Deuteronomy Chapter 21

A. The Law of Unsolved Murders

1. (Deuteronomy 21:1) The presence of an unsolved murder.

“If one be found slain in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess, lying in the field, and it be not known who hath slain him:”

When a body was discovered in the open field and no one could determine who was responsible for the murder, the matter could not be ignored. The death was clearly not due to natural causes; it bore the marks of violence. In Israel, bloodshed was not just a crime against an individual but a direct offense against God and His land. According to Numbers 35:33-34, unavenged blood defiled the land: “So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.” Therefore, even when justice could not be carried out on the guilty party, God still required an act of atonement so that the land would not remain under guilt.

2. (Deuteronomy 21:2–6) The procedure for atoning for murder-polluted land.

“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 next unto the slain man, even the elders of that city, shall take an heifer, 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 rough valley, which is neither eared nor sown, and shall strike off the heifer’s neck there in the valley:
And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the LORD thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the LORD; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried:
And all the elders of that city, that are next unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley.”

Whenever an unsolved murder took place, the elders and judges were required to investigate and determine which city was nearest to the body. This established local responsibility. The nearest city’s elders were then required to take a young heifer, one that had never been used for labor — symbolizing innocence and purity — and bring it to an uncultivated valley with flowing water. The heifer’s neck was broken there, not on an altar, emphasizing that this was not a regular sacrifice but a solemn act of atonement for blood defiling the land.

The priests stood by because God had appointed them to oversee matters of judgment and blessing. After the heifer’s neck was broken, the elders washed their hands over its body. This symbolic act publicly declared, “We have investigated thoroughly. We are not guilty of this blood.” This act is similar in symbol to Psalm 26:6, “I will wash mine hands in innocency”, yet it would be meaningless if they had neglected justice. Like Pilate’s empty washing of hands during Christ’s trial (Matthew 27:24), a symbolic act is worthless when unaccompanied by righteousness.

The untouched valley, the unworked heifer, and the flowing water all represented purity. The act proclaimed that the land belonged to God and could not bear the stain of innocent blood. Justice belonged to the Lord, and even when imperfectly executed by human courts, God demanded acknowledgment of guilt and a plea for cleansing.

3. (Deuteronomy 21:7–9) The prayer said by the elders as they washed their hands

“And they shall answer and 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 the blood shall be forgiven them.
So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the LORD.” (Deuteronomy 21:7–9, KJV)

After the heifer’s neck was broken and the elders washed their hands over its body, they were required to make a public declaration. They confessed before God that they had no part in the crime: “Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it.” This was not an attempt to avoid responsibility, but a sincere statement made after a full investigation. They were acknowledging both human limitation — that they did not know the murderer — and divine authority — that God must provide atonement when man cannot bring justice.

Their prayer continued, “Be merciful, O LORD, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed.” They appealed to God’s covenant relationship with Israel, recognizing Him as Redeemer, the One who delivered them from bondage in Egypt. This emphasizes that atonement is grounded in redemption — God’s people belong to Him, and therefore the land they inhabit must not remain defiled. They asked God to “lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel’s charge,” meaning they pleaded for the stain of bloodshed to be lifted from the land and the nation.

The Scripture concludes, “And the blood shall be forgiven them.” This is God’s promise: when His instructions are followed, He provides forgiveness and removes guilt. The passage closes with a command and a theological principle: “So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the LORD.” Bloodguilt was not removed by ignoring the crime, but by acting in obedience to God’s revealed law.

This act was not pagan superstition; it was based on divine justice and substitution. Numbers 35:33–34 declares that innocent blood defiles the land and can only be cleansed by the blood of the one who shed it, or by an atoning substitute when the murderer is unknown. This symbolic sacrifice pointed forward to the ultimate innocent blood shed for sin — Jesus Christ. As it is written, Hebrews 9:22, “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.” The heifer’s death did not save souls, but it foreshadowed the perfect substitutionary atonement of Christ, who alone removes guilt completely.

B. Laws Relevant to Family and Home Situations

1. (Deuteronomy 21:10–14) Laws regarding taking a wife from among captives

“When 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,
And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
Then thou shalt bring her home to thine 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 thine 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 make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.” (Deuteronomy 21:10–14, KJV)

God recognized that in warfare, Israelite soldiers might desire to take a captive woman as a wife. In pagan cultures, women taken in war were often abused, raped, enslaved, or discarded. But God, in His justice and mercy, placed clear restrictions to prevent exploitation and to uphold the dignity of even a foreign captive. This law did not encourage the practice — it regulated and restrained it, ensuring that Israel would not behave like the cruel nations around them.

If an Israelite man desired a captive woman, he was not allowed to force himself upon her. He had to bring her into his home, and she had to undergo three symbolic actions: she shaved her head, trimmed her nails, and removed the clothing of her captivity. These acts represented purification, humility, and a complete break from her old identity and pagan background. It was a physical and spiritual separation from her past.

She was then given one full month to mourn her father and mother — whether dead or left behind — allowing her emotional and spiritual transition to Israel’s covenant life. During this month, the man was forbidden to touch her. This served two purposes: it protected the woman’s dignity and allowed the man time to reflect, ensuring his desire was not driven merely by passion or outward beauty. This law revealed that marriage was to be deliberate, not an impulsive act of conquest.

If, after this period, the man still desired her, he could consummate the marriage, and she became his lawful wife — enjoying the full legal rights and protections of marriage in Israel. However, if later he no longer delighted in her, he was not permitted to treat her as property. He could not sell her or enslave her. He had to set her free — because he had “humbled her,” meaning he had taken her sexually and therefore bore moral responsibility toward her.

This was radically protective for that time in history. In surrounding nations, captive women had no rights. In Israel, God commanded compassion, restraint, and dignity even toward foreign women. This law reflects God's character: holy, just, and merciful — ensuring that victory in war did not become an excuse for cruelty.

This section covers Deuteronomy 21:10–14, emphasizing the regulation of marriage to captive women, the symbolic acts of purification, the mourning period, and the protection of her rights if the man rejected her.

2. (Deuteronomy 21:15–17) The protection of inheritance rights

“If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.” (Deuteronomy 21:15–17, KJV)

This law assumes an imperfect family structure — one man with two wives, one loved and the other unloved. Though polygamy was never God's design (Genesis 2:24 makes clear marriage is between one man and one woman), it was tolerated in ancient Israel because of the hardness of men's hearts, much like Jesus later said concerning divorce in Matthew 19:8. Even in such flawed situations, God enforced justice and righteousness. He would not allow favoritism or emotional bias to corrupt what was legally and morally right.

If the firstborn son belonged to the unloved wife, the father was not permitted to give the special rights of the firstborn to a younger son born from the wife he preferred. God demanded that the father recognize and honor the true firstborn, regardless of personal preference. This was particularly important because the firstborn son held significant legal and spiritual privileges — he was to receive a double portion of the inheritance. In a family of three sons, the estate would be divided into four parts: two parts to the firstborn, and one each to the others.

The firstborn was called “the beginning of his strength,” echoing Genesis 49:3, where Jacob said to Reuben, “Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength.” The firstborn represented the father’s future, legacy, strength, and leadership in the family. To deprive the rightful firstborn of his inheritance because of favoritism was not only unjust but a direct violation of the order God had established.

This law also serves as a warning against partiality within the family. Scripture repeatedly condemns favoritism — as seen in the problems caused by Isaac favoring Esau and Rebekah favoring Jacob (Genesis 27), or Jacob favoring Joseph over his brothers (Genesis 37). Favoritism leads to division, hatred, and even violence. Here, God protects both justice and family order by mandating that inheritance be based on birthright, not emotion.

Spiritually, this points forward to God’s own faithfulness. He does not show favoritism (Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11), and He honors His covenants and His promises even when His people are unfaithful. The firstborn belongs to Him (Exodus 13:2), and ultimately, this title belongs to Christ, who is “the firstborn among many brethren” (Romans 8:29) and “the firstborn of every creature” (Colossians 1:15). While human fathers may act with bias, God never does.

This section fully covers Deuteronomy 21:15–17, dealing with inheritance rights, the double portion of the firstborn, and God’s protection against favoritism.

3. (Deuteronomy 21:18–21) The penalty for a rebellious son

“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, 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:
Then 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;
And 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, and a drunkard.
And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.” (Deuteronomy 21:18–21, KJV)

This law deals with an extreme case — not a childish tantrum or youthful immaturity, but a grown son who is chronically rebellious, hardened in sin, openly defiant, and morally corrupt. The Hebrew wording for “stubborn and rebellious” indicates continual, habitual resistance to authority. This is a son past the age of correction, who has rejected discipline (“when they have chastened him, will not hearken”) and lives in open sin — described as a “glutton and a drunkard.” This is not childish disobedience but destructive, immoral lifestyle rebellion.

Such a son endangered not only his household but the whole covenant community. In Israel, the family was the foundation of society and religion. To rebel against parents — God’s appointed authority — was to rebel against God Himself (Exodus 20:12; Proverbs 30:17). Therefore, if all discipline failed, the parents were required to bring the son to the elders at the city gate, which functioned as the legal court. Notice: the parents themselves could not execute judgment. Unlike pagan cultures (e.g., Roman patria potestas), where fathers could kill children at will, Israel required lawful trial, witnesses, and public judgment.

If found guilty, the son was to be stoned by the men of the city. This severe penalty was more about protecting the nation than exacting revenge. God said: “so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.” Public justice served as a deterrent. The goal was not frequent execution — in fact, there is no biblical record of this law ever being carried out. Jewish tradition (Mishnah Sanhedrin 8:4) even says it never occurred, but existed to instill fear, uphold parental honor, and preserve the nation from moral collapse.

This law warns that a society cannot survive when children rebel against parents and authority without consequence. The breakdown of the home leads to the breakdown of the nation. God saw rebellion against parents as akin to idolatry and blasphemy — worthy of death (Leviticus 20:9; Proverbs 20:20; Romans 1:30–32).

There is also typological significance. Israel is often called God’s son (Exodus 4:22), and was repeatedly rebellious (Isaiah 1:2; Deuteronomy 9:7). Yet instead of being stoned, God sent His own obedient Son, Jesus Christ, to die in the place of rebels. He bore the curse for the stubborn sons of men (Galatians 3:13). This law shows the seriousness of sin, the necessity of justice, and the need for a perfect substitute.

This fully covers Deuteronomy 21:18–21 — the law of the rebellious son, its legal process, moral purpose, theological weight, and its role in preserving the covenant community.

4. (Deuteronomy 21:22–23) The curse upon one who hangs on a tree

“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:
His 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;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.”
(Deuteronomy 21:22–23, KJV)

This law addresses the treatment of a criminal’s body after execution. In Israel, a man guilty of a crime deserving death may have been executed by stoning or another method, and afterward his corpse could be publicly displayed by being hung on a tree or wooden post. This was not execution by hanging in the modern sense, but rather the exposure of the body after death for the purpose of public shame. It was considered the most severe disgrace — worse than death itself — because it declared that this individual was under the curse of God.

However, God also put strict limits on such exposure. The body must not remain all night upon the tree, but was to be buried before sunset. To leave it exposed longer would defile the land the LORD had given to His people. Even in judgment, God required mercy and restraint. Israel was to show respect for the dead, even the condemned, for all men are still created in the image of God (Genesis 9:6). This principle is seen again in Joshua 8:29 and Joshua 10:26–27, where the bodies of defeated kings were taken down before nightfall.

The verse adds the significant explanation: “for he that is hanged is accursed of God.” To be hung on a tree was the sign that one had been judged not only by men but was under divine rejection. The public display declared: “This man’s sin brought him under God’s curse.”

The New Testament powerfully applies this passage to Jesus Christ. Galatians 3:13–14 declares: “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.” Though Jesus Himself was sinless, He was crucified — nailed to a wooden tree — and publicly displayed as One cursed by God. He took upon Himself the curse we deserved so that we might receive the blessing of Abraham through faith. The cross was not only an instrument of death, but a declaration that Christ bore the full weight of divine judgment for sin.

Therefore, this law in Deuteronomy is both legal and prophetic. Legally, it taught Israel that justice must be carried out, but without cruel excess — even judgment must be tempered by mercy. Theologically, it foreshadowed the gospel: the innocent One would one day bear the curse so that the guilty could be forgiven. He was cut off so that we might be brought in; cursed so we could be blessed; exposed to shame so we could be covered in righteousness.