Deuteronomy 21

The people of Israel were greatly blessed. They had the Lord God for their King, a wonderful land for their home, and a holy law for their guide, and yet they faced some of the same problems that society faces today. Sinful human nature being what it is, nations will always have to deal with “man’s inhumanity to man,” because the heart of every problem is still the problem of the heart. Laws are necessary to bring order to society, to restrain evil, and to help control behavior, but laws can never change the human heart. Only the grace of God can do that. If this section of Scripture emphasizes anything, it’s that God holds human life precious and wants us to treat people fairly, for they are made in the image of God (Gen. 9:1–7). God’s desire for all nations is, “Let justice run down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream” (Amos 5: nkjv). And His standard for us individually is Micah 6:8: “He has shown you, O man, what is good, and what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?”

The land belonged to God and the people living on it were His tenants. Their sins not only grieved the Lord but also defiled the land, especially the sins of sexual immorality (Lev. 18:24–28) and murder (Num. 35:30–34). The shedding of innocent blood was a terrible crime in Israel (Deut. 19:10, 13; Jer. 7:6; 22:3, 17). When Cain killed his brother Abel, the ground received Abel’s blood and cried out to God for justice (Gen. 4:10–12; Heb. 12:24). God keeps a record of the innocent blood shed by both animals and people, and one day will call for an accounting (Gen. 9:5–6). “When He avenges blood, He remembers them; He does not forget the cry of the humble” (Ps. 9: nkjv). When the Lord comes to judge, the earth will bear witness of the innocent blood that was shed (Isa. 26:21).

The “elders and judges” mentioned in Deuteronomy 21: are probably the “sanctuary court” mentioned in 17:8–13, and this would include the priests (21:5). This was the highest tribunal in the land and murder was a heinous crime. Furthermore, nobody had yet measured to see which city was nearest, so the elders and judges couldn’t have come from that city. Once the nearest city had been determined, the elders of that city participated in the assigned ritual. We assume that the elders and judges investigated the case thoroughly before they took the steps outlined in these verses.

The offering of the red heifer was not like the offering of a sacrifice at the sanctuary. For one thing, the priests didn’t slay the animal and catch its blood; laymen beheaded the beast in the valley, and the priests only witnessed the deed. The officers washed their hands over the dead animal (Matt. 27:24), confessed their innocence, and prayed for the Lord to forgive His people, and He did. Of course, this didn’t mean that the unknown guilty murderer was automatically forgiven, but rather that the Lord would cleanse the land and forgive Israel the sin that had been committed. God’s justice was upheld and God’s law was obeyed even though the culprit wasn’t known.

That this ritual relates to Jesus Christ and His atoning work on the cross is clear from the elders’ words, “Do not lay innocent blood to the charge of your people Israel” (Deut. 21:8). On that tragic day when Israel asked to have her Messiah crucified, Pilate washed his hands and said, “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” and the people replied, “Let his blood be on us and on our children” (Matt. 27:24–25 niv). Like that innocent heifer, Jesus died for the nation and even prayed from the cross, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). Jesus fulfilled God’s will and upheld His holy law, and God withheld His judgment from Israel for approximately forty years. Jesus died for the sins of the world (John 1:29; 1 John 4:14), He died for the church (Eph. 5:25–26), and for the people of Israel: “for the transgression of my people was he stricken” (Isa. 53:8).

The entire ritual speaks of the grace of God, for man’s works could never earn God’s forgiveness. The red heifer had never been worked, the ground in the valley had never been tilled, and the elders, judges, and priests had done nothing special to merit God’s forgiveness for His people. The sacrifice wasn’t even made at the sanctuary or offered by a priest. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Eph. 2:8–9 nkjv). The offering of the innocent red heifer pointed to the offering of the Son of God whose death brought cleansing, forgiveness, and the annulment of God’s judgment.

Reviewing this section of the law, we’re impressed with the fact that God wanted His people to enjoy living in their land, and the secret of this enjoyment was obedience to His will. Crime and injustice defiled the land, and God didn’t want His land defiled. The godless nations in Canaan so polluted the land that it “vomited them out” (Lev. 18:24–30). Apart from Israel, no nation of the world is in a covenant relationship with God, but the Lord still holds all nations accountable for their sins (Amos 1:3—2:3). One day God will judge the nations in righteousness (Joel 3:9–16) and nobody will escape.

The major emphasis in these chapters is on how the law of the Lord governed relationships in the nation of Israel. The material is so varied that perhaps the best way to study what Moses said is to arrange it in general categories.

Protecting the family (21:15–21; 24:1–5; 25:5–10) The foundation for human society is the family, a gift from God for which no successful substitute has been found. Sociologist Margaret Mead said, “No matter how many communes anybody invents, the family keeps creeping back.” It was God who established the home and in so doing remedied the only thing that was “not good” in His creation, that the man was alone (Gen. 1:26–31; 2:18–25). The people of Israel were commanded to honor father and mother (Ex. 20:12), and since four generations might live together as an extended family, that honor covered a lot of territory.

The firstborn son (21:15–17). The original divine pattern for marriage was one man and one woman devoted to each other for one lifetime, and the two exceptions—polygamy and divorce—were permitted in Israel because of the “hardness of men’s hearts” (Matt. 19:3–9). The first polygamist was Lamech, a rebel against God (Gen. 4:19), and the men in Scripture who followed his example brought heartache and trouble into their homes. Jacob discovered that having multiple wives meant competition and friction in the home and brought a great deal of grief into the family (Gen. 29:30; 31:1ff.). God overruled the selfishness in the home and accomplished His purposes in building the nation, but some of the family members paid a price.

At Passover, God spared the firstborn Jewish males who were sheltered by the blood of the lamb. In honor of this gracious miracle, He commanded that all the firstborn of Israel, man and beast, should be dedicated to Him (Ex. 13:1–16). Israel was God’s firstborn son (4:22–23), and Israel’s firstborn also belonged to Him. It was also ordained that the firstborn son in the family would inherit a double portion of the estate. If there were two sons, the elder son received two-thirds and the younger son one-third. Nothing could change this law, not even the husband’s love for his favorite wife.

In salvation history, it should be noted that God occasionally bypassed the firstborn son and chose the second born. Abraham’s firstborn son was Ishmael, but God chose Isaac,and Esau was Isaac’s firstborn, but God chose Jacob (Rom. 9:6–13). Jacob gave the special blessing to Ephraim, Joseph’s second son, and not to Manasseh, the firstborn (Gen. 48). God doesn’t accept our first birth, which is of the flesh, but offers us a second birth, a spiritual birth, that makes us His firstborn children (John 3:1–18; Heb. 12:23).

The rebellious son (vv. 18–21). This boy was the original “prodigal son” (Luke 15:11–32), except that he didn’t leave home to disobey the fifth commandment, dishonor his parents, and disgrace his community. Day after day, he resisted the pleas, warnings, and chastenings of his parents as he refused to work, reveled with the drunkards, and contributed nothing to the home or the community. This kind of sin was so heinous that it was included in the curses read in the land of Canaan (Deut. 27:16; see Ex. 21:17).

This was more than a family concern, for it involved the peace and reputation of the community. The solidarity of the people of Israel was an important element in their civil, social, and religious life, for the sin of a single person, family, city, or tribe could affect the whole nation (see Deut. 13; Josh. 7:1–15). This is also true of the church, for as members of one spiritual body (1 Cor. 12), we belong to each other and we affect each other (1 Cor. 5). The parents of the rebellious son were to take him to the local council at the gate, bear witness of his rebellion and obstinacy, and let the council decide. If the boy refused to change his ways, then the only verdict was death by stoning, with all the men of the community participating. Why? In order to “put away evil” and to warn other profligates of what might happen to them. The phrase “put away evil” is found nine times in Deuteronomy (see 13: and references), and the phrase “hear and fear” four times (13:11; 17:13; 19:20; 21:21). The Lord and Moses believed that the public punishment of offenders could be a detriment to others sinning. Furthermore, the future of that family was at stake if this son were allowed to continue in his sins.

This “law of the prodigal” helps us understand one aspect of our Lord’s parable, the fact that the father ran to meet his son (Luke 15:20). In the East, it isn’t customary for older men to run. Of course, the father’s love for his son compelled him to hasten to meet him, but there was something else involved. The news of this boy’s wicked life in the far country had certainly drifted back to his hometown, and the law-abiding citizens knew that he had disgraced their city. Seeing the boy approach, the elders at the gate might have been tempted to refuse to let him in, or in their anger, they might have picked up stones to stone him! But with the father holding the boy in his arms, kissing him, and welcoming him, the elders could do nothing. Had anybody thrown stones, they would have hit the father. This speaks to us of Calvary where God took our punishment for us that He might be able to welcome us home.

Divorce (24:1–4). It’s bad enough when a family has a rebellious son to disturb the home, but it’s even worse when the husband and wife don’t get along and the marriage breaks up. The original Edenic law of marriage said nothing about divorce (Gen. 2:18–25). Marriage is fundamentally a physical union (“one flesh”), so only a physical reason can dissolve it, and there are two such reasons: the death of one spouse (Rom. 7:1–3; 1 Cor. 7:39) and adultery (Deut. 22:22; Lev. 20:10). The adulterous man and woman were killed, leaving the innocent spouses free to remarry. The law of Moses did not allow divorce for adultery because the guilty spouse was stoned to death for his or her sin.

Since the “uncleanness” (“something indecent,” niv) couldn’t be adultery, what was it that it permitted a man to divorce his wife? In our Lord’s day, the rabbinical school of Hillel took a very broad view and interpreted “uncleanness” to mean “anything that displeased the husband.” But the school of Rabbi Shammai took the narrow view that “uncleanness” meant some kind of sexual sin. (See Matt. 5:31–32; 19:1–9; Mark 10:1–12.) Jesus didn’t define “uncleanness” but made it clear that the Mosaic law of divorce was a concession and not a command. God permitted it because of the hardness of the human heart. However, it appears that Jesus did permit divorce if one of the spouses committed adultery. The assumption is that the innocent spouse was free to remarry; otherwise, why get a divorce?

When our Lord permitted divorce because of adultery, He was equating divorce with death. The church doesn’t have the right to kill people for committing adultery or any other sin, but they can accept divorce as the equivalent of death, thus leaving the innocent partner free to remarry. Jesus affirmed the priority of the original Edenic law of marriage, but He also granted this concession. Of course, it’s better that the guilty party confess the sin, repent, and be restored and forgiven, but this doesn’t always happen. Sin is the great destroyer, and where the privileges are the highest, as in marriage, the pain of that sin is the greatest.

The “bill of divorcement” was an official document that protected the women from slander and abuse and also gave her the privilege of a second marriage. The time that was required to secure this document would give the husband opportunity to think the matter through and possibly reconsider. He would lose what was left of the marriage price or dowry, and that might be costly. Too many separations and divorces are the result of built-up emotions, festering wounds, and thoughtless words that could have been avoided if the spouses had been honest with each other, talked things over, and sought the Lord’s help earlier in the problem.

Should her second marriage end in divorce, the woman was forbidden to return to her former husband because she had been “defiled” (Deut. 24:4). Perhaps this means that the consummation of the second marriage was considered adultery, because only death or adultery could dissolve the marriage. (Adultery is called “defilement” in Lev. 18: and Num. 5:13–14.) For her to return to the first husband would cheapen her and make her nothing but a piece of property that could be bought and sold at will.

Deferment (v. 5). This law has been considered in 20:7. Any able-bodied man could take the new husband’s place in the army but nobody could take his place at home. His wife would suffer from the pain of separation from her beloved and, if he died in battle, the sorrow of bereavement. This law shows the high value God puts on human love and the responsibilities of marriage.

Levirate marriage (vv. 5–10). The word “levirate” comes from the Latin and means “a husband’s brother,” i.e., a brother-in-law. It was this law that the Sadducees used when they tried to trip up Jesus (Matt. 22:23–33). Basically, this law required a deceased man’s brother to marry the widow and have children by her so that the name of the deceased wouldn’t perish from Israel. However, there were some special conditions to observe. First, the married brother and single brother had to live together; second, the married couple had to be childless; and, third, the single brother had to be willing to marry the widow and have children by her.

The first requirement—“living together”—didn’t demand a common house but only that the brothers lived near each other (Gen. 13:6). The wife, therefore, wasn’t a stranger to her brother-in-law. As to the second requirement, if the couple were not childless, there would be no need for the second marriage. In fact, it was against the law for a brother-in-law to marry his sister-in-law if they had children (Lev. 18:16). The third requirement was the critical one: would the brother-in-law be willing to marry his brother’s widow? The unnamed relative in the book of Ruth refused to marry Ruth because it would have jeopardized his own inheritance (Ruth 4:1–6).

If the man refused to marry her, the woman took her case to the elders at the gate and they would try to reason with the man. No doubt they would point out that childless widows needed protection and that his late brother needed an heir to maintain the family name and property. If he still refused, then the widow could publicly humiliate him by spitting in (or before) his face (Num. 12:14) and removing his sandal. To put your foot down on land or cast your shoe on it meant to claim it for yourself (Gen. 13:17; Josh. 10:24; Ps. 60:8; 108:9), while to take off your shoe meant to relinquish any claim to the property. If the brother married later and had a family, that family would be known as “the house of the barefooted one.” Only the poor, mourners, and prisoners of war went barefoot (Isa. 20:2–4; Mic. 1:8; Luke 15:22), but to get your shoes back was to be reinstated in society (2 Chron. 28:15; Luke 15:22). By refusing to honor his dead brother, the man brought dishonor on himself and his family.

The Lord used both positive and negative imagery to teach His people to respect and obey His law. On the positive side, the men wore blue tassels on the corners of their clothing to remind them that they belonged to the Lord and were privileged to have His law to obey (Num. 15:37–41). The weekly Sabbath and the annual feasts were reminders of all that the Lord had done for Israel, and the presence of God’s sanctuary kept the Lord’s presence before their eyes. The Levites scattered throughout Israel were living reminders of the law of the Lord and the importance of knowing it.

On the negative side, the offering of blood sacrifices was a vivid reminder that the basis of forgiveness and fellowship was the surrendering up of life (Lev. 17:11). Whenever the community stoned a lawbreaker to death, it would cause the people to “hear and fear.” Isolating the lepers outside the camp, burning leprous garments, and tearing down leprosy-infested houses reminded the people that sin is like leprosy and must be dealt with. But the public exposure of a criminal’s corpse would be an object lesson few would forget. A criminal found guilty of committing a capital crime was stoned to death, and if the officials wanted to make the judgment even more solemn, they could order the body hanged from a tree or impaled on a pole until sundown. What an object lesson that would be! (In seventeenthand eighteenth-century London, the heads of executed criminals were sometimes displayed in public.) Since a dead body was unclean, it was taken down at sundown so as not to decay further and defile the land. Also, the Lord didn’t want executed criminals to get too much attention lest they become heroes.

This rather gruesome symbolic act reminded the people that God cursed people who committed capital crimes. In Galatians 3:13, Paul applied this truth to our Lord’s death on the cross: “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’)” (). Those who trust Christ cannot be condemned by the law (v. 10) because Christ bore that curse for them.

Loving one’s neighbors (22:1–4, 6–8; 23:24–25) These regulations are specific applications of Leviticus 19:18, “You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord” (). The neighbor is a brother, which is even a greater motive for helping him, and God is the Lord of both, which is the highest motive of all. In fact, the Jews were to extend this same concern even to their enemies’ animals (Ex. 23:4). Both Jesus and Paul admonish us to love our enemies and to manifest this love in practical ways (Matt. 5:43–48; Rom. 12:17–21).

Lost property (vv. 1–3). There were few fences and walls on Jewish farmland, so it would be easy for livestock to wander away. If you found such an animal, you were to return it to the rightful owner; if the owner lived too far away, you were to “board” the animal until the owner came to get it. Farm animals were both expensive and essential; neither the farm family nor the nation could survive without them. But Moses didn’t limit the law to restoring strayed animals; he said that anything a Jewish person found was to be guarded and returned to the owner. A neighbor wasn’t only someone who lived adjacent to you; he was anybody in need whom you could help. In His parable of the good samaritan (Luke 10:25–37), Jesus followed this definition of “neighbor.” However, God is concerned for the animal as well as for the owner, and we should be too.

The Lord is concerned that people find and restore lost animals, but He is also greatly concerned that we find the lost sinners who have strayed away (Luke 15:1–7; James 5:19–20). Certainly a human being made in the image of God is of more value than a beast (Matt. 12:12)!

Emergencies (v. 4). A heavily laden donkey wouldn’t be easy to lift, but that’s what neighbors and brothers are for. For the animal’s sake and the owner’s sake, the men would get together and turn this emergency into an opportunity to practice brotherly love. Emergencies don’t make people; they show what people are made of. When a terrible storm destroyed thousands of trees in our town, some people took advantage of the situation and used their chain saws to collect exorbitant fees from helpless people. Love of money won over love for their neighbors. But others, including many teenagers, went from place to place donating their services to help those who couldn’t help themselves.

Tenderness (vv. 6–7). Concern for fallen animals leads to concern for defenseless birds. It would be easy for the man to wipe out the nest and have wild birds and eggs for dinner, but God prohibited such wanton activity. If the man took the mother bird, the young would die from lack of food and care, so he was allowed to take the young and the eggs. The female bird could have another brood and this would help to preserve the species. As you read the Mosaic law, you can’t help but be touched by the Lord’s concern for the natural resources He put on the earth, not only birds but also trees (20:19–20), donkeys (22:4), and hungry oxen (25:4). God preserves both man and beast (Ps. 36:6; 104:10–30), and He expects His people to assist Him in that important work. God provides food for mankind, but the greed of a few can destroy the supply for the many. The Lord promised that it would go well with the nation if they showed concern for helpless creatures (Deut. 22:7; see 4:40; 5:16; 6:3, 18; 12:25, 28; 19:13).

Safety (v. 8). The flat roof of a house in Israel was living space for the family, especially during the hot season when they slept on the roof where it was cooler. The owner of the house had to build a low wall (parapet) or a railing around the roof to protect people from falling. It wasn’t enough to post a sign and warn people of danger; he had to put up a barrier to help protect the people. We commonly think of home as a haven from the assaults of the world, but safety specialists tell us that the home can be the scene of many accidents, injuries, and even deaths.

Generosity (23:24–25). The land belonged to the Lord and the harvests were His reward for His people’s faithful work and their obedience to His law; therefore, He had every right to share His harvest with those who needed it. If hungry oxen could eat of the grain they were threshing (25:4), surely hungry people could eat from the Lord’s fields (Matt. 12:1–8). This law didn’t give people the right to take food from their neighbors’ fields, vineyards, and orchards any time they wanted a snack. The privilege was reserved for the truly hungry and especially farm laborers, strangers, and the poor. This law especially helped travelers passing through the land. However, Moses made it clear that the food was to be carried away in the persons’ stomachs and not in bowls or baskets. The law gave people the privilege of meeting their need but not satisfying their greed.

God encouraged the people of Israel to be generous to those who were less fortunate. The farmers weren’t to harvest their fields and vineyards so conscientiously that nothing would be left for the poor and needy to glean (Deut. 24:19–22; Lev. 19:9–10; 23:22; see Ruth 2). If Israel obeyed God’s laws and loved their neighbors, God would abundantly bless them and provide abundantly for everybody. Even under the old covenant, people who gave to others would receive abundantly from the Lord (Prov. 11:25; 22:9; Isa. 58:6–7; Mal. 3:10; and see Matt. 5:42; Luke 8:38; Acts 20:35; 2 Cor. 9:6). How much more generous we should be who share the unsearchable riches of God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ!