Deuteronomy 21

The sanctity of human life is still the leading thought; and where a corpse is found “lying in the field, and it be not known who hath slain him,” the whole land is regarded as guilty before God (verse 8) until a solemn rite be gone through. These verses prescribe the mode and form of this rite; which from the nature of the case could have place only when the people were settled in Canaan, and so is prescribed first in Deuteronomy. Espin.

When a dead body was found in the field, in circumstances fitted to give rise to the suspicion of the person having come to a violent end, while yet no trace could be discovered of the murderer, it was then to be presumed that the guilt attached to the nearest city, either by the murderer having come from it or from his having found concealment in it. That city, therefore, had a certain indefinite charge of guilt lying upon it—indefinite as to the parties really concerned in the charge, but most definite and particular as regards the greatness of the crime involved in it, and the treatment due to the perpetrator. For deliberate murder the law provided no expiation. Even for the infliction of death by some fortuitous and unintentional stroke it did not appoint any rite of expiation, but only a way of escape by means of a partial exile. Here, therefore, where the question is respecting a murder, the prescribed ritual cannot contemplate a work of expiation. Nor is the language employed such as to convey that idea. The elders of the city were enjoined to go down into a valley with a stream in it, bringing with them a heifer which had never been yoked, and there strike off its head by the neck. Then, in presence of the priests, the representatives and ministers of God, they were to wash their hands over the carcass of the slain heifer in token of their innocence, and to say, “Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. Be merciful, O Lord, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel’s charge. And (it is added) the blood shall be forgiven them.” The forgiveness here meant was evidently forgiveness in the more general sense; they were personally cleared from the guilt, but the guilt itself was not atoned; there was a pargavion but not an expiation. And, accordingly, none of the usual sacrificial terms or acts are applied to the transaction with the heifer; even the mode of killing it was different from that followed in all the proper sacrifices. Indeed, the process was merely a symbolical action of judgment and acquittal before the priests, not as ministers of worship, but as officers of justice. For they were “chosen to minister to God, to bless the people, and to pronounce sentence as to every stroke.” P. F.

The heifer was not a sacrifice, since no atonement might be brought for an intentional murder. For this reason the heifer’s neck was “struck off” (or broken), executed in the place of the murderer. Therefore the elders do not, in the name of the inhabitants, lay their hands on the heifer with the confession of guilt, and its blood is not sprinkled on the holy place; rather they declare by a solemn symbolical act their innocence, and in consequence the guilt, which objectively clings to the city, is removed by the symbolically atoning punishment. Gerl.—The fundamental elements of a sacrifice are wanting. There is no altar. The blood is not shed. The victim’s neck is simply broken. It is an execution. Justice has done its work as far as it is possible to do it under these circumstances. The murdered man has been avenged by the whole community acting as his kinsman. The same form of words, in fact, that in a previous chapter brought to a close the execution of a wilful homicide (19:13) also concludes this ceremony. E. C. B.

9. So shalt thou put away the innocent blood.** In a well-ordered society life should be safe. When it is proved unsafe, society cannot plead “Not guilty.” Locally it must be allocated, and so the city nearest the victim has the crime imputed to it. The sense of guilt is distributed territorially, and the elders, or representatives of the people, are required to clear themselves by the special rite here dedescribed. Sin has thus wider relations than to the individual who has committed it. It may lie at the door of a city or of a neighborhood, and in their collective capacity they may be required to deal with it. Elyar.—We learn: That responsibility attaches to each and all in a community for crimes committed in its midst. That the community is not absolved till every effort has been made to discover the perpetrators of crime and to bring them to justice. That the punishment of murder is death. That to ignore, connive at, or encourage crime in a community, involves the authorities in the criminality of the deeds connived at. That all parties, the people (represented by the elders), the magistrates (judges), the Church (priests), are alike interested in bringing criminals to justice. Orr.

Such was the criminal law of the Hebrews—stern indeed, but not “inhuman” or unjust. It will not find favor with sentimental apologists for crime; for it was not shorn of its terror by those easy pardons which take away the dread of punishment, and almost the sense of guilt. Moses believed in law, and that law was made to be obeyed. No law-breaker found indulgence from him. Yet never was a lawgiver more gentle to the children of sorrow, and “to all who are desolate and oppressed.” Never did the awful form of justice seem bending with more of compassion for human weakness and infirmity, and for every grief and pain. It is this mingling of the tender and the terrible that gives to the Hebrew law a character so unique—a majesty that awes, with a gentleness that savors more of parental affection than of severity.

Nor was that law given to the Israelites alone. It was an inheritance for all ages and generations. That mighty arm was to protect the oppressed so long as human governments endure. Moses was the king of legislators, and to the code which he left rulers of all times have turned for instruction. Thence Alfred and Charlemagne derived statutes for their realms. To that code turned alike the Puritans under Cromwell, who founded the Commonwealth of England, and the Pilgrim Fathers, who founded the Commonwealths of New England. Field.

Hanging was not properly one of the punishments inflicted by the Jewish Law : they were four ; stoning, burning, beheading, and strangling the criminal as he stood on the ground. But none were hanged till they were dead. And as the Jewish rabbies and many Christian commentators say, only idolators and blasphemers were so treated ; having been first stoned, which was reckoned the most severe punishment of all. And as their crimes were the most heinous and offensive to God, this addition of hanging them afterward was appointed, as a token to denote the Divine displeasure against those criminals ; who are therefore said to be “accursed of God,” or “the curse of God”—that is, execrable to him. Ward.—The placing of the body on a tree was not that which made the person accursed, but was an external token of his being an accursed one. In the placing of Jesus on the cross, the sin and madness of the world were overruled, to give unwitting expression to the highest truth. “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us ; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree” (Gal. 3 : 13). If not a sinner, Christ was treated as if he were one. This is a fact of essential importance in the work of Christ for man’s salvation (2 Cor. 5 : 21). Orr.

DEATH PENALTY FOR MURDER. CITIES OF REFUGE FOR ACCIDENTAL OR JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE. PURGATION OF A HIDDEN MURDER.