FAMILY PROTECTIONS – Deuteronomy 21:10-21

Posted by Pastor Greg Allen on September 28, 2011 under AM Bible Study |

AM Bible Study Group; September 28, 2011

Deuteronomy 21:10-21

Theme: Moses shows how God’s law protects human rights within the family circle.

This section of Moses’ review of the law before the people continues with some specific instructions regarding family life—particularly regarding the respect that God requires be shown for the individual rights of members of the family circle.

Note how God’s instructions extend to the protection of . . .

I. WOMEN TAKEN AS WIFE IN A TIME OF WAR (vv. 10-14).

A. First, note what is said about the foreign woman being taken as captive (vv. 10-11). Chapter 20, when it gives specific instructions regarding conduct in war against non- Canaanite cities, allowed for the taking of women as captives (see 20:14). But the people were forbidden from entering into marriages with the women of the land of Canaan (see 7:3). So, these instructions would have to be seen as regarding women from other cities than that of the promised land.

B. Then, notice that, if taken as a wife, she is to be shown consideration (vv. 12-13). She was to be taken to the home of the man who desired to take her as wife (no doubt so that she would be provided for during her time of transition), and shave her head and trim her nails (which appears to have been a symbolic way of separating herself from the paganism of her former people). She was to be treated with dignity; and was to be allowed to remove the clothing of her captivity (that is, she was not to be treated with indignity and humiliation as a prisoner of war). And she was to be allowed to mourn her father and her mother for a full month—either because she was taken from them, or they were killed in war. (Note how thirty days seems to have been an accepted period of mourning in Israel; see Numbers 20:29). It would only be after that that an Israelite man may take her as wife. Note in this that the sort of wanton abuse and rape of women that so horribly characterized other conquering nations in their victories in war was not to occur among God’s people.

C. But there were even protections for her in a case in which she is found not to be desired as a wife (v. 14). If, for whatever reason, the man who chose her as wife found that he did not want her, he may not treat her contemptuously or as a prisoner of war; nor could he sell her as a slave, or treat her brutally, or abuse her in any way. He was to set her free; and she would be allowed to live among her new people. Thus, God commanded mercy even to the foreign-born women among His people.

II. A FIRSTBORN SON AND HIS INHERITANCE RIGHTS (vv. 15-17).

A. This describes a situation in which a man has two wives that both bore a man sons (v. 15). It’s possible that this refers to a situation in which a man has two wives at the same time. The law that God gave through Moses didn’t necessarily forbid this— although it was far from an ideal situation. The patriarch Jacob had two wives who were sisters of one another (although he was clearly tricked into marrying them both; see Genesis 29:15-30); and Jacob’s favoritism of one over the other was a situation that caused no end of troubles (29:31-30:24). The law definitely forbade the men of Israel from taking a woman as a rival to her sister (Leviticus 18:18)—to which Jacob would have said a hearty “amen”! But this present passage may also be describing a situation in which a man had married a woman who gave him his first son, then died; and was then replaced by another woman after the first one’s death who (1) he loved more, and (2) bore him another son.

B. The law in question takes into consideration the rights of the firstborn son (primogeniture). Many cultures throughout the world have had various forms of such laws; but God’s law seems to be based on the fact that the firstborn son (slain from among the sons of Egypt in the tenth plague; see Exodus 11:1-10; 12:12, 29-30) was to be consecrated to Him from among the Israelites (Exodus 13:1-2), and was required to be redeemed (Exodus 13:11-16; 34:20). God commanded that the Levites were to be consecrated as substitutes for the firstborn sons of Israel (Numbers 3:12- 13; 8:14-19). In other cultures, a firstborn may have been given everything of his father’s inheritance, and the other siblings given nothing. But what God seems to do in this law is regulate that the firstborn’s right is to a “double portion” of that of his siblings (v. 17). Thus, the rights of other siblings are protected.

C. But note here that the particular rights of the firstborn son is also protected (vv. 16- 17). Even if the second wife found grater favor in his eyes, he was not to show favoritism toward her son over his true firstborn. He was not to, in any way, disregard the firstborn status of the firstborn son. He is to give that son “a double portion” of the inheritance; “for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.”

III. PARENTS OF A STUBBORN AND REBELLIOUS SON (vv. 18-21).

A. Just as the previous law protected the sons from an unjust father, this law protects the parents from an ungodly son. Here, we find the case of a man and woman who have an unrepentant son who is stubborn and rebellious (v. 18). The nature of his rebellion may be described in the accusation given in verse 20, “he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard”—actions describing a pattern of behavior that exposes an attitude of heart. This legislation is rooted in the fifth commandment (see Deuteronomy 5:16). To obey one’s parents is the first principle of obeying all God- given authority; and rebellion against such authority is rebellion against God. This is something that, in the end, would bring harm to the whole community.

B. The procedure doesn’t put the rebellious son utterly at the mercy of an unscrupulous mother and father; because he must first be brought before the elders of the city (vv. 19-20). Note that it could not be merely either the father or the mother alone who bring this accusation. Both must bring him. And we can assume that the accusation of both parents would have been considered to have great weight in such a case. They were not to make this decision on their own, but were to make their accusation to the elders of the city; and thus bring the case before public examination and judgment.

C. Once the case of the matter is clearly established, the young man is put to death by the community at large (v. 21). Note that the parents were not the ones who were to put the son to death—perhaps out of great mercy to them; but also to present the burden of execution on the community at large. But the rest of the city—upon whom the son’s rebellion would bring great trouble—were to put him to death. This would not have been done carelessly, since the leaders would not have wanted to bring innocent bloodshed upon themselves. But once it was determined to be necessary, the leaders were to put the rebellious son to death in a significantly public manner—that is, by stoning. And note that in doing so, Moses—under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit— says, “so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear.”