thst800_paper

Adventist International Institute

of Advanced Studies

Theological Seminary

BLOOD MOTIF AND ATONEMENT IN

DEUTERONOMY

A Paper

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements of the Course

THST 800 Seminar in Christian

Theology

by

Emmer Chacon

December 2006

CONTENT

INTRODUCTION.. 1

Definition and statement of the Problem.. 2

Purpose and significance of the research. 2

Delimitations of the Study: 3

Description of the methodology. 3

ANALYSIS OF BLOOD MOTIF-RELATED PASSAGES. 5

Deut 12:15-19, 20-28. 7

Deut 15:19-23. 11

Deut 17:8-13. 13

Deut 19:1-13. 15

Deut 21:1-9. 18

Deut 22:1-12. 21

Deut 27:15-26. 23

Deut 32:10-14. 25

Deut 32:36-43. 27

Summary. 29

THEOLOGICAL ELABORATION OF BLOOD MOTIF IN DEUTERONOMY.. 33

Blood motif and ethics. 34

Blood Motif and atonement 40

Blood Motif and Theodicy. 41

Summary. 44

CONCLUSIONS. 47

BIBLIOGRAPHY.. 50

INTRODUCTION

Blood is a word that in the Pentateuch carries a heavy load of sacrificial, ritual, theological and ethical meaning and implies several issues under discussion.[1] In Adventists studies, the theme of the blood in the Pentateuch is usually approached in the book of Leviticus. This treatment is mainly done in reference to blood’s manipulation in sacrificial contexts and to its function as a vehicle for sin’s transference to and from the sanctuary during the daily sacrificial ritual and the annual services.[2] This blood manipulation implies expiation, namely atonement[3] that has both temporal and cosmic implications. These cosmic implications deal with Theodicy and the great controversy theme.[4] In Leviticus, ‘blood’ (~D') happens at least 88 times followed in the OT by Ezekiel with 55 times, Exodus with 29 and then Deuteronomy with 23.[5] Therefore, there is a field for research in reference to this theme in these books: Ezekiel[6] and Exodus. However, this paper will deal with these usages of the word ‘blood’ in the book of Deuteronomy which is the next in the frequency.

Definition and statement of the Problem

What are the aspects of blood motif in Deuteronomy? How do the passages in Deuteronomy contribute to the understanding of blood motif? How do the aspects of blood motif in Deuteronomy relate to atonement, ethics and theodicy? 

Purpose and significance of the research 

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the function of the word ‘blood’ in the various contexts where it is used in the book of Deuteronomy in order to identify the aspects of the motif in the book; especially, connections with atonement are in focus.

The blood motif in Adventist studies is usually, with reference to the Pentateuch limited to the book of Leviticus. This paper, by dealing with this motif in Deuteronomy, aims to provide a wider perspective for this theme.

Delimitations of the Study:

            First, this paper aims not to be exhaustive in part due to its exploratory nature and because such a task belongs to a doctoral dissertation; this is a term paper for a seminar class. Second, in the exegetical analysis of the blood-related passages, those elements that are not essential to the understanding of their portrayal of the function of the blood will not be addressed. Third, passages that might somehow portray the motif, but do not make usage of the key term will not be analyzed. This may be a task for another research endeavor. Fourth, the theological elaboration will try to avoid philosophical speculation and then work based on the findings of the textual analysis. Fifth, historical critical issues will not be addressed nor the issue about the authorship or the composition of the book. The present form of the text will be addressed.   

Description of the methodology

Special attention is given to the literary form of the different passages where the word ~D" ‘blood’ is used in Deuteronomy. The presence of the Hebrew word ~D" ‘blood’ is used as hermeneutical control in order to choose those passages that deal with blood motif in Deuteronomy. It is clear that other passages that do not make use of the word ~D"  might deal with the motif but for the purposes of this paper, this control will be used. A later research might deal with those passages which do not having the word ‘blood,’ may portray elements of this motif. This paper will approach Deuteronomy in its final form and in function to its rhetoric nature, each passage will be contextually located in reference to the different discourses or orations present in the book, and then the literary form of the particular passage will be considered. After delimitation and literary considerations, the particular pericopes[7] will be structurally analyzed so its internal flow may be evaluated and the function of the word ~D"  ‘blood’ may be assessed. Inner textuality and intertextuality will be taken into account in order to asses the roots of the Deuteronomic elaboration related to blood motif. Then the theological aspects extracted from these individual analyzes will be grouped and analyzed in reference to their contribution to the doctrine of atonement. These contributions will provide the basis for a profile of the Deuteronomy blood motif in reference to the doctrine of atonement. Additionally, the blood motif in Deuteronomy will provide elements related to ethics and theodicy. 

ANALYSIS OF BLOOD MOTIF-RELATED PASSAGES

The next table will provide a synoptic view of the data that will be under analysis in this paper. Every text where the Hebrew term for blood (~D") is used is enumerated and located in the context of its own pericope. The pericopes are delimited according to the presence and location of the Masoretic delimitation markers present in the Hebrew Bible. Then it is set in reference with their literary contexts according with the major sections in the book of Deuteronomy. These major sections are finally located in reference to the distribution of the discourses or orations of Moses in the book.[8]

Once the passages are located in their respective contexts, it may be clearly seen that most of the references to blood (~D") in Deuteronomy are located in the legal corpus or Deuteronomic Code.[12] The Deuteronomic Code in Deuteronomy covers Deut 12-26.[13] Out of twenty-three references, eighteen are located in Deut 12-22; the other five are located, one in Deut 27:25, and four in Deut 32:1-43. This observation will prove to be useful in the analysis of the data.

The first five references to the term ‘blood’ (~D") in Deuteronomy are located in Deut 12, verses 16, 23 (2x) and 27 (2x). The first of them is in Deut 12:16. This chapter opens the second major section in Moses’ second oration and it is devoted to cultic and ritual regulations.[14] There are delimitations markers[15] after verses three, seven and fourteen.[16] The next markers are after verse 19 (s) and verse 28 (s). This tells us that 12:15-19 and 12:20-28 are textual units.

Deut 12:15-19, 20-28

16 ‘Only the blood you shall not eat; on the ground you shall pour it out as water’[17]

23 ‘Only be sure not to eat the blood, for the blood is the life and you shall not eat the life with the flesh’

27 ‘And you shall offer your burn offerings, the flesh and the blood, on the altar of the Lord your God; the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out on the altar of the Lord your God, and you shall eat the flesh.’  

In this passage, the word ‘blood’ is used in Deut 12:16, 23 (2x), 27 (2x). This section deals with the legislation about the right place to eat regular meat meals versus bloody offerings. The link between Deut 12:16 and Gen 9:4, Lev 7:26-27, 17:10-14, 19:26 and Deut 15:23 are important for the purposes of this paper. [18]

Three Hebrew words from Deut 12:16, 23 are an echo of Gen 9:4,[19] they correspond to the English ‘you shall not eat’ and ‘blood’. The prohibition to eat the flesh with its blood is present in both texts as well as in Lev 7:26-27, 17:10-14 where this expression and the term ‘blood’ are used together; and Deut 15:23 where the expression ‘you are to pour it out on the ground like water’ is, in the Hebrew text, a verbatim repetition of the same phrase in Deut 12:16. This phrase stands in sharp contrast to the similar one in 12:27 that says that the blood of the offering must be poured out on the altar. Why is this prohibition so strong? Why did God associate this commandment with murder either by animal or man (Gen 9:5)? Why did He say that He will cut off from the people whosoever eats blood (Lev 7:27, 17:10, 14) or that He will ‘put his face against such man’ who eats the blood (Lev 17:10)? A hint as to the answer to these questions is in the identification of ‘blood’ with life in Genesis 9:4. Genesis 9:5-6 interprets this saying in reference to human blood and in reference to the respect due to human life as the human person portrays God’s image. The vocabulary of Gen 9:4-6 alludes to Gen 1:26-27 as it makes reference to God’s creation of man in His image.[20] Therefore, Genesis 9:5-6 interprets this saying of Gen 9:4 in the ontological sphere as the rationale for its application in the ethical sphere. Human life must be respected as it is the image of God’s life. Although Lev 7:26-27 precedes Lev 17:11, it is this last reference the one which repeats the Genesis 9:4 saying and interprets it ritually in close connection with atonement. These connections of Gen 9:4 and Lev 17:11, with the references in Deuteronomy to blood, are decisive for the understanding of the ‘blood’ motif in Deuteronomy. [21]

The previous considerations suggest that the prohibition and the instructions related to ‘blood’ in Deut 12:16, 23 imply a wider sphere than cultic sacrificial issues. God’s people, whenever they eat meat, must not eat the animal’s ‘blood’ as a way to demonstrate their respect to life, any kind of life, both animal and human life. It is interesting that the clean,[22] as well as the unclean person, are allowed to eat this meat Deut 12:15. In this respect, McConville concludes that Deut 12:16, 23 refers to what he calls non-sacrificial / non-cultic ‘profane slaughter’[23] thus Deut 12:16 is dealing with the slaughtering of a clean animal whose meat will be used as food.[24]

However, the usage of ‘blood’ in Deut 12:27 has different implications. Verse 26 marks the shift when it speaks about ‘holy things’ and ‘votive offerings’ that must be taken to the place that the ‘Lord chooses.’ Then verse 27 uses words such as ‘burnt offering’ (hl'[o, LXX:[25] o`lokautw,mata,), and sacrifices (xb;z<,[26]) and connects all these elements as ‘your holy things’ (^yv,²d"q'¥) with the altar. Therefore, this text is dealing with a cultic and ritual sacrifice that implies atonement.[27] Although atonement vocabulary is not present here in Deut 12:27, the sacrificial vocabulary is present and gives the guarantee of the presence of atonement aspects. The interesting point is the reiterative presence of the prohibition to eat ‘blood’ in this context. These offerings, by including the ritual of laying the hands[28] on the offering, imply transference and substitution.[29] The word for offering and slaughtering here (Deut 12:6, 11, 15, 21, 27) are often associated with the ‘peace offering’ (~ymi_l'V.h; xb;z<å).[30] This means that in both cultic and non-cultic slaughtering, a respectful treatment of the blood must be displayed. The rationale is to be found in blood’s connection with life and the Divine origin of life. These aspects are elaborated ontologically as the basis for its ethical application.    

Deut 15:19-23

23 ‘Only you shall not eat the blood, upon the ground you shall pour it out as water’

For the approach that sees the Deuteronomic Code (Deut 12-26) structured according to the Decalogue, the laws in Deut 14:28-16:17 deal with the fourth commandment related to the Sabbath.[31] At least three links might be identified. The usage of the number seven in the passage, (Deut 15:1, 9, 12), the concern for the weak as an echo of Deut 5:14 and the grounding of the law in Israel’s slavery in Egypt, Deut 15:15.[32] Deut 15:1-18 deals with the legislation of the sabbatical year in connection with the release of the debts (15:1-6 deals with general aspects and 7-11 with the debts of a poor man) and the release of the slaves (15:12-18).[33] The regulations concerning the male firstborns of the livestock are located at the end of this release-related legislation 15:19-23. Therefore it is grounded in the concepts of release, rest and redemption that fill this section.

According to his methodology, McConville compares this legislation with the second-millennium Babylonian legislative corpus[34] and found that in Deuteronomic legislation that it is the people, addressed in second masculine singular, and not the king who is responsible for making the release; (and all is done according to a compulsory and regular pattern); the kings in Babylon did the release in their own initiative and without compulsion. This is evidence of the innovative nature of the Deuteronomic legislation.

The first-born regulations here in Deut 15:19-23 have their roots in the Exodus narrative, (Exod 5:1-15:21, and more specifically in 13:11-16) and in the wilderness narrative (Exod 16-Deut 34), in Exod 22:29-30 and Num 18:15-18.[35] The vocabulary of Deut 15:19-23 echoes Exod 13:15.[36] These roots provide a frame of redemption for the passage.

The instructions clarify that if the animal is spotless it must be eaten ‘before the Lord’ in the Lord’s chosen place by the family. However, if the animal has any defect, then it might be eaten by the family plus the unclean one who dwells ‘within your gates’. In this context the word ~D' ‘blood’ is used in reference to the way this imperfect animal may be eaten ‘within your gates.’ Once the animal is slaughtered, its blood must be ‘poured out on the ground like water.’ This instruction implies that this is a situation of secular[37] slaughter that does not imply cultic or ritual elements; and then atonement elements are not in ply. Additionally, this context makes clear that even in contexts of secular slaughtering the correct legislated way of manipulating the blood must be also observed. Respectful manipulation of blood must be observed in both secular and ritual slaughtering. This respectful manipulation of the blood has to do with its theological/ontological connections and not with the character of the possible different circumstantial contexts. Then, once again, the theological / ontological dimensions of the meaning of the blood are used to anchor and teach an ethical lesson to the people.

This passage makes clear distinctions in the manipulation of the blood as it emphasizes that the blood must be poured out on the ground as water and the meat may be eaten by both the clean and the unclean person ‘within your gate.’       

Deut 17:8-13

8 ‘If a case is too difficult for you to judge, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, between stroke and stroke, matters of disputes in your gates; then you shall arise and go up to the place which the Lord your God chooses’

This passage in verses 8-13 is seen by Sailhamer as part of a section dealing with instructions to the leadership, 16:18-18:22.[38] The text of verses 16:21-17:7 deals with forbidden forms of worship and verses 7:14-20 deal with the legislation for the future king. In the middle of these two legislations is our passage dealing with those cases when the people are overwhelmed with any ‘issue,’ rb'ød", and therefore they must bring the case in presence of the either the priest or the appointed judge. Three kinds of issues are enumerated: ~D', blood or homicide; !yDI, plea[39] and [g:n<ë, assault, stroke.[40] These three issues are enumerated using the same syntactical structure: __-l __!yb,[41] ‘between __ and __.’ In particular, with the one concerning this paper: ~d"øl. Ÿ~D"’-!yBe(, ‘between blood and blood,’ Levinson points to Jewish scholarly literature that interprets this phrase as ‘between [one form of] murder and [another form of] murder.’[42] This is a distinction between intentional and unintentional murder. These three situations are qualified as byrI[43] (strife, quarrel, dispute[44]) while still they are not brought to the priest or judge but are dealt with at the initial place, in the gate of the native city or town. This feature makes clear that this is a pre judicial situation as the quarrel is dealt with identified and treated in an initial stage before reaching the judges. The text implies an instance of a local court where equal parties bring their issues. If the local court cannot deal with the matter, only then will it be brought to the higher court.[45] According to Deut 18:9 this issue is brought to the ‘the place which the Lord your God chooses,’ to the Levitical priest or to the judge. This text cedes judicial authority to the priest and in a broader sense to the Levites in general (who were intended to be their assistants).[46] This is a symmetric context in the sense that both parties in the dispute are at the same level, both are common members of the people that come to the priests for them to judge the issue. Additionally, this passage is paradigmatic in the sense that it provides a model for the future judicial administration in the land the people are about to enter.[47] Therefore, this passage uses the term ‘blood’ by way of synecdoche as meaning murder (Deut 17:8 2x); both intentional and unintentional.

Deut 19:1-13[48]

6 lest the avenger of blood in hot anger pursue the manslayer and overtake him, because the way is long, and strike him fatally, though the man did not deserve to die, since he had not hated his neighbor in the past

10 lest innocent blood be shed in your land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance, and so the guilt of bloodshed be upon you

12 then the elders of his city shall send and take him from there, and hand him over to the avenger of blood, so that he may die

13 Your eye shall not pity him, but you shall purge the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, so that it may be well with you  

Laws in Deut 19-21 deal with issues related to the sixth commandment, and murder.[49] This section features five uses of the word ~D' ‘blood’[50] and it deals with the legislation for the cities of refuge.[51] This text provides several elements related to the issue of murder, in addition to what has been already elaborated in the previous analyzed passages.

The family member responsible of avenging the blood of the murdered victim is called in Deut 19:6 laeGO. This is the same word used for the redeemer in the levirate law.[52] This word is used in Deuteronomy only two times and they are here in Deut 19:6 and 12 in reference to the avenger of the blood. The concept of the avenger as restorer of the blood that has been misappropriated by murder is known in Egyptian sources from the XIV century B.C., from Aramaic sources from the VIII century B.C. and from Neo-Assyrian sources. In the ANE sources, the blood belongs to the clan but in Scripture blood is property of God as the Originator of life and the only One with authority for “absolute disposition over human and animal life and over blood, in which life is embodied.” [53] The Deuteronomic legislation seems to aim to regulate, and lead to justice, the zeal and desire for revenge of the avenger that otherwise might lead to several injustices and tragedies as blood feuds.[54] This ‘redemption’ of the blood might refer, by way of synecdoche, to the life of the victim that must be redeemed or to his or her innocent blood that requires protection and expiation.[55] This nuance in this passage, therefore, implies atonement of the innocent blood by the judicial penalty execution of the intentional murderer.

In Deut 19:10 two times the expression ‘innocent blood’ is used to denote the blood of the unintentional killer that needs to be kept from execution. According to Joshua 20:6, the unintentional murderer must remain in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest. In this context, the death of the high priest has been a motive of study and speculation. The most certain answer seems to be that even though the killing was unintentional, a person was killed and this requires a death but the unintentional killer cannot be killed; so the most adequate person to provide this death is the High Priest in a substitutive death, that only can be accomplished when he dies by natural causes.[56]     

According to Deut 19:11-13, the intentional murderer who seeks refuge in the city, must be taken by the elders of the city of refuge and delivered tme(w" ~D"Þh; laeîGO dy:±B., literally ‘to the hand of the avenger of the blood to die.’ The blood of the intentional murderer must be shed so the innocent blood he or she shed may be ‘purged,’ Heb ‘burn, consumed, removed’ r[;B'; and according to the LXX kaqari,zw, cleansed. Numbers 35:33-34 clearly states the principle that innocent blood pollutes[57] the land and this pollution only might be cleansed[58] or atoned by the blood of the killer, verse 30.[59] This legislation from Numbers is presupposed in Deuteronomy. There was not room in this legislation for pity or ransom in behalf of the intentional murder.[60] Atonement is present in the sense of judicial penalty execution that cleanses the people (Deut 19:13) from responsibility and the land from the contamination generated by the innocent blood that has been poured out. This is really a hard saying in our contemporary legislative and social context that fights even for the human rights of serial and massive killers; and moves in the perspective of the war against terrorism. Ours is a society that struggles to get some kind of balance between collective and individual safety by one side and individualistic freedom and privacy by the other side.[61]   

Deut 21:1-9

7 ‘then they will answer and say: ‘Our hands did not pour out this blood, nor did our eyes see [it]’

8 ‘expiate Your people Israel which You have redeemed, O Lord, and do not put guilt of innocent blood in the midst of Your people Israel and the blood guiltiness shall be forgiven to them’

9 ‘Then you shall consume the guilty of the innocent blood from your midst, when you do what is right in the eyes of the Lord’     

This passage deals with the situation of an unsolved murder, 21:1-9. Chapter 21 contains casuistic laws that are introduced by  -yKi clauses (eleven times in the chapter). Then follows mainly wav-consecutive clauses –the apodosis, with verbs in perfect;[62] this passage has been analyzed mainly from the perspective of its ritual. Zevit seems to read the event from the perspective of the history of religions; a rather evolutionary perspective. It is interesting that this law is found only here in this passage in the Pentateuch, although similar expressions are found elsewhere in the OT (as Zevit and Wright have long ago identified).[63] Internally in this same chapter, roots such as hm'd'a], ‘ground,’ are used in order to accentuate the emphasis on pollution. This law is seen as a complement to Deuteronomy 19:1-13 where the murderer is known but the killing was unintentional. The root byrI, ‘dispute, plea,’ is used here in 21:1-9 to qualify the issues under the jurisdiction of the Priests, ‘the sons of Levi’. The text says: [g:n")-lk'w> byrIï-lK', ‘every dispute and every assault’ is under their authority for resolution. This is a judicial context; although there is not enough evidence to know, in reference to the parties in the quarrel, if this is a symmetrical or asymmetrical context. The priests have both a judicial and religious function in this passage. Therefore the usage of the root byr here, have both religious and judicial implications.

In this text, the word ‘blood’ is used four times in a religious judicial context dealing with a murder case, Deut 21:7, 8 (2x) and 9. This law is complementary to Deut 19:1-13 in the sense that in Deut 19:1-13 the murderers are known and the issue is whether the murder was or was not intentional. Now in Deut 21:1-9 a slain person is found in the open land outside the city, the murderer is unknown and the guilt of the innocent blood needs to be removed from the people and the land. This passage sets in the people the ultimate responsibility for solving murders. In this case, when the murder might not be resolved, the people are still held responsible for the innocent blood that has been shed. Therefore, the elders,[64] judges and priests (as representative of the people) must perform the rituals.[65] The involvement of these three authorities reveals how serious the issue is in God’s sight.[66] This passage includes a prescriptive ritual procedure;[67] these are instructions about what has to be done in case such the circumstances arise. In this situation, the nearest town (21:3) is held as responsible and its authorities must proceed with the ritual of the red heifer.

The intervention of the red heifer ritual in this situation requires further study that is beyond the limits of this study.[68] However, it is clear from the text that these procedures imply propitiation/expiation; since in verse 21:8 the verb rP,Ki[69] is used in connection with the rituals that are performed for the removal of the guilty. The shedding of innocent blood pollutes the land and, if the killer is unknown, then the people are held as responsible. Therefore, the people’s authorities (as representatives) are the ones responsible for accomplishing the prescribed procedures and rituals; that will lead to the cleansing of the land and the propitiation of the culpability which was resting upon the people. Then in this context, in a judicial matrix, theological as well as ritual and ethical dimensions of the ontological value of blood are present.

The concept of pollution by the illegal shedding of blood is known in ANE sources. Sources from Mari (18th century B.C.) refer to a criminal who is ‘polluted with that blood (shed in murder)’. The word ‘blood,’ either in singular or plural, is used in the Hebrew Bible to convey this concept of bloodguilt.[70]

Deut 22:1-12

12 ‘When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof; so you shall not put guilty of blood on your house if any one falls from it.’

This section of Deut 22:1-12 includes several casuistic laws that deal with various issues, such as responsibility for lost property 22:1-4, gender distinctions 22:5, bird’s nets 22:6-7, the law of the ‘parapet’ 22:8, prohibition of mixing natural distinctions, 22:9-11 and the law of the tassels, 22:12. Here the word ‘blood’ is used in 22:8 and in plural form; the only other occasion where the plural is used in Deuteronomy is in 19:10 where the word is translated into English as ‘bloodguilt’ and other similar expressions.[71]

This is a casuistic law related to the avoidance of negligent manslaughter. Israelite houses were flat-roof buildings and people used for rest on them. This practice provided room for accidents to happen. Wright elaborates this prevention aspect as the ground for a Christian duty to promote and be forefronts in the struggle for safety measures at home, workplace, hygiene and other issues related to others’ safety as one’s duty.[72] This aspect of this passage bears an ethical load. This ethical aspect therefore sets a responsibility on the person. It is a religious must to take active care for others’ safety, even at one’s own expense. Negligence, according to this passage bears judicial responsibility as the negligent person becomes subject to bloodguilt; especially if recidivism is present.   

This text has connections with Exod 21:28-32 where other negligence situations are legislated and the death penalty is ruled for recidivism situations.[73] Additionally, the vocabulary of this verse (to fall, lp;n")[74] connects with Deut 21:1 which, deals also with death and bloodshed, and concerns about the ‘pollution of the land’ with the innocent blood that is shed. Therefore, one of the concerns of this passage is that land pollution with innocent blood must be avoided. It is everyone’s responsibility to avoid the land’s pollution with innocent bloodshed. The land is God’s land and He has granted it to the people but the people are responsible for caring for the land to be clean of blood. This passage brings the issue to a more personal level by making each home’s owner responsible for setting safety devices in his or her house in order to avoid accidents.

Deut 27:15-26

25 ‘Cursed is the one who takes a bribe to smite down a person of innocent blood; and the whole people will say: amen’

This reference is the first time the term blood (~D") is used outside the Deuteronomic code, Deut 12-26. Deut 27:1-10 deals with the instructions for the altar to be built in mount Ebal; this is a prescriptive ritual text.  Deut 27:11-26 provides the instructions for a ceremony that must be accomplished once the people cross the Jordan River. There, the whole people of Israel standing at mounts Ebal (Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulon, Dan and Naphtali) and Gerizim (Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph and Benjamin) shall answer with loud voice ‘amen’ once the Levites proclaim every one of twelve curses that are consigned at Deut 27:11-26 and the other consigned in Deut 28:15-68. After this, the blessings, consigned at Deut 28:1-14 will follow the same procedure. These curses and blessings set before the people their future according to two different versions: one is the path of faithfulness and obedience to God’s covenant. The other path is according to the people’s possible disobedience and unfaithfulness. These two paths are the expressions of God’s Programme for the people and, the most possible, the people’s future Historie. These passages evidence the programmatic nature of the book of Deuteronomy which displays the future of the people in two scenarios: God’s plan for them and their own unfaithful and sinful way. Therefore, Deuteronomy is not only God’s agenda for His people once they settle into the Promise Land, but God’s programme for His people’s ultimate destiny.   

In this context, Deut 27:25, this curse leaves to God’s judgment the situation of an intentional and contract murder whose murderer is unknown to the congregation. It is not stated how God will deal with this situation, but it is clear that the solution requires the death of the murderer in order for the innocent blood to be atoned for.

Once again Wright elaborates the social/ethical dimensions present in the text. He highlights the fact that the curses turn in verse 24-25 from loyalty to God versus idol worship, to interpersonal issues of social and ethical dimension. He reads in Deuteronomy, as a reflection of the OT’s message, that

…if you choose the wrong gods you will end in social decay. Biblical monotheism far from an abstract creed, affirms that only when God is properly honored will society be just and compassionate. Modern western society,[75] reaping the fruit of two centuries of systematically excluding God from all practical public relevance, is now plagued by the loss of family stability, respect for property, social compassion, sexual integrity, and the sanctity of life. Those who will not love God soon find it irksome (or uneconomical) to love their neighbors.[76]

Deut 27:24-25 has literary links with Exod 21:12 where almost the same vocabulary of Deut 27:24 is present and Deut 19:4 which portrays a situation just the reverse of Deut 27:24. The verb hk'n", ‘to smite, to strike’[77] is used in Deut 19:4 and in Deut 27:24, 25 as well as in Exod 21:12 in all these passages in similar contexts; which deal with murder in different situations. In Exod 21:12-26 as part of a series of casuistic laws that deal with different acts violence, the verb hk'n" is used six times. In Deut 19:4 the unintentional killer is known but in the two cases depicted in Deut 27:24-25, the intentional killer is unknown because the killings are performed in secret.[78] As in other laws in the Pentateuch, this curse seems to be intended to regulate social situations and avoid worse circumstances.

Deut 32:10-14

This passage, Deut 32:14, is the unique poetic and metaphoric use of the word ‘blood’ in Deuteronomy. “The central theme of the poem is Israel’s apostasy and God’s threatening judgment.” And this section deals with God’s “care for them from the time of the wilderness wanderings (vv. 10-12) to their possession and initial enjoyment of the blessings in the land (vv. 13-14)”[79]  Verses 15-18 introduce Israel’s future apostasy and then verses 19-25 introduce God’s decision to judge Israel. The entire poem partially follows the form of an ANE covenantal lawsuit pattern.[80] From the internal context it is clear that Moses’ song refers to a time far in his future and in the future of the people.[81] This poem is a remembrance of God’s care for His people as well as a warning about the people’s real nature and the kind of dangers they will be sure to face in their far future. Therefore they, as a people and as individuals, must be not only aware but in guard against apostasy and idolatry.

By now, this text -Deut 32:10-14- celebrates God’s care toward His people that He will have manifested in the abundance of provision for their needs in the Promised Land. The text abounds in domestic vocabulary and in metaphors that celebrate the abundance of God’s material blessings for His people: “and of the blood of the grapes[82] you drank wine.” It is interesting that even this poetic usage of the word ‘blood’ is heavily loaded with a message for the people there and then, and now and here. A look into the vocabulary of verses 13-14 will make these aspects clear, speaking of what God will have done in behalf of His people. It says: 

13‘He made them soar on the high places of the land,

They ate the good yield of the fields;

He made them suck honey from the rock

And oil from the flinty rock,

14With curds and cows, and milk from the flock,

            With the fat of lambs,

With rams, the bread of Bashan, and goats,

            With the finest of the wheat

And the blood of grapes you drank wine’

The text portrays what God will have done to supply for His people all goods in abundance: the honey, oil, curds, milk, fat, bread, wheat and the wine (blood of the grapes). It is interesting that while all the other goods are portrayed with literal vocabulary in a poetic matrix, the wine is presented with a metaphoric vocabulary.

This same metaphor of the ´blood of grapes´ is found in Gen 49:11 as part of Jacob’s blessing to Judah (Gen 49:8-12). The burden of the text in Gen 49:11 seems to be about the abundance God promises to Judah and is seen as the textual origin of the abundance pictures of the Messianic age.[83] It is interesting that the presence of this metaphor here is somehow mirrored at the end of the poem in Deut 32:42a1 where the sword of the Lord, in an eschatological scene, gets drunk because of the abundance of the blood of the Lord’s and His people’s enemies that have been slaughtered.     

Deut 32:36-43

This text celebrates God as the Vindicator of His people; the vocabulary is quite graphic. Words such as vindicate !yD in verse 36,[84] blood ~D' in verses 42 (2x) and 43, vengeance ~q;n",in verses 41 and 43 (2x), expiate rP,Ki in verse 43, people ~[', in verses 36 and 43,  land hm'd'a] in verse 43,  provide a wide context of both judicial and substitutive atonement in the eschatological realm. The context of a broken covenant is present and the consequences of suffering that the people will be facing. Then, at that time God will show mercy to His people (verse 36). Verses 37-38 remind to the people of the futility of their idols and false gods. Verses 39-43, then, displays God’s powerful manifestation and vengeance over the enemies of His people. The enemies of God’s people are God’s enemies and His peoples’ battles become once again God’s battles. God says ‘I will make my arrows drunk with blood,’ verse 42.

Verse 42 has an a-b/a’-b’ structure where a’ complements or explains a and b’ does the same with b:

~D"êmi ‘yC;xi ryKiÛv.a; 42a1 a  

rf"+B' lk;äaTo yBiÞr>x;w> 42a2 b          

hy"ëb.viw> ‘ll'x' ~D:Ûmi 42b1 a’                        

`byE)Aa tA[ïr>P; varoßme 42b2 b’

a          42a1    ‘I will make My arrows drunk with blood,

b          42a2                And my sword will devour flesh,

a’         42b1    With the blood of the slain and the captives

b’         42b2                From the long-haired leaders of the enemy’  

Deut 32:42 sets the word ‘blood’ in an eschatological scene evidently in the people’s distant future, when God will execute penal and final judgment over His and His people’s enemies by annihilating them. A look into the literary structure of Deut 32:43 will make this aspect clearer; the parallelism in this verse is a-b / b’-a’.

AMê[; ‘~yIAg WnynIÜr>h;  43a1 a

~AQ+yI wyd"Þb'[]-~d: yKiî 43a2 b               

wyr"êc'l. byviäy" ‘~q'n"w> 43b1 b’          

p `AM)[; Atßm'd>a; rP<ïkiw> 43b2 a’

a          43a1    Rejoice, O nations with His people

b          43a2                For the blood of His servants He will avenge

b’         43b1                And He will avenge on His adversaries

a’         43b2    And He will atone for His land and His people

Deut 32:42-43, as the last usages of the word ‘blood’ in Deuteronomy sets the theme in eschatological and cosmic perspective. Here the eschatological contextualization of the concept is the basis for its application in expiation and vindication. This expiation has two faces in this context. God will atone, cleanse, His people from their sin and the land from its pollution; this is possible only through penalty, satisfaction, substitution that is not elaborated here but which is evidently implicit in the text. Additionally, God will execute judicial, penalty execution on His adversaries that have shed His people’s innocent blood. God’s atonement in behalf of His people will vindicate them over their enemies while God’s judicial execution on His adversaries will annihilate them and vindicate Him.    

Summary

Deut 12:6, as the first usage of the word ‘blood’ in Deuteronomy sets the basis for the elaboration of the theme in the rest of the book. There, the context in which the word is used, introduces the ontological basis of the theme from the cosmological context in creation and its elaboration in ethics and expiation. Deuteronomy sets ‘blood’ as the vehicle of life. Life, human and animal, has its origin in God and only God has the right to decide about it. This life, particularly human life, is related to God’s image in the human being and rooted in creation. This cosmic and ontological context for life and the meaning of blood is the basis for the Deuteronomic elaboration of the theme of blood.

Most of the usages of the word blood in Deuteronomy are present in the Deuteronomic Code, which sets the legislation model and programme for both communitarian and individual lifestyles and the administration of justice in the Promised Land. According to this code, whenever life is taken away by others it results in a disturbed situation that needs to be resolved. The external manifestation of a life taken away is the shedding of blood. If the situation is related to the secular non-ritual slaughtering of an animal for food, its blood must be poured out on the ground, ‘like water,’ as a way of manifesting the deference due to its life.

Whenever the situation is related to a murder, things are quite different. This murder might be unintentional, or accidental. In this case, the murderer has the opportunity, in the Pentateuch legislation, to escape to a city of refuge and obtain asylum there. Then, the murderer must remain inside the city until the death of the High Priest. If, before of the death of the high priest, the unintentional murderer happens to go out of the city and the avenger of the blood meets him or her, the avenger of the blood has the authority to kill the murderer without being charged with murder. After the death of the high priest nobody has the authority to kill the unintentional murderer. This situation reveals that the death of the high priest makes substitutive atonement in behalf of the unintentional murderer.

The intentional murder is subject to different legislation. In this circumstance, the murderer has polluted him or herself and has polluted also the land. The only way to cleanse the land is through the annihilation of the killer and shedding his or her blood so that the innocent blood might be judicially restituted. There are clear and emphatic instructions in Deuteronomy concerning the intentional murderer. He or she must be taken and delivered to the avenger of the blood so the murderer may be put to death. Pity or ransom must not be present here in this circumstance, according to the Deuteronomic legislation.

The avenger of the blood has a highly specialized task. This person is a near relative of the victim and has the duty of killing the intentional murderer; society has the duty of facilitating this task. This figure of the avenger of the blood was known in the ANE early in the second millennium B. C. However, in the ANE the blood of the victim belongs to the clan and the avenger must somehow recover the blood for the clan by killing the murderer. However, in the OT, the blood as well as the life it represents, belongs to God and the avenger of the blood is performing a mission for God. When the intentional killer is killed, this results in the cleansing of the land and the restoration of the legal balance. The land and life both belong to God and the people are individually and comparatively responsible to respect life and keep the land clean. If the killer is unknown, and therefore the people have no way of resolving the situation, the Deuteronomic Code establishes ceremonies and rituals that must be performed by the authorities of the community so the people might be cleared from any responsibility concerning the innocent blood and the land might be cleansed. This case is finally left directly in God’s hands and authority for Him to resolve the issue that results totally unknown to the people. Therefore the resolution of any murder requires expiation that might imply life or death as substitution or judicial execution might be in play.

Deuteronomy’s elaboration of the blood motif between Deut 12:6 and Deut 32:42-43 deals with ethical /judicial and religious /atonement applications in temporal context of the ontological basis set by Deut 12:6. These identifications set ‘blood’ as the conceptual conglomeration of ontological, ethical, judicial, soteriological and cosmic dimensions of the value of life and of the atoning power of death. As Deut 12:6 sets the blood motif in a cosmic context, with its ontological emphasis, so Deut 32:43-44 does the same with its cosmic eschatological theodicy emphasis. Therefore the blood motif elaboration in Deuteronomy displays a vertical and horizontal movement from the cosmic realm to the temporal and back to cosmic; while, at the same time, it moves from an ontological basis, grounded in creation, to ethics and expiation and then to eschatology featuring expiation and vindication:

THEOLOGICAL ELABORATION OF BLOOD MOTIF IN DEUTERONOMY

This section attempts to elaborate and articulate the findings of the previous exegetical endeavor. These findings are distributed in two levels that interact with three main areas. Deuteronomy elaborates the blood motif from the cosmic to the temporal level and then returns to the cosmic level. The first time, the cosmic realm is grounded in the creation narrative and the last time it projects to the eschaton.  

The areas that are covered by the blood motif in Deuteronomy are ethics, both individual and social; atonement in ritual contexts and final penal execution and vindication. From the perspective of content analysis, most of the data deals with the temporal realm that is mainly concerned with criminal justice, crime control, justice and crime prevention. Little data is devoted to the cosmic level, to atonement and penal execution and vindication. However, this brief treatment of these aspects must not lead to the impression that they are less important. These brief treatments of these elements are strategically located at the beginning and end of the data so that they become critical for the understanding of the whole of the data. The location of this information shows the grounding of the motif and its ultimate aim. Additionally, atonement as judicial penalty substitution and judicial penalty execution interact deeply with the ethical data in the temporal realm.

This configuration of the data provides an interesting perspective. Evidently, the treatment of these issues in this paper might not be exhaustive because such a task would require a research which is beyond the objectives of this paper. However, it is worthy of note, that this situation reveals how rich the implications of the Deuteronomic portrayal of blood motif are.

Blood motif and ethics

Deuteronomy cosmically anchors its blood motif in the creation narrative;[85] this context has several consequences in reference to the value of its resulting aspects. In that it refers to the resulting ethics, it means that the principles[86] behind the ethics were not philosophically deducted or culturally developed from the peoples’ customs or scientifically discovered, but revealed by God.

The theocentric perspective is crucial in Deuteronomy and this perspective penetrates all its data. Therefore, when the blood motif provides principles which elaborate ethics, these principles and the resulting ethics are theocentric. This is needed if one is to avoid reading Deuteronomy as an ethics treatise; ethics is not the main purpose of the book, although it is indeed present. The main purpose of Deuteronomy is to unfold God’s agenda for His people. Particularly, the Deuteronomic Code, Deut 12-26, where the data mainly deals with the temporal realm is located, intends to provide the principles, procedures and norms for the administration of God’s people in the Promised Land (in the context of a theocracy and with a mission-driven perspective). These ethics are especially concerned with the social issues and this is why external acts are in focus.[87] This legal data (Deut 12-26) is provided in the context of a covenantal renewal ceremony (Deut 27-30) on the eve of the people’s entrance in the Promised Land (Deut 31-34). This is the context of the blood motif and the context of the ethics resulting from the aspects of this motif.

As revealed from God, the principles behind the ethics derived from blood motif are absolutes. They reach beyond any kind of distinction grounded in ethnic, gender, lineage, socio-economical, religious or any other possible constrain. Principles revealed by God have the whole Human genre as their target. These absolutes are not bound by temporal issues. They are not just the testimony of an ancient culture but God’s timeless revelation. They are indeed, intended to serve as a basis for ruling human issues without any time, cultural or geo-political boundary. In this context, this paper deals with the ethics derived from the blood motif in the areas that the text touches. This means that the data does not imply an exhaustive ethical elaboration, although it needs to be noted that the implications might reach beyond the insights of this paper.

Environmental issues are not included in this data because this data is delimited to blood-related passages. It is possible that other passages in Deuteronomy might relate to environmental issues, but if such is the case, they are outside the limits of this paper. The Deuteronomic ontological-cosmic portrayal of blood as vehicle of life, emphasizes life as God’s property; all life. Therefore, a deep respectful treatment is due to both human and animal life.

In reference to respect for animal life, blood motif data in Deuteronomy deals with the slaughtering of clean animals[88] in two contexts: butchering for food and religious ritual sacrifice.[89] The first case is known as secular slaughtering and it does not imply ritual elements nor does it imply expiation. The second case is cultic ritual sacrifice, in harmony with the sacrificial Levitical legislation (Leviticus 1-15), that implies transference and substitutive expiation-atonement-propitiation. Several elements of procedure are quite different from one situation to another, but in both of them there is at least one common element that is important for the purposes of this paper: The deep respect that must be manifested toward the manipulation of the blood. As some sacrifices allowed the consumption of the flesh, it is clearly stated with strong prohibitions and even capital penalty that the blood must not be eaten. The blood must be poured out. The place for eating the flesh and the pouring out of the blood changes according to the kind of slaughtering. In secular slaughtering the flesh may be eaten ‘inside your gates’ by the clean person as well as by the unclean one and the blood must be ‘poured out in the ground as water.’ In the case of sacrificial ritual slaughtering, the flesh must be eaten in ‘the place chosen by the Lord’ and the blood must be poured out ‘on the altar.’

These differences in animal blood manipulation are intended to emphasize the sacredness of life, even animal life, and differentiation between non-ritual secular and ritual-religious animal slaughtering contexts.

In reference to human blood in the context of its violent shedding, namely murder, several situations are treated, depending upon whether the murder is intentional or unintentional and if the murderer is known or unknown. All these situations might be summarized, according to the procedures and results, in two main contexts: unintentional and intentional murder. In these two contexts the procedure concerning the murderer is dramatically different. The person who kills anyone by accident is considered innocent and a whole system of asylum is carefully worked out for his or her integrity’s protection. The avenger of the blood has not the right to kill this person, but the person must remain under asylum in the city of refuge.

The unintentional killer must remain in the city of refuge for the asylum system to be effective and until the death of the high priest. If the unintentional killer happens to go out of the city of refuge, the avenger of the blood has access and the right to kill this person. This feature, as previously seen in the exegetical endeavor, implies that although the person is considered innocent, the murder is considered as a murder and it requires restitution, namely a death. The only way to provide this death, and keeping safe the unintentional killer, is the substitutive death of the high priest. Whenever the high priest dies, certainly not by murder, his death makes substitution in behalf of the unintentional murder and he or she is then free from any limitation to the city of refuge and free from any risk in reference to the blood avenger. 

The case when a person is killed intentionally requires the execution of the killer and the asylum system does not function at all for the killer. If the killer comes to the city of refuge, the elders of the city must deliver him or her without pity to the blood avenger. The rationale for this procedure is that the shedding of blood (murder) pollutes both the land and the murderer and even the people that surround him or her until the moment that the bloodguiltiness is cleansed. There is not provision for the intentional killer to transfer his or her guilty to a substitute. Both life and the land belong to God and He has granted life as a gift to human beings, reserving for Himself the related possible decisions. This might raise the issue about euthanasia and suicide.[90] In reference to the land, according to Deuteronomy, based on God’s promises to the Patriarchs, God grants the land to His people and considers them as responsible for keeping the land clean of any pollution. In this case, innocent blood is considered a kind of pollution that requires cleansing.[91] And this cleansing requires the execution of the killer.

It is necessary to remember that Deuteronomy’s legislation, although it provides timeless principles, its application is intended to be applied in a theocracy context. Capital punishment[92] has several hazards especially as it is endangered by the imperfections of human judicial systems that might lead to a wrong conviction.[93]

 The death of the intentional killer results in the clearance of his or her pollution and the cleansing of the land’s pollution that the murder caused. This cleansing is understood in Scripture as atonement, an atonement of penal execution. This aspect will be analyzed further in the next section.

Deuteronomy’s ethics which arises from blood motif deals with the avoidance of negligence in the personal care for others safety (Deut 22:12). In this context, if negligence causes an accident in a house and the person(s) involved in the accident happen to die, this death is considered to be an unintentional murder committed by the owner of the house and he or she had access to asylum. The blood of the victim pollutes the house and the responsibility, the bloodguiltiness, falls on the owner of the house. The killer was processed as an intentional murder, according to Exod 21:28-32, only in case of recidivism. In this case, the death of the killer was required in order to deal with the resulting pollution.  

It is evident that these laws and procedures are intended to regulate civil and judicial situations in a society of the ANE context, that, as already seen, knew the concept of bloodguiltiness and asylum, could have easily lost control of costly blood feuds.[94] Additionally, these laws and procedures might have been effective in crime prevention.

Blood Motif and atonement

In the passages related to blood motif in Deuteronomy, the most of the atonement situations are portrayed in judicial contexts related to ethical issues. In these contexts, blood pollution (murder) requires blood cleansing. Furthermore, atonement was present in two well differentiated situations: judicial penalty satisfaction execution and judicial penalty satisfaction substitution. The second situation, judicial penalty substitution, is particularly difficult to study because of the brief amount of evidence.[95] This issue relates only to the situation when the ‘natural’ death of the high priest (because of his heavy religious function and significance[96]), makes substitutive atonement for the unintentional killer. This situation evidences the heavy emphasis on the sacredness of life and its deep ontological relationship with God as life’s originator and the only One with final authority over life and death. Human beings are not allowed to intrude into these issues at their capital peril. 

The situation of the execution of judicial penalty shows the power of blood and death as the guilty person expiates his or her guilt, and cleanses the land by paying with his or her own blood, namely, life. The aspects dealing with the ethical issues were already explored. In the religious sphere, the atonement that is performed by the guilty person has deep implications. Particularly in the case when blood-eating happens. It seems that in this situation the person has not access to any forgiveness or atonement. The Pentateuch applies heavy emphasis to the matter by the usage of expressions such as that the person who eats blood will be “cut off” and that God “put his face against such man’ who eats the blood,” Lev 7:27, 17:10, 14. The expression “cut off” is recognized as having implications beyond the person’s death.[97] The usage of the phrase is related to violations “against religion, morality, or sacral law.”[98]

Finally, in atonement contexts, Deut 12:20-28 is elaborated in harmony with the Levitical sacrificial legislation (Lev 1-15). This ritual legislation recognizes the presence of the processes of substitution and transference in the Levitical sacrifices. It is interesting that once the victim of the sacrifice has been subject to the ritual of the laying on of the hands and it has been slaughtered, it is considered that is a “most holy” thing.[99] This sacrifice bears the sin of the person who made the offering and this implies penalty substitutive atonement. The analysis of these Levitical contexts is beyond the limits of this paper. Anyhow, the regulations in Deut 12:20-28, have to do with the respectful and ritual manipulation of the blood of these sacrifices. This blood, as an important part of the ritual, must be poured out on the altar and the meat eaten in the ‘place that the Lord your God has chosen.’

Blood Motif and Theodicy

The Deuteronomy’s blood motif related passages, dealing mainly with the temporal realm, are framed at the beginning by a cosmic link with the creation narrative and at the end by the eschatological realm. Vertical links, movements and transitions are not alien to OT; they are present in narrative, legal, ritual and prophetic texts.[100] These vertical links and movements portray a message about how much God is linked to His people and the issues that concern them.[101] God’s people on earth are linked with God in Heaven; God is present in the midst of His people. The issues of God’s people on earth are God’s concerns in Heavens. The laws, norms and procedures given by God to the human genre and to His people have their origin in Heavens in a cosmic sphere; and the ultimate result of human response to these laws on earth, will have cosmic eschatological definitive consequences. Therefore, this vertical dimension evidences both God and human responsibility concerning their actions and responses. Therefore God, as well as human genre, is responsible. Man and woman are responsible, both individually and collectively toward God’s revelation. The denial of God in human experience brings irregularity and decadence upon human beings and society. This resulting decadence of human denial of God falls not to God’s responsibility. It is the responsibility of every man and woman upon the earth to answer to God’s revelation and harvest the results of their decisions. No man or woman may responsibly blame God for their own wrong choices or the consequences these wrong choices bring on them.

In a cosmic context, God assumes the final authority and therefore, responsibility for the ultimate decisions related to capital issues, the balancing of justice and the protection of the victim. Blood motif related passages display how God intended to deal with the individual, social and judicial blood-related issues. The presence of evil and sin in human experience makes their existence far from ideal. This far-from-ideal human experience brings irregularities and the Deuteronomic Code deals with them in the best possible ways. The legislation found in these texts provides a temporal adaptation of timeless revealed principles. The 21st century reader can ascertain from these temporal adaptations, models for the contemporary ethical elaboration of the principles they portray.[102]

Murder-related laws in Deuteronomy, which portray timeless principles, are intended to regulate, in the context of a theocracy, the social-ethical irregularities that arise in a community of individuals that are affected by the knowledge and the experience of evil.

It is evident that the arguments previously displayed, do not answer all the possible issues; especially in the contemporary context. Nowadays it is not difficult to find, as already sampled, ethicists and even religious scholars that argue against, as well as in favor, of capital punishment or any other judicial procedure here portrayed from the Deuteronomic Code. However, such debate is beyond the limits of this paper.

As God holds human beings responsible for their acts, God faces wrong actions toward Him and His people. Deuteronomy portrays God’s annihilation of His enemies in the context of their ultimate rejection of His covenantal offer (Deut 27-30). This refusal is what leads them to act wrongly toward God and His people, confirming their choices. God is respectful of their choices and then He grants them what they have ultimately chosen; annihilation from God. The only way of making this possible is through the eschatological extermination. This is the ultimate judicial penalty, satisfaction execution. Those who reject a life with God can only expect extinction. This is simply because life belongs to God and the life that is lived afar from God is therefore wasted and finally has to be deposed. There is not life apart from God. Non-existence, extinction, is the ultimate result of trying a life apart from God.

Summary

Our brief exploration and elaboration of the aspects of the blood motif in Deuteronomy in reference to ethics, atonement and theodicy have shown interesting elements. Theses texts reveal an ethic of accountability. Everyone is responsible for his or her own choices, elections and decisions. This applies to both God and human beings. No one can blame others or even God because of his or her decisions. This ethic shows that human beings are responsible of what they do or do not do. This responsibility reaches to both the individual and corporative levels. Persons as well as communities are responsible for that what they do or what they do not do. Not only wrong actions are in view but also what can be done in order to prevent evil. Therefore criminal behavior is prosecuted and regulated by these laws and legal procedures. In addition, negligence in the prevention of accidents is considered under criminal regulation.

The data dealing with atonement (though briefly) implies judicial, penalty substitution, mainly dealing with judicial, penalty execution. The principle present in this data has to do with Deuteronomy’s and OT’s deep concern related to life as the exclusive property of God. This deep respect implies a deep responsibility. Any murder, either intentional or unintentional, is a disruption that only can be resolved with death. The contamination of innocent blood is cleansed by the shedding of the guilty blood. This is judicial penalty execution and is atonement in the sense that it deals with and resolves sin. Additionally, this atonement elaboration is brought to the ultimate, eschatological realm. In the eschatological scenario, atonement is implied in its penalty substitution aspect and elaborated in its judicial penalty execution; this applies in connection both to the acceptance and to rejection of God’s covenantal offer. These two aspects also emphasize the personal responsibility for the elections, choices, decisions and the resulting actions and consequences. From these considerations, it is evident that Deuteronomy’s portrayal of blood motif supports and displays the penalty satisfaction model of atonement. There is a law and any transgression to this law requires inexorable satisfaction. This satisfaction is only possible according to fixed procedures. Judicial, penalty, substitution and judicial, penalty execution are the procedures that apply according to the different situations.

Due to the legal matrix where the blood motif data is located in Deuteronomy, with its legal administration emphasis, the governmental model of atonement also gets manifestation here in reference to crime control, justice and crime prevention. The eschatological realm that is displayed in the closing Deuteronomic data (related to blood motif), also deals with the governmental model as God finally balances justice in the eschatological cosmic sphere. Those who finally refuse to live in God are trying to do the impossible. Existence afar from God is not possible and that is why they are sent into non-existence; extinction. Definitively, these laws included a dissuasive function through their emphasis on unavoidable capital punishment. The fact that even in the situation of recurring negligence which required capital punishment, and the unintentional murder, which required the person to be put under asylum in the city of refuge to wait for the death of the high priest, is evidence of a heavy emphasis on the seriousness of the issues related to murder. Any kind of murder is something serious, because life belongs to God, any life, all life.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper briefly analyzed in Deuteronomy those passages where the blood motif presence was identified through the presence of the word ‘blood’ -~D"- as a hermeneutic control. Those passages in Deuteronomy, which do not have the presence of the word ‘blood’, might portray the motif, but were not under consideration in this paper. It is necessary to remember that although this data was provided in the context of the Ancient Near Eastern cultural environment and in a covenantal renewal context, it portrays timeless principles that may be identified and isolated from the textual data. Blood motif textual data in Deuteronomy, according to the findings of this paper, portrays a message of ownership, personal relationship, personal responsibility and justice.

Deuteronomy anchors its blood motif data in the fact that God is the Creator, the Originator of life; therefore life belongs to God, any life either animal or human life, all life. This ontological basis provides the foundation and the rationale for Deuteronomy’s blood motif. The ontology of blood motif is therefore cosmic and is as cosmic as the eschatological dimension that completes the framing at the end of the data. This way the opening as well as the closing of the blood motif data frames it in cosmic perspective. This vertical enclosing of the horizontal temporal data discloses a message of connection, relationship. God is deeply linked to human issues. Deuteronomic laws are theocentric in origin and in perspective. These laws, originated by God in the Heavens, are revealed on earth in a covenant context for their application in the human realm. Human choices and decisions in reference to these Divinely revealed laws, have their ultimate impact in the cosmic sphere as human ultimate destiny is determined in reference to their decisions in response to God’s covenantal offer.

In reference to the blood motif data devoted to the horizontal temporal realm, this mainly has to do with the administration of justice, crime regulation and prevention in the context of God’s covenantal offer for Israel. This data portrays a message of personal and collective responsibility. As life belongs to God (as well as the land), and the land has been allotted by God to the people, the individual persons and the people as a collectivity are responsible before God for the due respect to life and the responsibility of keeping the land clean from any pollution. Innocent blood pollutes both the killer and the land. Both voluntary and involuntary killing implies serious consequences; pollution that requires cleansing, namely atonement, is evident in the exegetical analysis. This atonement is performed by the death of the killer if the case was a voluntary killing. In the case of the involuntary killing, the substitutive death of the high priest made the final expiation in behalf of the killer if the murderer stayed at the city of refuge under asylum. This reveals that any human death is finally only atoned for a human death. The difference was in the kind of expiatory death. This death could be a judicial penalty substitution or a judicial penalty execution. This confirms that Deuteronomy’s blood motif data supports atonement as penalty, substitution, satisfaction. Governmental nuances are present in reference to the judicial aspects of the blood motif related legislation. This horizontal temporal realm provides timeless principles for a Deuteronomic blood motif derived ethic. Such ethic relates to the human, from a deep respect for both animal and human life. This respect is not limited to the avoidance of murder but also to the avoidance of negligence in the prevention of accidents. Therefore, this blood motif related ethic aims to preserve the sacredness of life, secure the safety of the victim and the punishment of the criminal. Blood motif related ethic provides for the contemporary reader a model for applying timeless principles for current ethics in reference to personal and collective responsibility related to a deep respect for all life, crime, crime regulation, and prevention.

Deuteronomy’s blood motif textual data, therefore, portrays atonement in the horizontal/temporal realm by the judicial penalty substitution and the judicial penalty execution. Ritual Levitical penalty substitutive atonement is briefly displayed in this data. Deuteronomy blood motif data displays heavy intertextual links with Levitical blood motif textual data.

Atonement is displayed briefly but emphatically in the cosmic eschatological realm at the end of the data. This data displays penalty substitutive satisfaction in reference to God’s dealings with His people’s sins. He does this as He makes atonement in their behalf. This presentation is quite brief but emphatic and strategically located. Additionally, judicial penalty execution is elaborated in reference to God’s and His people’s enemies and the ultimate destiny they reach: extermination. God faces these two aspects as He portrays himself as responsible for the ultimate cosmic balancing of justice. Here theodicy makes contact with blood motif. God is responsible for granting to every single human being that which every one of them chose in the sphere of God’s covenantal offer. Every one is responsible: God is responsible; every single human being is responsible for his or her decisions.                 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amorin, Nilton Dutra. “Desecration and Defilement in the Old Testament,” PhD Diss., Andrews University, 1986.

Baumgarten, Albert I. “The Paradox of the Red Heifer” Vetus Testamentum 43.4 (October 1993), 442-451.

Behm, Johannes. “ai-ma, ai`matekcusi,a” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel ed.; vol. I; Grand Raids, MI.: 1964, 172-177.

BibleWorks. Biblical Database Software for Microsoft Windows. Version 6.0.12r. BibleWorks, L.L.C. Hermeneutika Computer Bible Research Software Bigfork, MT, 2003.

Boersma, Hans. “Penal Substitution and the Possibility of Unconditional Hospitality” Scottish Journal of Theology 57.1 (2004), 80-94.

Bracke, John M. “byri”, in New International Dictionary of the Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, vol. 3 Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 1997, 1105.

Brown, Francis. S. R. Driver, and Charles Briggs. BDB-GESENIUS Hebrew-Aramaic and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Electronic version Michael S. Bushell, IBT, 2001, in BibleWorks 6.0.12r.

Budd, Philip J. Numbers, Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 5; Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1998.

Carpenter, Eugene. tr;K', in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, vol 2; Willem A. VanGemeren, Editor. Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 1997, 729-731.

Dezhbakhsh H. and J. M. Shepherd, The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Evidence from a "Judicial Experiment" Economic Inquiry, 44.3 (July 2006), 512 – 535.

Dezhbakhsh, Hashem; Paul H. Rubin and Joanna M. Shepherd, “Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Post moratorium Panel Data” American Law and Economics Review, 5.2 (2003), 344-376.

Elliger, K. and W. Rudolph, Eds.  Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 5th ed.  Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994.

English Standard Version, Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books/Good News Publishers, July 2001.

Ferch, Arthur J. "The Judgement Scene in Daniel 7", in Wallemkampf, Arnold V. The Sanctuary and the Atonement, (Washington: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1981), 157-176.

Gane, Roy Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement and Theodicy, Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2005.

Gayoba, Francisco D. “The Relationship Between ‘What it Meant’ and ‘What it Means” and the Task of Theology” Asia Adventist Seminary Studies 5 (2002), 61-71.

Geller, Stephen A. “Blood Cult: Toward a Literary Theology of the Priestly Work of the Pentateuch” Pooftexts 12 (1992), 97-124.

Gerleman, G. “~D" dām blood” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament Ernst Jeni, Claus Westermann ed. Mark E. Biddle transl. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1997, 337-339.

Gilders, William K. Blood Ritual in the Hebrew Bible: Meaning and Power. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press, 2004.

Hartley, John E., Leviticus, Word Biblical Commentary, vol 4; Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1998.

Hasel, Gerhard F. “tr;K', twOruK., ttuyrIK.,” in G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids, MI.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1978, vol. VII, 339-352.

Hasel, Gerhard F. “Studies in Biblical Atonement II: The Day of Atonement” in The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1981, 115-133.

Hasel, Gerhard F. “Studies in Biblical Atonement I: Continual Sacrifice, Defilement//cleansing and Sanctuary” in The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1981, 87-114.

Hays, J. Daniel. “Applying the Old Testament Law Today,” Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (January – March 2001), 30-35.

Hyde, William T. “The Role and the Function of the Sanctuary Services”, in The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1981, 614-619.  

Hoffman, Paul "Human Rights and Terrorism" Human Rights Quarterly, 26.4, (November 2004), 932-955.

Klingbeil, Gerard, “Altars, Ritual and Theology: Preliminary Thoughts on the Importance of Cult and Ritual for a Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures” Vetus Testamentum 54.4 (October 2004), 495-515.

Klingbeil, Gerard. “The Anointing of Aaron: A Study of Leviticus 8:12 in its OT and ANE Context” Andrews University Seminary Studies 38.2 (Autumn 2000), 231-243.

Klingbeil, Gerald “‘Up, down, in, out, through and back.’ Space and Movement in Old Testament Narrative, Ritual and Legal Texts and their Application for the Study of Mark 1:1-3:12” Estudios Bíblicos 60.3 (2002): 283-309.

Krieghoff Mattingly, Keith Edward. “The Laying on of Hands in Joshua: An Exegetical Study of Numbers 27:12-23 and Deuteronomy 34:9,” PhD Diss., Andrews University, 1997.

Liddell, Henry George and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968.

Liedke, G. “byri”, rîb to quarrel”, in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, vol. 3 Ernst Jenni Claus Westermann ed. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997, 1232-1237.

Mandery, Evan J. Capital Punishment in America: A Balanced Examination, Boston, Jones and Bartlett, 2004.

Materstvedt, Lars Johan; Clark, David; Ellershaw, John; Førde, Reidun; Gravgaard, Anne-Marie Boeck; Müller-Busch, H Christof; Porta I. Sales, Josep; Rapin, Charles-Henri, “Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: a view from an EAPC Ethics Task Force” Palliative Medicine, 17.2, (March 2003), 97-101(5).

McCarthy, Dennis J. “Further Notes on the Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice” Journal of Biblical Literature 92.2 (June 1973), 205-210.

McConville, J. Gordon. Deuteronomy, Apollos Old Testament Commentary, vol. 5, David W. Beker and Gordon J. Wenham editors, Leicester, England: Apollos, 2002.

McConville, J. Gordon. Law and Theology in Deuteronomy, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Study Supplemental Series 33. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994.

Moravcsik, Andrew. “The Paradox of U.S. Human Rights Policy” in American Exceptionalism and Human Rights Michael Ignatieff, ed.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005, 147-197.

Olafsson, Gudmundur. “The Use of nś’ in the Pentateuch and its Contribution to the Concept of Forgiveness,” PhD Diss,, Andrews University, 1992.

Olson, Denis T. Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994.

Penkower, Jordan S. “Verse Divisions in the Hebrew Bible” Vetus Testamentus 50.3 (2000), 379-388.

Pfandl, Gerhard. “The Soteriological Implications of the Cities of Refuge,” in Inicios, Paradigmas y Fundamentos: Estudios Teológicos y Exegéticos en el Pentateuco. Gerald A. Klingbeil, Editor; River Plate Adventist University Monograph Series in Biblical and Theological Studies, vol. 1; Editorial Universidad Adventista del Plata, Entre Ríos, Argentina 2004.

Rahlfs, Alfred. Editor. Septuaginta. 7th Edition. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935.

Ridderbos, Jan Deuteronomy, Ed M. van der Maas, translator. Bible Student’s Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI.: Regency, 1984.

Rodriguez, Angel M. “Transfer of Sin in Leviticus” in 70 Weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy Washington, D.C.: Biblical Research Institute, 1986, 169-197.

Rolf P. Knierim, “The Composition of the Pentateuch”, SBL 1985 Seminar Papers, SBLSP 24, (Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1985), 393-415.

Sailhamer, John H. The Pentateuch as Narrative. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1992.

Sonnet, Jean-Pierre. The Book within the Book: Writing in Deuteronomy,  Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Sperling, S. David. “Blood, Avenger of” in Anchor Bible Dictionary David Noel Freedman, ed.; New York: Doubleday, 1992, 763-764.

Sperling, S. David. “Blood” in Anchor Bible Dictionary David Noel Freedman, ed.; New York: Doubleday, 1992, 761-763.

Sperling, S. David. “Bloodguilt” in Anchor Bible Dictionary David Noel Freedman, ed.; New York: Doubleday, 1992, 764-765.

Sprinkle, Joe M. 'The Book of the Covenant' a Literary Approach, Sheffield: Sheffield, 1994.

Tai-il Wang, “On the Theology of the Pentateuch”, in Reading the Hebrew Bible for a New Millennium: Form, Concept, and Theological Perspective. Studies in Antiquity and Christianity, vol. 2, Edited by Wonil Kim, Deborah Ellens, Michael Floyd and Marvin A. Sweeney, Harrisburg: Trinity, 2000, 280-284.

Thompson, J. A. Deuteronomy: an Introduction and Commentary, (Downers Grove, IL.: Inter Varsity, 1974.

Trebilco, Paul. “~D"” in Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis vol. 1; Willem A. VanGemeren, ed.; Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 1997, 963-966.

Treiyer, Alberto.  “The Day of Atonement as Related to the Contamination and Purification of the Sanctuary” in The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1981, 198-258.

Waltke, Bruce K. and O’Connor, M. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

Wenham, Gordon J., Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol 1; Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1998.

Whidden, Woodrow W. Syllabus for THST 800 Seminar in Christian Theology, Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, Theological Seminar, Silang, Cavite Philippines, October-December 2006.

Willis, Timothy M. The Elders of the City: A Study of the Elder-Laws in Deuteronomy, SBL Series 55, Atlanta, Georgia, Society of Biblical Literature, 2001.

Wright, Christopher Deuteronomy, New International Biblical Commentary, Peabody, Massachusetts, 1996.

Zimring, Franklin E. The Contradictions of American Capital Punishment: Studies in Crime and Public Policy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

----

[1] See S. David Sperling, “Blood” in Anchor Bible Dictionary (David Noel Freedman, ed.; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 761-763. Johannes Behm, “ai-ma, ai`matekcusi,a” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (Gerhard Kittel ed.; vol. I; Grand Raids, MI.: 1964), 173. G. Gerleman, “~D" dām blood” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (Ernst Jeni, Claus Westermann ed. Mark E. Biddle transl. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1997), 337-339. Paul Trebilco, “~D"” in Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (vol. 1; Willem A. VanGemeren, ed.; Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 1997), 963-966. ~D" in Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles Briggs. BDB-GESENIUS Hebrew-Aramaic and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, (Electronic version Michael S. Bushell, IBT, 2001, in BibleWorks 6.0.12r), 197. William K. Gilders, Blood Ritual in the Hebrew Bible: Meaning and Power. (Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press, 2004). See an approach to the blood theme from source criticism perspective in Stephen A. Geller, “Blood Cult: Toward a Literary Theology of the Priestly Work of the Pentateuch” Pooftexts 12 (1992), 97-124. See a review of some extra biblical sources in Dennis J. McCarthy, “Further Notes on the Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice” Journal of Biblical Literature 92.2 (June 1973), 205-210.

[2] Gerhard Hasel, “Studies in Biblical Atonement I: Continual Sacrifice, Defilement//cleansing and Sanctuary” in The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1981), 87-114, _________, “Studies in Biblical Atonement II: The Day of Atonement” Op cit, 115-133. Angel M. Rodriguez, “Transfer of Sin in Leviticus” in 70 Weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy (Washington, D.C.: Biblical Research Institute, 1986), 169-197. Alberto Treiyer, “The Day of Atonement as Related to the Contamination and Purification of the Sanctuary” Op cit, 198-258.      

[3] For the purposes of this paper, the word atonement will be used in an interchangeable way with the words propitiation and expiation and it will mean “all that the Trinity has done, is doing, and will do to reconcile sinners” and resolve the problem of sin. See Woodrow W. Whidden, Syllabus for THST 800 Seminar in Christian Theology, Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, Theological Seminar, Silang, Cavite Philippines, October-December 2006, 27, 40-48.     

[4] For this cosmic and theodicy perspective see Roy Gane, Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement and Theodicy, (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 305-354.

[5] Deut 12:16, 23 (2x), 27 (2x); 15:23; 17:8 (2x); 19:6, 10 (2x), 12, 13; 21:7, 8 (2x), 9; 22:8; 27:25; 32:14, 42 (2x), 43. Statistical and morphological data for the Hebrew text, unless otherwise indicated, comes from BibleWorks (Biblical Database Software for Microsoft Windows. Version 6.0.12r. BibleWorks, L.L.C. Hermeneutika Computer Bible Research Software Bigfork, MT, 2003). All Hebrew textual information is from Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (K. Elliger, and W. Rudolph, Eds. 5th ed.  Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994). Whenever verse division in English differs from Hebrew, the Hebrew verse numbers are preferred.

[6] See Gilders, Blood Ritual in the Hebrew Bible: Meaning and Power, 142-157.

[7] The word ‘pericope’ is used in this paper to designate a delimited set of verses in the Scripture that form a coherent unit of thought.

[8] As the issue of the structure of the book of Deuteronomy is still under discussion, the oration approach will be chosen. Oration approach looks both externally and deep into the text. By using tools from lexical studies, syntax, semantic, morphology, morphosyntax and text linguistic, it is able to analyze the text in a bottom-up approach and allows the text to reveal its own structures, helping so to avoid the application of external elements and limiting the usage of intuition by the exegete. See Jan Ridderbos, Deuteronomy, (Ed M. van der Maas, translator. Bible Student’s Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI.: Regency, 1984), 48, 269-272. Gerhard Pfandl, “The Soteriological Implications of the Cities of Refuge,” in Inicios, Paradigmas y Fundamentos: Estudios Teológicos y Exegéticos en el Pentateuco. (Gerald A. Klingbeil, Editor; River Plate Adventist University Monograph Series in Biblical and Theological Studies, vol. 1; Editorial Universidad Adventista del Plata, Entre Ríos, Argentina 2004), 236. Denis T. Olson, Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 14-15.    

[9] Wright, Deuteronomy, 158-159.

[10] Deut 12-26 is seen as a regulatory corpora by Sailhamer and Sprinkle, see Joe M. Sprinkle, 'The Book of the Covenant' A Literary Approach, (Sheffield: Sheffield, 1994), 34. John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1992), 445-470.

[11] Gerhard Pfandl, “The Soteriological Implications of the Cities of Refuge,” in Inicios, Paradigmas y Fundamentos: Estudios Teológicos y Exegéticos en el Pentateuco. (Gerald A. Klingbeil, Editor; River Plate Adventist University Monograph Series in Biblical and Theological Studies, vol. 1; Editorial Universidad Adventista del Plata, Entre Ríos, Argentina 2004), 229-264.

[12] See a study of some sections of the Deuteronomic Code from a synchronic-canonical perspective in J. Gordon McConville, Law and Theology in Deuteronomy, (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Study Supplemental Series 33. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994). For a critical approach, see Bernard Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997). Levinson’s review and critic of McConville’s monograph is in Bernard Levinson, “McConville’s ‘Law and Theology in Deuteronomy,’” The Jewish Quarterly Review 80.3/4 (January – April 1990), 396-404. McConville’s doctoral dissertation was defended in Queen’s University of Belfast in 1980.

[13] Duane L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 1-11, (Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 6A; Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1998), xli. J. Gordon McConville, Deuteronomy, (Apollos Old Testament Commentary, vol. 5, David W. Beker and Gordon J. Wenham editors, Leicester, England: Apollos, 2002), 212-213.

[14] This cultic section here in Deut 12 forms a literary inclusion with Deut 26 and both wrap the legal corpus of Deut 12-26. This same structure has been identified in Exodus 20:22-23:19 begins and ends wrapped in cultic sections (20:22-26; 23:10-19) as well as Leviticus 17-26; This shows the religious rather than secular emphasis of these passages in diametrical difference with cuneiform documents. See Joe M. Sprinkle, 'The Book of the Covenant' A Literary Approach, (Sheffield: Sheffield, 1994), 37.  

[15] In reference to delimitation markers in the Hebrew Bible, their antiquity and function is a matter of study. In this respect, Tov, Oesch and Korpel agree, on the basis of the evidence, “that it seems logical to suppose that a division of the text into ‘sense units’ was part of the ‘original’ composition at the time it was written down.” Marjo C. A. Korpel, “Introduction to the Series Pericope” in Delimitation Criticism (Marjo C. A. Korpel and Josef Oesch. Pericope 1. Assen.: Van Gorcum, 2000), 10. In reference to their presence in Deuteronomy, as an example, Sanders has demonstrated that the Colometrical distribution of Deut 32 is attested all the way from Qumran to the medieval codices. See Paul Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, (Oudtestamentische Studien 37; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 102-132. See a brief review of the history of chapter and verse division in Hebrew Bible and old versions in Jordan S. Penkower, “Verse Divisions in the Hebrew Bible” Vetus Testamentus 50.3 (2000), 379-388.

[16] The marker used in these cases is a ziah, which indicates a minor brake in the text, usually a slight change in the thematic flow of the content.

[17] Unless otherwise stated, English biblical texts are direct translation from the Hebrew text.

[18] McConville, Law and Theology in Deuteronomy, 39-67.

[19] See J. Gordon McConville, Deuteronomy, (Apollos Old Testament Commentary, vol. 5, David W. Beker and Gordon J. Wenham editors, Leicester, England: Apollos, 2002), 226.

[20] See Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 1, (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1998), 193-194.

[21] Critical scholarship, dating Gen 9:4 as a later source in comparison to Lev 17:11, tries to deny the link between Deuteronomic allusions to blood and Leviticus 17:11 and even to disqualify Lev 17:11 as the key to understand these allusions. See William K. Gilders, Blood Ritual in the Hebrew Bible: Meaning and Power. (Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press, 2004), 19-25. This paper approaches the Hebrew text synchronic-canonically. See an introduction to the interpretative issues in Lev 17:11 in John E., Hartley, Leviticus, (Word Biblical Commentary, vol 4; Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1998), 273-277.

[22] For a review of the clean / unclean, defilement concept in the OT see Nilton Dutra Amorin, “Desecration and Defilement in the Old Testament,” (PhD Diss., Andrews University, 1986), 237-353.

[23] McConville, Law and Theology in Deuteronomy, 42-53. McConville, Deuteronomy, 226. Levinson uses the expression ‘secular slaughter’, see Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, 24ss.

[24] Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 446.

[25] Alfred Rahlfs, Editor. Septuaginta. (7th Edition. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935). Atonement dimensions of the hl'[o are detailed in Leviticus 1. See Lev 1:4 and Hartley, Leviticus, 17-19.

[26] In scholarly literature there is the idea that in ancient Hebrew culture all slaughtering was sacrificial and only later was allowed for food purposes; the timing of this transition is a matter of discussion, see Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles Briggs, BDB-GESENIUS Hebrew-Aramaic and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, (Electronic version Michael S. Bushell, IBT, 2001, in BibleWorks 6.0.12r), 258. McConville, Law and Theology in Deuteronomy, 43-44.

[27] Wright, Deuteronomy, 166.

[28] On laying on the hands in the OT in reference to transference and substitution see Keith Edward Krieghoff Mattingly, “The Laying on of Hands in Joshua: An Exegetical Study of Numbers 27:12-23 and Deuteronomy 34:9,” (PhD Diss., Andrews University, 1997), 146-158. 

[29] Angel M. Rodriguez, “Transfer of Sin in Leviticus”, 169 – 197

[30] See Exod 24:5, Lev 3:1, 6; 17:5; 19:5; 22:21; 23:19; Num 6:17; Josh 8:31; 22:23; 1 Sam 10:8; 11:15; 2 Chron 30:22; 33:16; Prov 7:14. All these passages use the noun xb;z< ‘sacrifice’ which comes from the verb xb;z", ‘to slaughter.’ Both the verbs and the noun are used in both secular and cultic-ritual contexts that imply atonement. See Francis Brown, Driver and Briggs, BDB-GESENIUS Hebrew-Aramaic and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 257.   

[31] Wright, Deuteronomy, 187.

[32] McConville, Deuteronomy, 258.

[33] These sections are clearly indicated in the Hebrew text by Masoretic delimitation markers as there is a setumah (s) before 15:1, after 15:6, 11 indicating minor transitions in the text. Then there is a petuhah (p) after 15:18 and 23 indicating major transitions in the text.

[34] McConville, Deuteronomy, 257.

[35] Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 249-273.

[36] McConville, Deuteronomy, 258. McConville identifies several other intertextual connections and literary structures in Deut 15. See Jan Ridderbos, Deuteronomy, (Ed M. van der Maas, translator. Bible Student’s Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI.: Regency, 1984), 185.

[37] It is necessary to state that OT thinking does not recognize the dualism secular/sacred. All what exists and all what is done exists and is done in a religious environment. God’s ubiquity does not allow such a distinction. This nomenclature is mainly to convey a Hebrew biblical concept into western Greco-Latin shaped thinking.

[38] Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 453-457.

[39] Brown et all, BDB-GESENIUS Hebrew-Aramaic and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 192.

[40] Brown et all, BDB-GESENIUS Hebrew-Aramaic and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 619.

[41] This syntactical structure marks a distinction between classes of items; see Bruce K. Waltke, and O’Connor, M. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 200.

[42] Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, 128.

[43] John M. Bracke, “byri”, in New International Dictionary of the Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 1997), 1105. G. Liedke, “byri”, rîb to quarrel”, in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, vol. 3 (Ernst Jenni Claus Westermann ed. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997), 1235.

[44] Brown et all, BDB-GESENIUS Hebrew-Aramaic and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 936.

[45] Ridderbos, Deuteronomy, 196. Christopher Wright, Deuteronomy, New International Biblical Commentary, vol. 4, Robert L. Hubbard Jr. and Robert K. Johnston, editors. (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson, 1996), 206-207.

[46] Ridderbos, Deuteronomy, 196.

[47] McConville, Deuteronomy, 281.

[48] English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books/Good News Publishers, July 2001).

[49] McConville, Deuteronomy, 326.

[50] Deut 19:6, 10 (2x), 12, 13.

[51] See Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 457.

[52] Brown et all, BDB-GESENIUS Hebrew-Aramaic and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 146. Pfandl, “The Soteriological Implications of the Cities of Refuge,” 237-238.

[53] S. David Sperling, “Blood, Avenger of” in Anchor Bible Dictionary David Noel Freedman, ed.; New York: Doubleday, 1992, 763-764.

[54] Ridderbos, Deuteronomy, 210.

[55] McConville, Deuteronomy, 310-311.

[56] Pfandl, “The Soteriological Implications of the Cities of Refuge,” 238-239.

[57] Heb @nEx', ‘pollute, profane’, see Brown et all,  BDB-GESENIUS Hebrew-Aramaic and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 338. Amorin, “Desecration and Defilement in the Old Testament,” 240-241, 308-309.

[58] Heb rP,Ki, kipper, ‘expiate, propitiate,’ Brown et all, Ibidem, 498. LXX. evxila,skomai, ‘propitiate’, Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), .

[59] See Philip J. Budd, Numbers, (Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 5; Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1998), 385-386.

[60] Hittite laws allowed ransom for murder and manslayer and laws 9-11 in the Code of Hammurabi speaks of ‘witnesses’ in reference to capital cases as well as Pentateuch requires two o three witnesses in these situations, Num 35:30, Deut 17:6, see Pfandl, “The Soteriological Implications of the Cities of Refuge,” 235.   

[61] See a sample of various perspectives on the issue in Paul Hoffman, "Human Rights and Terrorism" Human Rights Quarterly, 26.4, (November 2004), 932-955. Michael Welch, “Trampling Human Rights in the War on Terror: Implications to the Sociology of Denial” Critical Criminology, 12.1 (January, 2004), 1-20. Andrew Moravcsik, “The Paradox of U.S. Human Rights Policy” in American Exceptionalism and Human Rights (Michael Ignatieff, ed.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), 147-197. See a theological rational for penal substitution in Hans Boersma, “Penal Substitution and the Possibility of Unconditional Hospitality” Scottish Journal of Theology 57.1 (2004), 80-94.  

[62] McConville, Deuteronomy, 326-327.

[63] Ziony Zevit, “The ‘Eglā ritual of Deuteronomy 29:1-9”, Journal of Biblical Literature, 95 (1976) 3, 377-390. David P. Wright, “Deuteronomy 21:1-9 as a Rite of Elimination”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 49 (1987), 387-397.

[64] See a comprehensive analysis of the elder-related laws in Deuteronomy, from critical perspective, in reference to homicide, asylum, and the purity of the land in Timothy M. Willis, The Elders of the City: A Study of the Elder-Laws in Deuteronomy, (SBL Series 55, Atlanta, Georgia, Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 145-186.

[65] Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 459.

[66] Wright, Deuteronomy, 232.

[67] Ritual texts inside and outside Scripture are classified into two major groups: prescriptive texts as those that describe what has to be done and descriptive texts that describe what has been or was actually performed. The first group includes the instructions and the second one, the report of the event. See Gerard Klingbeil, “The Anointing of Aaron: A Study of Leviticus 8:12 in its OT and ANE Context” Andrews University Seminary Studies 38.2 (Autumn 2000), 231-243. ________, “Altars, Ritual and Theology: Preliminary Thoughts on the Importance of Cult and Ritual for a Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures” Vetus Testamentum 54.4 (October 2004), 495-515.

[68] See an introduction to the contemporary issues on the red heifer in Albert I. Baumgarten, “The Paradox of the Red Heifer” Vetus Testamentum 43.4 (October 1993), 442-451.

[69] “Cover over, make propitiation’, Brown et all, BDB-GESENIUS Hebrew-Aramaic and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 498. See more details in reference to the red heifer in Roy Gane, Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement and Theodicy, 181-191.

[70] S. David Sperling, “Bloodguilt” in Anchor Bible Dictionary David Noel Freedman, ed.; New York: Doubleday, 1992, 764.

[71] Although the word ‘blood’ is common in the OT (361 usages), its plural form is not. It is used only 22 times (6.1%) in Exod 4:25, 26; 22:1, 2; Deut 19:10; 22:8; 1 Sam 17:1; 2 Sam 16:8; 1 Chron 11:13; 22:8; Psalms 5:7; 9:13; 26:9; 55:24; 59:3; 139:19; Prov 29:10; Isa 1:15; 33:15; Ezek 7:23; 9:9; Nah 3:1. See S. David Sperling, “Bloodguilt” in Anchor Bible Dictionary David Noel Freedman, ed.; New York: Doubleday, 1992, 764-765

[72] Wright, Deuteronomy, 241. McConville, Deuteronomy, 333, 338. See for example New American Standard Bible. Wright and McConville use similar expressions.

[73] Durham, John I., Exodus, (Word Biblical Commentary, Vol 3: Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1998), .

[74] This verb is used in Deut 21:1 and twice in 22:8. 

[75] Is really only western society guilty of this sin? Is not the whole human genre in this situation?

[76] Wright, Deuteronomy, 278.

[77] Brown et all,  BDB-GESENIUS Hebrew-Aramaic and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 646.

[78] McConville, Deuteronomy, 394.

[79] Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 475.

[80] McConville points to several other passages in the Prophets and the Psalms where this form is used; see McConville, Deuteronomy, 450-452.

[81] See Ridderbos, Deuteronomy, 280-281.

[82] The word for grape bn"[e, is used nineteen times in the OT, always in plural been Deut 32:14 the exception in singular but understood as a collective singular. Gen. 40:10, 11 (2x); 49:11; Lev. 25:5; Num. 6:3; 13:20, 23; Deut. 23:25; 32:14, 32; Neh. 13:15; Isa. 5:2, 4; Jer. 8:13; Hos. 3:1; 9:10; Amos 9:13. See Brown et all, BDB-GESENIUS Hebrew-Aramaic and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 772.

[83] Wenham, Genesis 16-50, 475, 479.

[84] ‘Judge, vindicate,’ see Brown et all,  BDB-GESENIUS Hebrew-Aramaic and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 192.

[85] As Deut 12:6 is grounded in its intertextuality with Gen 9:4-6, 1:26-28.

[86] In reference to the isolation of principles as a method for the study of the OT legal corpus, see J. Daniel Hays, “Applying the Old Testament Law Today,” Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (January – March 2001), 30-35. 

[87] The root of the problem is identified in the human heart in other passages that are not included in the data under study in this paper because this paper was limited to blood motif related texts. Texts such as Deut 29:18-21; 30:6 in their contexts deal with this issue. This topic is beyond the limits of this paper.

[88] This criterion is according to Leviticus 11. See and introduction to the discussion of the notion of clean and unclean in Hartley, Leviticus, 141-146.

[89] Hunting and fishing are not considered here because the texts do not deal directly with these issues. However, the principles present in the data might provide a basis for a rational in these areas as well as animal welfare.

[90] For an introduction to the ethical issues, see Lars Johan Materstvedt, Clark, David; Ellershaw, John; Førde, Reidun; Gravgaard, Anne-Marie Boeck; Müller-Busch, H Christof; Porta I. Sales, Josep; Rapin, Charles-Henri, “Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: a view from an EAPC Ethics Task Force” Palliative Medicine, 17.2, (March 2003), 97-101(5).

[91] This raises the issue about Cain’s murder of Abel that, according to this legislation, was not judicially resolved. Therefore, the pollution remains on the earth, Gen 4:9-15. The pollution of the land is recognized (4:11b) and Cain is recognized to be under curse (4:11a), but there is a prohibition issued by God himself about killing Cain. Instead, Cain is sent into exile. This exile is elaborated in the same pattern as Adam and Eve’s exile and it is elaborated again in Deut 28:16-19 and even by later prophets. See Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 113-114. The usage by Cain of the expression ‘my punishment is too great to bear’ (afo)N>mi ynIßwO[] lAdïG", 4:13), literally ‘is too great my iniquity to bear,’ gives some clues. This is the first time that this expression (!wO[], af'n") is used in the OT. In this passage Cain seems to be aware that he has to pay the consequences of his sin; see Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 108. The translator of LXX understood the text in this way and translated the last sentence (afo)N>mi ynIßwO[] lAdïG") as: mei,zwn h` aivti,a mou tou/ avfeqh/nai, me, “Great is my guilt to be forgiven”. It is clear that Cain understands that forgiveness is not accessible to him. See William T. Hyde, “The Role and the Function of the Sanctuary Services”, in The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies, 614-619. Whenever this expression (!wO[], af'n", ‘bear the iniquity) is used about personal, non-transferred sin, it means that the person has not access to forgiveness-expiation-atonement and he or she is the object of annihilation. Therefore, since the issue is not mentioned ever again in Scripture; it seems that Cain never had access to resolve this issue and the pollution of this murder remains upon the land. See Gudmundur Olafsson, “The Use of nś’ in the Pentateuch and its Contribution to the Concept of Forgiveness,” (PhD Diss,, Andrews University, 1992), 102-307.

[92] See a positive contemporary approach to capital punishment based on quantitative research in Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul H. Rubin and Joanna M. Shepherd, “Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Postmoratorium Panel Data” American Law and Economics Review 5.2 (2003), 344-376. H. Dezhbakhsh and J. M. Shepherd, “The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Evidence from a ‘Judicial Experiment’” Economic Inquiry, 44.3 (July 2006), 512 - 535. See a negative contemporary approach to capital punishment in Franklin E. Zimring, The Contradictions of American Capital Punishment: Studies in Crime and Public Policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

[93] See a review of contemporary capital punishment in the United States of America based on the legal analysis of moral and constitutional perspectives plus analysis of contemporary issues in Evan J. Mandery, Capital Punishment in America: A Balanced Examination, (Boston, Jones and Bartlett, 2004).  

[94] Pfandl, “The Soteriological Implications of the Cities of Refuge,” 242.

[95] This is limited to the statements found in Num 35:25 and Josh 20:6 and their contexts. It would be interesting to look for any possible ANE parallel or similarity.

[96] Pfandl, “The Soteriological Implications of the Cities of Refuge,” 239.

[97] This is a phrase that is used frequently in the Pentateuch: Exod 12:15, 19; 30:33, 38; 31:14; Lev 17:4, 9, 14; 18:29; 19:8; 20:18; 23:29; Num 9:13; 15:30–31; 19:13, 20. See Hartley, Leviticus, 100. In reference to the different usages of the verb tr;K', ‘to cut’ see Brown et all,  BDB-GESENIUS Hebrew-Aramaic and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 504. Eugene Carpenter, tr;K', in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, (vol 2; Willem A. VanGemeren, Editor. Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 1997), 729-731.

[98] See Gerhard F. Hasel, “tr;K', twOruK., ttuyrIK.,” in G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, (vol. VII; Grand Rapids, MI.: W. B. Eerdmans, 1978), 348.

[99] Lev 6:10, 18, 22; 7:1, 6; 10:12, 17; 14:13; 27:28; Num 18:19.

[100] For an introduction to movement in the OT see Gerald Klingbeil, “‘Up, down, in, out, through and back.’ Space and Movement in Old Testament Narrative, ritual and legal Texts and their Application for the Study of Mark 1:1-3:12.” Estudios Bíblicos 60.3 (2002), 283-292. For vertical movement and links in OT prophetic literature see Arthur J. Ferch, "The Judgement Scene in Daniel 7", in Wallemkampf, Arnold V. The Sanctuary and the Atonement, (Washington: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1981), 157-176.

[101] Gane has evidenced the theodicy dimensions in the Levitical sanctuary services as well as in narrative texts thru the concepts of God’s presence and His dealings with the people in matters of sin, justice, responsibility and loyalty. See Gane, Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement and Theodicy, 305-354. 

[102] Gayoba suggests a model, based on principle isolation that considers both the ancient and the contemporary (nowadays’) contexts. This method might prove to be useful in the attempt to elaborate these ethical principles in nowadays context. This attempt is beyond the limits of this paper. See Francisco D. Gayoba, “The Relationship Between ‘What it Meant’ and ‘What it Means” and the Task of Theology” Asia Adventist Seminary Studies 5 (2002), 61-71.