Chapter 21
If a body was found slain (murdered?), and there was no evidence of who had killed the person, the procedure below would keep that persons innocent blood from bringing guilt on the whole nation.
6 And all the elders of that city nearest to the slain man shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley, 7 and they shall testify, 'Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it shed. 8 Accept atonement, O LORD, for your people Israel, whom you have redeemed, and do not set the guilt of innocent blood in the midst of your people Israel, so that their blood guilt be atoned for.' 9 So you shall purge the guilt of innocent blood from your midst, when you do what is right in the sight of the LORD. [Deu 21:6-9 ESV]
"found slain" tells us from the beginning that this person died of other than natural causes. But a murder was committed, and no one comes to justice over it, because it was done in secret, just between those two. There are unsolvable crimes, and the whole country shouldn't be held accountable for those crimes - pending atonement to God for the blood.
It is interesting that the heifer used for this atonement is not sacrificed - that is, the heifer's blood is not shed. Instead, its neck is broken. Atonement puts off judgement for sin, but it does not forgive sin. Atonement for intentional sin was a once per year sacrifice by the High Priest. There is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood.
MSB note says that the breaking of the heifer's neck was acknowledgement that the crime deserved to be punished. The hand-washing of the elders indicates that even though they accept responsibility for the crime, they were free from the guilt of the crime. MSB also says that this ritual is mentioned nowhere else in the Pentateuch.
I am pasting in my notes on "The Day of Atonement".
8 And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for Azazel. ... 10 but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel. [Lev 16:8, 10 ESV]
I found a number of things relating to Azazel in the notes. MSB says the word literally means "escape goat". This is often interpreted as our word scapegoat. There were the two goats. One lot showed the goat that would be the Lord's, the one sacrificed, the one that died for the sins of Aaron and the people. The death of this goat, and its shed blood, were substituted for sin's penalty due from Aaron and the people. But instead of their deaths, there was the death of this goat. The other goat was the scapegoat - which was released into the "wilderness of Azazel". This represented the "removal of sin" from the people. However, note that the sin was still there, but was in another place. It was not among the people anymore, and a substitute had died for that sin, but the sin remains somewhere. God still knows where that sin is. The blood of bulls and goats is insufficient for the true removal of man's sin. This is specifically explained in Hebrews.
So one goat is sacrificed and one goat lives, and does not shed blood. It is released into the wilderness, and represents the removal of sin. In the present context, the heifer dies, but does not shed blood. They wash their hands over the heifer, washing the sin off them, and onto the heifer.
MSB said this was nowhere else in the Pentateuch, but it sort of shows up in the NT. When Pilate washed his hands at Jesus' trial, was he familiar with this ritual, and so was making use of a ritual that would have been very familiar to the religious elite of the time. Was Pilate telling them, using their own scriptures, that he knew this was a crime about to be committed, and that it was on them, because this ritual would absolve himself of any guilt for it? I have never seen this before...but now it surely makes me wonder.
Here is more that I think supports this interpretation:
These two verses:
19 Besides, while he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, "Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered much because of him today in a dream."
I read somewhere - can't find where, but it is not in an MSB note on Matthew because I checked there - that Pilate's wife was a Jew. But apparently we don't know for sure, based on this quote from Wikipedia:
Pontius Pilate's wife is the unnamed spouse of Pontius Pilate, who appears only once in the Gospel of Matthew, where she intercedes with Pilate on Jesus' behalf. It is uncertain whether Pilate was actually married, although it is likely. In later tradition, she becomes known as Procula or Procla and plays a role in various New Testament Apocrypha. At a later date, she acquires the name Claudia Procula in Western tradition, as well as other names and variants of these names. She is venerated as a saint by the Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, and the Ethiopian Church. She has also frequently been featured in literature and film.
It is possible, though, that she was familiar with the Jewish ritual concerning atonement for the shed blood of innocents who's murderer(s) was unknown. She may have informed Pilate about this ritual and encouraged him to use it to "clear himself" of Jesus' death.
24 So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves." [Mat 27:19, 24 ESV]
Compare the wording here to the wording in Deuteronomy. Seems too similar for coincidence.
And I am supposed to be skeptical about the Bible. Even in such minor matters, so many things tie together, and carry through consistently for THOUSANDS of YEARS. Man cannot possibly bring such a thing about.
Rules on marrying female captives taken in war. Doing so "promotes" them to citizenship, not slavery. They do not serve their new husbands as slaves, and when/if the husband tires of her, he cannot sell her to someone else. She becomes his wife, and as such is entitled to the same treatment as a Hebrew wife. If he tires of her, she is divorced, and is free to do as she likes and go where she wants.
The firstborn gets the double share of inheritance. No exception can be made just because you loved the mother of his younger brother more.
Parents could bring about the stoning of rebellious, drunkard, gluttonous sons who would not listen to instruction. There is a Proverb that says not to take this action, as there is always hope.
22 "And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23 his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance. [Deu 21:22-23 ESV]
Didn't I read somewhere once, that the Jewish leaders intended for Jesus to stay on the cross overnight, and so have him cursed by God? But Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the counsel himself, went and begged for the body of Jesus, took him down, and put him in the tomb before sunset? Begs the question of just how hot God can make hell. Surely those who planned to have Jesus cursed by God are in that part of hell...