21:10–14 The subject of a woman taken in war is placed among the family matters because the instructions concern marriage, not the circumstances of war. Normally, persons taken captive in war become servants to their captors, as assumed in the previous chapter (20:14), but there could be a circumstance in which a man would wish to take a marriageable woman as his own wife. She would then hold a completely different status, as explained in these verses. She must be given time to mourn her loss and adjust to her new situation. If the marriage fails—a possibility, given the cultural differences that would necessarily create stress in the relationship—the woman cannot be treated as a slave or traded as property. She becomes a free woman, with the same cultural status as all other citizens. There is no procedure for conversion, which apparently was not expected—although, according to the provisions for redemption in Exodus 12:43–51, the woman would be entitled to enter the covenant if that was her desire.

Certain rituals are prescribed to indicate the woman’s change of status and introduction to a new way of life. There is no indication concerning these rituals’ significance, other than that the change of garment indicates she is no longer a captive. The trimming of the hair and nails and the change of garment is likely a way of facilitating a radical transition, which includes the woman’s loss of her family and heritage. She is given a month to lament her losses and prepare for a new life. Establishing sexual relations during a time of emotional trauma is not appropriate. Thirty days was the normal time of mourning (Num. 20:29; Deut. 34:8). These regulations make clear that the marriage must be for the love of the woman and not merely for her beauty. Taking the woman as a wife means she must be supported rather than engaged in service, a reality that must be maintained even if the marriage does not last. The woman can no longer be sold for services.

21:15–17 Equality within the family is a very subjective assessment, made more difficult because emotions and personal feelings are invariably influential in the decisions made. In the case of a man with more than one wife, invariably one will be more favored than the other, which is all that is meant by the Hebrew terms ʼahab (“loved”) and saneʼ (“unloved”).56 Birthright was the practice of enabling a child to carry out extra responsibilities, such as managing the estate on behalf of survivors. This is especially necessary for minors, widows, or unmarried daughters and for provision for the burial of parents and responsibility for leadership in the family. This responsibility usually fell to the eldest son of the father, though this was never followed rigidly. The father determined the designated child, just as Jacob did in the choice of Ephraim (Gen. 48:12–14). The benefit was usually a double portion. If there were only two sons, this would mean two portions of three, which is the case envisioned in this regulation.

This provision of Moses specifically addresses the motives of a father in the case of a favored wife. The first child of a favored wife, who might well also be the younger or at least the one more recently acquired, cannot be the basis of assigning the benefits of property when the time comes for assigning the succession of property. The firstborn of the father has a certain representative status as being the sign of the father’s “strength” (Deut. 21:17)—in this context his virility and ability to carry on the family line.

21:18–21 Amid the responsibilities and limits of a patriarchal decision, Moses moves to dealing with a rebellious son. In this case both parents are involved—another limitation on the role of the father, whose decision is not exclusive. The parents of the rebellious son bring him to the leaders of his city (v. 19), an indication that the child is already an adult and acting independently. The son is described as a “glutton and . . . drunkard” (v. 20). This phrase is used in Proverbs 23:20–21 to warn against association with the profligate, those addicted to wine and food. Such people live in a state of stupor and soon find themselves dispossessed and clothed in rags. They represent the incorrigible, delinquent, and self-indulgent. The dilemma of the parents of such a child is a reminder of the limits of parental influence. Parents cannot determine the behavior or character of a child. Despite parents’ best efforts in discipline and instruction, children may go their own way and defy everything their parents represent. Once addictions get in the way, the possibility for reform, teaching, or correction may be passed.

Responsibility regarding family is not always the ultimate responsibility of parents. There comes a point where the behavior of a child is disruptive and out of control to the danger of themselves and others. At this point the community leaders must become involved. Obedience to parents is the first order of personal subordination under the covenant. Violation of this requirement to the point of physical violence against parents is a crime penalized by death (Ex. 21:15). In cases in which the behavior of a child has not yet reached the point of such violence, the leaders of the city must assess the situation and the dangers involved. A hearing is to be conducted in the most public area of the city so that no voice or opinion is excluded. In the worst cases, the elders have the authority to remove the child from the community. The death penalty for a disruptive and recalcitrant son is the only way to purge the community of escalating violence and decadence.

Capital punishment is prescribed only when human life has been taken or when certain actions will lead to the loss of human life. Such is the case with the insubordination of an individual who will not abide by the ruling of the judges and priests in cases that move beyond the local level (Deut. 17:12). In the case of a rebellious son, the city makes the decision concerning the death penalty and, accordingly, accepts responsibility for the execution. The parents, whose duty it was to report the case, do not participate. The actions taken are to serve as a deterrent to others who in danger of going the same way.

21:22–23 The exposure of the body of an executed offender was used as a deterrent in ancient times. The famous murals of Sennacherib in his palace depict his siege of the mighty fortress of Lachish, with the bodies of three soldiers exposed on poles. The purpose was to deter resistance and instigate fear in order to drive inhabitants to accept the promise of the Assyrians that everyone would have his own vine and fig tree (2 Kings 18:31). Unlike the Egyptian practice, in which the exposed body was left to be eaten by scavenging birds (Gen. 40:19), the body of an executed person in Israel was to be buried before sunset. During the conquest the bodies of the defeated Canaanite kings were hung on poles in accordance with this ancient practice (Josh. 8:29; 10:26–27) but, following this regulation, were buried before nightfall.

The exposed body is declared to be cursed of God, but this expression is ambiguous, leaving the sense uncertain. The ancient translations (Gk., Lat., and Aram.) vary between saying that one hanged is cursed by God and that one who curses God is to be hanged. Is the body cursed because it is hanging on a pole, or is the body of an executed criminal cursed and for that reason hung on a pole in order to be reviled? The instruction is emphatic regarding the defilement of a dead body: it must be buried on the day of death. A body left exposed defiles the land. The fact that a body is cursed does not change the requirement that it be buried immediately, within the day of death.