Blood, Honor, and Covenant Order in the Land

Deu 21:6-8 The elders of the town were to wash their hands over the slain heifer, i. e. , to cleanse themselves by this symbolical act from the suspicion of any guilt on the part of the inhabitants of the town in the murder that had been committed (cf. Psa 26:6; Psa 73:13; Mat 27:24), and then answer (to the charge involved in what had taken place), and say, “ Our hands have not shed this blood (on the singular שׁפכה, 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 נכּפּר, a mixed form from the Niphal and Hithpael, see Ges. §55, and Ewald , §132, c .

Deu 21:6-8 The elders of the town were to wash their hands over the slain heifer, i. e. , to cleanse themselves by this symbolical act from the suspicion of any guilt on the part of the inhabitants of the town in the murder that had been committed (cf. Psa 26:6; Psa 73:13; Mat 27:24), and then answer (to the charge involved in what had taken place), and say, “ Our hands have not shed this blood (on the singular שׁפכה, 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 נכּפּר, a mixed form from the Niphal and Hithpael, see Ges. §55, and Ewald , §132, c .

Deu 21:6-8 The elders of the town were to wash their hands over the slain heifer, i. e. , to cleanse themselves by this symbolical act from the suspicion of any guilt on the part of the inhabitants of the town in the murder that had been committed (cf. Psa 26:6; Psa 73:13; Mat 27:24), and then answer (to the charge involved in what had taken place), and say, “ Our hands have not shed this blood (on the singular שׁפכה, 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 נכּפּר, a mixed form from the Niphal and Hithpael, see Ges. §55, and Ewald , §132, c .

Deu 21:9 In this way Israel was to wipe away the innocent blood (the bloodshed) from its midst (cf. Num 35:33). If the murderer were discovered afterwards, of course the punishment of death which had been inflicted vicariously upon the animal, simply because the criminal himself could not be found, would still fall upon him.

Deu 21:10-11 Treatment of a Wife who had been a Prisoner of War. - If an Israelite saw among the captives, who had been brought away in a war against foreign nations, a woman of beautiful figure, and loved her, and took her as his wife, he was to allow her a month’s time in his house, to bewail her separation from her home and kindred, and accustom herself to her new condition of life, before he married her.

What is said here does not apply to the wars with the Canaanites, who were to be cut off (vid. , Deu 7:3), but, as a comparison of the introductory words in Deu 21:1 with Deu 20:1 clearly shows, to the wars which Israel would carry on with surrounding nations after the conquest of Canaan. שׁבי and שׁביה, the captivity, for the captives.

Deu 21:10-11 Treatment of a Wife who had been a Prisoner of War. - If an Israelite saw among the captives, who had been brought away in a war against foreign nations, a woman of beautiful figure, and loved her, and took her as his wife, he was to allow her a month’s time in his house, to bewail her separation from her home and kindred, and accustom herself to her new condition of life, before he married her.

What is said here does not apply to the wars with the Canaanites, who were to be cut off (vid. , Deu 7:3), but, as a comparison of the introductory words in Deu 21:1 with Deu 20:1 clearly shows, to the wars which Israel would carry on with surrounding nations after the conquest of Canaan. שׁבי and שׁביה, the captivity, for the captives.

Deu 21:12-14 When the woman was taken home to the house of the man who had loved her, she was to shave her head, and make, i. e. , cut, her nails (cf. 2Sa 19:25), - both customary signs of purification (on this signification of the cutting of the hair, see Lev 14:8 and Num 8:7), - as symbols of her passing out of the state of a slave, and of her reception into the fellowship of the covenant nation.

This is perfectly obvious in her laying aside her prisoner’s clothes. After putting off the signs of captivity, she was to sit (dwell) in the house, and bewail her father and mother for a month, i. e. , console herself for her separation from her parents, whom she had lost, that she might be able to forget her people and her father’s house (Psa 45:11), and give herself up henceforth in love to her husband with an undivided heart.

The intention of these laws was not to protect the woman against any outbreak of rude passion on the part of the man, but rather to give her time and leisure to loosen herself inwardly from the natural fellowship of her nation and kindred, and to acquire affection towards the fellowship of the people of God, into which she had entered against her will, that her heart might cherish love to the God of Israel, who had given her favour in the eyes of her master, and had taken from her the misery and reproach of slavery. But her master becoming her husband, she entered into the rights of a daughter of Israel, who had been sold by her father to a man to be his wife (Exo 21:7.)

If after this her husband should find no pleasure in her, he was to let her go לנפשׁהּ, i. e. , at her free will, and not sell her for money (cf. Exo 21:8). “ Thou shalt not put constraint upon her, because thou hast humbled her . ” התעמּר, which only occurs again in Deu 24:7, probably signifies to throw oneself upon a person, to practise violence towards him (cf.

Ges. thes. p. 1046).

Deu 21:12-14 When the woman was taken home to the house of the man who had loved her, she was to shave her head, and make, i. e. , cut, her nails (cf. 2Sa 19:25), - both customary signs of purification (on this signification of the cutting of the hair, see Lev 14:8 and Num 8:7), - as symbols of her passing out of the state of a slave, and of her reception into the fellowship of the covenant nation.

This is perfectly obvious in her laying aside her prisoner’s clothes. After putting off the signs of captivity, she was to sit (dwell) in the house, and bewail her father and mother for a month, i. e. , console herself for her separation from her parents, whom she had lost, that she might be able to forget her people and her father’s house (Psa 45:11), and give herself up henceforth in love to her husband with an undivided heart.

The intention of these laws was not to protect the woman against any outbreak of rude passion on the part of the man, but rather to give her time and leisure to loosen herself inwardly from the natural fellowship of her nation and kindred, and to acquire affection towards the fellowship of the people of God, into which she had entered against her will, that her heart might cherish love to the God of Israel, who had given her favour in the eyes of her master, and had taken from her the misery and reproach of slavery. But her master becoming her husband, she entered into the rights of a daughter of Israel, who had been sold by her father to a man to be his wife (Exo 21:7.)

If after this her husband should find no pleasure in her, he was to let her go לנפשׁהּ, i. e. , at her free will, and not sell her for money (cf. Exo 21:8). “ Thou shalt not put constraint upon her, because thou hast humbled her . ” התעמּר, which only occurs again in Deu 24:7, probably signifies to throw oneself upon a person, to practise violence towards him (cf.

Ges. thes. p. 1046).

Deu 21:12-14 When the woman was taken home to the house of the man who had loved her, she was to shave her head, and make, i. e. , cut, her nails (cf. 2Sa 19:25), - both customary signs of purification (on this signification of the cutting of the hair, see Lev 14:8 and Num 8:7), - as symbols of her passing out of the state of a slave, and of her reception into the fellowship of the covenant nation.

This is perfectly obvious in her laying aside her prisoner’s clothes. After putting off the signs of captivity, she was to sit (dwell) in the house, and bewail her father and mother for a month, i. e. , console herself for her separation from her parents, whom she had lost, that she might be able to forget her people and her father’s house (Psa 45:11), and give herself up henceforth in love to her husband with an undivided heart.

The intention of these laws was not to protect the woman against any outbreak of rude passion on the part of the man, but rather to give her time and leisure to loosen herself inwardly from the natural fellowship of her nation and kindred, and to acquire affection towards the fellowship of the people of God, into which she had entered against her will, that her heart might cherish love to the God of Israel, who had given her favour in the eyes of her master, and had taken from her the misery and reproach of slavery. But her master becoming her husband, she entered into the rights of a daughter of Israel, who had been sold by her father to a man to be his wife (Exo 21:7.)

If after this her husband should find no pleasure in her, he was to let her go לנפשׁהּ, i. e. , at her free will, and not sell her for money (cf. Exo 21:8). “ Thou shalt not put constraint upon her, because thou hast humbled her . ” התעמּר, which only occurs again in Deu 24:7, probably signifies to throw oneself upon a person, to practise violence towards him (cf.

Ges. thes. p. 1046).

Deu 21:15-17 The Right of the first-born. - Whilst the previous law was intended to protect the slave taken in war against the caprice of her Israelitish master, the law which follows is directed against the abuse of paternal authority in favour of a favourite wife. If a man had two wives, of whom one was beloved and the other hated, - as was the case, for example, with Jacob, - and had sons by both his wives, but the first-born by the wife he hated, he was not, when dividing his property as their inheritance, to make the son of the wife he loved the first-born, i.

e. , was not to give him the inheritance of the first-born, but was to treat the son of the hated wife, who was really the first-born son, as such, and to give him a double share of all his possession. בּכּר, to make or institute as first-born. וגו בּן על־פּני, over (by) the face of, i. e. , opposite to the first-born son of the hated, when he was present; in other words, “during his lifetime” (cf.

Gen 11:28). יכּיר, to regard as that which he is, the rightful first-born. The inheritance of the first-born consisted in “ a mouth of two ” (i. e. , a mouthful, portion, share of two) of all that was by him, all that he possessed. Consequently the first-born inherited twice as much as nay of the other sons. “ Beginning of his strength ” (as in Gen 49:3). This right of primogeniture did not originate with Moses, but was simply secured by him against arbitrary invasion.

It was founded, no doubt, upon hereditary tradition; just as we find in many other nations, that certain privileges are secured to the first-born sons above those born afterwards.

Deu 21:15-17 The Right of the first-born. - Whilst the previous law was intended to protect the slave taken in war against the caprice of her Israelitish master, the law which follows is directed against the abuse of paternal authority in favour of a favourite wife. If a man had two wives, of whom one was beloved and the other hated, - as was the case, for example, with Jacob, - and had sons by both his wives, but the first-born by the wife he hated, he was not, when dividing his property as their inheritance, to make the son of the wife he loved the first-born, i.

e. , was not to give him the inheritance of the first-born, but was to treat the son of the hated wife, who was really the first-born son, as such, and to give him a double share of all his possession. בּכּר, to make or institute as first-born. וגו בּן על־פּני, over (by) the face of, i. e. , opposite to the first-born son of the hated, when he was present; in other words, “during his lifetime” (cf.

Gen 11:28). יכּיר, to regard as that which he is, the rightful first-born. The inheritance of the first-born consisted in “ a mouth of two ” (i. e. , a mouthful, portion, share of two) of all that was by him, all that he possessed. Consequently the first-born inherited twice as much as nay of the other sons. “ Beginning of his strength ” (as in Gen 49:3). This right of primogeniture did not originate with Moses, but was simply secured by him against arbitrary invasion.

It was founded, no doubt, upon hereditary tradition; just as we find in many other nations, that certain privileges are secured to the first-born sons above those born afterwards.

Deu 21:15-17 The Right of the first-born. - Whilst the previous law was intended to protect the slave taken in war against the caprice of her Israelitish master, the law which follows is directed against the abuse of paternal authority in favour of a favourite wife. If a man had two wives, of whom one was beloved and the other hated, - as was the case, for example, with Jacob, - and had sons by both his wives, but the first-born by the wife he hated, he was not, when dividing his property as their inheritance, to make the son of the wife he loved the first-born, i.

e. , was not to give him the inheritance of the first-born, but was to treat the son of the hated wife, who was really the first-born son, as such, and to give him a double share of all his possession. בּכּר, to make or institute as first-born. וגו בּן על־פּני, over (by) the face of, i. e. , opposite to the first-born son of the hated, when he was present; in other words, “during his lifetime” (cf.

Gen 11:28). יכּיר, to regard as that which he is, the rightful first-born. The inheritance of the first-born consisted in “ a mouth of two ” (i. e. , a mouthful, portion, share of two) of all that was by him, all that he possessed. Consequently the first-born inherited twice as much as nay of the other sons. “ Beginning of his strength ” (as in Gen 49:3). This right of primogeniture did not originate with Moses, but was simply secured by him against arbitrary invasion.

It was founded, no doubt, upon hereditary tradition; just as we find in many other nations, that certain privileges are secured to the first-born sons above those born afterwards.

Deu 21:18-19 Punishment of a Refractory Son. - The laws upon this point aim not only at the defence, but also at the limitation, of parental authority. If any one’s son was unmanageable and refractory, not hearkening to the voice of his parents, even when they chastised him, his father and mother were to take him and lead him out to the elders of the town into the gate of the place.

The elders are not regarded here as judges in the strict sense of the word, but as magistrates, who had to uphold the parental authority, and administer the local police. The gate of the town was the forum, where the public affairs of the place were discussed (cf. Deu 22:15; Deu 25:7); as it is in the present day in Syria ( Seetzen , R. ii. p. 88), and among the Moors ( Höst , Nachrichten v.

Marokkos, p. 239).

Deu 21:18-19 Punishment of a Refractory Son. - The laws upon this point aim not only at the defence, but also at the limitation, of parental authority. If any one’s son was unmanageable and refractory, not hearkening to the voice of his parents, even when they chastised him, his father and mother were to take him and lead him out to the elders of the town into the gate of the place.

The elders are not regarded here as judges in the strict sense of the word, but as magistrates, who had to uphold the parental authority, and administer the local police. The gate of the town was the forum, where the public affairs of the place were discussed (cf. Deu 22:15; Deu 25:7); as it is in the present day in Syria ( Seetzen , R. ii. p. 88), and among the Moors ( Höst , Nachrichten v.

Marokkos, p. 239).

Deu 21:20 Here they were to accuse the son as being unmanageable, refractory, disobedient, as “a glutton and a drunkard.” These last accusations show the reason for the unmanageableness and refractoriness.

Deu 21:21 In consequence of this accusation, all the men of the town were to stone him, so that he died. By this the right was taken away from the parents of putting an incorrigible son to death (cf. Pro 19:18), whilst at the same time the parental authority was fully preserved. Nothing is said about any evidence of the charge brought by the parents, or about any judicial inquiry generally.

“In such a case the charge was a proof in itself. For if the heart of a father and mother could be brought to such a point as to give up their child to the judge before the community of the nation, everything would have been done that a judge would need to know” ( Schnell, d. isr. Recht, p. 11). - On Deu 21:21 , cf. Deu 13:6 and Deu 13:12.

Deu 21:22-23 Burial of those who had been Hanged. - If there was a sin upon a man, מות משׁפּט, lit. , a right of death, i. e. , a capital crime (cf. Deu 19:6 and Deu 22:26), and he was put to death, and they hanged him upon a tree (wood), his body was not to remain upon the wood over night, but they were to bury him on the same day upon which he as hanged; “ for the hanged man is a curse of God ,” and they were not to defile the land which Jehovah gave for an inheritance.

The hanging, not of criminals who were to be put to death, but of those who had been executed with the sword, was an intensification of the punishment of death (see at Num 25:4), inasmuch as the body was thereby exposed to peculiar kinds of abominations. Moses commanded the burial of those who had been hanged upon the day of their execution, - that is to say, as we may see from the application of this law in Jos 8:29; Jos 10:26-27, before sunset, - because the hanged man, being a curse of God, defiled the land.

The land was defiled not only by vices and crimes (cf. Lev 18:24, Lev 18:28; Num 35:34), but also by the exposure to view of criminals who had been punished with death, and thus had been smitten by the curse of God, inasmuch as their shameful deeds were thereby publicly exposed to view. We are not to think of any bodily defilement of the land through the decomposition consequent upon death, as J.

D. Mich. and Sommer suppose; so that there is no ground for speaking of any discrepancy between this and the old law. - (On the application of this law to Christ, see Gal 3:13.) , - This regulation is appended very loosely to what precedes. The link of connection is contained in the thought, that with the punishment of the wicked the recollection of their crimes was also to be removed.

Going deeper and deeper into the manifold relations of the national life, Moses first of all explains in Deu 22:1-12 the attitude of an Israelite, on the one hand, towards a neighbour; and, on the other hand, towards the natural classification and arrangement of things, and shows how love should rule in the midst of all these relations. The different relations brought under consideration are selected rather by way of examples, and therefore follow one another without any link of connection, for the purpose of exhibiting the truth in certain concrete cases, and showing how the covenant people were to hold all the arrangement of God sacred, whether in nature or in social life.

Deu 21:22-23 Burial of those who had been Hanged. - If there was a sin upon a man, מות משׁפּט, lit. , a right of death, i. e. , a capital crime (cf. Deu 19:6 and Deu 22:26), and he was put to death, and they hanged him upon a tree (wood), his body was not to remain upon the wood over night, but they were to bury him on the same day upon which he as hanged; “ for the hanged man is a curse of God ,” and they were not to defile the land which Jehovah gave for an inheritance.

The hanging, not of criminals who were to be put to death, but of those who had been executed with the sword, was an intensification of the punishment of death (see at Num 25:4), inasmuch as the body was thereby exposed to peculiar kinds of abominations. Moses commanded the burial of those who had been hanged upon the day of their execution, - that is to say, as we may see from the application of this law in Jos 8:29; Jos 10:26-27, before sunset, - because the hanged man, being a curse of God, defiled the land.

The land was defiled not only by vices and crimes (cf. Lev 18:24, Lev 18:28; Num 35:34), but also by the exposure to view of criminals who had been punished with death, and thus had been smitten by the curse of God, inasmuch as their shameful deeds were thereby publicly exposed to view. We are not to think of any bodily defilement of the land through the decomposition consequent upon death, as J.

D. Mich. and Sommer suppose; so that there is no ground for speaking of any discrepancy between this and the old law. - (On the application of this law to Christ, see Gal 3:13.) , - This regulation is appended very loosely to what precedes. The link of connection is contained in the thought, that with the punishment of the wicked the recollection of their crimes was also to be removed.

Going deeper and deeper into the manifold relations of the national life, Moses first of all explains in Deu 22:1-12 the attitude of an Israelite, on the one hand, towards a neighbour; and, on the other hand, towards the natural classification and arrangement of things, and shows how love should rule in the midst of all these relations. The different relations brought under consideration are selected rather by way of examples, and therefore follow one another without any link of connection, for the purpose of exhibiting the truth in certain concrete cases, and showing how the covenant people were to hold all the arrangement of God sacred, whether in nature or in social life.

Deu 22:1-3 In Deu 22:1-4 Moses shows, by a still further expansion of Exo 23:4-5, how the property of a neighbour was to be regarded and preserved. If any man saw an ox or a sheep of his brother’s (fellow-countryman) going astray, he was not to draw back from it, but to bring it back to his brother; and if the owner lived at a distance, or was unknown, he was to take it into his own house or farm, till he came to seek it. He was also to do the same with an ass or any other property that another had lost.

Deu 22:1-3 In Deu 22:1-4 Moses shows, by a still further expansion of Exo 23:4-5, how the property of a neighbour was to be regarded and preserved. If any man saw an ox or a sheep of his brother’s (fellow-countryman) going astray, he was not to draw back from it, but to bring it back to his brother; and if the owner lived at a distance, or was unknown, he was to take it into his own house or farm, till he came to seek it. He was also to do the same with an ass or any other property that another had lost.

Deu 22:1-3 In Deu 22:1-4 Moses shows, by a still further expansion of Exo 23:4-5, how the property of a neighbour was to be regarded and preserved. If any man saw an ox or a sheep of his brother’s (fellow-countryman) going astray, he was not to draw back from it, but to bring it back to his brother; and if the owner lived at a distance, or was unknown, he was to take it into his own house or farm, till he came to seek it. He was also to do the same with an ass or any other property that another had lost.

Deu 22:4 A fallen animal belonging to another he was also to help up (as in Exo 23:5 : except that in this case, instead of a brother generally, an enemy or hater is mentioned).