21:1–2 These verses describe the typical circumstance of an unsolved murder. Murder within a city or near to it would typically be heard and observed, but it is not likely that an unsolved murder within a city is to be excluded from this expiation ritual. Planned murder would be executed in a remote place, much as Cain drew his brother, Abel, out into a field for the purpose of killing him (Gen. 4:8). Cain’s problem was that he could not hide from God, but this would be true for any murder.

Deuteronomy further anticipates the time when Israel is living in the land. It does not make provision for a time in which Israel might be scattered and living outside the land. This is not to suggest that there should be no responsibility for an unsolved murder that takes place outside the land. Historically, Israel very quickly began to be scattered, forming communities outside the land. This regulation does not begin to stipulate procedures for all of the contingencies that might come into play, including the influence of foreign governments. The principle to be observed is that no loss of human life can be disregarded.

The case under consideration is one in which the identity of the murderer has not come to be known. The perfect tense of the Hebrew verb (nodaʿ) implies that, upon the discovery of a body, an investigation is undertaken to determine whether the identity of the murderer can be ascertained. Once such an investigation is completed, the responsibility for atoning for the homicide falls to the city nearest to where the body has been discovered. The city would be designated by “your elders and your judges,” a process that would ensure impartiality, since these officials would be from the entire region, not the individual city.

21:3–4 Most laws in the ancient Near East required monetary payment to the victim’s family in the case of murder, which would become the responsibility of the nearest city. In Israel, however, it was impossible to redeem a human life with money or any other sacrifice. Atonement or cleansing was made through ritual actions of the elders of the city. They were to take a heifer that had never worked a field and kill it by breaking its neck in a remote area that contained water but had never been worked for a crop. The significance of these stipulations is not explained, but some points are clear. This is not a sacrifice, since priests are not involved with the killing and since the blood plays no role in the death of the animal. Furthermore, it is not like the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement, which bears away guilt. Possibilities, which need not be mutually exclusive, are that it represents the execution of the murderer, the penalty borne by the elders of the city, or the act of the murder itself. The last possibility is supported by the fact that the heifer is to be killed in a remote area resembling the sort of place premeditated homicide would take place. The reason for its being near access to water is seen in the handwashing ceremony, which seems to be a declaration that the elders are free of any culpability for the death that has taken place.

21:5–9 The priests are involved because of their role in the judicial system in dealing with cases of lawsuit and assault. No explicit role is given to them in this procedure, but their presence may have to do with the declaration of innocence that follows. This is not given in the form of an oath, but it may have been the equivalent of one. In any case the priests, as the officials responsible for maintaining the confessions of holiness and adherence to the covenant, are present to testify to the actions of the elders. The elders’ washing their hands over the carcass of the animal cannot be transference of guilt to the animal, which would take place when the animal was alive. If the killing of the animal represents the act of the murderer, then the washing of the hands over the body of the animal would signify the innocence of the elders in relation to the murder. The psalmist could say, “All in vain have I kept my heart clean and washed my hands in innocence” (Ps. 73:13).

The washing of hands is followed by a declaration of innocence and a prayer for absolution of guilt. As with all ritual, it is the prayer of faith that is effectual in removing bloodguilt from the land. The instructions conclude with a statement of absolution. The confession and prayer for absolution will purge the guilt of the murder. This provides for the safety of the entire nation, since keeping the covenant is both an individual and a collective responsibility. Nothing suggests that this ritual absolves the guilty party of the deed; if circumstances should change and the murder can be identified, the regulations of chapter 19 would still apply.