Regulation Concerning Violent Death Where The Murderer Is Not Known (Deuteronomy 21:1-9).
While for convenience we are splitting up Moses' speech into parts it should be noted that it is our arrangement and not his. In fact as we have already noted chapter 19 connects back to what has gone before, but also to here. There are some close parallels between the verses that follow here and that chapter. Both stress the gift of the land (compare Deuteronomy 19:1 with Deuteronomy 21:1), both deal with a problem raised by a death; both refer to the putting away of innocent blood from among them (Deuteronomy 19:13 with Deuteronomy 21:9); both stress that all Israel must play their part in remedying the situation. Thus there is a continuation in themes
So it should be noted here that Moses whole speech is interwoven and cannot be fitted quite so easily into our patterns. In this chapter the theme of violent death, which began at Deuteronomy 19:1 is continued, by dealing first with the question of the discovery of a dead body (Deuteronomy 21:1-9), and then that of the body of executed criminals which are publicly displayed (Deuteronomy 21:22-23). Also continued is the theme of warfare in chapter 20, by dealing with the question of marriage in relation to captive women (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). Contained within this are important regulations concerned with inheritance (Deuteronomy 21:15-17) and authority (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).
An Unidentified Murder (Deuteronomy 21:1-9).
The first part of Deuteronomy 21 follows in the train ofdeu Deuteronomy 19:1-13 and Deuteronomy 20:1-18 in each of which Chapter s blood had been shed, in the first case innocently, with a proviso that where it turned out to be deliberate murder the death of the murderer should result, in the second by war, where it was not murder. Neither therefore required immediate satisfaction. The principle established here in deu 21-1-9, along with Deuteronomy 19:11-13, is that the deliberate violent shedding of blood illegally must be requited by a death. There must be immediate fulfilment of the principle, a life for a life. Blood had been spilt in Yahweh's land, and there must be a recompense (not an atonement, it is not a sacrifice). If the culprit cannot be found then a substitute or representative is required which itself must be totally innocent. This must be provided by the nearest city. It is an acknowledgement by those closest to the murder that they are partly at fault for having allowed it to happen in their vicinity, but it is also a declaration before Yahweh that they are totally innocent and do not know who the guilty party is. It is a declaration that if the murderer is ever discovered he will be executed.
By this the taking of a life was distinguished from all other crimes. That crime alone demanded immediate reparation whether the guilty party was discovered or not. It was a direct crime against God.
The whole of this chapter is ‘thee, thou'.
The Undetected Murderer (Deuteronomy 21:1-9).
Analysis using the words of Moses:
a If one be found slain in the land which Yahweh your God gives you to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who has smitten him, then your elders and your judges shall come forth, and they shall measure to the cities which are round about him who is slain (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.
‘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 neighbourhood.
‘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.
‘ And the priests, the sons of Levi, shall come near; for them Yahweh your God has chosen to minister to him, and to bless in the name of Yahweh; and according to their word shall every controversy and every stroke be.'
All this was to be overseen by the levitical priests. This is the first time they have been called ‘the sons of Levi' (compare 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.
‘ 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.
“ 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.
‘ 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'.