A verse by verse commentary on DEUTERONOMY 21 dealing with atonement for an unsolved murder, marrying a captive woman, the right of the firstborn, a rebellious son and various laws.

1. DEUTERONOMY 21 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Atonement for an Unsolved Murder
1 If someone is found slain, lying in a field in the
land the Lord your God is giving you to possess,
and it is not known who the killer was,
GILL, "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, Gen_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.
HENRY, “Care had been taken by some preceding laws for the vigorous and
effectual persecution of a wilful murderer (Deu_19:11 etc.), 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
1

2. 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,
Deu_21:1. 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_26:21), 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, Ecc_3:15.
JAMISON, “Deu_21:1-9. Expiation of uncertain murder.
If one be found slain ... lying in the field, and it be not known who hath
slain him — The ceremonies here ordained to be observed on the discovery of a
slaughtered corpse show the ideas of sanctity which the Mosaic law sought to
associate with human blood, the horror which murder inspired, as well as the fears
that were felt lest God should avenge it on the country at large, and the pollution
which the land was supposed to contract from the effusion of innocent, unexpiated
blood. According to Jewish writers, the Sanhedrin, taking charge of such a case, sent
a deputation to examine the neighborhood. They reported to the nearest town to the
spot where the body was found. An order was then issued by their supreme authority
to the elders or magistrates of that town, to provide the heifer at the civic expense
and go through the appointed ceremonial. The engagement of the public authorities
in the work of expiation, the purchase of the victim heifer, the conducting it to a
“rough valley” which might be at a considerable distance, and which, as the original
implies, was a wady, a perennial stream, in the waters of which the polluting blood
would be wiped away from the land, and a desert withal, incapable of cultivation; the
washing of the hands, which was an ancient act symbolical of innocence - the whole
of the ceremonial was calculated to make a deep impression on the Jewish, as well as
on the Oriental, mind generally; to stimulate the activity of the magistrates in the
discharge of their official duties; to lead to the discovery of the criminal, and the
repression of crime.
CALVIN, “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
2

3. 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.”
COFFMAN, "Here again, we have evidence of the miscellaneous, "shotgun" lack
of organization in this great address by Moses. The Great Lawgiver included
many things in this remarkable presentation that were not very closely related to
each other. As Cousins stated it, "It is hard to distinguish any pattern in this
section, although some laws are grouped together."[1] For example,
Deuteronomy 21:10-21 concerns family affairs, and Deuteronomy 23:1-18 deals
with the purity of the community. Keil wrote that:
"The reason for grouping these five laws which are apparently so different from
one another, as well as for attaching them to the previous regulations, is found in
the desire to bring out distinctly the sacredness of life and of personal rights
from every point of view, and impress it upon the covenant nation.[2]
The "five laws" referred to by Keil in this chapter are as follows:
(1) expiation of a murder by an unknown person (Deuteronomy 21:1-9);
(2) rights of a wife who was taken from among prisoners of war (Deuteronomy
21:10-14);
3

4. (3) the right of the first-born (Deuteronomy 21:15-17);
(4) punishment of a rebellious son (Deuteronomy 21:18-21); and
(5) the right of prompt burial for those executed (Deuteronomy 21:22-23).
Kline pointed out that another classification of these laws may group several of
them under the title of "Limiting the authority of the head of the household."[3]
Thus, his authority is limited in regard to a captive made a wife (Deuteronomy
21:10,11), also in the matter of a preferred wife whose son was not allowed to
preempt the rights of the first-born by the unloved wife (Deuteronomy 21:15-17),
and in the prohibition against his putting a rebellious son to death (Deuteronomy
21:18-21).
All of the speculations that one finds in commentaries regarding the "sources" of
the material here may be safely rejected and ignored. Wright, for example, wrote
that, "Most of these laws are quoted from older sources."[4] If this is true, why
did he not name the sources? It is obvious that there are no older sources. Such
sources of the alleged sources of the Pentateuch are merely the imaginations of
men and have never had any actual existence in fact. If all of those "sources"
had ever existed, why is it that not a single syllable from any one of them has
ever been found upon any ancient monument, uncovered by the excavations of
any ancient city, or referred to in any of the writings of all nations throughout all
ages? It appears to us that any appeal to such non-existent "sources" is, whether
intentional or not, an effort to deceive!
CEREMONY FOR AN UNSOLVED MURDER
"If one be slain in the land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying
in the field, and it be not known who hath smitten him; then thy elders and thy
judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities which are round
about him that is slain: and it shall be, that the city which is nearest unto the
slain man, even the elders of that city shall take a heifer of the herd, and which
hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke; and the
elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a valley with running water,
which is neither plowed nor sown, and shall break the heifer's neck there in the
valley. And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them Jehovah thy
4

5. God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of Jehovah; and
according to their word shall every controversy and every stroke be. And all the
elders of that city, who are nearest unto the slain man, shall wash their hands
over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley; and they shall answer and
say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. Forgive, O
Jehovah, thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and suffer not innocent
blood to remain in the midst of thy people Israel. And the blood shall be forgiven
them. So shalt thou put away the innocent blood from the midst of thee, when
thou shalt do that which is right in the eyes of Jehovah."
The conception here is clearly one of corporate responsibility. Every community
is responsible for crimes committed within its boundaries, and any unpunished
crime must inevitably leave traces of contamination upon the whole body of the
people. "When the evil has been dealt with, usually when the crime has been
punished, the contamination is removed."[5] The situation here, however, is one
in which it was impossible to mete out the proper punishment for the murderer,
due to the fact that he was unknown.
Some have complained that, "To the Protestant Christian this act appears as
verging on the realm of cultic magic."[6] However, the instructions in this
passage lift the whole procedure far above any of the essential features of magic.
Forgiveness is indeed sought, but of whom? Of the one true and Almighty God,
and herein is an impassable gulf intervening between what God commanded
here and all of the magic ever practiced on earth.
Cook was correct in the discernment here that, "This transaction was figurative,
and was so ordered as to impress the lesson of Genesis 9:5f."[7] Regarding no
other responsibility has the human race been quite so rebelliously indifferent as
they have been with regard to the Divine order to put ALL murderers to death.
The killing of the heifer here was in no sense a sacrifice, as indicated by the
manner of killing it by breaking its neck. Sacrifices had to have their blood shed
and sprinkled in a certain way upon the altar. There is no parallel whatever to
this ceremony among any known ceremonies of the pagans, and many of the
specifics here are not exactly clear as to why this or that was commanded. The
entire ceremony was SYMBOLICAL, perhaps, of the punishment, that was due
the unknown murderer.
The uncultivated valley mentioned in Deuteronomy 21:4 is, according to
Orlinsky, "a wady with a perennial stream," and in Deuteronomy 21:5, he
translated the comment about the Levites thus, "Every lawsuit and case of
assault is subject to their ruling.[8]
A very undiscerning remark by Watts is that, "The introduction of the Levitical
priests, Deuteronomy 21:5, adds nothing to the description."[9] Alexander
5

6. pointed out the true reason for the appearance of the Levites in this ceremony:
"The presence of the priests was due to their position as servants of Jehovah, on
whom it devolved to see that all was done in the manner God's law
prescribed."[10]
Kline read the comment in Deuteronomy 21:5 as, "A clear affirmation of the
ultimate judicial authority vested in the priesthood, and their appearance here
was purely judicial ... it was a ceremonial execution of the heifer substituted for
the unknown murderer."[11] Jamieson pointed out that in the actual practice of
Israel, the Sanhedrin, in such cases, ordered the magistrates (elders) of the
responsible city, "to provide the heifer at the expense and to go through with the
appointed ceremonies."[12]
Craigie thought that the last clause in Deuteronomy 21:7 signified more than the
mere fact of the city's elders having not "witnessed" the crime. "It may indicate
that they had not seen and did not know anything that might lead to the
conviction of the guilty party."[13] "If the murderer was discovered afterward,
of course, the punishment of death would still fall upon him."[14]
The prayer for forgiveness (Deuteronomy 21:8) was uttered by the priests,
implying that the local citizens were guilty of the crime of "failure to make the
roads safe for travelers."[15] "Corporate guilt is an alien concept in our modern
world, but such passages as this challenge the reader to take it seriously."[16]
CONSTABLE, "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 (Deuteronomy 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
6

7. 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.]
ELLICOTT, "Deuteronomy 21:1-9. UNDETECTED HOMICIDES.
(1) If one be found slain—It 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.—Rashi’s 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 Deuteronomy 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 publican’s 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 Leviticus 4:20; Leviticus 4:26; Leviticus 4:31; Leviticus
7

8. 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.
K&D, "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 (‫ל‬ ֵ‫ּפ‬‫נ‬ fallen, then lying,
Jdg_3:25; Jdg_4:22), having been put to death without its being known who had
killed him (‫וגו‬ ‫ע‬ ַ‫ּוד‬‫נ‬ ‫ּא‬‫ל‬, 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.
BI 1-9, "If one be found slain.
God’s 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 brother’s 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 man’s 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
8

9. 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.)
PETT, "Introduction
The Covenant Stipulations, Covenant Making at Shechem, Blessings and
Cursings (Deuteronomy 12:1 to Deuteronomy 29:1).
In this section of Deuteronomy we first have a description of specific
requirements that Yahweh laid down for His people. These make up the second
part of the covenant stipulations for the covenant expressed in Deuteronomy
4:45 to Deuteronomy 29:1 and also for the covenant which makes up the whole
book. They are found in chapters 12-26. As we have seen Deuteronomy 1:1 to
Deuteronomy 4:44 provide the preamble and historical prologue for the overall
covenant, followed by the general stipulations in chapters 5-11. There now,
therefore, in 12-26 follow the detailed stipulations which complete the main body
of the covenant. These also continue the second speech of Moses which began in
Deuteronomy 5:1.
Overall in this speech Moses is concerned to connect with the people. It is to the
people that his words are spoken rather than the priests so that much of the
priestly legislation is simply assumed. Indeed it is remarkably absent in
Deuteronomy except where it directly touches on the people. Anyone who read
Deuteronomy on its own would wonder at the lack of cultic material it contained,
and at how much the people were involved. It concentrates on their interests, and
not those of the priests and Levites, while acknowledging the responsibility that
they had towards both priests and Levites.
And even where the cultic legislation more specifically connects with the people,
necessary detail is not given, simply because he was aware that they already had
it in writing elsewhere. Their knowledge of it is assumed. Deuteronomy is
building on a foundation already laid. In it Moses was more concerned to get
over special aspects of the legislation as it was specifically affected by entry into
the land, with the interests of the people especially in mind. The suggestion that
it was later written in order to bring home a new law connected with the Temple
does not fit in with the facts. Without the remainder of the covenant legislation in
Exodus/Leviticus/Numbers to back it up, its presentation often does not make
9

10. sense from a cultic point of view.
This is especially brought home by the fact that when he refers to their approach
to God he speaks of it in terms of where they themselves stood or will stand when
they do approach Him. They stand not on Sinai but in Horeb. They stand not in
the Sanctuary but in ‘the place’, the site of the Sanctuary. That is why he
emphasises Horeb, which included the area before the Mount, and not just Sinai
itself (which he does not mention). And why he speaks of ‘the place’ which
Yahweh chose, which includes where the Tabernacle is sited and where they
gather together around the Tabernacle, and not of the Sanctuary itself. He wants
them to feel that they have their full part in the whole.
These detailed stipulations in chapters 12-26 will then be followed by the details
of the covenant ceremony to take place at the place which Yahweh has chosen at
Shechem (Deuteronomy 27), followed by blessings and cursings to do with the
observance or breach of the covenant (Deuteronomy 28).
III. REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD
(Deuteronomy 19:1 to Deuteronomy 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 Genesis 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 Deuteronomy 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.
Verses 1-9
The Undetected Murderer (Deuteronomy 21:1-9).
Analysis using the words of Moses:
10

11. 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 (Deuteronomy 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 (Deuteronomy 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
(Deuteronomy 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” (Deuteronomy 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 (Deuteronomy 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 (Deuteronomy 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.
Deuteronomy 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 (Deuteronomy 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
11

12. neighbourhood.
PULPIT, “Deuteronomy 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.
PULPIT, “Deuteronomy 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?
12

13. 1. This passage is pregnant with blessed teaching thereon. We have:
2. The Lord Jesus Christ taught it in terms more beautiful, more clear (Luke
12:1-59.; Matthew 18:1-35.; Luke 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 (2 Corinthians 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
Isaiah 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.
13

14. 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 Psalms
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!
2 your elders and judges shall go out and
measure the distance from the body to the
neighboring towns.
BARNES, "The elders represented the citizens at large, the judges the magistracy:
priests Deu_21:5 from the nearest priestly town, were likewise to be at hand. Thus,
all classes would be represented at the purging away of that blood-guiltiness which
until removed attached to the whole community.
GILL, "Then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth,.... From the city or
cities near to which the murder was committed, to make inquiry about it, and
expiation for it; so Aben Ezra interprets it of the elders of the cities near, but others
understand it of the elders of the great sanhedrim at Jerusalem; so the Targum of
Jonathan,"then shall go out from the great sanhedrim two of thy wise men, and three
of thy judges;''and more expressly the Misnah (l),"three go out from the great
sanhedrim in Jerusalem;''R. Judah says five,"it is said "thy elders" two, and "thy
judges" two,''and there is no sanhedrim or court of judicature equal (or even),
therefore they add to them one more:
and they shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is
slain; that is, from the place where the slain lies, as Jarchi rightly interprets it; on all
sides of it, from the four corner's, as the Targum of Jonathan, the cities round about
the slain. Maimonides (m) says, they do not behead the heifer for, nor measure, but
to a city in which there is a sanhedrim: if it is found between two cities (that is, at an
equal distance), both bring two heifers (Maimonides (n) says they bring one between
them, which is most reasonable); but the city of Jerusalem does not bring an heifer to
be beheaded: the reason is, because it was not divided to the tribes (o). This
measuring, one would think, should be only necessary when it was not certain which
was the nearest city; and yet Maimonides (p) says, even when it was found on the
side of a city, which was certainly known to be nearest, they measured; the
command, he observes, is to measure.
14

15. 3 Then the elders of the town nearest the body
shall take a heifer that has never been worked
and has never worn a yoke
BARNES, "The requirements as regards place and victim are symbolic. The heifer
represented the murderer, so far at least as to die in his stead, since he himself could
not be found. As hearing his guilt the heifer must therefore be one which was of full
growth and strength, and had not yet been ceremonially profaned by human use. The
Christian commentators find here a type of Christ and of His sacrifice for man: but
the heifer was not strictly a sacrifice or sin-offering. The transaction was rather
figurative, and was so ordered as to impress the lesson of Gen_9:5.
GILL, "And it shall be, that the city which is next unto the slain man,....
And so suspected, as the Targum of Jonathan, of the murder; or the murderer is in it,
or however belonged to it:
even the elders of the city shall take an heifer; of a year old, as the same
Targum, and so Jarchi; and in this the Jewish writers agree, that it must be a year
old, but not two; though heifers of three years old were sometimes used in sacrifice,
Gen_15:9 a type of Christ, in his strength, laboriousness, and patience; see Num_
19:2.
which hath not been wrought with; in ploughing land, or treading out corn:
and which hath not drawn in the yoke, which never had any yoke put upon it;
or however, if attempted to be put upon it, it would not come under it, and draw with
it: no mention is made, as usual, that it should be without blemish: because though
in some sense expiatory, yet was not properly a sacrifice, it not being slain and
offered where sacrifices were; hence it is said in the Misnah (q), that a blemish in it
did not make it rejected, or unlawful for use: nevertheless, this heifer may be a type
of Christ, whose sufferings, bloodshed, and death, atone for secret and unknown
sins, as well as for open and manifest ones, even for all sin; and its being free from
labour, and without a yoke, may signify the freedom of Christ from the yoke of sin,
and the service of it, and from human traditions; that he was not obliged to any toil
and labour he had been concerned in, or to bear the yoke of the law, had he not
voluntarily undertaken it of himself; and that he expiated the sins of such who were
sons of Belial, children without a yoke; and for the same reason, this heifer not being
required to be without blemish, might be because Christ, though he had no sin of his
own, was made sin for his people, and reckoned as if he had been a sinner; though
indeed, had this been the design of the type, all the sacrifices which typified Christ
15

16. would not have required such a qualification, to be without blemish, as they did.
HENRY, “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 (Deu_21:5), 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, Deu_21:8. 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.
K&D 3-4, "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 ‫ן‬ ָ‫ית‬ ֵ‫א‬ ‫ל‬ ַ‫ח‬ַ‫,נ‬ 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.
16

17. PETT, "Deuteronomy 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.
4 and lead it down to a valley that has not been
plowed or planted and where there is a flowing
stream. There in the valley they are to break the
heifer’s neck.
BARNES, "Eared - i. e., plowed; compare Gen_45:6 note and references. The
word is derived from the Latin, and is in frequent use by English writers of the
fifteenth and two following centuries.
Strike off the heifer’s neck - Rather, “break its neck” (compare Exo_13:13).
The mode of killing the victim distinguishes this lustration from the sin-offering, in
which there would be of course shedding and sprinkling of the blood.
17

18. CLARKE, "Shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley - ‫איתן‬ ‫נחל‬
nachal eythan might be translated a rapid stream, probably passing through a piece of
uncultivated ground where the elders of the city were to strike off the head of the
heifer, and to wash their hands over her in token of their innocence. The spot of
ground on which this sacrifice was made must be uncultivated, because it was
considered to be a sacrifice to make atonement for the murder, and consequently
would pollute the land. This regulation was calculated to keep murder in abhorrence,
and to make the magistrates alert in their office, that delinquents might be
discovered and punished, and thus public expense saved.
GILL, "The elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough
valley,.... Cities being generally built on hills, and so had adjacent valleys, to which
there was a descent; but here a rough valley, or the rougher part of it, was selected for
this purpose. As a valley is low, and this a rough one, it may be an emblem of Christ's
being brought into this lower world, from heaven to earth, to do the will of his
Father, which was to work out the salvation of his people; and of his coming into the
lower parts of the earth, the womb of the virgin, at his incarnation, and to the grave
at his death, Psa_139:15, and of the low estate he came into by the assumption of
human nature; through appearing in the form of a servant, being in indigent
circumstances, and ministered to by others, and needing the assistance of angels in
the wilderness and garden, by which it appeared he was made lower than they; by his
being despised of men, and forsaken by his Father; all which are proofs of the low
estate he was brought into, fitly signified by a valley, and which was a rough valley to
him; in which he was roughly treated, his life being sought after in his infancy by
Herod, which obliged the flight of his parents with him into Egypt; and being not
received, but rejected by his own, as the King Messiah, whom they would not have to
reign over them, and loaded with opprobrious names by them; and who often sought
and attempted by various ways to take away his life; and when apprehended and
examined before the high priest, and in Pilate's hall, was used in the rudest manner,
being spit upon, buffeted, and scourged; and when led out to be crucified, was
treated in the most barbarous and scornful manner, and was put to death in the most
painful and shameful way; and, above all, was severely handled by the justice of God,
being numbered among the transgressors, when the sword of justice was awaked
against him, and he was not in the least spared, but wrath came upon him to the
uttermost for the sins of his people; so that this world he was brought into proved a
rough valley indeed to him. This some take to be an emblem of the hard heart of the
murderer who had committed such a barbarous and cruel action as to kill a man; or
of the hard heart of a sinner, into which Christ is brought through the ministry of the
word; or of the infamous place, Calvary, where Christ was brought to suffer death;
but the former is best. Some interpret it, a "strong stream" (q), or "rapid torrent"; so
Maimonides (r) and others; and indeed in valleys there are generally streams or
brooks of water, but this seems not so well to agree with what follows:
which is neither cared nor sown; that is, neither ploughed nor sown, but quite
an uncultivated place; and this the Jews understand not of what it had been, or then
was, but what it should be hereafter; that from henceforward it should never be
manured, but lie barren and useless; so it is said in the Misnah (s), the place is forbid
sowing or tilling, but is free to dress flax in, or to dig stones out of it: so R. Joseph
Kimchi (t) interprets this of a fat and fruitful valley, which was not to be tilled nor
18

19. sown from thenceforward for time to come; the reason of which he thinks was, that
they might be the more careful of their countries and borders, and how they
encouraged bloody minded men to dwell among them; that no slain person might be
found there, and so they lose a choice part of their possessions; and to the same
purpose Maimonities (u): and this became true of the fruitful land of Judea and
Jerusalem, after the sufferings and death of Christ there, Luk_21:24.
and shall strike off the heifer's neck there in the valley; with an axe, on the
back part of it, in the midst of the valley, as the Targum of Jonathan, and the same is
said in the Misnah (w): in this it was a type of Christ, who was put to death at the
instigation of the elders of the Jewish nation, Mat_27:1 and without the gates of
Jerusalem at Golgotha; see Heb_13:11.
HENRY, “ 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.
COKE, “Ver. 4. Unto a rough valley, &c.— Unto a watered valley. Schult, p. 248.
The heifer was to be brought into an uncultivated ground, (probably with a
brook running through it, as the elders are required to wash their hands over the
heifer, ver. 6.) as some say, to represent the horridness of the murder. We are
told, that the place might never be plowed or sown thereafter; which made the
owners of the ground employ their utmost diligence to find out the murderer,
that their land might not lie waste for ever. But a more just explication is, that
some desolate piece of ground was to be chosen, because the blood of the victim
would have polluted cultivated ground: for this was a kind of expiatory sacrifice,
whereby the land was cleansed from the legal pollution of murder; and such
sacrifices rendered every person or thing unclean which touched them. See
Leviticus 16:26-27. In this valley they were to strike off the neck of the heifer, as
an emblem of the punishment which the assassin deserved, and as a
representation of his crime.
PULPIT, “A rough valley; literally, a stream of perpetuity, a perennial stream
(cf. Psalms 74:15, Authorized Version, "mighty rivers;" Amos 5:24); but here
rather the valley or wady through which a stream flowed, as is evident from its
being described as neither eared—that 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
19

20. 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. Exodus 13:13).
5 The Levitical priests shall step forward, for
the Lord your God has chosen them to minister
and to pronounce blessings in the name of the
Lord and to decide all cases of dispute and
assault.
GILL, "And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near,.... Who were clearly
of the tribe of Levi, as Aben Ezra notes; about whom there could be no dispute; for it
seems there sometimes were persons in that office, of whom there was some doubt at
least whether they were of that tribe; these seem to be such that belonged to the court
of judicature at Jerusalem; see Deu_17:9, who were to be present at this solemnity, to
direct in the performance of it, and to judge and determine in any matter of difficulty
that might arise:
for them the Lord thy God hath chosen to minister unto him; in the service
of the sanctuary, by offering sacrifices, &c.
and to bless in the name of the Lord; the people; see Num_6:23.
and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried; every
controversy between man and man respecting civil things, and every stroke or blow
which one man may give another; and whatsoever came before them was tried by
them, according to the respective laws given concerning the things in question, and
were not determined by them in an arbitrary way, according to their own will and
pleasure; see Deu_17:8.
HENRY 5-9, “The priests and Levites must assist and preside in this solemnity
(Deu_21:5), 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, Deu_21:8. God being Israel's King, his ministers must be
20

21. 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, Psa_26:6, I
will wash my hands in innocency; but if Pilate had any eye to it (Mat_27:24) 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_16:22. Be merciful, O
Lord, to thy people Israel, Deu_21:8. 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_1:14. (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 (2Co_7:11),
as were signified by the solemnity here appointed.
PETT, "Deuteronomy 21:5
‘And the priests, the sons of Levi, shall come near; for them Yahweh your God has
21

22. 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 Deuteronomy 31:9) but it is very little different in
significance to ‘the priests, the levites’ (Deuteronomy 17:9; Deuteronomy 17:18;
Deuteronomy 18:1; Deuteronomy 24:8; Deuteronomy 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 (Numbers
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.
PULPIT, “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. Deuteronomy 10:8; Deuteronomy 17:8). In the present case the presence of the
priests at the transaction gave it sanction as valid.
6 Then all the elders of the town nearest the
body shall wash their hands over the heifer
whose neck was broken in the valley,
CLARKE, "Shall wash their hands over the heifer - Washing the hands, in
reference to such a subject as this, was a rite anciently used to signify that the
persons thus washing were innocent of the crime in question. It was probably from
the Jews that Pilate learned this symbolical method of expressing his innocence.
GILL, "And all the elders of that city that are next unto the slain man,....
The whole court of judicature belonging to it, all the magistracy of it; even though
there were an hundred of them, Maimonides (x) says:
shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley: in
22

23. token of their innocence, and this they did not only for themselves, but for the whole
city, being the representatives of it; see Psa_26:6. Some think that this is a
confirmation of the sense embraced by some, that it was a strong stream to which the
heifer was brought; and there might be a stream of water here, and a valley also;
though it would be no great difficulty to get from the city, which was near, a sufficient
quantity of water to wash the hands of the elders with. This may denote the
purification of sin by the blood of Christ, when it is confessed over him; and shows
that priests and elders, ministers of the word, as well as others, stand in need of it;
and that even those concerned in the death of Christ shared in the benefits of it.
CALVIN, “6.And all the elders of that city. The washing of their hands had the
effect of stirring them up the more, so that they should not inconsiderately
protest in that solemn rite that they were pure and guiltless; for it was just as if
they had presented the corpse of the dead mall before God, and had stood
themselves opposite to it to purge away the crime. At the same time, also, they
ask for pardon, because it might have been through their carelessness that the
man was smitten; and again, since, by the sacrilege of Achan alone the whole
people were contaminated, it was to be feared lest the vengeance of God should
extend more widely on account of the offense committed. And thus they were
again taught how greatly God abominates murders, when the people pray that
they may be pardoned for the crime of another, as if, by the very looking upon it,
they had contracted guilt. God at length declares that He will not impute it to
them, when they have duly performed this rite of expiation; not because the
heifer was the price of satisfaction to propitiate God, but because in this way
they humbly reconciled themselves to Him, and shut the door against murders
for the time to come. On this account it is said — “Thou shalt put away the blood
from among you;” for if the murder be passed over without observation, there
remains a blot upon the people, and the earth itself, in a manner, stinks before
God.
COKE, "Ver. 6. Shall wash their hands— In testimony of their innocence. See
the following verses, Psalms 26:6 and Matthew 27:24. It is supposed by many,
that the words in the next verses are spoken by the priests: there seems as much
reason to believe that they were spoken by the elders. A learned Jewish writer,
Chazkuni, says, that they who washed their hands used these words: "As our
hands are now clean, so are we innocent of the blood which has been shed."
Wagenseil is of opinion, that Pilate alluded to this ceremony when he washed his
hands, and declared himself innocent of the blood of Jesus. It is, however, more
probable, that Pilate used this as a general and well-known ceremony, expressive
of innocence: nevertheless, he grossly abused it; since nothing could authorise or
exculpate him from the guilt of condemning an innocent person.
K&D, "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;
23

24. 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 ‫ה‬ ָ‫כ‬ ְ‫פ‬ ָ‫,שׁ‬ 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 ‫ר‬ ֵ ַⅴִ‫,נ‬ a mixed form from the
Niphal and Hithpael, see Ges. §55, and Ewald, §132, c.
PETT, "Deuteronomy 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 Exodus 13:13. This washing of hands declared them to be
innocent of any connection with the death of the slain man (see Psalms 26:6;
Psalms 73:13, and compare Matthew 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.
7 and they shall declare: “Our hands did not
shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it done.
GILL, "And they shall answer and say,.... The elders of the city, at the time of
the washing of their hands:
our hands have not shed this blood; have been no ways concerned in it, nor
accessory to it: the Targum of Jonathan is,"it is manifest before the Lord that he did
not come into our hands, nor did we dismiss him, that has shed this blood;''which is
24

25. more fully explained in the Misnah (y); for had they been aware of him, or had any
suspicion of him or his design, they would have detained him, or at least would not
have suffered him to have departed alone:
neither have our eyes seen; it, or him; so the Targum of Jerusalem,"our eyes
have not seen him that hath shed this blood;''by which expression is meant, that they
had no manner of knowledge of the murderer, nor of any circumstance that could
lead them to suspect or conclude who he was.
8 Accept this atonement for your people Israel,
whom you have redeemed, Lord, and do not
hold your people guilty of the blood of an
innocent person.” Then the bloodshed will be
atoned for,
GILL, "Be merciful, O Lord, to thy people Israel, whom thou hast
redeemed,.... Out of Egyptian bondage, and claimed as his own; and therefore it is
requested he would be favourable to them, and show them mercy, and not punish
them for a sin they were entirely ignorant of, though done by some one among them,
whom as yet they could not discover. The words seem to be the words of the elders
continued, who having made a declaration of their innocence, humbly request mercy
of God, not only for themselves, but for all the people of Israel; yet, both the Targums
of Onkelos and Jonathan take them to be the words of the priests, and so does Jarchi,
and the same is affirmed in the Misnah (z):
and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel's charge; impute not
the guilt of innocent blood to a people in general, when only a single person, and he
unknown, is chargeable with it: or put it not "in the midst" of thy people; let it not be
placed to the whole, because it cannot be found out whose it is, though it is certain it
is one in the midst of them:
and the blood shall be forgiven them; that is, God will not impute it, and place
it to their account, or lay it to their charge; but will graciously consider the beheading
of the heifer as an expiation of it: it is said in the Misnah (a),"if the murderer is found
before the heifer is beheaded, it goes forth and feeds among the herd; but if after it is
beheaded, it is buried in the same place; and again, if the heifer is beheaded, and
after that the murderer is found, he shall be slain;''so the Targums, and Jarchi on the
next verse.
PETT, "Deuteronomy 21:8
25

26. “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.
9 and you will have purged from yourselves the
guilt of shedding innocent blood, since you have
done what is right in the eyes of the Lord.
GILL, "So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among
you,.... Which otherwise, the person not being found out, and brought to just
punishment for it, would devolve upon the whole. Aben Ezra interprets it the
punishment of innocent blood, which, by the above method being taken, would not
be inflicted on them:
when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the Lord; as it was to
observe this law concerning the beheading of the heifer, with all the rites and
ceremonies belonging to it here enjoined; as well as every other command, statute,
and ordinance of the Lord, which are all right to be done, Psa_19:8.
K&D, "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.
26

27. COKE, “Ver. 9. So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood— Till this
was done, the guilt was to be looked upon as national; but upon this solemn
performance the government was deemed to have discharged its duty, and the
nation was cleared of all guilt in the matter. This law, we see, made provision to
purify a neighbouring city, and in a solemn manner by their magistrates, from
any knowledge of a murder in which they had no hand, and to which they were
no way privy; to keep up an abhorrence of the crime, and a care to prevent or
detest it: in which particular it is remarkable that no ancient lawgiver has been
more exact than Moses. The Greeks had some good rules respecting this matter;
and Plato, in particular, ordered, that, "upon the finding a murdered body,
public declaration should be made, that the murderer (if he could not be
discovered) should banish himself immediately from his country." De Leg. vol. 2:
lib. 2.
PETT, "Deuteronomy 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 Deuteronomy 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’.
27

28. Marrying a Captive Woman
10 When you go to war against your enemies
and the Lord your God delivers them into your
hands and you take captives,
BARNES, "The regulations which now follow in the rest of this and throughout
the next chapter bring out the sanctity of various personal rights and relations
fundamental to human life and society.
Deu_21:10-14. The war supposed here is one against the neighboring nations after
Israel had utterly destroyed the Canaanites (compare Deu_7:3), and taken
possession of their land.
GILL, "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies,.... This refers
to an arbitrary war, as Jarchi remarks, which they entered into of themselves, of
choice, or through being provoked to it by their enemies; and not a war commanded
by the Lord, as that against the seven nations of Canaan, and against Amalek; since
there were to be no captives in that war, but all were to be destroyed:
and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands; given them the
victory over their enemies, so that they were obliged to surrender themselves to them
prisoners of war:
and thou hast taken them captive, or "led his or their captivity (b) captive"; led
them captive who used to lead others, denoting their conquest of victorious nations;
see a like phrase in Psa_68:18.
HENRY 10-11, “By this law a soldier is allowed to marry his captive if he pleased.
For the hardness of their hearts Moses gave them this permission, lest, if they had
not had liberty given them to marry such, they should have taken liberty to defile
themselves with them, and by such wickedness the camp would have been troubled.
The man is supposed to have a wife already, and to take this wife for a secondary
wife, as the Jews called them. This indulgence of men's inordinate desires, in which
their hearts walked after their eyes, is by no means agreeable to the law of Christ,
which therefore in this respect, among others, far exceeds in glory the law of Moses.
The gospel permits not him that has one wife to take another, for from the beginning
it was not so. The gospel forbids looking upon a woman, though a beautiful one, to
lust after her, and commands the mortifying and denying of all irregular desires,
though it be as uneasy as the cutting off of a right hand; so much does our holy
religion, more than that of the Jews, advance the honour and support the dominion
of the soul over the body, the spirit over the flesh, consonant to the glorious
discovery it makes of life and immortality, and the better hope.
But, though military men were allowed this liberty, yet care is here taken that they
28

29. should not abuse it, that is,
I. That they should not abuse themselves by doing it too hastily, though the captive
was ever so desirable: “If thou wouldest have her to thy wife (Deu_21:10, Deu_
21:11), it is true thou needest not ask her parents' consent, for she is thy captive, and
is at thy disposal. But, 1. Thou shalt have no familiar intercourse till thou hast
married her.” This allowance was designed to gratify, not a filthy brutish lust, in the
heat and fury of its rebellion against reason and virtue, but an honourable and
generous affection to a comely and amiable person, though in distress; therefore he
may make her his wife if he will, but he must not deal with her as with a harlot.
JAMISON, “Deu_21:10-23. The treatment of a captive taken to wife.
When thou goest to war ... and seest among the captives a beautiful
woman ... that thou wouldest have her to thy wife — According to the war
customs of all ancient nations, a female captive became the slave of the victor, who
had the sole and unchallengeable control of right to her person. Moses improved this
existing usage by special regulations on the subject. He enacted that, in the event that
her master was captivated by her beauty and contemplated a marriage with her, a
month should be allowed to elapse, during which her perturbed feelings might be
calmed, her mind reconciled to her altered condition, and she might bewail the loss
of her parents, now to her the same as dead. A month was the usual period of
mourning with the Jews, and the circumstances mentioned here were the signs of
grief - the shaving of the head, the allowing the nails to grow uncut, the putting off
her gorgeous dress in which ladies, on the eve of being captured, arrayed themselves
to be the more attractive to their captors. The delay was full of humanity and
kindness to the female slave, as well as a prudential measure to try the strength of her
master’s affections. If his love should afterwards cool and he become indifferent to
her person, he was not to lord it over her, neither to sell her in the slave market, nor
retain her in a subordinate condition in his house; but she was to be free to go where
her inclinations led her.
K&D 10-11, "Deu_21:10-23. The treatment of a captive taken to wife.
When thou goest to war ... and seest among the captives a beautiful
woman ... that thou wouldest have her to thy wife — According to the war
customs of all ancient nations, a female captive became the slave of the victor, who
had the sole and unchallengeable control of right to her person. Moses improved this
existing usage by special regulations on the subject. He enacted that, in the event that
her master was captivated by her beauty and contemplated a marriage with her, a
month should be allowed to elapse, during which her perturbed feelings might be
calmed, her mind reconciled to her altered condition, and she might bewail the loss
of her parents, now to her the same as dead. A month was the usual period of
mourning with the Jews, and the circumstances mentioned here were the signs of
grief - the shaving of the head, the allowing the nails to grow uncut, the putting off
her gorgeous dress in which ladies, on the eve of being captured, arrayed themselves
to be the more attractive to their captors. The delay was full of humanity and
kindness to the female slave, as well as a prudential measure to try the strength of her
master’s affections. If his love should afterwards cool and he become indifferent to
her person, he was not to lord it over her, neither to sell her in the slave market, nor
retain her in a subordinate condition in his house; but she was to be free to go where
her inclinations led her.
29

30. CALVIN, “10.When thou goest forth to war. The same thing is now commanded
respecting wives as above respecting meats. As regarded the Canaanites, who
were destined and devoted to destruction, we have seen that the Israelites were
prohibited from taking their women to wife, lest this connection should be an
enticement to sin; but Moses now goes further, viz., that the Israelites, having
obtained a victory over other nations, should not marry any of the captive
women, unless purified by a solemn rite. This, then, is the sum, that the Israelites
should not defile themselves by profane marriages, but in this point also should
keep themselves pure and uncorrupt, because they were separated from other
people, to be the peculiar people of God. It was better, indeed, that they should
altogether abstain from such marriages; yet it was difficult so to restrain their
lust as that they should not decline from chastity in the least, degree; and hence
we learn how much license conquerors allow themselves in war, so that there is
no room for perfect purity in them. Wherefore God so tempers His indulgence as
that the Israelites, remembering the adoption wherewith He had honored them,
should not disgrace themselves, but in the very fervor of their lust should retain
some religious affection. But the question here is not of unlawful ravishment, but
Moses only speaks of women who have been made captives by the right of war,
for we know that conquerors have abused them with impunity, because they had
them under their power and dominion. But since many are led astray by the
blandishments of their wives, God applies a remedy, viz., that the abjuration of
their former life should precede their marriage; and that none should be allowed
to marry a foreign wife until she shall have first renounced her own nation. To
this refers the ceremony, that the woman should shave her head, and cut her
nails, and change her garments, and lament her father and her family for an
entire month, viz., that she may renounce her former life, and pass over to
another people. Some of the rabbins twist the words to a different meaning, as if
God would extinguish love in the minds of the husbands by disfiguring the
women; for the shaving of the head greatly detracts from female beauty and
elegance; and “to make the nails,” for so the words literally mean, they
understand as to let them grow; and the prolongation of the nails has a
disgusting appearance. But their gloss is refuted by the context, in which she is
commanded to put off the raiment of her captivity.: But I have no doubt but that
their month of mourning, their shaven head, and the other signs, are intended by
God for their renewal, so that they may accustom themselves to different habits.
And with the same object they are commanded to bewail their parents as if dead,
that they may bid farewell to their own people. To this the Prophet seems to
allude in Psalms 45:10, when he says, “Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and
incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father’s house;” for he
intimates that otherwise the marriage of a foreign woman with Solomon would
not be pure and legitimate, unless she should relinquish her superstitions, and
30

31. devote herself to God’s service. Nor was it needless that God should require the
Israelites diligently to beware lest they should take wives as yet aliens from the
study of true religion, since experience most abundantly shows how fatal a snare
it is. But although we are not now bound to this observance, yet the rule still
holds good that men should not rashly ally themselves with women still devoted
to wicked superstitions. (51)
COFFMAN, "RIGHTS OF CAPTIVE TAKEN AS WIFE
"When thou goest forth to battle against thine enemies, and Jehovah thy God
delivereth them into thy hands, and thou carriest them away captive, and seest
among the captives a beautiful woman, and thou hast a desire unto her, and
wouldest take her unto thee to wife; then thou shalt bring her home to thy house;
and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; and she shall put the raiment of
her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thy house, and bewail her father
and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her
husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her,
then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for
money, thou shalt not deal with her as a slave, because thou hast humbled her."
"The main principle here is that a man's authority did not extend to the right of
reducing his wife to a slave,"[17] even though the wife might have been, at one
time, a slave. The mention of divorce here is not given as a sanction for it but is
mentioned incidentally. All polygamous marriages in the O.T. are presented in
such a manner as to expose them as disharmonious and unsatisfactory.
Watts thought this paragraph should have been included in Deuteronomy 20 as
part of the instructions on war;[18] but Keil's words on this in the chapter
introduction are far preferable. Wright called the provisions here examples, "of
thoughtful forbearance and consideration,"[19] not often associated with
thoughts of war. The superiority of the true religion as contrasted with the
ordinary behavior of people shines in such a passage as this.
Regarding the foolishness of any man who would choose a companion for life on
the mere OUTWARD appearance of a woman, we have this from Oberst:
"We would seriously question a man's wisdom who would choose a life's partner
on such a superficial basis, with little or no chance to consider whether she was
beautiful in character. Let one so tempted heed the warning of the Bible: "Lust
not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids"
(Proverbs 6:25). Grace is deceitful, and beauty is vain. But a woman that feareth
Jehovah, she shall be praised" (Proverbs 31:20).[20]
In this same connection, a Jewish writer, seeking to explain WHY this marriage
to a beautiful foreign captive should appear in the same chapter with the
31

32. directions for putting to death a "refractory and rebellious son," stated that, a
man who would be so taken by a woman's PHYSICAL BEAUTY that he would
marry her in spite of her heathen origin is obviously one who attaches more
importance to superficial glamour than to inner virtue, and that, "It is only
natural that a man with such an attitude should beget a son who is "refractory
and rebellious."[21]
Just here it is wise to remember that the prohibition against the Israelites
intermarrying with the Canaanites did not extend to intermarriage with other
foreign peoples; therefore, the case under discussion here related to a captive
taken in "a distant city." McGarvey supposed in this connection that David's
intermarriage with certain foreign women did not violate God's law, but that
Solomon's did.[22] But David's also did in the case of Bathsheba.
Jamieson thought that a double purpose was served by the ban against marrying
a captive woman until her month for mourning had been fulfilled. He noted that
the shaving of the head was a sign of grief and mourning and that the putting
away of the garments of her captivity had the utility of taking away any glamour
the woman might have had due to her dress, and that in such a changed state the
passions of her would-be-husband might be subdued. Part of this was based on
the custom of women about to be captured. "They arrayed themselves in the
most gorgeous garments they possessed in order to be more attractive to their
captors."[23] Whatever the full purpose of this legislation, "The humanitarian
tone of it is unique in the ancient world."[24]
CONSTABLE, "Limits on a husband's authority 21:10-14
Israelite men could marry women from distant conquered cities taken as
prisoners of war (provided they did not already have a wife). Such a woman had
to shave her head and trim her nails. These were rituals of purification
customary in the ancient Near East. [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 3:406.] She
received one month to mourn her parents (Deuteronomy 21:13). This may
presuppose that they had died in the battle or, more likely, that she was to cut off
all ties to her former life. [Note: Mayes, p. 303.]
"Such kindly consideration is in marked contrast with the cruel treatment meted
out to women captured in war among the neighboring nations ..." [Note:
Thompson, p. 228.]
"This legislation could have two basic results: the men would be restrained from
rape, and the women would have time to become adjusted to their new
condition." [Note: Kalland, p. 132.]
The provision for divorce (Deuteronomy 21:14) receives further clarification
later (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). We should not interpret the fact that God legislated
32

33. the rights of sons born into polygamous families as tacit approval of that form of
marriage. Monogamy was God's will (Genesis 2:24; cf. Matthew 19:4-6). [Note:
See Sailhamer, p. 460; and Merrill, Deuteronomy, p. 292.] However, God also
gave laws that regulated life when His people lived it in disobedience to His will.
In other words, God did not approve of polygamy, but He tolerated it in Israel in
the sense that He did not execute or punish polygamists through civil procedures.
Similarly He did not approve of divorce, but He allowed it in this case (cf.
Genesis 21:8-14; Ezra 9-10; Malachi 2:16). [Note: See Joe M. Sprinkle, "Old
Testament Perspectives on Divorce and Remarriage," Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 40:4 (December 1997):529-50.]
God did not feel compelled to comment in Scripture whenever people disobeyed
him. That is, He did not always lead the writers of Scripture to identify every
sinful practice as such whenever it occurs in the text. This was especially true
when the people's sins produced relatively limited consequences. He did
comment more on the Israelites' sins that directly involved their relationship to
Himself and their sins that affected many other people. This fact reflects God's
gracious character (cf. Luke 15:12).
LANGE, "The Seventh Commandment
Deuteronomy 21:10-23
10When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God
hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11And
seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast [holdest] a desire; unto
her, that thou wouldest have [and takest] her to thy wife; 12Then thou shalt
bring [And bringest] her home to thine house, and [so] she shall shave her head,
and pare13[make, make right] her nails: And she shall put the raiment of her
captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father
and her mother a full month [so many days]: and after that, thou shalt go in unto
her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife 14 And it shall be, if thou
have no delight [more] in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will [go after
her soul, desire]; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money; thou shalt not make
merchandise of her [treat her harshly], because thou hast humbled her 15 If a
man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have borne him
children [sons], both the beloved and the hated; and if the first-born son be hers
that was hated: 16Then it shall be, when [at the day] he maketh his sons to
inherit that which he hath, that he may [see, Deuteronomy 7:22; Deuteronomy
12:17] not make the son of the beloved first-born, before the son of the hated,
which is indeed [om. which is indeed] the first-born: 17But he shall acknowledge
the son of the hated for [om. for] the first-born, by giving him a double portion
of all that he hath [all that is found with him]: for he is the beginning18[firstling]
of his strength; the right of the first-born is his. If a man have a stubborn and
33

34. rebellious Song of Solomon, 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: 19Then 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; 20And 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 [spendthrift] and a drunkard 21 And all
the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou [and
thou shalt] put evil away from among you, and all Israel shall hear, and fear 22
And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death,
and thou hang him on a tree: 23His body shall not remain all night upon the tree,
but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed
of God [the curse of God];) that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God
giveth thee for an inheritance.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. Deuteronomy 21:10-14. Moses comes first to speak of the seventh command,
its explanation and application, as after the possession of Canaan, thus entirely
as Deuteronomy 20:1, and consequently with reference to enemies not
Canaanites ( Deuteronomy 7:3), from whom an Israelite might take himself a
wife. Deuteronomy 21:10 ( Deuteronomy 20:13). ‫י‬ ִ‫ב‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ and ‫ָה‬‫י‬ ְ‫ב‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ ( Deuteronomy
21:11), pro concrete, captives. Deuteronomy 21:11. Comp. Genesis 29:17;
Genesis 34:8 ( Deuteronomy 7:7; Deuteronomy 10:15). The circumstance was
natural and human, but also leads to regulated and enduring relations. And
takest, sq, namely to thy wife, otherwise the bringing her home would be out of
place. But to this insertion into the home there must follow a not less natural and
humane severing of previous relations on the part of the woman. As the head is
to be shaven, the clothing in which she was captured to be put off, so the making
is to average, set right the nails, i.e. to cut them ( 2 Samuel 19:25). Not as the
pietists among the Rabbins, to make herself repulsive, and deter the son of Israel
from the heathen; nor even as a mourning custom ( Deuteronomy 14:1; Leviticus
21:5), in which they permitted the nails to grow, unless the cutting was practised
under the supposition of colored nails; but as outwardly in the body and
clothing, so inwardly she should have time through the mourning to detach
herself from her previous relations (comp. Leviticus 14:8; Numbers 6:9;
Numbers 8:7). Her defenceless condition, beyond the pale of law, secures her
human sympathy. The transition from heathenism was not indeed symbolized;
but in so tender and affecting an indulgence of the human, a preparation for the
way to the divine could scarcely fail ( Psalm 45:10). The marriage relation
( Deuteronomy 21:13) is a dominion, Deuteronomy 24:1. But because it was
marriage, Deuteronomy 21:14, therefore a formal separation ( Matthew 19:8),
that she might go out free whither she would ( Jeremiah 34:16). Comp. Exodus
21:8; Exodus 21:11; Deuteronomy 24:7. The humiliation extended to the
34