was once again dealt with. This time it was the murder of a person which could not be traced to the guilty party. Civic responsibility must be recognized by offering sacrifice.
The question of the marriage of captive women was also dealt with. Should a man set his heart on one of these women, she was to be treated in the most honorable way. The marriage was not to be consummated for a month. If at the close of that time the man were of the same mind, the woman could be married. If not, she was to be allowed to go forth absolutely free.
Then followed laws concerning the inheritance of children. In the existing state of things, it might be that a man would come to hate one of his wives, while he loved another. In such case the children were not to be allowed to suffer. The firstborn was to have the’ rights of the birthright, whether the child of the loved or the hated woman.
While in this way the right of the child was safeguarded, the necessity for parental discipline was enforced, and provision was made that if the child was not amenable to the law of his parents, the city was to act in discipline and in judgment.
Finally, the hatefulness of sin to God was revealed in the injunction that persons hanged on a tree as the result of sin were to be buried immediately.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
17. The Expiation of an Uncertain Murder and Various Instructions
CHAPTER 21
1. The expiation of an unknown murder (Deu 21:1-9)
2. Concerning a wife, who had been a prisoner of war (Deu 21:10-14)
3. The right of the firstborn (Deu 21:15-17)
4. The punishment of a rebellious son (Deu 21:18-21)
5. The burial of one who hanged on a tree (Deu 21:22-23)
The expiation of an unknown murder seems to find an interesting application in the case of the nation itself. Bloodguiltiness is upon them for they cried His blood be upon us and upon our children. And the nation has suffered as the result of it. But there is a full expiation coming through Him who prayed for them on the cross, Father, forgive them for they know not what they do. He died for them as the heifer (the type of Christ) died in the rough valley (the type of His deep humiliation) for the unknown murder. Then the prayer in verse 8 will be graciously answered, when Israel turns to the Lord in the day of His manifestation. Be merciful, O LORD, unto Thy people Israel, whom Thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto Thy people of Israels charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them.
The woman captive desired by an Israelite for a wife could not be one of the Canaanitish races for they were to be all slain; but other Gentiles are meant. She was to be mercifully protected. Polygamy is taken in consideration in verses 15-17 and a law is given in view of it to guard against an abuse in favor of a beloved wife. The son of the hated wife, if he is the firstborn, cannot be defrauded of his birthright; he must receive the double portion. If we look deeper we shall find here too the dispensational lesson concerning Israels relation to Jehovah. Israel has been the unfaithful wife, but she will be reinstated in due time and receive the blessing promised unto her.
The stubborn and rebellious son, who is to be stoned to death, is but another type of the finally disobedient in Israel. While in the future the penitent and believing remnant of Israel will be reinstated in Jehovahs favor and inherit the glorious things promised to them, the apostate part of that nation, going on in self-will and rebellion, will be cut off in judgment. The prophetic Word predicts such a stubborn and rebellious condition among the great mass of that people before the Lord comes. But the same judgment also falls upon the rebellious, disobedient among the Gentiles, those who profess to be children of God, but their disobedience shows that they are not.
The close of this remarkable chapter plainly refers to our blessed Lord and His work on the cross. Gal 3:13 quotes verse 23 and applies it to the Lord Jesus.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Psa 5:6, Psa 9:12, Pro 28:17, Isa 26:21, Act 28:4
Reciprocal: Gen 9:5 – and at Exo 21:29 – his owner also Num 35:33 – it defileth 2Sa 3:28 – guiltless 2Sa 14:9 – and the king 2Sa 21:9 – before the Lord 1Ki 21:8 – the elders
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
VARIOUS REGULATIONS
EXPIATION OF INNOCENT BLOOD (Deu 21:1-9)
These ceremonies showed the sanctity associated with human life. The rough valley of verse 4 is in the Revised Version running water, and the whole was calculated to lead to the discovery of criminals and repress crime.
FEMALE CAPTIVES (Deu 21:10-14)
These regulations were to improve the usages of the nations concerning the capture of females in war. A month was the period of mourning among the Jews, and the details of Deu 21:4 were the signs of grief which the captive must be permitted to manifest for the loss of her parents and old associates now the same as dead. The delay was an act of humanity and kindness.
How further were these virtues to be manifested (Deu 21:14)? We should ever remember that we are comparing conditions not with our present ideas of social and domestic obligations, which are what they are because of the later teachings of the Bible, but with those existing in the days of Moses.
RIGHT OF THE FIRSTBORN (Deu 21:15-17)
In this case it is presupposed that the first wife was dead at the time referred to. The opening of Deu 21:15 should be: If a man have had two wives. In other words, the legislation does not touch a man who has two wives at the same time, for polygamy, while tolerated under the Mosaic law, was never legalized.
PRODIGAL SONS (Deu 21:18-21)
This law was qualified by the fact that the consent of both parents was necessary to its execution.
COMMON HUMANITIES (Deu 22:1-12)
Brother in Deu 22:1 comprehends not only relatives, but neighbors or even strangers which should stand in need of such justice and charity.
The command of Deu 22:6-7 needs reinforcement today in certain quarters. Birds serve important uses in nature, and the extirpation of a species is productive of evils. The mother bird should be left for propagation, but the young occasionally might be taken as a check on too rapid an increase.
There is a lesson in the prohibitions of Deu 22:9-11 to which reference has been made in Leviticus; but touching Deu 22:10 : An ox and ass being of different species, and different characters, cannot associate comfortably, nor unite cheerfully in drawing a plough or a wagon. The ass being smaller and his step shorter, there must be an unequal and irregular draught. Besides, the ass, from feeding on poisonous weeds, has a fetid breath, which its yoke-fellow seeks to avoid, not only as offensive, but producing leanness, or, if long continued, death; and hence it has been observed to hold away its head from the ass, and to pull only with one shoulder.
SEXUAL MATTERS (Deu 22:13-30)
The regulations might be imperatively needful in the then situation of the Israelites; and yet, it is not necessary that we should curiously inquire into them. So far was it from being unworthy of God to leave such things upon record, that the enactments must heighten our admiration of His wisdom and goodness in the management of a people so perverse and so given to irregular passions.
Nor is it a better argument that the Scriptures were not written by inspiration to object that this passage, and others of a like nature, tend to corrupt the imagination, than it is to say that the sun was not created by God, because its light may be abused by men as an assistant in committing crimes.
QUESTIONS
1. What was the intended effect of the legislation about innocent blood?
2. With what conditions should this legislation be compared?
3. Was polygamy legalized by Moses?
4. How is the severity of the legislation about the prodigal son qualified?
5. How does this lesson illustrate the divine care for the comfort of animal life?
6. How would you reply in general terms to arguments against contents of Deu 22:13-20?
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
Deu 21:1-3. Lying in the field Or, in the city, or any place: only the field is named as the place where such murders are most commonly committed. Thy elders and judges Those of thy elders who are judges: the judges or rulers of all the neighbouring cities. Measure Unless it be evident which city is nearest; for then measuring was superfluous. Which hath not drawn in the yoke A fit representation of the murderer, in whose stead it was killed, who would not bear the yoke of Gods laws. A type also of Christ, who was under no yoke but what he had voluntarily taken upon himself.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Deu 21:4. A rough valley. The guilt being transferred to the heifer, the slaying it in a cultivated field would have polluted the ground. The Hebrew altar allowed of no victim to be offered there, when the law sentenced it to die. How blasphemous then is the Irish priest, who hears a confession of murder, and for five shillings conceals the sin!
Deu 21:6-7. All the elders shall wash their hands, and say, Our hands have not shed this blood. The custom of ablution after the shedding of blood seems to have been universal in former ages. See on Gen 31:19. If a heathen had slain a robber, he purified himself before he entered a temple.
Deu 21:11. Seest among the captives a beautiful womanthat thou wouldst have for a wife. Moses did not allow her to be touched, without first being lawfully married at a fixed time: and though he allowed of divorce, and of having two wives, Deu 21:15, it was merely Lex custorum, the law of customs, and nowhere a divine injunction. Divorces, except for adultery, proceeded from the hardness of their hearts.
Deu 21:21. All the men of the city shall stone him. Thousands of parents, yea cities and nations, would have survived, if guilty sons, committing crimes worthy of death, had been stoned. The rape of Helen, as that of the Levites concubine, and other crimes, which slowly murder parents, ought in common justice to have been punished with death. It proved very tragic when Eli spared his sons, and David his Amnon.
REFLECTIONS.
Israel being in covenant with God, no crimes could remain unpurged. The sins of the nation were removed evening and morning by the oblation of a lamb, whose body was, in fact, burning night and day upon the altar. The sin also of every secret murder must be purged with the blood of a heifer, a sacrifice adequate to purge the sins of the whole nation. Washing of hands, protestations of innocence, and prayers for pardon must be joined with sacrifice. How precious in the eyes of the Lord is the life of man; and how great the crime of slaying a man, made in the image of God! How happy also is that nation who have magistrates and ministers whose pious care it is to purge the people of crimes, and to turn away the wrath of heaven from their country. The allowance of a full month for a woman taken in war, to mourn for the dead, and purify herself before marriage, teaches us that all persons in trouble ought to be commiserated and indulged; and that the lawless lusts of military triumph are an abomination in the sight of the Lord. Consequently that general who does not deter his men from those crimes, by executing the ringleaders, throws the whole guilt on himself, and on his country. Injustice once sanctioned by the ministers of justice, becomes the last of crimes.
The punishment here denounced against a prodigal, whose vices rendered him insupportable to his own parents, however extraordinary and severe, is highly equitable. If the tender feelings of humanity revolt at the sentence; let our more sober judgment say, what is due to a youth who daily robs his parents, riots in taverns, blasphemes the name of God, and uses violence in the commission of crimes. Shall Eli merely say, Nay, my sons, this is no good report that I hear of you, till the old man loses his mitre, his life, by sparing his guilty sons; and till Israel loses the ark? Rather let us say with Solomon, Whoso curseth father or mother, his light shall go out in obscurity, and the young eagles of the valley shall pick out his eyes. Surely this united kingdom, as well as Israel, is in danger from a multitude of profligate youths.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Deuteronomy 21
“If one be found slain in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who hath slain him; then thy elders and thy judges” – the guardians of the claims of truth and righteousness – ” shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities that are round about him that is slain; and it shall be, that the city which is next unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take an heifer, 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 rough valley which is neither eared nor sown and shall strike off the heifer’s neck there in the valley. And the priests the sons of Levi – exponents of grace and mercy – “shall come near; for them the Lord thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the Lord, and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried” – blessed, comforting fact! – “And all the elders of that city, that are next unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley; and they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. Be merciful, O Lord, unto thy people Israel whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood to thy people of Israel’s charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them. So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the Lord.” (Vers. 1-9.)
A very interesting and suggestive passage of holy scripture now lies open before us, and claims our attention. A sin is committed, a man is found slain in the land; but no one knows ought about it, no one can tell whether it is murder or manslaughter, or who committed the deed. It lies entirely beyond the range of human knowledge. And yet, there it is, an undeniable fact. Sin has been committed, and it lies as a stain on the Lord’s land, and man is wholly incompetent to deal with it.
What then is to be done? The glory of God and the purity of His land must be maintained. He knows all about it, and He alone can deal with it; and truly His mode of dealing with it is full of most precious teaching.
First of all, the elders and judges appear on the scene. The claims of truth and righteousness must be duly attended to; justice and judgement must be perfectly maintained. This is a great cardinal truth running all through the word of God. Sin must be judged, ere sins can be forgiven, or the sinner justified. Ere mercy’s heavenly voice can be heard, justice must be perfectly satisfied, the throne of God vindicated, and His Name glorified. grace must reign through righteousness. Blessed be God that it is so! What a glorious truth for all who have taken their true place as sinners! God has been glorified as to the question of sin, and therefore He can, in perfect righteousness, pardon and justify the sinner.
But we must confine ourselves simply to the interpretation of the passage before us; and, in so doing, we shall find in it a very wonderful onlook into Israel’s future. True, the great foundation truth of atonement is presented; but it is with special reference to Israel. The death of Christ is here seen in its two grand aspects, namely, as the expression of Man’s guilt, and the display of God’s grace, the former we have in the man found slain in the field; the latter in the heifer slain in the rough valley. The elders and the judges find out the city nearest to the slain man; and nothing can avail for that city save the blood of a spotless victim – the blood of the One who was slain at the guilty city of Jerusalem.
The reader will note, with much interest, that the moment the claims of justice were met by the death of the victim, a new element is introduced into the scene. “The priests the sons of Levi shall come near.” This is grace acting on the blessed ground of righteousness. The priests are the channels of grace, as the judges are the guardians of righteousness. How perfect, how beautiful is scripture, in every page, every paragraph, every sentence! It was not until the blood was shed that the ministers of grace could present themselves. The heifer beheaded in the valley changed the aspect of things completely “The priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the Lord thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the Lord; and by their word” – blessed fact for Israel! blessed fact for every true believer! – “shall every controversy and every stroke be tried.” All is to be settled on the glorious and eternal principle of grace reigning through righteousness.
Thus it is that God will deal with Israel by-and-by. We must not attempt to interfere with the primary application of all those striking institutions which come under our notice in this profound and marvellous book of Deuteronomy. No doubt, there are lessons for us – precious lessons; but we may rest perfectly assured that the true way in which to understand and appreciate those lessons is to see their true and proper bearing. For instance, how precious, how full of consolation, the fact that it is by the word of the minister of grace that every controversy and every stroke is to be tried, for repentant Israel by-and-by, and for every repentant soul now! Do we lose ought of the deep blessedness of this by seeing and owning the proper application of the scripture? Assuredly not; so far from this, the true secret of profiting by any special passage of the word of God is to understand its true scope and bearing.
“And all the elders of that city that are next unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley.”* “I will wash my hands in innocency; and so will I compass thine altar.” The true place to wash the hands is where the blood of atonement has for ever expiated our guilt. “And they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. Be merciful, O Lord, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel’s charge. and the blood shall be forgiven them.”
{*How full of suggestive power is the figure of “the rough valley! ” How aptly it sets forth what this world at large, and the land of Israel in particular, was to our blessed Lord and Saviour! Truly it was a rough place to Him, a place of humiliation, a dry and thirsty land a place that had never been eared or sown. But, all homage to His Name! by His death in this rough valley, He has procured for this earth and for the land of Israel a rich harvest of blessing which shall be reaped throughout the millennial age to the full praise of redeeming love. And even now, He from the throne of heaven’s majesty, and we, in spirit with Him, can look back to that rough valley as the place where the blessed work was done which forms the imperishable foundation of God’s glory, the church’s blessing, Israel’s full restoration, the joy of countless nations, and the glorious deliverance of this groaning creation.}
“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” “Unto you, first, God having raised up his Son Jesus sent him to bless you, by turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” Thus all Israel shall be saved and blessed by-and-by, according to the eternal counsels of God, and in pursuance of His promise and oath to Abraham, ratified and eternally established by the precious blood of Christ, to whom be all homage and praise, world without end!
Verses 10-17 bear, in a very special way, upon Israel’s relationship to Jehovah. We shall not dwell upon it here. The reader will find numerous references to this subject, throughout the pages of the prophets, in which the Holy Ghost makes the most touching appeals to the conscience of the nation – appeals grounded on the marvellous fact of the relationship into which He had brought them to Himself, but in which they had so signally and grievously failed. Israel has proved an unfaithful wife, and, in consequence thereof, has been set aside. But the time will come when this long rejected but never forgotten people shall not only be reinstated but brought into a condition of blessedness, privilege and glory beyond anything ever known in the past.
This must never, for a moment, be lost sight of or interfered with. It runs like a brilliant golden line through the prophetic scriptures from Isaiah to Malachi; and the lovely theme is resumed and carried on in the New Testament. Take the following glowing passage, which is only one of a hundred. “For Zion’s sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof Go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth. And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory; and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name. Thou shalt also be a crown of glory in the hand of the Lord, and a royal diadem in the hand of thy God. Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate; but thou shalt be called Hephzi-bah [My delight is in her], and thy land Beulah [married]; for the Lord delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married. For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy Sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee. I have set watchmen upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, which shall never hold their peace day nor night; ye that make mention of the Lord, keep not silence, and give him no rest, till he establish, and till He make Jerusalem a praise in the earth. The Lord hath sworn by his right hand, and by the arm of his strength” – let men beware how they meddle with this! – “Surely I will no more give thy corn to be meat for thine enemies; and the sons of the stranger shall not drink thy wine, for the which thou hast laboured; but they that have gathered it shall eat it, and praise the Lord; and they that have brought it together shall drink it in the court of my holiness…. Behold, the Lord hath proclaimed unto the end of the world, Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh; behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him. And they shall call them, The holy people, The redeemed of the Lord; and thou shalt be called, Sought out, A city not forsaken.” (Isa. 62)
To attempt to alienate this sublime and glorious passage from its proper object, and apply it to the Christian church, either on earth or in heaven, is to do positive violence to the word of God, and introduce a system of interpretation utterly destructive of the integrity of holy scripture. The passage which we have just transcribed with intense spiritual delight, applies only to the literal Zion, the: literal Jerusalem, the literal land of Israel. Let the reader see that he thoroughly seizes and faithfully holds fast this fact.
As to the church, her position on earth is that of an espoused virgin, not of a married wife. Her marriage will take place in heaven. (Rev. 19: 7, 8) To apply to her such passages as the above is to falsify her position entirely, and deny the plainest statements of scripture as to her calling, her portion, and her hope, which are purely heavenly.
Verses 18-21 of our chapter record the case of “a stubborn and rebellious son.” Here again we have Israel viewed from another standpoint. It is the apostate generation for which there is no forgiveness. “If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them; then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; and they shall say unto 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. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die; so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear and fear.
The reader may, with much interest, contrast the solemn action of law and government, in the case of the rebellious son, with the lovely and familiar parable of the prodigal son, in Luke 15. Our space does not admit of our dwelling upon it here, much as we should delight to do so. It is marvellous to think that it is the same God who speaks and acts in Deuteronomy 21 and in Luke 15. But oh! how different the action! how different the style! Under the law, the father is called upon to lay hold of his son, and bring him forth to be stoned. Under grace, the father runs to meet the returning son; falls on his neck and kisses him; clothes him in the best robe, puts a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet; has the fatted calf killed for him; seats him at the table with himself, and makes the house ring with the joy that fills his own heart at getting back the poor wandering spendthrift.
Striking contrast! In Deuteronomy we see the hand of God, in righteous government, executing judgement upon the rebellious. In Luke 15 we see the heart of God pouring itself out, in soul-subduing tenderness, upon the poor repentant one, giving him the sweet assurance that it is His own deep joy to get back His lost one. The persistent rebel meets the stone of judgement; the returning penitent meets the kiss of love.
But we must close this section by calling the reader’s attention to the last verse of our chapter. It is referred to in a very remarkable way by the inspired apostle, in Galatians 3 “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.”
This reference is full of interest and value, not only because it presents to us the precious grace of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in making Himself a curse for us, in order that the blessing of Abraham might come on us poor sinners of the Gentiles; but also because it furnishes a, very striking illustration of the way in which the Holy Spirit puts His seal upon the writings of Moses, in general, and upon Deuteronomy. in particular. All scripture hangs together so perfectly that if one part be touched you mar the integrity of the whole. The same Spirit breathes in the writings of Moses, in the pages of the prophets, in the four evangelists, in the Acts, in the apostolic epistles general and particular, and in that most profound and precious section which closes the divine Volume. We deem it our sacred duty (as it is, most assuredly, our high privilege) to press this weighty fact upon all with whom we come in contact; and we would, very earnestly, entreat the reader to give it his earnest attention, to hold it fast and bear a steady testimony to it, in this day of carnal laxity, cold indifference and positive hostility.
Fuente: Mackintosh’s Notes on the Pentateuch
Deu 21:1-9. See W. R. Smith, Kinship1 p. 263 (= 64f. in Kinship2) for a similar law among the ancient Arabs. The ground of this law may be the belief that, until avenged or atoned for, a murdered mans blood defiles a land and its people. Note the idea that the community (here the nearest town) is responsible for the act of an individual. The conception of individual responsibility becomes specially prominent in Jer 31:29, Eze 14:12 ff., Eze 18:2 f. The solidarity of the family, tribe, and nation had been emphasized in early writings, the whole suffering for the sins of each one; see Deu 13:7, Exo 20:5 f., CH, 23f., and for modern Arabia, Doughty, Arabia Deserta, i. 176; also the valuable treatise of M. Lhr, Socialismus und Individualismus im AT (reviewed by the present writer in RTP, viii. p. 578ff.).
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
UNSOLVED MURDER
(vs.1-9)
If one was killed and his body found removed from any city or town, the murderer being unknown, then elders and judges of Israel were required to ascertain what was the nearest city. Then the elders of that city must take the responsibility of facing this righteously.
This involved taking a young heifer that had never been worked or yoked for service, bringing it down to a valley where there was running water, a valley in its pristine condition. There the elders were to break the heifer’s neck (v.4). This was not at all a sacrifice, no matter of bloodshed. In fact, it is a reminder of Exo 13:13, “Every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb; and if you will not redeem it, then you shall break its neck.” This is judgment rather then sacrifice. It would therefore be a condemnation of the murderer, though it was not known who he was.
In the case of a person found dead in a field, when the elders had broken the neck of the heifer, the priests were to be present as witnesses to the declaration of the elders of the city nearby, who were to wash their hands over the heifer in token of their hands being clean in reference to the murder that had taken place (v.6). This was no confession of guilt, but the opposite. Then they were to make the declaration as representing the city itself, that their hands had not shed this innocent blood, nor did they have any knowledge of the incident (v.7).
They bring no offering to make atonement for the guilt, because the guilty person was not known, but they were to ask the Lord to provide atonement according to His own perfect wisdom, and that He would not charge Israel with the guilt of this murder (v.8). Thus they would clear themselves fully from any identification with the evil. God would Himself provide atonement on their behalf, and the guilt of innocent blood would be put away (vs.8-9).
FEMALE CAPTIVES
(vs.10-14)
If in battle with nations outside the land Israel took captives, it could be that a man would see among the captives a woman whom he desired as a wife (vs.10-11). Of course the men from that nation would have been killed (Deu 20:13-14). The woman could be brought home to the house of the man who desired her, have her head shaved and her finger nails trimmed (for it was part of the religion of ungodly nations that they had long finger nails and hair intertwined with idolatrous jewels), change from the clothes of a captive, and remain in the house for a full month to mourn for her father and mother, before she could be married to her suitor.
If, however, the man was disappointed in the woman, he was to set her free, not selling her and not treating her brutally. The month in which she stayed in his house would be enough for him to observe whether he was satisfied with her, so that, if not, there would be no reason to marry her.
AS TO RIGHTS OF INHERITANCE
(vs.15-17)
If a man had two wives (as Jacob did), one favored above the other, and the less favored bore his first son, then he must not deprive the son of his firstborn status to give this to the son of his favorite wife (vs.15-16). He must bequeath a double portion to the firstborn in acknowledgment of his prime place (v.17). Men were not allowed to change this, though God on some occasions did set aside the rights of a firstborn to give these to a younger son, as in the case of Ishmael and Isaac (Gen 17:18-21), of Esau and Jacob (Gen 25:23) and predominantly of Adam and Christ (Col 1:15).
REBELLION TO BE PUNISHED
(vs.18-21)
One might think that if he was the firstborn he had a right to be rebellious, or another might be rebellious because he was not the firstborn. But God does not tolerate rebellion, which springs from the pride of thinking that only one’s own opinions are worth considering. God has instituted parental authority, and one stubbornly rebellious against his parents was to be brought by them to the elders of the city, the place of judgment (the gate) (vs.18-19).
The witness of his parents was then sufficient to the effect that their son was stubborn and rebellious, a glutton and a drunkard. In this case he had become unmanageable, and sentence was to be immediately executed by the stoning of the young man to death (vs.20-21). This was the law, judgment without mercy. While rebellion is no less evil today in God’s eyes, yet in the present day of grace God is patiently delaying judgment in desire that men may repent and be saved. But under law, judgment was carried out to make others fear the consequences of rebellion.
HANGING NOT TO BE PROTRACTED
(vs.23-24)
When the death penalty was incurred because of a crime, only certain crimes called for hanging the body, for this indicated one dying under the curse of God (v.23). It was intended as a public disgrace and a warning to others. But that disgrace was not to be continued beyond the day of hanging. Gal 3:13 shows this to be predominantly applicable to the Lord Jesus, who was on Calvary made a curse for us, subjected to the most dreadful disgrace for our sakes. But this awful course was confined to that one day. When His great work of atonement was finished, the body of the Lord Jesus was taken by those who loved him and laid in a grave (Jn.l9:38-42). We shall never understand the depths of agony He suffered under the curse of God for our sakes, but we thank God His work has been so perfectly done that He has been raised from the dead and is alive forevermore, thereby assuring believers of their eternal redemption. The result of His bearing that curse of God is blessing for Himself for eternity, and blessing for all those who have put their trust in Him.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
21:1 If [one] be found {a} slain in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, [and] it be not known who hath slain him:
(a) This law declares how horrible murder is, seeing that because of one man a whole country will be punished, unless remedy is found.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Unsolved murders 21:1-9
"The reason for grouping these five laws [in ch. 21], which are apparently so different from one another, as well as for attaching them to the previous regulations, is to be 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." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 3:404.]
Cities were responsible for murders committed within their jurisdictions. This indicates that there is such a thing as corporate guilt in God’s government. The ritual prescribed removed the pollution caused by bloodshed.
The heifer (young cow) represented the unknown murderer. It was his substitute. It was to be an animal that had not done hard labor; its vital force was undiminished (Deu 21:3). The leaders were to take this heifer into an unplowed field in a valley where there was running water and break its neck. The breaking of the neck symbolized the punishment due the murderer but executed on his substitute. The blood of the heifer would fall on unplowed ground that would absorb it. It would disappear rather than turning up at some future date because of plowing. The water cleansed the hands of the elders who had become ritually defiled by the shedding of the sacrifice’s blood. This ritual removed the impurity that would rest on the people of the city because someone they could not find had shed human blood near it. It atoned for this guilt in such a case. One writer explained that the practice of performing rituals to remove impurity from human habitations and human concerns not only occurs in other parts of the Bible, such as Leviticus 10, 14, 16 and 1 Samuel 5, but also in the literature of the Hittites and Mesopotamians. [Note: David P. Wright, "Deuteronomy 21:1-9 as a Rite of Elimination," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49:3 (July 1987):387-403.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
THE ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF ISRAELITE LIFE
IT has often and justly been said that the life of Israel is so entirely founded on the grace and favor of God that no distinction is made between the secular and the religious laws. Whatever their origin may have been, whether they had been part of the tribal constitution before Moses day or not, they were all regarded as Divinely given. They had been accepted as fit building stones for the great edifice of that national life in which God was to reveal Himself to all mankind, and behind them all was the same Divine authority. That being so, it is not wonderful, in times like these, when the air is full of plans and theories for the reconstruction of society in the interest of the toiling masses of men, that believers in the Scriptures should turn with hope to the legislation of the Old Testament. In the present state of things the material conditions of life are far more deadening and demoralizing for the multitude in civilized countries than they are in many uncivilized lands. That this should be so is intolerable to all who think and feel; and men turn with hope to a scene where God is teaching and training men, not merely in regard to their individual life, as in the New Testament, but also in regard to national life. It is seen, too, that the tone and feeling of these laws are sympathetic for the poor as no other code has ever been; and many maintain that, if we would only return to the provisions of these laws, the social crisis which is as yet only in its beginning, and which threatens to darken and overshadow all lands, would be at once and wholly averted. Men consequently are diligently inquiring what the land tenure of ancient Israel was, what its trade laws were, how the poor were dealt with, and how and to what extent pauperism was averted or provided for. Many say, If God has spoken in and by this people, so that their first steps in religion and morals have been the starting-point for the highest life of humanity, may we not expect that their first steps in political and social life will have the same abiding value, if rightly understood? Now the main thing in regard to which the economical arrangements of a nation are important is land. In modern times there may be some exceptionally situated communities, such as the British people, among whom commerce and manufactures are more important than agriculture; but in ancient times no such case could arise. In every community the land and the land tenure were the fundamentally important things.
Now the fundamental thing concerning it was that Yahweh, being the King of Israel, who had formed and was guiding this people as His instrument for saving the world, and who had bestowed their country upon them, was regarded as the sole owner of the soil. It is not necessary to quote texts to prove this, since it is the fundamental assumption throughout the Old Testament Scriptures that the Israelite title to their land was the gift of Yahweh. He had promised it to the fathers. He had driven out the Canaanite nations before Israel. He had by His mighty hand and His stretched-out arm established His chosen people in the place which He had chosen, and He had granted them the use and enjoyment of it so long as they proved faithful to Him. Consequently, in a quite real and palpable sense, there was no owner of land in Israel save Yahweh. And this thought was not without practical consequences of great moment. It was not a mere religious sentiment, it was a hard and palpable fact, that Yahweh ruled. Absolute proprietorship could never be built up on that basis, and never, as a matter of fact, was acknowledged in Israel. All were tenants, who held their places only so long as they obeyed the statutes of Yahweh. The sale in perpetuity of that which had been portioned out to tribes and families was consequently entirely prohibited. As against other nations, indeed, Israel was to possess this land, so that no heathen could be permitted to buy and possess even a scrap of it; but as against Yahweh and the purposes for which He had chosen Israel, all were equally strangers and sojourners, practically tenants at will, who could neither give nor take their holdings as if they were absolutely theirs. Yet, relatively, the land was given to the community as a whole, and according to Jos 13:7 sqq. (a passage generally assigned to the Deuteronomic editor) it was parceled out by lot to the various tribes just before Joshuas death, according to their respective numbers. Then within the tribal domain the families in the wider sense had their portion, and within these family domains again the individual households. In this way the Israelite tenure of land occupies a middle point between the theories of Socialism and the high doctrine of private property in land which declares that the individual owner can do what he will with his own. The nation as a whole claimed rights over all the land, but it did not attempt to manage the public estate for the common good. It delegated its powers to the tribes. But not even they undertook the burdens of proprietorship. Under them the families undertook a general superintendence; but the true proprietary rights, the cultivation of the soil, and the drawing of profit from it, subject only to deductions made by the larger bodies, the families, the tribes, and the nation, were exercised only by individuals. The nation took care that none of its territory should be sold to foreigners, lest the national inheritance should be diminished, and the tribes did the same for the tribal heritage, as we see from the narrative concerning the daughters of Zelophehad. It was only within limits, therefore, and the individual proprietor was free; and though the rights of property were respected, the corresponding duties of property were set forth with irresistible clearness. The community, in fact, never abandoned its claims upon the common heritage, any more than Israels Divine King did, and consequently the field within which proprietary rights were exercised was more restricted here than in any modern state.
Further, besides the prohibition of absolute sale which flowed from the recognition of Yahwehs ownership, and the limitations which tribal and family claims involved, there were distinct provisions in which the national ownership under Yahweh was plainly asserted. For example, it is enacted Deu 23:24 -“When thou comest into thy neighbors vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel. When thou comest into thy neighbors standing corn, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbors standing corn.” Allied to these were the provisions (Lev 19:9 ff; Lev 23:10) concerning gleaning, and not reaping the corners of the field. It will be observed that, though these latter may be discounted as intended for the relief of the poor alone, the former provision was for all, and that consequently it may be regarded as an undoubted assertion of the common ownership, or common usufruct, which, though latent, was always held to be a fact. In other ways also the same hint is given. The provisions for letting the land lie fallow in the seventh year and in the jubilee year, and for securing the use of what grew in the field for all who chose to take it, were interferences with the free-will of the individual owners or occupiers, which find their justification only in the fact that the general ownership was never suffered entirely to fall into the background.
To sum up then: this system aimed at securing the advantages both of the socialist view and of the individualistic view while avoiding the evils of both. Private enterprise was encouraged, by the individual being guaranteed possession of his land against any other individual; while public spirit and a regard for general interests were promoted by the restrictions which limited the private ownership. Further, and more important still, the whole relation of the nation and of the individual to the land was raised out of the merely sordid region of material gain into the spiritual and moral region, by the principle that Yahweh their God alone had full proprietary rights over the soil. All were “sojourners” with Him. He had promised this land to their fathers as the place wherein He should specially reveal Himself to them. Here, communion with Him was to be established, and to each household there had been assigned by Yahweh a special portion of it, which it would be equally a sin and an unspeakable loss to part with. Compulsion alone could justify such a surrender; and the completed legislation, whatever its date, and even if it remained always an unrealized ideal, shows how determined the effort was to secure the perpetuity of the tenure in the original hands. The ideal of Israelite life was consequently that the land should remain in the hands of the hereditary owners, and that the main support of all the people should be agricultural labor.
The hypothesis that this was the case is strengthened to a certainty by the manner in which commerce, one of the other main sources of wealth, is dealt with in the Israelite law. There is but little sympathy expressed with it, and some of the regulations issued are such as to render trade on any very large scale within Palestine itself impossible. From the use of the word “Canaanite” in the Old Testament {el. Job 41:6 Pro 31:24 Zep 1:2 Eze 17:4, and Isa 23:8} it is clear that, even in the later periods of Israelite history, the merchants were so prevailingly Canaanites that the two words are synonymous. Nay, more; there can be no doubt that the commercial career was looked down upon. Even as early as the prophet Hosea the Canaanite name is connected with false weights and vulgar commercial cheating, {Hos 12:7} and it is looked upon as a last degradation that Ephraim should take delight in similar pursuits. In all that we read of merchants in the Old Testament we seem to hear the expression of a feeling that commerce, with its necessary wanderings, its temptations to dishonesty, its constant contact with heathen peoples, was an occupation that was unworthy of a son of Israel. Even Solomons success as a royal merchant would not seem to have overcome this feeling, nor did the later commercial successes of kings like Jehoshaphat. In fact the ordinary Israelite had the home-staying farmers contempt and suspicion of these far-wandering commercial people, so much more nimble-witted than himself, who were therefore to be regarded with half-admiring wariness.
But the very sinews of extensive commerce were cut by the law against the taking of interest from a brother Israelite. Without credit, or the lending of money, or what is called sleeping partnership (and all these are bound up with receiving interest), it is impossible to have extensive trade. Without them every merchant would have to limit his operations to cash transactions and to his own immediate capital, and the great combinations which especially bring wealth would be impossible. Now we do not need at present to discuss the wisdom of prohibiting the taking of interest, nor the still more debated question whether that ancient prohibition would be wise or advantageous now. It is enough for our purpose that usury in its literal sense was actually forbidden among Israelites, and that they were thus shut out from the developed commercial life of the surrounding nations. As a result trade remained in a merely embryonic condition.
But in still other ways the Sinaitic legislation interfered with its development. The inculcation of ceremonial purity, especially in food, and the effort to make Israel a peculiar people unto Yahweh, which distinguishes even the earlier forms of the law, made intercourse with foreigners and living abroad always difficult and under some circumstances impossible. Consequently all the legislation that can possibly be considered commercial was of a very rudimentary character. From every point of view it is clear that ancient Israel was not a commercial people, and that the Divine law was intended to restrain them from commercial pursuits. They could not have been the holy and peculiar people they were meant to be, had they become a nation of traffickers.
With regard to manufacturing industries the case was not essentially different. Such pursuits were, it is true, more honored than commerce was, for skill in all arts, whether agricultural or industrial, was regarded as a special gift of the Almighty. But so far as the records go, there is no evidence that a manufacturing industry existed, beyond what the very limited needs of the nation itself demanded. From the fact that, according Pro 31:24, which was probably written late in the history of Israel, the manufacturing of linen garments for sale and of girdles for the Canaanites was the business of the thrifty and virtuous housewife, we may gather that systematic wholesale manufacture of such things was unknown. Probably the case was not otherwise in regard to all branches of industry. There are no traces of trade castes, nor of manufacturing towns; so that the manufacturing industries, so far as they existed, had no other place than that of handmaids to agriculture, by which the nation really lived.
According to the Old Testament, then, the ideal state of things for a people like Israel was that every household should be settled upon the land, that permanent eviction from or even alienation of the holdings should be impossible, and that the whole population should have a common interest in agriculture, that most honorable and fundamental of all human pursuits.
There were, of course, some men in Israel more prominent than others, and some richer, but there was to be no impassable barrier between classes such as we find in Eastern countries where caste prevails, or in Western countries where the aristocratic principle has drawn a deep dividing line between those of good blood and all others. So far as is known, there were no class barriers to intermarriage. From the highest to the lowest, all were servants of Yahweh, and were consequently equal. The conditions of the land tenure were such that it was impossible, if they were respected, that large estates should accumulate in the hands of individuals, and a landless proletariate could not arise. The very rich and the very poor were alike legislated out of existence, and a sufficient provision for all was that which was aimed at. By the cycle of Sabbatic periods (the weekly Sabbath, the Sabbatic year, and the year of jubilee) ample rest for the land and its inhabitants was secured; and in the limits set upon the period for which a Hebrew slave might be retained, in the release, whatever that was, which the seventh year brought to the debtor, and in the restoration of land to the impoverished owner in the year of jubilee, such a series of breakwaters were erected against the inrushing flood of pauperism, that, had they been maintained, the world would have seen for the first time a fairly civilized community in which even moderate ill-desert in a man could not bring irretrievable ruin upon his posterity. The prodigal was hindered from selling his heritage; he could only sell the use of it for a number of years. He could not ruin himself by borrowing at extravagant rates of interest, for no one was tempted to lend him, and usury was forbidden. He might indeed run into debt and be sold into slavery along with his family, but that could only be for a few years, and then they all resumed their former position. In this very land where the fact, Divinely impressed upon human life, that the sins of the fathers were visited on the children was most unflinchingly taught, the most elaborate precautions were taken to mitigate the severity of this necessary law. From the first the ideal was that there should be no son or daughter of Israel oppressed or impoverished permanently; and whatever the stages of advance in Israelite law may have been, and whatever the date of particular ordinances may be, there is an admirable consistency of aim throughout. Even should it be proved that the Sabbatic ordinances remained mere generous aspirations, which never entered into the practical life of the people at all, that fact would only emphasize the earnestness and persistency with which the inspired legislators pursued their generous aim. No change in circumstances turned them aside. The glitter of the wealth acquired by Solomon and other kings by commerce never seduced them. No ideal but that early one of every man sitting under his own vine and his own fig-tree, with none to make him afraid, which is witnessed to before the Exile, {Mic 4:4} in the Exile, {1Ki 4:25} and after the Exile, {Zec 3:10} was ever cherished by them; and the whole economic legislation is entirely consistent with what we know of the earliest time. And the deepest roots of it all were religious. The Biblical writers have no doubt at all that the ideal economic state can be reached only by a people attuned by religion to self-sacrifice, to pity, and to justice. In this they differ radically from the socialists or semi-socialists of today. These imagine that man needs only a favorable environment to become good; whereas the Scriptural writers know that to use well the best environment is a task which, more than anything, puts strain upon the moral and spiritual nature. For to deal in a supremely wise fashion with great opportunities is the part only of a nature perfectly moralized. Consequently all the social laws of Israel are made to have their root in the relation of the people to their God.
There was only one power that could secure that this admirable machinery would move, and keep it moving. That was the love and fear of God. The conduct prescribed was the conduct befitting the true Israelite, the man who was faithful in all his ways. The laws marked out the paths wherein he should walk if he willed to do Gods will. They were, therefore, ideal in all their highest prescriptions, and could never; become real except where the true religion had had its perfect work. In that respect the Sermon on the Mount resembles the Israelite law. It presupposes a completely Christian society, just as the old law presupposes a completely Yahwistic society, i.e., a society made up of men who made devotion to their God the chief motive of their lives. In such a community there would have been no difficulty in entirely realizing the state of things aimed at here, just as in a community penetrated by the love of Christ the Sermon on the Mount would be not only practicable but natural. But without that supreme motive much that the enactments of both the Old Testament and the new demand must remain mere aspiration. Just in proportion as Israel was true to Yahweh was the law realized, and the demands of the law always acted as a spur to the better part of the people to enter into fuller sympathy and communion with Him in order that they might respond to them. The law and the religion of the people acted and reacted upon one another, but the greater of these two elements was religion.
It was not wonderful, therefore, that to a large extent this legislation failed, as men measure failure. The religious state of the nation never was what it should have been; and the law, though it was held to be Divine, was never wholly observed. In the Northern Kingdom, by the time of the Syrian wars, the old constitution of Israel had broken up. The hardy yeomanry had been ruined and dispersed. Their lands had been seized or bought by the rich, and every law that had been made to ensure restoration was habitually disregarded. As Robertson Smith states it: “The unhappy Syrian wars sapped the strength of the country, and gradually destroyed the old peasant proprietors who were the best hope of the nation. The gap between the many poor and the few rich became wider and wider. The landless classes were ground down by usury and oppression, for in that state of society the landless man had no career in trade, and was at the mercy of the landholding capitalist.” And in Judah the state of things, though not so bad, was similar. In the days of Zedekiah we know that Hebrew slaves were held for life, instead of being released in the seventh year. {Cf. Jer 34:8 ff.} The properties of those compelled to sell were never returned to the owners, and all the laws that were meant to secure the welfare and prosperity of the masses of Israel were contemptuously disregarded. In short, the worst features of a purely competitive civilization, with materialism eating into its soul, became glaringly manifest. All the canonical prophets without exception denounce the vices and tyrannies of the rich. {Cf. Amo 2:6 ff.} As far as can be learned, moreover, the year of release and the Sabbatic year were not regularly or generally observed, while the jubilee year would seem never to have been kept after the Exile. The laws regarding taking interest were also evaded. {Neh 5:1 seq.}
Nevertheless it would be a great error to suppose that these Divinely given social laws should be branded as a failure. They were not lived up to, and it is not improbable that the corruption of the peoples life was in a degree intensified by the reaction from so high an ideal. But the axiom which is current now in all the newspapers, that laws too far above the general level of the national conscience cannot be enforced, and becoming a dead letter tend to produce lawlessness, does not apply to such codes as those of Israel. These, as has more than once been pointed out, were not of the same character as our legal codes are. Among us, laws are meant to be observed with minute and careful diligence, and any breach of them is punished by the courts, which, on the whole, can be easily set in motion. Ancient religious codes are never of that kind. They do contain laws of that character, but the bulk of the provisions are not laws which the executive is to enforce, but ideals of conduct which the true worshipper of God ought to strive to attain to. It is, therefore, of their very essence that they should be far above the average national conscience. Nations whose ideals soar no higher than the possible attainment of the average man as he is, have virtually no ideals at all, and are cut off from all enduring upward impulses. Those, on the contrary, who have a vision of the perfect life, are certain to be both humbler, and at the same time more sure to persist in the painful path of moral discipline. As “a mans reach should exceed his grasp,” so also should a nations; and though it is almost always forgotten, it is precisely Israels glory that she set up for herself and exhibited to the world an ideal of brotherhood, of love to God and man, to which she could not attain. Great as the practical failure in Israel was, therefore, no fault can be found in the legislation. It molded the characters of men who were sensitive to the influences coming from God, so that they became fit instruments of inspiration; and it made their lives examples of the highest virtue that the ancient world knew. Further, it gave shape to the hopes and aspirations of the people, especially where it was not realized. The year of jubilee, for example, is the groundwork of that great and affecting promise contained in Isa 61:1-11 : “The Spirit of the Lord Yahweh is upon me, because Yahweh hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; He hath sent me to bind tip the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty (deror) to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of Yahweh and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn.” That which was unattainable here, amid the greeds and lusts of an unspiritual generation, gave color to the Messianic future; and men were taught to look and wait for a kingdom of God in which a peace and truth that could not as yet be reached would be the certain possession of all.
When we turn to modern times and modern circumstances, it is not easy to see how this ancient law can be applicable to them. In the first place, much of it was made binding upon Israel only because of its peculiar character as the people to whom the true religion was revealed. As custodians of that, they were justified in keeping up walls of partition between themselves and the world, which if universally accepted would only be hurtful to the highest interests of mankind. On the contrary, the development of the true religion having been completed by the coming of Christ, it is the duty of those nations which enjoy the light to spread abroad the “good news” of God which they have received, and to exhibit its power among all the nations of the earth. The highest and most Divine call which can now come to any people must, therefore, be radically different in some chief aspects from that of Israel. In the second place, the civilization and culture of the great nations of today are far more complicated than any ancient civilization ever was, and the general level is fixed by an action and reaction extending over the whole civilized world. No successes can be achieved, no blunders can be committed, in any part of the world which do not affect almost immediately the farthest ends of the earth. Moreover the intimate and universal correlation of interest makes interference with any piece of the complicated whole an exceedingly perilous matter. Any proposal that this law, as being Divinely given, ought in its economic aspect to be made universally binding, should therefore be met by a demand for a careful inquiry into possible differences between ancient life and modern, which might make guidance Divinely given to the one inapplicable to the other. It is not necessarily true that because Israel by Divine command established every household upon the soil, forbade interest, and did nothing to encourage trade and manufactures, we should do these things. Take, for instance, the case of interest. In our day, and in civilizations of a high type, lending money to a person not in distress at all, but who sees an opportunity of making enough by the use of borrowed money to pay the interest and make a profit, is often a most praiseworthy and charitable act.
But if the Israelite legislation in regard to interest cannot justly be taken as a law for all time, still less can any great modern state neglect or discourage commerce and manufactures. The merely embryonic character of commercial legislation, and the contempt for the merchant which did in ancient days exist, would be exceedingly out of place now. There is no career more honorable than that of the merchant of our day when he carries on his business in a high-minded fashion, nor is there any member of the community whose calling is more beneficent than his. So long as he looks for gain to himself in ways which, taken on the great scale, bring benefit both to producer and consumer, his activity is purely beneficial. There is absolutely no reason why commercial life should not be as honest, as sound, as much in accord with the mind of God, in itself, as any other manner of life. For in many ways it has been a civilizing agent of the highest power. Of course, if the charges brought against merchants by Ruskin, for example, who seizes upon and believes every story which involves charges of fraud against modern commerce, were true; if it were impossible, as he says it is, for an honest man to prosper in trade, then we might have some ground for condemning this branch of human activity. But happily only a confirmed and incorrigible pessimist can believe that. In our time some of the noblest men of whom we have any knowledge have been merchants, and among no class has so much princely generosity been exhibited. If mercantile help had been withdrawn from the poor, if the time, the money, the organizing skill which merchants have freely expended upon charities were suddenly to fail them, the case against our modern civilization would be indefinitely stronger than it is. Moreover the immense expansion of credit which is at once the glory and the danger of modern commerce, is itself a proof that such wholesale condemnation as we have spoken of is unwarrantable. The bulk of commerce must, after all, be fairly sound, otherwise it could not continue and spread as it does. And, as against the evils which affect it in common with all human activities, we must put the fact that it brings the produce of all lands to the door even of the poor, and by the constant contact between nations which it causes it is influencing the thought as well as the lives of men. Human brotherhood is being furthered by it, slowly, it is true, but surely, and the barriers which separate the nations are being sapped by its influence. These are indispensable services for the future progress of mankind, and make commerce now as much the necessary handmaid of the highest life as it would have been a hindrance to it in the case of the chosen people, before they had assimilated the truths of which they were to be the bearers to the world. That commerce, and trade in general, need to be purified goes without saying. That it may, of late years, have deteriorated, as the general decay of faith and the pursuit of luxury have weakened the sanctions of morality, is not improbable. But in itself it is not only a legitimate human activity; it is also an admirable instrument for bringing home to the consciences of men the truth that they are all their brothers keepers. It presses home as nothing else could do the great truth proclaimed by St. Paul in regard to the Church, as true also of the world, that if one member suffers all the body suffers with it. Every day through this channel men are receiving lessons, which they cannot choose but hear, to the effect that no permanent benefit can come from the loss and suffering of men in any part of the world; that peace and righteousness and good faith are things which have supreme value even in the mercantile sense; and that, conversely, the merchants pursuit of wealth, if carried on in accord with the fundamental truths of morality, inevitably becomes a potent factor in that advance to a world-wide knowledge of the Lord, which gleamed before the eyes of prophets and seers as the
“Far-off Divine event,
To which the whole creation moves.”
But if we cannot make the Old Testament our law in regard to commerce, we must ask whether the legislation in regard to land has for us any binding force? Viewing it with this question in our minds, I think we must be struck by one fact, this namely, that the universal possession of land which was provided for in Israel and so anxiously maintained is the only provision known against the growth of a wage-earning class largely, if not entirely, at the mercy of the employer. In Greece and Rome the population at first were all settled on their own lands, and it was only when by money-lending the small properties were bought up and turned into huge farms, worked by farm-bailiffs and slaves, that misery began to invade all parts of the social fabric. In mediaeval and feudal England, on the other hand, and indeed wherever the feudal system existed, the cultivators, even when they were serfs, had an inalienable right to the land. They could not be evicted if they rendered certain not very burdensome services to the lord. “As long as these dues were satisfied, it is plain the tenant was secure from dispossession,” says Professor Thorold Rogers (“Six Centuries,” etc., p. 44). But in time that system was broken down; and ever since, until within the last half-century, the course of things with the laboring classes in England has been one long descent. So long as the people were attached to the soil, and so long as all alike practiced agriculture, as in Palestine under the Mosaic law, Englishmen lived in rough plenty, and were for the most part content. The fifteenth century was the golden age of mediaeval agriculture; but a change for the worse came in with the seventeenth, and it continued.
Two measures-the introduction of competitive rents with its corollary, eviction, and the enclosure of the common lands-worked gradually on until they have entirely divorced the workman from the soil, and Professor Cairnes has told us clearly what that means. “In a contest between vast bodies of people so circumstanced and the owners of the soil the negotiation could have but one issue, that of transferring to the owners of the soil the whole produce, minus what was sufficient to maintain in the lowest state of existence the race of cultivators. This is what has happened wherever the owners of the soil, discarding all considerations but those dictated by self-interest, have really availed themselves of the full strength of their position. It is what has happened under rapacious governments in Asia; it is what has happened under rapacious landlords in Ireland; it is what now happens under the bourgeois proprietors of Flanders; it is, in short, the inevitable result which cannot but happen in the great majority of all societies now existing on earth where land is given up to be dealt with on commercial principles unqualified by public opinion, custom, or law.” The result is that the laborers have only their daily wages to depend upon. “They have no means of productive home industry; they have not even a home from which they cannot be ejected at any moment on failure to pay the weekly rent; they have no land, garden, or domestic animals, the produce of which might support them till fresh work could be obtained.”
We need not wonder that this question of the occupancy of land as the only visible remedy for the hideous social state of the most highly civilized nations of the world is gradually becoming the question of our time. A great reaction against the purely commercial theory of land tenure has taken place. The land legislation in Ireland has been based on the doctrines that the nation cannot permit absolute property in land, and that there is no hope for any permanent improvement in the condition of the poor until laborers have land of their own. Now these are precisely the principles of the Scriptural land legislation. Under it landlords with absolute rights over land were impossible, and the rise of a proletariate at the mercy of the capitalist was also impossible. It is not so strange, therefore, as it might at first sight appear, that the demands of advanced land reformers, as they are voiced in Mr. Wallaces book (p. 192) are mutatis mutandis, identical with the provisions of the Israelite law. He demands
(1) that landlordism shall be superseded by occupying ownership;
(2) that the tenure of the holders of land must be made secure and permanent;
(3) that arrangements must be made by which every British subject may secure a portion of land for personal occupation at its fair agricultural value; and
(4) that in order that these conditions be rendered permanent subletting must be absolutely prohibited, and mortgages strictly limited.
This essential oneness of view in the modern land reformer and in the ancient law is all the more remarkable that, so far as can be gathered from his book, Mr. Wallace has never regarded the Old Testament from this point of view. He never quotes it, and is apparently quite unconscious that the plan which experience of present evils, and acute and disinterested reflection on them, has suggested to him, was set forth thousands of years ago as the only righteous one.
But this is not by any means the end of the matter. Even if the social reformers of our day could restore society to the conditions set forth so emphatically and so long ago in Israel, history proves that nothing more than a temporary improvement might be accomplished. In Israel, as we have seen, with the decay of religion came the decay of this righteous social state. Human selfishness then shook off the curb of religion, and gave itself without restraint to the oppression of the poor. Have we any reason to believe that now human selfishness would do less? There appears little ground to think so; and though we may believe that without the acceptance of Deuteronomic principles in modern life we cannot restrain the growth of poverty, even with Deuteronomic principles embodied in our Jaws nothing will be done if the people turn their backs upon religion, make selfish enjoyment their highest good, and the comforts and pleasures of a merely material life their only heart-warming aspiration. In that fact we have an indication of the true functions of the Church and of religious teachers in the social and political life of our time and of times to come. As individuals, religious men should certainly be found always among the advocates of all laws and plans which tend to justice and mercy, and to the raising of the toilers everywhere to a higher standard of living. Further, at no time should the Church be found committed to a purely conservative policy, of retaining things as they are. The undeniable facts as to the condition of the poor are so utterly unjustifiable, that to leave things as they are is to fall into the treason of despair in regard to the future of our race, and into scarcely veiled disbelief of the essential truth of Christianity. No Church whose heart has not been corrupted by worldliness can think for a moment that the present state of things in all highly civilized communities is even tolerable. It cannot last, and it ought not to last; the Church that timidly supports it, lest worst things should come, is named and known thereby for recreant to Christ and to the highest hopes of His Gospel. But, on the other hand, it is only in very exceptional circumstances, and for short intervals, that the Churches and their ministers can ever be called upon to make the external, material condition of the people their first and chief care. They have a place of their own to fill, a function of their own to discharge; and upon their efficiency and diligence in these the stability and permanence of all that politicians and publicists can accomplish ultimately depends. They must keep alive and nourish the religious life, as that life has been shaped and constituted by our Lord Jesus Christ. Their province is to witness, in season and out of season, for a life of purity and love, for the Divine and ideal sides of things, for the necessity, for mans highest well-being, of a life hid with Christ in God. If they do not keep up this testimony, no others will; and if it be dropped out of sight, then the social agony and struggle, the patriotic and humanitarian strivings of all the reformers, will lack their final sanction. Men will inevitably come to think that mans life does consist in the abundance of the things that he possesses, the leisure, the amusement, the culture which by combining material resources he may attain to. But it is to deny and denounce that view that the Church exists in the world. It was to lift men out of it, to set them above it forever, that Christ died. It is finally only by abandoning it that the highest social condition can be reached and made permanent for the multitudes of men. In no way therefore can the Church so dangerously betray the cause of the poor and the oppressed as by plunging into the heat of the social and political struggle. She has to witness to higher things than that involves, and her silence in the ideal region which would certainly follow her devotion to material interests, however unselfish, would be but ill compensated for by any imaginable success she might attain.
JUSTICE IN ISRAEL
AMONG the nations of the modern world one of the most vital distinctions is the degree in which just judgment is estimated and provided for. Indeed, according to modern ideas, life is tolerable only where all men are equal before the law; where all are judged by statutes which are known, or at least may be known, by all; where corruption or animus in a judge is as rare as it is held to be dishonorable. But we cannot forget that in the majority of even the more advanced countries of the world these three conditions are not yet found, and that where they do exist they are only recent acquirements. In the latest born, and in many respects the most advanced of the great commonwealths, in the United States of America, the corruption of a number of the inferior courts is undeniable, and is tolerated with a most disappointing patience by the people. In England Judge Jeffries is no very remote memory, and Lord Bacons acceptance of presents from litigants in his court has only been made more certain by recent investigations. An absolutely honest intention to give even-handed justice to all is, therefore, even in England, only a recent attainment, and in no country is the honest intention always successful in realizing itself. But if this be so among the civilized nations of the West, we may say that in Oriental countries there has been little of systematic and continuous effort to give even-handed justice at all. Yet nowhere has the sinfulness and the destructiveness of corruption in judgment been more impassionedly and more frequently set forth by the highest authorities in religion and morals, than in the East. Tupper, our most recent authority, in writing of “Our Indian Protectorate,” p. 289, describes the Indian attitude to law thus: “There was not that reverence for law which in Europe is in all probability very largely due to the influence of the Roman law, and to the teaching of the Roman Catholic and other Christian Churches. So far as there was a germ out of which the respect for law ought to have grown, it was to be found in dislike to actions plainly opposed to custom and tradition. There was a deeply rooted and widespread conviction that there could be no rule to which exceptions could not be made, if agreeable to the discretion of the chief or any of his delegates. The chief was set above the law; it did not limit his authority by any constitution. There was no legislation for the improvement of law. The administration of justice was extremely imperfect.” The same writer describes the result of such a state of mind in his picture of Mahratta rule (p. 247). “There was,” he says, “no prescribed form of trial. Men were seized on slight suspicions. Presumptions of guilt were freely made. Torture was employed to compel confession. Prisoners for theft were often whipped at intervals to make them discover where the stolen property was hidden. Ordinarily no law was referred to except in cases affecting religion.” That there were both Hindu codes and Mohammedan codes in existence which claimed and were believed to have Divine authority made no difference in India. Nor does it make any in Persia today.
Now, in coming to the consideration of the views of justice embodied in Old Testament law, and the quality of the judiciary in ancient Israel, we must take not Western but Eastern ideas as our standard. Judging from that point of view, it should create no prejudice in our minds if we find on the first glance that all men were not equal before the ancient law of Israel; that for a considerable period, if not during the whole political existence of Israel, there was no very extensive written law; and that arbitrary and corrupt judgment was only too common at all times. For none of these defects would indicate in ancient Israel the same evils as similar defects in nations of our time would indicate. They are rather defects in the process of being overcome, than defects arising from feeble or vitiated life. If there was a constant movement towards the highest state of things, that is all we can demand or expect to find.
Now there does seem to have been that. As has been well pointed out by Dr. Oort, in the tribes which became Israel justice must have been administered by the heads of the various bodies which went to make these up. The household was ruled even in matters of life and death solely, by the father; the family, in the wider sense, was judged by its own heads; the tribes by the elders of the tribes, and there probably was no appeal from one tribunal to another. Each tribunal was final in its own domain. It may be, also, that the judicial function was in all these bodies exercised in the lax and timid fashion common among Bedouin tribes today. In all cases, too, it is probable that in the pre-Mosaic time the standard of judgment was customary law. Only with this very great modification can Oorts epigrammatic description of the situation-“There was no law, but there were givers of legal decisions”-be accepted. So far as can be ascertained, the customs according to which men were expected to live were perfectly well known, and within certain narrow limits of variation were extraordinarily table. How stable customary law may be made, even in the midst of a society governed in the main according to written law in its strictest sense, may be seen in the execration which any breach of the Ulster custom of tenant right met with, before that custom was embodied in any statutes. And in antiquity the stringency of custom can hardly be exaggerated. Under it, when thoroughly established, there was, in all the cases covered by it, only this one way of acting lot: all, both men and women, who were fit for society at all. Any alternative course was probably inconceivable in the tribal stage of the Israelites existence.
But a change would doubtless be wrought whenever the appointment of a king took place. Then national law would appear, in embryo at least; and at first, until custom had grown up in this region also, it would largely be an expression of the will of the king, and of the royal officers instructed and trained by the king. But it would have free and unchallenged course only when it claimed authority in matters lying outside of the family and tribal jurisdictions. Wherever it attempted to interfere with tribal or family rights, danger to the kingship of the most acute kind would be sure to arise. In all probability, it was disregard of this axiomatic truth which made Solomons reign so burdensome to the people and tore the kingdom asunder under Rehoboam. Ahab too fell a victim to his disregard of it. Lastly, the introduction of elaborate written codes of law would, if it came as the crown of such a development, depose custom from its supremacy, though it would not abolish it; and would substitute for it as the main element in all judicial matters the written prescription, which is the necessary presupposition of a fully organized judiciary of the modern type, with a regulated and definite power of appeal.
But in the case of ancient Israel there is a distinguishing element which has to be fitted into this ordinary scheme of progression, and that is the Divine revelation to Moses. Taken up at the tribal stage by the Mosaic revelation, the Israelite tribes were touched and welded into coherence, if not quite as a nation, at least as the people of Yahweh, so that during all the distracting days of the Judges they kept up in essentials their social and religious unity. And with the religious union there must have come administrative uniformity to some considerable extent. The jurisdiction of the heads of households, of heads of families, and of the tribal elders would be as little interfered with as possible; but, as we have seen, all customs and rights had to be reviewed from the point of view of the new religion, and appeal to Moses as the prophet of it must have often been unavoidable. Just as his first followers were continually coming to Mohammed, to ask whether this or that ancient custom could be followed by professors of Islam, so there must have been constant appeals to Moses. So long as he lived, therefore, he, and after him Joshua and Moses fellow-tribesmen the sons of Levi, as being specially zealous for the religion of Yahweh, must have been constantly called in to assist the customary judges; and so the habit of appeal must have grown in Israel long before there was any king. Thus also a common standard of judgment would be established. That standard must necessarily have been the law of Yahweh, i.e., the new Yahwistic principles and all that might prima facie be deduced from them, together with so much of custom and tradition as had been accepted as compatible with these principles. We have stated the reasons for holding that the Decalogue was Mosaic, and the Book of the Covenant may be taken also to represent what the current law in Mosaic or sub-Mosaic time was held to be. As Oort well says (loc. cit.), when we know that the Hittites about the middle of the fourteenth century B.C. concluded a treaty with Rameses II of Egypt the terms of which were written upon a silver plate, “why may there not also have been written statements regarding the mutual rights and duties of the people of a town, engraved upon stone or metal, and set forth openly for inspection?” What he confines to mere town business and refers to the time of the Judges, we may without risk extend to a general fundamental law like the Decalogue, or even to the Book of the Covenant, and date it in the time of Moses. Writing was so common an accomplishment in Canaan before the Exodus, that such a supposition is not in the least improbable. These written laws formed the crown of the law of Yahweh, and by them all the rest was raised to a higher level and transformed.
As new men, new times, and new difficulties arose, the priest became the special organ of Divine direction. It may be that the priestly Torah was largely the result of the sacred lot; but the questions that were put, and the manner in which they were put, would be decided ultimately by the conception the priest had of the truth about God. The teaching of the Decalogue would therefore be the dominant and formative power in all that was spoken by the priest and for Yahweh. In the disorganized state into which Israel fell during the time of the Judges, when, as Deuteronomy takes for granted, and as 1Ki 3:2-3 asserts, the legitimate worship of Yahweh was carried on at many centers, the substantial sameness of the tradition as to the history of Israel, in all the varied forms in which we encounter it, is proof sufficient that at each of the great sanctuaries (which were certainly in the hands of Levitical priests) the treasure of ancient knowledge, both in law and history, was carefully and accurately preserved. New decisions would be given, but they came through men penetrated with the high thoughts of God, and of His peoples destiny, which Moses had so fruitfully set forth. This was the element in the life of the people which all the higher minds strove to perpetuate, and, being spiritual, it spiritualized and raised all accessory things. Consequently there was, long before the kingship, what was equivalent to a national feeling of the highest kind, and the conception of justice and its administration corresponded to that.
In the Book of the Covenant, which in this matter represents so early a period that there is no mention of “judges,” only of Pelilim, i.e., arbitrators, {Exo 21:22} so that the tribal and family heads can alone have exercised judicial functions, we find the most solemn warnings against any legal perversion of right to gain popularity, against yielding to the vulgar temptation to oppress the poor, or to the subtler and, for generous minds, more insidious temptation, to give an unjust judgment out of pity for the poor. Israel was, moreover, to keep far from bribery, “which blindeth them that have sight, and perverteth righteous causes.” In no way was the law to be used for criminal or oppressive purposes. From the very first, therefore, in Israel the higher principles of faith and life set themselves to combat doutrance the tendency to unjust judgment, which seems now, at least, quite ineradicable in the East, save among the Bedouin.
A still higher note is struck in the repetition of the law in the Book of Deuteronomy. In chapter 1, originally part of a historic introduction to the book proper, we read: “Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; ye shall hear the small and the great alike; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment (i.e., the whole judicial process and function) is Gods; and the cause that is too hard for you ye shall bring unto me (Moses), and I will hear it.” Yes, the judgment is Gods. Just as the whole of moral duty towards man was raised by the Decalogue to a new and more intimate relation with God, so here justice, the fundamental necessity of a sound and stable political state, is lifted out of the conflict of mean and selfish motives, in which it must eventually go down, and is set on high as a matter in which the righteous God is supremely concerned. In this, as in all things, Israel was called to a lonely eminence of ideal perfection by the character of the God whom they were bound to serve. Therefore it strikes us with no surprise that justice is insisted upon almost with passion in Deu 4:1 : “Justice, justice shalt thou pursue after, that thou mayest live and possess the land which Yahweh thy God giveth thee”; or that it is made one of the conditions of Israels permanence as a nation. In Deu 24:17 we read, “Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take the widows raiment to pledge”; in Deu 25:1-2, “If there be a plea between men, then they (i.e., the judges) shall justify the righteous and condemn the wicked.” For any other course of conduct would bring guilt upon the nation in the sight of Yahweh; and how jealously that was guarded against is seen in the sacrifice and ritual imposed for the purification of the people from the guilt of a murder the perpetrator of which was unknown. {Deu 21:1-9} Unatoned for and disregarded, such a crime brought disturbance into those relations between Israel and their God upon which their very existence as a nation depended; and the disregard of justice, where wrongs were committed by known persons and were left unpunished, was of course more deadly. So the author of Deuteronomy looked upon it; and the prophets, from the first of them to the last brand unjust judgment, the perverting the course of legal justice, as the most alarming sign of national decay. The righteous God, with whom there was no respect of persons, could not permanently favor a people whose judges and rulers disregarded righteousness; and when destruction actually came upon this people, it was proclaimed to be Gods doing, “because there was no truth nor justice nor knowledge of God in the land.” Nowhere in the world, therefore, has the demand for justice been made more central than here, and nowhere has injustice been more passionately fought against. Nor have the sanctions binding to a pursuit of justice been at any period more nobly or more vividly conceived. In this main point, therefore, Israels law stands irreproachable-marvelously so, considering its great antiquity. But we have still to inquire whether any really adequate provision was made for the general and inexpensive administration of justice. To take the latter first, law was in old Israel probably as cheap as it would be in the primitive East today, if bribery were to be stopped. To advise as to the sacred law, to plead for justice according to it, did not then, and does not now in similar circumstances, belong to any special professional class who live by it. The priest could be appealed to freely by all; and the heads of fathers houses, as well as the tribal heads, were, by the very fact that they were such, bound to give judgment among their people, and to appear for and take responsibility for them when they had a cause with persons beyond the limits of the particular families and tribes. Justice, consequently, was in ordinary circumstances perfectly free to all. And from a very early time earnest efforts were made to make it equally accessible. At first, when the people were in one army or train, before they came to Sinai, an overwhelming burden was laid upon Moses. As the prophet of the new dispensation all difficulties were brought to him. But at Jethros suggestion, as JE tells us in Exo 18:13 ff., and as Deuteronomy repeats in Deu 1:16, he chose men of each tribe, or took the heads of each tribe, and set them as captains of thousands and hundreds and fifties and tens. Not improbably this was primarily a military organization, but to these captains was committed also jurisdiction over those under them. In all ordinary cases they judged them and their families in the spirit of Yahwism, as well as commanded them; and in this way, as has already been pointed out, the customary law was revised in accordance with Yahwistic principles. Justice too was brought to every mans door. The only question that suggests itself is whether these captain-judges were the ordinary family and tribal heads, organized for this purpose by Moses. On the whole this would seem to have been so, and it may well be that Jethros suggestion had in view the danger of ignoring them, as well as the burden which Moses sole judgeship laid upon him. But with the advance to the conquest of Canaan a new situation emerged, and the probability is that more and more, as the tribes fell into entire or semi-isolation, the tribal organization in its natural shape would come to the front again. Deuteronomy, however, tells us little if anything of this. In the main passage regarding this matter, {Deu 17:8-13} where provision is made for an appeal to a central court, the legislation is entirely for a period much later than Moses. Like the law regarding sacrifice at one altar, the judicial provisions of Deuteronomy seem all to be bound up with the place which Yahweh shall choose, viz. the Solomonic Temple in Jerusalem.
We may consequently conclude that the judicial arrangements to which Deuteronomy alludes existed only after the Israelite kingship had been for some time established at Jerusalem. We have no distinct evidence for the existence of a central high court in Davids days; and from the story of Absaloms rebellion we should gather that the old, simple Oriental method still prevailed, according to which the king, like the heads of tribes, families, etc., judged every one who came to him, personally, at the gate of the royal city. But Samuel is said in 1Sa 7:16 to have annually gone on circuit to Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah. According to the school of Wellhausen, nearly the whole of this chapter is the work of a Deuteronomic writer about the year 600. In that case, of course, it would be difficult to prove that the arrangement attributed to Samuel was not a mere echo of what was done in Josiahs day; though, if the Deuteronomic prescriptions were carried out then, there would be no need for such a system. On the other hand, if Budde and Cornill be right in tracing the chapter back to JE, this habit of going on circuit must have been an ancient one, possibly dating from Samuels time. That this latter vicar is the correct one is in a degree confirmed by the statement in 1Sa 8:1-2 that Samuels sons were installed by him as judges in Israel, at Beersheba. This belongs to E, and it would seem to indicate the beginnings of such a system as Deuteronomy presupposes.
But it is only in the days of Jehoshaphat (873-849 B.C.) that an arrangement like that in Deuteronomy is mentioned. From 2Ch 19:5 ff. we learn that “he set judges in the land throughout all the fenced cities of Judah, city by city. Moreover in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites and of the priests, and of the heads of the fathers houses, for the judgment of Yahweh and for controversies.” Further, it is stated that Amariah the chief priest was set over the judges in Jerusalem in all Yahwehs matters, i.e., in all religious questions, and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael the prince of the house of Judah in all the kings matters, i.e., in all secular affairs. Of course few advanced critics will admit that the Books of Chronicles are reliable in such matters. But that judgment is altogether too sweeping, and here we would seem to have a well-authenticated record of what Jehoshaphat actually did.
For it will be observed, that when we take up the various notices in regard to the administration of justice, we have a well-defined progress from Moses to Jehoshaphat. Moses was chief judge and committed ordinary cases to the tribal and family heads who were chosen as military leaders, each judging his own detachment. After passing the Jordan, the whole matter would seem to have fallen back into the hands of the tribal heads, with the occasional help of the heroes who delivered and judged Israel. At the end of this period Samuel, as head of the State, went on circuit, and appointed his sons judges in Beersheba, thus initiating a new system, which, had it been successful, might have superseded the tribal and family heads altogether. But it was a failure, and was not repeated. With the rise of the kingship the courts received further organization. If the Chronicler can be trusted, Levites to the number of six thousand were appointed to be judges and Shoterim. The number seems excessive: but the appointment of Levites to act as assessors with the tribal and other heads would be a natural-expedient for a king like David to have recourse to, if he desired to secure uniformity of judgment, and to bring the courts under his personal influence. The next step would naturally be that which is attributed to Jehoshaphat, and it is precisely that which Deuteronomy points to as being already at work in his time. We have, consequently, more than the late authority of the Chronicler for Jehoshaphats high court. The probabilities of the case point so strongly to the rise of some such judicial system about that period, that it would require some positive proof, not mere negative suspicion, to lead us to reject the narrative. In any case this must have been the system in Josiahs day, and afterwards. For when Jeremiah was arraigned for prophesying destruction to the Temple and to Jerusalem, the process against him was conducted on similar lines to those laid down in Deuteronomy. The princes judged, the priests (curiously enough along with the false prophets) made the charge, i.e., stated that the prophets conduct was worthy of death, and the princes acquitted. During the Exile it is probable that the “elders” of the people were permitted to judge them in all ordinary cases, but we have no certain proof that this was so. After the return from Babylon, however, the local courts were re-established, probably in the very form in which they appear in the New Testament. {Mat 5:22; Mat 10:17 Mar 13:9 Luk 12:14-58}
Throughout the whole history of Israel, therefore, courts of justice were easily accessible to every man, whether he were rich or poor. No doubt the free, open-air, Eastern manner of administering justice was favorable to that; but from the days of Moses onward we have fairly conclusive proof that the leaders of the people made it their continual care that wherever a wrong was suffered there should be some court to which an appeal for redress could be made.
The justice aimed at in Israel was, therefore, impartial and accessible. We have still to inquire whether it was merciful or cruel in its infliction of punishment. Dr. Oort says it was a hard law in this respect, but one is at a loss to see how that view can be sustained. There is no mention of torture in connection with legal proceedings, either in the history or in the legislation. Nor is there any instance mentioned in which an accused person was imprisoned until he confessed. Indeed imprisonment would not appear to have been a legal punishment in Israel, nor in any antique state. The idea of providing maintenance for those who had offended against the law was one which could never have occurred to any one in antiquity. Prisons are, of course, frequently mentioned in Scripture; but they were used, up to the time of Ezra, only for the safekeeping of persons charged with crime till they could be brought before the judges. Sometimes, as in the case of the prophets, men were imprisoned to prevent them from stirring up the people; but this procedure was nowhere sanctioned by law. Further, the crimes for which the punishment prescribed in the ancient law was death were few. Idolatry, adultery, unnatural lust, sorcery, and murder or manslaughter, together with striking or cursing parents and kidnapping-these were all. Considering that idolatry and sorcery were high treason in its worst form, so far as this people was concerned, and that impurity threatened the family in a much more direct and immediate fashion then than it does now, while the people were naturally inclined to it, one must wonder that the list of capital crimes is so short. Contrast this with Blackstones statement in regard to England (quoted “Ency. Brit.,” 4., p. 589): “Among the variety of actions which men are daily liable to commit, no less than one hundred and sixty have been declared by Act of Parliament to be felonies without benefit of clergy, or, in other words, to be worthy of instant death.” It is only in comparatively recent years that the punishment of death has been practically restricted to murder in England. Yet that is almost the case in the ancient Jewish law; for the exceptions are such as would reappear in England if it were more sparsely populated and manners were rougher. In Australia, for example, highway robbery under arms and violence to women are capital crimes, just because the country is sparsely inhabited and the households unprotected. Nor were the modes of death inflicted cruel. Only three-viz, impalement, and burning, and stoning-appear to be so. But it may be believed that in the cases contemplated by the law death in some less painful manner had preceded the two former, as is certainly the case in Jos 7:15; Jos 7:25, and in Deu 21:22. As for the latter, it must have been horrible to look upon, but in all probability the criminals agony was rarely a prolonged one. The other method of execution, by the sword namely, was humane enough. Dr. Oort tells us that mutilations were common; but his proof is only this, that in the treaty between the Hittite king and Rameses II we read, concerning inhabitants of Egypt who have fled to the land of the Hittites and have been returned, “His mother shall not be put to death; he shall not be punished in his eyes, nor on his mouth, nor on the soles of his feet.” The same provision is made for Hittite fugitives. From this evidence of the custom of surrounding peoples, and from the fact that the jus talionis is announced in the Scriptures by the familiar formula, “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,” Dr. Oort draws this conclusion. But he appears to forget that the jus talionis was common to almost all the peoples of the ancient world, and is referred to in the Pentateuch, not as a new principle, but as a custom coming down from immemorial time. Consequently, though there must once have been a time in which it was carried out in its literal form, that time probably was past when the laws referring to it were written. In Rome, and probably in other lands where this custom existed, it early gave place to the custom of giving and receiving money payments. Most probably this was the case in Israel, at least from the time of the Exodus. For the new religion introduced by Moses was merciful. But these references to the principle of retaliation tell us nothing as to the frequency or otherwise of mutilation as a punishment. No instance of mutilation being inflicted either as a retaliation or as a punishment occurs in the Old Testament, and the probability is that cases were never numerous. Apart from retaliation they are never mentioned; and we may, I think, set it down as one of the distinctive merits of the Israelite law that it never was betrayed into sanctioning the cutting off of hands or feet or ears or noses as general punishment for crime. But so far as the principle of the lex talionis was retained, its effect was wholesome. It was a continual reminder that all free Israelites were equals in the sight of Yahweh. And not only so, it enforced as well as asserted equality. Any poor man mutilated by a rich man could demand the infliction of the same wound upon his oppressor. He could reject his excuses, and refuse his money, and bring home to him the truth that they had equal rights and duties.
In this way this seemingly harsh law helped to lay the foundation for our modern conception of humanity, which regards all men as brethren. For the teaching of our Lord, which fulfilled all that the polity and religion of ancient Israel had foreshadowed of good, broke down the walls of partition between Jew and Gentile, and made all men brethren by revealing to them a common Father. It surely is strange and sad that those who specially make liberty, equality, and fraternity their watchwords, have received so false an impression of the religion of both the Old and New Testaments, that they pride themselves on rejecting both. When all is said, the leveling of barriers which the crushing weight of Roman power brought about, and the common methods and elements of thought which the Greek conquest had spread all over the civilized world, would never have made the brotherhood of man the universally accepted doctrine it is. The truths which made it credible came from the revelation given by God to His chosen people, and its final and conclusive impulse was given to it by the lips of Christ.
In face of that cardinal fact it is vain to point out as one of the defects of this law that all men were not equal before it. Women were not equal with men, nor were foreigners nor slaves equal with freeborn Israelites; but the seed of all that later times were to bring was already there. The principles which at the long end of the day have abolished slavery, raised women to the equal position they now occupy, and made peace with foreigners increasingly the desire of all nations, had their first hold upon men given them here. In all these directions the Mosaic law was epoch-making. In the fifth commandment, as well as in the legislation regarding the punishment of a rebellious son, the mother is put upon the same level as the father. However subordinate womans position in the larger public life might be, within the home she was to be respected. There, in her true domain, she was mans equal, and was acknowledged to have an equal claim to reverence from her children.
In precisely the same way the “stranger” was freed from disability and protected. In the earliest days, when the Israelite community was still being formed, whole groups of strangers were received into it and obtained full rights, as for example the Kenites and Kenizzites. But though this was a promise of what Israel was ultimately to be to the world, the necessities of the situation, the need to keep intact the treasure of higher religion which was committed to this people, compelled the adoption of a more separatist policy. Yet “in no other nation of antiquity were strangers received and treated with such liberality and humanity as in Israel.” They were freely afforded the protection of the law; they were, in short, received as “a kind of half-citizens, with definite rights and duties.”
Further, though the ger was not bound to all the religious practices and rites of the Israelite, yet he was permitted, and in some cases commanded, to take part in their religious, worship. If he consented to circumcise all his house he might even share in the Passover feast. All oppression of such a one was also rigorously forbidden, and to a large extent the stranger shared in the benefits conferred by the provision for the poor of the land which the law made compulsory.
Nor was the case otherwise with slaves. Equality there was not, and could not be; but in the provisions for the emancipation of the Israelite slave and the introduction of penalties for undue harshness, it began to be recognized that the slave stood, in some degree at least, on the same level as his master-he too was a man.
Taking it as a whole, therefore, the ancient world will be searched in vain for any legislation equal to this in the “promise and the potency” of its fundamental ideas as to justice. Here, as nowhere else, we can see the radical principles which should dominate in the administration of justice laying hold upon mankind, and that there was a living will and power behind these principles is shown in the steady movement toward something higher which characterized Israelite law. In the pursuit of impartiality, accessibility, and humanity, the teachers of Israel were untiring, and the sanctions by which they surrounded and guarded all that tended to make the administration of justice effective in the high sense were unusually solemn and powerful. The result has been most remarkable. All the ages of civilized men since have been the heirs of Israel in this matter. Roman influence and the influence of the Christian Church have no doubt been powerful, and the manifold exigencies of life have drawn out and made explicit much which was only implicit in the ancient days. But the higher qualities of our modern administration of justice can be traced back step by step to Biblical principles, and the course of development laid bare. When that is done, it is seen that the almost ideal purity and impartiality of the best modern tribunals is the completion of what the Israelite law and methods began. In this one instance at least the great Mosaic principles have come to fruition; and from the security and peace, the contentment and the confidence, with which impartial justice has filled the minds of men, we can estimate how potent to cure the ills of our social and moral state the realization of the other great Mosaic ideals would be. It should be a source of encouragement to all who look for a time when “the kingdoms of, this world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ” that something like the ideal of justice has so far been realized. It has no doubt been a weary time in coming, and it has as yet but a narrow and perhaps precarious footing in the world. But it is here, with its healing and beneficent activity; and in that fact we may well see a pledge that all the rest of the Divinely given ideals for the Kingdom of God will one day be realized also. Such a consummation, however remote it may seem to our human impatience, however devious and winding the paths by which alone it can draw near, will come most surely, and in our approach to the ideal in our judicial system we may well see the first fruits of a richer and more plentiful harvest.