Deuteronomy 14:21a
In an attempt to prove that the Torah is not for Gentiles (non-Israelites) to obey, some have promoted Deuteronomy 14:21a as the linch-pin verse (LSB): “You shall not eat anything which dies of itself. You may give it to the sojourner who is within your gates, so that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner, for you are a holy people to Yahweh your [Mighty One].” The argument says that Israel was not to eat an animal that died of itself, but non-Israelites could, thus ‘the Law/Torah’ did not apply to non-Israelites.
I usually hear this argument put like this, “non-Israelites were allowed to eat unclean,” but that’s not what the verse says. It is true that the verses previous to this one discuss clean and unclean animals (in regards to eating), but nothing is specifically said about clean and unclean in Deuteronomy 14:21. The first part of the verse, “You shall not eat anythingwhich dies of itself,” is definitely a command for Israelites, so ‘anything’ would have to mean “any clean animal,” because the Israelites had just been told not to eat the unclean animals, period. This means that if this particular command differs for the non-Israelite (the sojourner or foreigner), it only differs in the matter of a clean animal that dies of itself.
If such is the correct interpretation, Deuteronomy 14:21a would be a command similar to Exodus 12:48 where the sojourner who wants to celebrate Passover (specifically eat the Passover animal) must be physically circumcised, but nothing in the context says that if he is not circumcised he is excluded from everything in Israel. Earlier in the chapter (Ex. 12:18-19), the sojourner is said to be included in the eating of unleavened bread (and abstaining from leaven) for the seven days of the Feast; nothing is said about a requirement to be circumcised for this. So the command to be circumcised - according to the Torah - is optional for the adult, Gentile male that has joined to Israel. He can live in Israel, and he must abide by the Law of Israel; part of this Law says that if he remains uncircumcised he cannot eat the Passover animal. Deuteronomy 14:21 then could be teaching that there exists a law inside of the one Law given to Israel that excludes the sojourner - the law against eating an animal that dies of itself. This wouldn’t mean there are two laws at play here, but that inside the one Law, various laws apply to some that do not apply to others. (For example, Leviticus 21 lists laws for Levite priests and the High Priest that do not necessarily apply to all male Israelites. The priests couldn’t be blind, lame, or disfigured; even an eye-defect disqualified a Levite male from the priesthood; males from all other 11 tribes in Israel were already disqualified.)
All that being said… I actually don’t think Deuteronomy 14:21 is teaching that a non-Israelite sojourner (Hebrew = ger) is allowed to eat an animal that dies of itself. There is somewhat of a parallel commandment found in Leviticus 17:10-16 where “any man from the house of Israel, or from the sojourners (ger, hag-ger) who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people.” So the ger who lived with Israel was forbidden to eat the blood of an animal. This is seen again in verses 12-13.
But look at verse 15 (same context): “And when any person eats an animal which dies or is torn by beasts, whether he is a native or a sojourner, he shall wash his clothes and bath in water and remain unclean until evening; then he will become clean.” This appears to be an exception for the Israelite; he is told not to eat such in Deuteronomy 14:21 yet is said to have eaten such here, then comes the need to apply the washing of his clothes and body. It sounds to me like it’s not a huge sin, but something that should be avoided, and if a person is in a predicament where it can’t be avoided, make the necessary washings. I’ve read other alternative explanations, but the one I’ve given makes the most sense to me currently.
The “animal which dies” in Leviticus 17:15 and “anything which dies of itself” in Deuteronomy 14:21 are the same Hebrew word, nevelah, showing the same law is at play. The LXX uses the Greek word thnēsimaion in both places, and the NETS translates both into English as “decaying flesh.” Likewise, the Hebrew word ger is used in Leviticus 17:15 (sojourner, LSB) as well as in Deuteronomy 14:21 (sojourner, LSB), but there is a slight difference if we look at the Septuagint translation. While Leviticus 17:15 uses the word prosēlutos, Deuteronomy 14:21 uses the word paroikos. The NETS distinguishes these in its English translation, reading “among the guests” in Leviticus 17:15, and “the resident alien” in Deuteronomy 14:21. You can see that prosēlutos is where our English word proselyte is derived, a word that defined a non-Israelite who had made a serious, covenant commitment to the Mighty One of Israel. Paroikos, on the other hand, is a more loose Greek term, probably referring more to a non-hostile passer-by/through.
The Hebrew word ger can (in and of itself) refer to a sojourner that hasn’t fully joined to a people not his/her. Genesis 15:13 uses it of Abram’s descendants being sojourners in a land that is not theirs, of course referring to the later Egyptian captivity. The Israelite people, although slaves, were not devoted in full to the various elohim of Egypt.
I think it’s best to go with the LXX understanding of Deuteronomy 14:21; the text refers to a non-Israelite person that wasn’t committed to Israel’s Mighty One. This person was allowed to eat an animal that had died of itself (with no exception), and not have to do any washing thereafter. The committed ger on the other hand (in Leviticus 17:15) could eat an animal that had died of itself (as an exception to the general rule, on occasion), but had to perform the washings afterward. I used to say that the second foreigner listed in Deuteronomy 14:21 - the nokriy - was distinct from the ger (being that you could sell the nokriy the decayed animal meat, but only give it to the ger), but the text could just be further defining this particular ger; the words ger and nokriy could be interchangeable when it was a person who was non-hostile to Israel yet at the same time non-committed to Israel’s Mighty One.
In the end Deuteronomy 14:21 - either way you look at it - does not teach that non-Israelites did not have to obey Yahweh’s Law. Sure, non-Israelites that had not joined to Israel in any way were not required to obey specific laws inside the one law of Israel, just like Christians do not require atheists to be baptized into Christ or partake of the Lord’s Supper. Some ordinances only become applicable once a person has a degree of commitment to the Almighty and His Messiah. For non-Israelites that had fully committed to Israel’s Mighty One, they were required to abide by the exact same Law as Israel, with there being some laws inside that one Law that did not apply to them (i.e. eating the Passover animal, and possibly abstaining from decayed animal flesh).
I usually hear this argument put like this, “non-Israelites were allowed to eat unclean,” but that’s not what the verse says. It is true that the verses previous to this one discuss clean and unclean animals (in regards to eating), but nothing is specifically said about clean and unclean in Deuteronomy 14:21. The first part of the verse, “You shall not eat anythingwhich dies of itself,” is definitely a command for Israelites, so ‘anything’ would have to mean “any clean animal,” because the Israelites had just been told not to eat the unclean animals, period. This means that if this particular command differs for the non-Israelite (the sojourner or foreigner), it only differs in the matter of a clean animal that dies of itself.
If such is the correct interpretation, Deuteronomy 14:21a would be a command similar to Exodus 12:48 where the sojourner who wants to celebrate Passover (specifically eat the Passover animal) must be physically circumcised, but nothing in the context says that if he is not circumcised he is excluded from everything in Israel. Earlier in the chapter (Ex. 12:18-19), the sojourner is said to be included in the eating of unleavened bread (and abstaining from leaven) for the seven days of the Feast; nothing is said about a requirement to be circumcised for this. So the command to be circumcised - according to the Torah - is optional for the adult, Gentile male that has joined to Israel. He can live in Israel, and he must abide by the Law of Israel; part of this Law says that if he remains uncircumcised he cannot eat the Passover animal. Deuteronomy 14:21 then could be teaching that there exists a law inside of the one Law given to Israel that excludes the sojourner - the law against eating an animal that dies of itself. This wouldn’t mean there are two laws at play here, but that inside the one Law, various laws apply to some that do not apply to others. (For example, Leviticus 21 lists laws for Levite priests and the High Priest that do not necessarily apply to all male Israelites. The priests couldn’t be blind, lame, or disfigured; even an eye-defect disqualified a Levite male from the priesthood; males from all other 11 tribes in Israel were already disqualified.)
All that being said… I actually don’t think Deuteronomy 14:21 is teaching that a non-Israelite sojourner (Hebrew = ger) is allowed to eat an animal that dies of itself. There is somewhat of a parallel commandment found in Leviticus 17:10-16 where “any man from the house of Israel, or from the sojourners (ger, hag-ger) who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people.” So the ger who lived with Israel was forbidden to eat the blood of an animal. This is seen again in verses 12-13.
But look at verse 15 (same context): “And when any person eats an animal which dies or is torn by beasts, whether he is a native or a sojourner, he shall wash his clothes and bath in water and remain unclean until evening; then he will become clean.” This appears to be an exception for the Israelite; he is told not to eat such in Deuteronomy 14:21 yet is said to have eaten such here, then comes the need to apply the washing of his clothes and body. It sounds to me like it’s not a huge sin, but something that should be avoided, and if a person is in a predicament where it can’t be avoided, make the necessary washings. I’ve read other alternative explanations, but the one I’ve given makes the most sense to me currently.
The “animal which dies” in Leviticus 17:15 and “anything which dies of itself” in Deuteronomy 14:21 are the same Hebrew word, nevelah, showing the same law is at play. The LXX uses the Greek word thnēsimaion in both places, and the NETS translates both into English as “decaying flesh.” Likewise, the Hebrew word ger is used in Leviticus 17:15 (sojourner, LSB) as well as in Deuteronomy 14:21 (sojourner, LSB), but there is a slight difference if we look at the Septuagint translation. While Leviticus 17:15 uses the word prosēlutos, Deuteronomy 14:21 uses the word paroikos. The NETS distinguishes these in its English translation, reading “among the guests” in Leviticus 17:15, and “the resident alien” in Deuteronomy 14:21. You can see that prosēlutos is where our English word proselyte is derived, a word that defined a non-Israelite who had made a serious, covenant commitment to the Mighty One of Israel. Paroikos, on the other hand, is a more loose Greek term, probably referring more to a non-hostile passer-by/through.
The Hebrew word ger can (in and of itself) refer to a sojourner that hasn’t fully joined to a people not his/her. Genesis 15:13 uses it of Abram’s descendants being sojourners in a land that is not theirs, of course referring to the later Egyptian captivity. The Israelite people, although slaves, were not devoted in full to the various elohim of Egypt.
I think it’s best to go with the LXX understanding of Deuteronomy 14:21; the text refers to a non-Israelite person that wasn’t committed to Israel’s Mighty One. This person was allowed to eat an animal that had died of itself (with no exception), and not have to do any washing thereafter. The committed ger on the other hand (in Leviticus 17:15) could eat an animal that had died of itself (as an exception to the general rule, on occasion), but had to perform the washings afterward. I used to say that the second foreigner listed in Deuteronomy 14:21 - the nokriy - was distinct from the ger (being that you could sell the nokriy the decayed animal meat, but only give it to the ger), but the text could just be further defining this particular ger; the words ger and nokriy could be interchangeable when it was a person who was non-hostile to Israel yet at the same time non-committed to Israel’s Mighty One.
In the end Deuteronomy 14:21 - either way you look at it - does not teach that non-Israelites did not have to obey Yahweh’s Law. Sure, non-Israelites that had not joined to Israel in any way were not required to obey specific laws inside the one law of Israel, just like Christians do not require atheists to be baptized into Christ or partake of the Lord’s Supper. Some ordinances only become applicable once a person has a degree of commitment to the Almighty and His Messiah. For non-Israelites that had fully committed to Israel’s Mighty One, they were required to abide by the exact same Law as Israel, with there being some laws inside that one Law that did not apply to them (i.e. eating the Passover animal, and possibly abstaining from decayed animal flesh).