DEUTERONOMY 21:1-9

Two of my favorite TV series are Cold Case Files and New Tricks. Each one involves the attempt to solve crimes, mainly murders, committed in which the culprit was never found. But society still takes on the responsibility of seeing that, if possible, justice is served. And this is not a new situation, by any means. The Law of Hammurabi and the Hittite Laws, for example, made provision for a local or central governmental entity to settle a monetary amount on the family of the one murdered if the guilty party was unknown.

Thompson says, “Such a contingency as this, belongs to every society, ancient or modern. But whereas modern societies are not troubled by questions such as defilement or expiation, ancient societies often were.”

Old Testament Israel had their way of handling the situation, and this procedure is outlined in Deuteronomy 21. “The ceremony combines both judicial and sacral ideas.” (Craigie) The need for a method to “purge the guilt of innocent blood from Israel,” as Deut.19:13 puts it, was imperative. (Levinson) This was necessary since “both the people and the land were defiled and some kind of ceremonial execution was required to satisfy the demands of justice.” (Thompson)

Deuteronomy 21:1

This verse, along with v. 9, acts as a framework for the law itself. (Craigie)

The significance of the murdered body being found in “open country” was that it was thus located “beyond the legal jurisdiction of any particular town (see vv. 22, 23, 25), and where witnesses are unlikely.” (Levinson)

Deuteronomy 21:2

In this specific case, the distance between the site where the body was found and the nearest town needed to first be determined by local elders and judges to establish which town had the appropriate legal jurisdiction.

“According to Deut 16:18-20 tribal judges and officials were to be appointed in every town to administer impartial justice (cf 21:2; 25:2).” (Schutz) However, Craigie says, “The elders and judges referred to in this verse are the representatives of a central legal authority, rather than a local authority (as in v. 3).”

Deuteronomy 21:3

Next, a heifer was chosen which had never pulled the yoke. Levinson says that this symbolizes “the human victim's innocence (similarly, Num 19.2).”

McCarter compares Numbers 19:2; I Samuel 6:7; and Deuteronomy 21:3 in which ritually clean animals are chosen as sacrificial animals to carry away contamination from an area.

Deuteronomy 21:4

The location of the rite, which involved breaking the heifer's neck, had to be near a place with running water (Amos 5:24). Levinson points out that the Hebrew literally reads 'with reliable water,' in contrast to unreliable seasonal springs (Jer 15:8).”

In addition, the site was to be one which had never been plowed. As to the exact reason behind these regulations, Cousins asks, “Is virgin land chosen so that, like the virgin animal, it can accept the defilement of the bloodshed? Or so that the blood, transferred to the soil, need never be disturbed by the plough? Or is it seen as desert (cf. The scapegoat in Lev. 16:22)?” The answer to these questions is not spelled out in the text, but here are a few opinions on the subject:

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

    “A continually flowing stream provides the site for a ritual purification ceremony (Deut 21:4) and also serves as a measure for the kind of righteousness Yahweh expects from his elect nation (Amos 5:24).” (Grisanti)

    “The sacrifice was to take place in a rough valley terrain where a flowing stream would remove the heifer's blood. Atonement and cleansing go together here, and point to Calvary (Heb 9:13,14).” (Harrison)

    “The notion underlying such requirements is that animals used in purificatory rites, like those in more usual types of sacrifice, should represent the best available, and should never have been employed for any profane purpose.” (Levine)

As to the symbolism behind this ritual, “A heifer that had never been worked was put to death in the place of the murderer so that the bloodshed was atoned.” (Lu) Most commentators point out that this is obviously not a sacrificial killing since those always were carried out by slitting the animal's throat so that all the blood could be drained out (see Exodus 13:13; 34:20). Weinfeld remarks that “the heifer's neck is broken at the scene of the crime, as it were.”

Interestingly, Chisholm points to a similar ritual in Isaiah 66:2-3 in which a dog's neck was broken to atone for sin. He feels that perhaps these particular sinners were trying to avoid the sacrifice of a heifer as commanded here.

Deuteronomy 21:5

There is a little scholarly controversy regarding the nature of the priests. Cousins says, “The priests are presumably connected with a local theophanic shrine; they will scarcely have traveled from the central sanctuary.” But Craigie says that “their presence seems to be primarily as representatives of the central tribunal. In a criminal (capital) case, where there was a person charged with an offense, the priests would have been involved in the passing of judgment (17:8-9).”

Concerning the phrase 'to minister to God,' Fretheim says, “These texts have a personal note to their understanding of service; it is a ministering directed to and on behalf of God himself, not just the places and objects associated with divine worship.”

“The priests provided both general instruction and specific guidance. In answer to specific questions they gave an authoritative decision (tora) on matters of purity, sacrifice and difficult judicial rulings (Deut 17:9; 21:5).” (Jenson)

“The priests are present during this act, not because they play any part in the execution of the ritual, for this is carried out entirely by the elders, but merely to guarantee the religious aspect of the ceremony by presiding over it.” (Weinfeld)

The final phrase of this verse, 'by their decision all cases all cases of dispute and assault shall be settled,' “contrasts with 17.9 where the Levitical priests at the central sanctuary adjudicated only cases that could not be resolved locally.” (Levinson)

Deuteronomy 21:6

At this point, all the elders of the nearest town were to wash their hands. Kruger states that “the washing of the hands (Deut 21:6; Ps 26:6; 73:13),...symbolically denotes freedom for responsibility for a wrong committed or the release of a commitment or agreement.” Levinson also notes this was necessary since the rite was carried out “with no laying of hands, and thus without symbolic transfer of culpability to the animal (contrast Lev 16:21-22).”

Weinfeld says that “the elders cleanse their hands only as a purificatory expression of their innocence (cf. Pss 24:4; 26:6-10; 73:13, etc.).”

Cousins: “This hand-washing is less of a formality than Pilate's; the threat of the unexpiated blood is keenly felt.”

Deuteronomy 21:7

The elders are then to pronounce an oath of innocence. The phrase 'they shall testify' in Hebrew literally reads, 'they shall declare and say' (as also found in 25:9; 26:5; and 27:14-15). According to Mayes, it is “used of solemn declarations and affirmations either in a legal or in a cultic context.”

The declaration itself is very strong in the original Hebrew and can be translated as this: “'As for our hands, they did not shed this blood not did our eyes see,' covering both direct action and failure to avert or prevent a crime (cf. Lev 5:10).” (Levinson)

Deuteronomy 21:8-9

The oath of the elders in v. 7 appears to continue into v. 8. However, according to Harrison's understanding, the request to forgive is “spoken by the priests, implying that the local inhabitants had failed to make the roads safe for travellers.”

Wakely states, “In Ps 65:3, as in other texts (cf. Deut 21:8; Ps 78:38), the verb kpr seems to signify to forgive, i.e., to restore the previous relationship.”

“As a rule...expiation is effected trough the vicarious death of an animal. But what is of special importance in this connection is that appeal is made to Jahweh himself actively to effect the expiation. Accordingly the one who receives expiation is not Jahweh, but Israel: Jahweh is rather the one who acts in averting the calamitous curse which burdens the community.” (Herrmann)

Craigie points out that “forgiveness is sought for the whole people (Israel is mentioned twice in the prayer for forgiveness), not simply for the city nearest the crime.” Thus, “Such a murder involved the whole community in blood guile,” as Thompson states.

The phrase “purge out” also appears in Deut. 13:6; 19:13, etc.

“The ritual of vv. 3-6 has no intrinsic efficacy; prayer is the means of absolution...since absolution ultimately depends upon divine action, not human ritual.” (Levinson)

Cousins summarizes: “This is clearly a very ancient ritual, nearer to magic than almost any other in the Bible, but lifted above magic by the liturgy of v. 8 and the application of v. 9...since it is Yahweh who has provided the ritual, it is he who lifts the community's guilt. Corporate guilt is an alien concept to the modern world, but passages such as this challenge the reader to take it seriously.”