0 Chapters0 Books0 People0 Places

When Justice Gets Complicated.

Q: What Was Crucifixion Like in the Roman World?

Crucifixion was Rome's supreme punishment — reserved for slaves, rebels, and the lowest criminals. It was designed to maximize pain and public humiliation. That's what Jesus chose.

Deuteronomy 21 — Where a burial rule quietly hides the entire gospel

8 min read

Key Takeaways

A burial rule for the condemned quietly contains the entire gospel — Paul later quotes it to explain exactly what Jesus did on the cross.

An unsolved murder couldn't just be forgotten — God required the nearest community to publicly account for innocent blood, because proximity creates responsibility.
The most severe consequence came with the most safeguards — both parents, public process, community decision — because power without accountability is dangerous.
Laws about captive women inserted rights where none existed, moving people step by step toward something better even when the full ideal wasn't yet possible.

📢 Chapter 21 — When Justice Gets Complicated ⚖️

wasn't done with the hard stuff. After laying out about , warfare, and leadership, he turned to the cases nobody wants to think about — the situations that don't have answers. An unsolved crime. The aftermath of war. A family torn apart by favoritism. A son who has gone completely off the rails.

Inside this Chapter

Grief Justice Marriage Community Integrity Parenting

Questions about this Chapter

culture

What Was Crucifixion Like in the Roman World?

Share this chapter

Link copied!

These laws aren't comfortable reading. Some of them will make you pause. But every single one reveals something important: God doesn't just hand down lofty ideals and walk away. He gets into the details of real, messy, broken human life — and he insists that and dignity matter even there.

The Crime Nobody Can Solve 🔍

Here's the scenario. Someone is found dead in an open field between towns. No witnesses. No suspect. No leads. In most ancient cultures, that was just an unfortunate situation — nothing to be done. But God didn't see it that way. laid out a specific process:

"If someone is found slain in the open country in the land the Lord your God is giving you, and no one knows who killed them, your elders and judges must go out and measure the distance to the surrounding cities. The elders of the nearest city must take a young cow that has never been worked — never worn a yoke — and bring it down to a valley with running water, a place that hasn't been plowed or planted. There, they must break the heifer's neck.

The priests — the sons of Levi, chosen by God to minister and settle every dispute — will come forward. And all the elders of that nearest city will wash their hands over the heifer and testify:

'Our hands did not shed this blood. Our eyes did not see it happen. Accept atonement, O Lord, for your people Israel, whom you have redeemed. Do not hold the guilt of innocent blood against your people, so that this blood guilt may be atoned for.'

This is how you purge the guilt of innocent blood from your midst — by doing what is right in the sight of the Lord."

Think about what's happening here. A person is dead, and nobody knows who did it. Most systems would file it away as unsolvable. But God said: no. Someone still has to answer for this. Not with — with accountability. The nearest community had to publicly acknowledge the , perform a costly ritual, and formally declare before God that they bore no responsibility. The blood of an innocent person couldn't just soak into the ground and be forgotten.

The underlying principle hasn't aged a day. When something goes wrong in a community and it's easier to look the other way — to say "not my problem, not my neighborhood, not my responsibility" — this says the opposite. Proximity creates responsibility. You don't get to just shrug.

After the Battle 🕊️

This is a difficult passage. Let's be honest about that up front.

addressed what happened to women captured in war — a reality of the ancient world that is deeply uncomfortable to read from where we sit today. He gave these instructions:

"When you go to war and the Lord gives you victory, and you see among the captives a woman you want to marry, you may bring her into your home. But she must first shave her head, trim her nails, and remove the clothes she was captured in. She will stay in your house and mourn her father and mother for a full month. Only after that may you marry her.

And if you later decide you don't want to be with her, you must let her go free — wherever she chooses. You may not sell her for money. You may not treat her as a slave. You have taken her dignity, and you owe her that freedom."

Here's the context that matters: in the ancient Near East, captive women had no protections. None. They were property — to be sold, traded, or discarded at will. What God was doing here was inserting rights where none existed. A month to grieve. A prohibition on selling her. A requirement that if the marriage ends, she walks free — not as property, but as a person. Was this the full picture of equality and dignity we long for? No. But it was a radical constraint on power in a world that had no such constraints. God was working within a brutal cultural reality to move his people — step by step — toward something better.

That doesn't make it easy to read. It shouldn't be.

You Don't Get to Pick Favorites 👨‍👦‍👦

This next gets into family dynamics — and it's more relevant than it might look at first. was clear:

"If a man has two wives, one he loves and one he doesn't, and both have given him sons, and the firstborn belongs to the wife he doesn't love — he cannot give the inheritance rights of the firstborn to the other son just because he prefers that son's mother. He must recognize the actual firstborn and give him a double portion of everything he owns. That son was his first — the firstfruits of his strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him."

This law is about one thing: fairness over favoritism. You don't get to rewrite the rules because of your personal preferences. Your feelings about the mothers don't change what's owed to the sons. The gets his birthright regardless of which relationship you liked better.

If you know your Old Testament, you know how often this exact problem tore families apart. and . and his brothers. Family favoritism is one of the oldest sources of dysfunction there is — and it hasn't gone anywhere. The parent who clearly prefers one child over the other. The family where everyone knows who the favorite is but nobody says it out loud. God saw that pattern coming and said plainly: your feelings don't override what's right. The follows the birth order, not your heart.

The Son Who Won't Come Back 💔

This is one of the hardest passages in the Old Testament. There's no way to soften it, and it wouldn't be honest to try.

described what would happen when a family had exhausted every option:

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who refuses to obey his father or mother — and they have disciplined him, and he still won't listen — then both parents together must bring him to the elders at the city gate. They will say to the elders: 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.'

Then all the men of the city will stone him to death. You must purge the evil from your midst. All Israel will hear about it, and they will be afraid."

Let that sit for a moment.

This describes the most extreme consequence a community could impose — and it was reserved for a situation where every other option had been exhausted. Notice the safeguards built in: both parents had to agree. It wasn't one angry acting alone. They had to bring their case publicly before the — a communal decision, not a private one. And the charge wasn't just disobedience. It described a pattern of total, defiant, destructive rebellion that threatened the entire community.

Does it feel severe? It should. The weight of it is the point. In a community where everyone's survival depended on everyone else, a person who was actively and irreversibly destructive wasn't just a family problem — they were an existential threat. This law wasn't a first response. It was a last one. And the fact that it required both parents and community involvement meant no single person could weaponize it.

We live in a very different world. But the underlying tension — what do you do when someone you is on a path of destruction and won't listen to anyone? — that tension is still here. Every parent who has watched a child spiral knows the helplessness behind this passage.

Cursed on a Tree 🌳

ended this chapter with a about something that might seem like a small detail — but it carries enormous weight. He told :

"If someone commits a crime worthy of death and is executed, and you hang the body on a tree — the body must not stay on the tree overnight. You must bury it that same day. Because a person hung on a tree is under God's curse. Do not defile the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance."

Even in — even after has been carried out on someone who committed a capital crime — there are limits. The body isn't left on display as a warning or a trophy. It comes down before nightfall. Dignity doesn't end at death. The land itself, God said, would be defiled by leaving it there.

And if you know the of the story, this verse echoes forward in a way Moses couldn't have fully seen. Centuries later, would quote this exact passage in his letter to the Galatians: " redeemed us from the curse of by becoming a curse for us — for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.'" , hung on a — on wood — took that curse on himself. The law that demanded dignity even for the condemned pointed all along toward the one who would bear the condemnation for everyone. That's not a footnote. That's the whole story, hidden in a rule about burial.