Deuteronomy

A significant concern for the Israelites was bloodshed, which could bring severe misfortunes and emphasize the importance of protecting life; therefore, this case involves the discovery of a dead body without knowing who the culprit is. The situation could not be ignored; simply finding a corpse made the person who discovered it responsible for the crime. It was then decided that the residents of the nearest village to the corpse were required to atone for the guilt (2s). By following the rite described in verses 3-6, the guilt is transferred to a heifer that has not yet been used for plowing, and the formula in verses 7f is recited, thus absolving Israel of all guilt related to bloodshed. 

At a time when there was little concern for gender equality, this law regarding the treatment of prisoners of war marked a notable step forward. It requires a radical change for her, involving uprooting from her family (13) and starting a new life as an Israelite (12f) without the right to express herself freely; however, certain conditions for fair treatment are outlined regarding her dismissal or rejection: she must not be sold; no transactions should be made with her after she has been taken as a woman (14). The woman, as the primary family member, leads this section; what stands out most is her extreme situation: as a prisoner of war.

This law contrasts with the cases of Abraham’s firstborn, Ishmael, and Isaac’s firstborn, who was not Jacob but Esau. They were not children of the “dearest” woman, yet they were firstborns and still had to accept that their younger brother would inherit. This behavior, which has been common in Israel, aimed to correct unfair attitudes toward the eldest son. It is possible that a father, in an attempt to flatter one of his wives, would neglect to protect his firstborn son because he was the son of the least favored wife. 
This was a time when polygamy was common (cf. 1 Sm 1:2; 2 Sm 5:13; 1 Kgs 11:1-3). It is not intended to criticize polygamy; rather, it is about protecting the property of the rightful heir.

This passage describes a problem with a stubborn son, possibly showing conflicts among brothers over inheritance (21:15-17). The family ideally should be the best place for a child’s first lessons. But when issues come up with a rebellious son, the community’s elders are called in. Interestingly, there is no process for correcting a wayward son; instead, he is immediately stoned to death. Where is justice in this? It seems to act as a “pedagogical” method meant to encourage parents to discipline their children carefully, so they wouldn’t have to take the extreme step of handing their children over to be stoned by the community’s men. 

The theme of the executioner originates from the person who had to be stoned by community members. The method of execution did not involve hanging from a tree; instead, a person was not executed by hanging, but once executed, the defendant was sometimes displayed from a tree as a warning to others. However, this display ended at sunset, and he had to be buried the same day to prevent bringing a curse or impurity to the earth. This passage serves as an argument for the executioners of Jesus to hasten his death along with his two companions; according to the Law, they had to be buried the same day. For his part, St. Paul sees in the image of Jesus hanging on the cross a profound teaching for the Galatians: Jesus Christ has taken upon himself the curse of God (Gal 3:13).