Original Meaning
Righteousness in the Treatment of War Brides (21:10–14)
THE OPENING TEMPORAL CLAUSE and the military theme link this paragraph to the other war texts.1 It contains an appeal to Israelites to be charitable in their treatment of foreigners who are forced to become a part of the community. It divides into two unequal parts, presenting a primary (vv. 10–13) and a secondary circumstance (v. 14). The primary case calls for charitable treatment of foreign brides when they are first taken; the secondary case, for their charitable treatment in divorce. The principal thrust of the passage is reflected in the concluding motive clause: “since you have dishonored her.”2
The nature of the degradation (vv. 10–12a). First, Moses attempts to secure the well-being of an enemy woman captured in battle. The description of the warrior’s treatment of the war bride sounds calloused,3 but Moses’ disposition is hinted at by the final clause (v. 14). Her degradation occurs in six stages:4 (1) Yahweh delivers her people into the Israelites’ hands (cf. 20:14); (2) the woman is among the captives taken by the Israelites; (3) a warrior notices that she is beautiful; (4) she becomes the object of his affection;5 (5) he marries her;6 (6) she is brought back to the home of the warrior. The text does not indicate his marital status. If he is the head of the “house” to which he brings her, he probably has at least one additional wife.
Protecting the dignity of the captive woman in marriage (vv. 12b–13). On the surface, for a warrior to marry a captive bride seems innocent. However, Moses realistically recognizes that the system is subject to abuse, as triumphant males exploit and take advantage of female captives. Having none of this, Moses instructs the Israelites how to respect the rights and dignity of wives whom they have captured. (1) The captive bride must be allowed to express her pain at being torn from her people and forced to join an alien community. While having her shave her hair, trim her nails, and remove her native clothing appear to be insulting demands,7 these actions symbolize her change of status.8 When her hair and nails grow and she puts on new clothes, she emerges as a new person, with a new identity and new status;9 she hereby declares nonverbally what Ruth declared verbally to Naomi (Ruth 1:16). The actions also remind her new husband that he is not to treat her as an alien or a slave.
(2) The woman must be permitted to mourn for her father and mother for a month.10 Whether or not her parents died in the conquest of the town, for this woman they have in effect died, for she has no hope of seeing them again. Moses hereby calls on Israelites to allow others the opportunity to show the same respect for their parents as they are commanded to do (5:16). He also links the consummation of the marriage to the end of the period of mourning; only after she has completed her month of mourning may he have sexual intercourse with her,11 marry her, and have her formally recognized as his wife. This monthlong quarantine expresses respect for the woman’s ties to her family of origin and her own psychological and emotional health, providing a cushion from the shock of being torn from her own family.
Protecting the rights of the captive woman in divorce (v. 14). Recognizing that people’s dreams of marriage are not always fulfilled, in verse 14 Moses considers the fate of a captive woman for whom her husband’s passion has died.12 Whatever the cause of this loss of passion, Moses rigorously protects the rights of the foreign wife. If the man decides to divorce his war bride, he may not humiliate her further.13 On the contrary, by adding “wherever she wishes,” he heightens the emphasis on her interests and dignity, freeing her to return home and live with her parents—if they are still alive—or to remarry.14
Moses issues two prohibitions for the Israelite husband who would divorce his war bride: By no means may he sell her for silver, nor may he treat her as chattel property.15 He concludes with a rationale for the compassionate treatment of war brides even in divorce. She has already been degraded by being captured and forced to marry the enemy. In other words, the Israelite man may not humiliate (NIV “dishonor”) her again by heartlessly treating her as property to be disposed of or exchanged for silver. Through divorce she again loses her status as a member of the Israelite’s household.16
Bridging Contexts
ABUSE OF WOMEN. BIBLICAL allusions to these instructions on family and community life are scarce,34 but illustrations of the abuse of women contemplated here are ubiquitous in the narratives. The behavior of men in these accounts violates the trajectory of Deuteronomy 21. This trajectory, which begins in the Decalogue and continues throughout Moses’ second address, seeks to rein in the potential for men to abuse women, including their wives.35 Scholars have long recognized the attention that Deuteronomy pays to women’s rights36 in its concern for widows (10:17–18, et passim), the involvement of women in worship (12:12, et passim), the manumission of female slaves (15:12), and military exemptions for newly married husbands (20:7). This is the first in a series of texts that focuses on protecting women’s dignity within the household.37 These texts assume that the way men treat women is a barometer of the spiritual climate of the nation.38
Although the institution of marriage should have provided security for wives, in ancient Israel not all women were equally secure and equally loved. Apart from variations in the characters of their husbands, institutional factors contributing to a woman’s insecurity included polygamy, divorce, and widowhood. Polygamy—simultaneous marriage to more than one wife, more precisely polygyny—presented challenges for both husband and wives. Although the Old Testament presents monogamy (one husband, one wife) as the ideal (Gen. 2:24–25), the constitutional texts do not outlaw polygamy for the general population, and narratives report numerous polygamous examples.39 Multiple wives reflected a man’s wealth and status within the community. The only person for whom the practice was expressly forbidden was the king (Deut. 17:17), and that for religious reasons—wives (presumably foreign wives acquired through dynastic marriage) would deflect him from wholehearted devotion to Yahweh.
The stresses created by bigamy and polygyny are evident in several Old Testament narratives. However the tensions do not appear to arise over inheritance or the status of the children in the family, but over the problem of barrenness. In the cases involving Rachel and Hannah, the favored wife was unable to have a child who could be a candidate for the bekôr. The words for the favored (ʾāhab) and the spurned (śānēʾ) wife link our text directly with Jacob’s household (Gen. 29:30–31), where the unloved wife was prolific and the loved wife jealous of her sister (30:1). Rachel eventually had two sons, but she did not live long enough to see Joseph assume the role of bekôr, nor her younger grandson Ephraim be promised hegemony over the family—ultimately the northern tribes (48:19–20). However, ultimately the status of bekôr in relation to the clan is ceded to Judah, the third son of the spurned wife (Gen. 49:8–12).
Hannah’s case was similar. Her rival, Peninnah, has sons and daughters (1 Sam. 1:4), but Hannah cannot conceive (1:1–8), causing Peninnah to provoke and irritate her bitterly. While we know nothing of the status of the spurned wife’s children, by divinely granted conception and divine call, as prophet and priest Hannah’s son Samuel functions as the bekôr of the nation. But neither case reflects a struggle between wives over whose son will be the bekôr.
Incorrigible children. We cannot tell if Moses’ instructions regarding incorrigible children were ever applied in Israel. Eli’s sons go their own ways (1 Sam. 2:12–17), refusing to heed the rebuke of their father (2:22–25) and eventually losing their lives for their crimes (2:25, 27–36; 3:10–14; 4:10–18), but the narrator never portrays their crimes as persistent rebellion against their father; it was directly against Yahweh. Samuel’s sons also depart from their father’s course (1 Sam. 8:1–3), but this is not cast as rebellion against Samuel. The nearest the narratives come to an event like that envisioned here involves the young lads who mock Elisha as a “baldhead,” for which they are mauled and killed by two female bears (2 Kings 2:23–25). However the episode does not involve parents and sons, but a prophet and someone else’s children. These are not young adults characterized by stubbornness, rebellion, gluttony, and drunkenness, but naughty small boys mocking a prophetic representative of Yahweh.
Whether or not the penalty Moses prescribed was ever enforced, this text emphasizes the high stock covenantal righteousness places in respect for parents.40 The refusal to distinguish between respect for father and mother accords with Proverbs 6:20, which places a mother’s teaching on par with a father’s command. Like later sages in Israel, Moses commends parents for disciplining their children, but he also acknowledges that children make their own choices, and sometimes the courses they choose are opposed to everything they have been taught.41 In such cases parents are neither culpable for their children’s profligate lives, nor are they free to carry out the present policy. That must be left to the community leaders.
Some see this text in the background of Hosea’s portrayal of Israel as a rebellious son in Hosea 11.42 Despite Yahweh’s tender care and sustaining love (11:3–4), the son has gone after other gods (v. 2) and persists in turning from him (vv. 5–7). In describing Yahweh’s agony over his options, and whether or not to inflict Israel with the ultimate punishment as spelled out in the covenant curses, Hosea offers a rare window into the internal turmoil in Yahweh’s mind:
How can I give you up, Ephraim?
How can I hand you over, Israel?
How can I treat you like Admah?
How can I make you like Zeboiim? (Hos. 11:8a)
In the end his compassion wins out over his fury:
My heart is changed within me;
all my compassion is aroused.
I will not carry out my fierce anger,
nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim.
For I am God, and not man—
the Holy One among you.
I will not come in wrath. (11:8b–9)
There is no authority to whom Yahweh can appeal, and he surely has the legal right to punish his son. In the end compassion wins out over wrath; restoration is preferred over judgment.
Hanging on a tree overnight. As with the previous instructions, it is difficult to determine the extent to which the Israelites applied the regulations in verses 22–23. According to Joshua 8:29, Joshua obeyed them scrupulously, even with reference to the Canaanite king of Ai. He hung the king on a tree until evening, but at sunset he ordered the removal of the body. His men deposited it at the entrance of the gate of the city and buried it under a heap of stones. Apparently he did the same with the kings of the southern Canaanite alliance (Josh. 10:26–27).
In later times, this passage was interpreted as advocating a form of execution. This is evident especially in the Temple Scroll from Qumran, which elaborates on the present text:
If a man passes on information against his people or betrays his people to a foreign nation, or does evil against his people, you shall hang him on a tree and he will die. On the evidence of two witnesses or on the evidence of three witnesses he shall be put to death and they shall hang him on the tree. If it happens that a man has committed a capital offence and he escapes amongst the nations and curses his people /and/ the children of Israel, he [sic; read “him”] also you shall hang on the tree and he will die. And their corpse shall not spend the night on the tree; instead you shall bury them that day because those hanged on a tree are cursed by God and man; thus you shall not defile the land which I give you for inheritance. (LXIV:7–13)43
Clear echoes of our text may be heard in the New Testament, especially in references to the crucifixion of Jesus. In Acts 5:30 and 10:39–40 Peter accuses the Jews of killing Jesus by hanging him on a tree. In Acts 13:28–29 Paul uses similar language; after emphasizing the criminal nature of Jesus’ execution (“they found no proper ground for a death sentence,” 13:28), he speaks of Jesus’ removal from the tree and his burial in a tomb.44
Contemporary Significance
MARRIAGE ISSUES AND PRINCIPLES. Deuteronomy 21:10–14 offers our world helpful insights into the biblical view of marriage. (1) Unlike the categorical prohibition of intermarriage with Canaanites in chapter 7, Moses expresses no hesitation in Israelites marrying foreigners. He assumes that, like Ruth, those foreigners will be fully integrated into the community.
(2) This text reminds contemporary readers, especially males, that whether native or alien, women in general and wives in particular must be treated with dignity and respect for their personhood and their identity. The biblical paradigm of marriage and family is clearly patricentric, but this offers God’s people no grounds whatsoever for denying women their rights, disregarding their dignity, or treating them as property.
(3) While this passage seems to assume that divorce was not uncommon in ancient Israel, by no means does it endorse this tragedy in a marriage.45 Whether or not divorce is morally justifiable, like 24:1–4 this text shows it was tolerated in Israel as a legal reality. With Exodus 21:10–11 our text suggests that releasing a slave wife or captive woman whom an Israelite warrior has married is preferable to the man refusing to fulfill his marital duties.
Except for groups that have split off from the Mormon church, the issues dealt with in verses 15–17 seem foreign to the Western world. However, in some parts of the world, particularly in the Muslim world and in sub-Saharan Africa, polygamy is widely practiced. Some social researchers estimate that more than half the men in Kenya are polygamous and one-third of the women are part of a plural marriage.46 Although the Scriptures do not explicitly ban polygamy, the practical problems the institution raises are well documented. A study of polygamy in Somalia revealed three recurring themes: jealous wives and abusive stepmothers, family honor, and respect for the free will and equality of all.47 Our text offers perspective on these situations, declaring that the relative status of one’s mother in such a context has no bearing on the dignity and humanity of the children. The gospel according to Moses and the gospel according to Jesus call on the redeemed to treat all human beings with the respect due them as image-bearers of God.
The rebellious son passage. Deuteronomy 21:18–21 is a favorite text for modern readers who balk at the authority the Old Testament. Texts like this lead many to reject biblical religion as inhumane and abusive.48 In Paul’s admonitions to children to obey their parents in all things for this is pleasing to the Lord (Eph. 6:1; Col. 3:20), he affirms that the principles governing domestic life in Israel are extended to Christian homes. Paul’s observation that this is the only command with a promise (Eph. 6:2) recognizes the link between respect for one’s past as embodied in parents and a satisfying future. However, in challenging children to honor their parents with obedience, he recognizes the fine line between appropriate discipline and abusive exasperations (Eph. 6:3; Col. 3:21). In the end all will account to God for the way they have fulfilled their domestic roles.
While some have advocated literal application of this text even for Christians,49 many simply dismiss this passage as a relic of the old covenant now irrelevant for Christians. If we want to take 2 Timothy 3:16 seriously and recognize that Paul is speaking there of the Old Testament, Christians should try to find a middle way. (1) We recognize that Moses is preaching a farewell address; he is not writing legislation.
(2) As with other constitutional documents of the Pentateuch,50 the regulations in Deuteronomy were not intended to function as a law code to be administered in the courts. The speeches of Moses provide foundational principles, creating a worldview that begins by recognizing Yahweh’s past grace in redeeming Israel from bondage, and then offers guidance in living out those principles. As Moses reiterates so often in the book and as the preamble to the Decalogue emphasizes, Israel is not called primarily to conformity to a code of conduct, but to a relationship with their gracious redeemer.
(3) While we must be cautious about arguing from silence, and while we recognize that the Old Testament narratives do not provide an exhaustive picture of ancient Israelite life, it is striking that the Old Testament provides no hints that these instructions were ever carried out.
(4) Finally, the Jewish interpretive tradition is unanimous in affirming this policy was never applied. Indeed, they engage in remarkable exegetical gymnastics to discount a literal interpretation.51
What, then, shall we do with this text? Recognizing it was given to people who claimed to be the community of faith, we do not expect the world to understand or even to want to be governed by biblical principles. But Christians should observe the high stock the Scriptures place on family relations, particularly the responsibility of parents in shaping the faith and lives of their children. Rebellion against parents may be natural, but it is never right. Alexandr Solzhenitsyn rightly insisted that a clear sign of the decadence of a culture is the loss of respect for the older generation.52 This problem is particularly acute in the modern Western world, where youthfulness rather than maturity is viewed as the ideal, and where, if children are valued, families have become pedocentric. This has produced a narcissistic society, with the individual at the center of the universe, and one’s responsibility to the community is diminished.
Texts like this not only place the burden of training children rightly on parents, but they also admit the potential for pain and disappointment, as children make free choices to rebel. The ultimate goal in parenting is to promote a healthy community beyond the nuclear family. Indeed, this text raises questions about the validity of the notion of a “nuclear family” itself. It does indeed take a village53 to raise godly children. In a healthy community, the well-being of every child is everyone’s business, and parents with rebellious children should not need to carry the burden alone.
On a tree. Since the manner of execution and the public exposure of the body proposed here have been rejected by virtually all modern peoples, it is difficult to talk about the significance of verses 22–23 for us. Nevertheless, while it concerns a criminal, it may have implications for how we treat the bodies of those who have died. Human beings, no matter how low morally, are still image-bearers of God, and the desecration of the image by mutilation of the body or allowing scavenging creatures to mutilate it is surely a biblical taboo.
However, the most striking significance for Christians is found in the allusion to Deuteronomy 21:22–23 in Galatians 3:13: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’ ” In a curious adaptation of this text (substituting “the curse of God” with “the curse of the law,” that is, the curse that the law declared on sinners),54 Paul states the truth concerning ourselves, that we all are sinners deserving the death of the criminal in view in Deuteronomy 21:22–23. This applies also to Jews who try to find salvation by keeping the law rather than by faith, casting themselves on God incarnate in Jesus Christ.
However, Paul also declares the glorious gospel that Christ himself became the curse that we all deserve by virtue of our sinful state. Through his death on the cross, Jesus Christ, the sinless sacrifice, atoned for our sins once and for all, thereby delivering us from the sentence of death that hangs over us all (cf. Rom. 6:23).55
Original Meaning
Righteousness in the Treatment of the Firstborn (21:15–17)
THE PLACEMENT OF THIS provision after verses 10–14 may suggest the captive woman whom the warrior married is still in Moses’ mind. The present instructions mention three critical details. (1) A man has two wives, one of whom he favors over the other.17 (2) Both wives bear a son for their husband. (3) The less favored wife is the first to give birth, presenting the husband with his “firstborn” (bekôr). Because a father could assign this status to a second child, the word should be understood as a designation for rank, of sociological rather than chronological priority. The bekôr is the privileged heir, who functions as the primus inter fratres, “first among brothers.”18
If the son of the less-favored wife enjoyed the status of bekôr, this could pose a particular problem when the male head of the household divides his property among his heirs (v. 16). Moses does not explicitly outlaw the father’s prerogative to choose the primary heir,19 but he cautions against making this common practice once the Israelites have settled in the land.20 Responding to this potential situation, verses 16–17a declare that once the father divides the assets, he may not rob the eldest of his rights and status (v. 16) by designating the son of the favored wife as the bekôr, but must recognize the natural bekôr by giving him a double portion of everything he possesses. The bekôr’s status as the “the first sign of his [procreative] strength” (v. 17) entitles him to the rights and obligates him to the responsibilities of the firstborn. The double share of the inheritance compensates the bekôr for his responsibility to care for the parents in their old age, to provide proper burial upon their decease, and generally to lead the clan after the father is gone. Moses hereby seeks to protect the rights and dignity of the less-favored wife by prohibiting husbands from making children pay for strained relationships between or among parents.
Bridging Contexts
ABUSE OF WOMEN. BIBLICAL allusions to these instructions on family and community life are scarce,34 but illustrations of the abuse of women contemplated here are ubiquitous in the narratives. The behavior of men in these accounts violates the trajectory of Deuteronomy 21. This trajectory, which begins in the Decalogue and continues throughout Moses’ second address, seeks to rein in the potential for men to abuse women, including their wives.35 Scholars have long recognized the attention that Deuteronomy pays to women’s rights36 in its concern for widows (10:17–18, et passim), the involvement of women in worship (12:12, et passim), the manumission of female slaves (15:12), and military exemptions for newly married husbands (20:7). This is the first in a series of texts that focuses on protecting women’s dignity within the household.37 These texts assume that the way men treat women is a barometer of the spiritual climate of the nation.38
Although the institution of marriage should have provided security for wives, in ancient Israel not all women were equally secure and equally loved. Apart from variations in the characters of their husbands, institutional factors contributing to a woman’s insecurity included polygamy, divorce, and widowhood. Polygamy—simultaneous marriage to more than one wife, more precisely polygyny—presented challenges for both husband and wives. Although the Old Testament presents monogamy (one husband, one wife) as the ideal (Gen. 2:24–25), the constitutional texts do not outlaw polygamy for the general population, and narratives report numerous polygamous examples.39 Multiple wives reflected a man’s wealth and status within the community. The only person for whom the practice was expressly forbidden was the king (Deut. 17:17), and that for religious reasons—wives (presumably foreign wives acquired through dynastic marriage) would deflect him from wholehearted devotion to Yahweh.
The stresses created by bigamy and polygyny are evident in several Old Testament narratives. However the tensions do not appear to arise over inheritance or the status of the children in the family, but over the problem of barrenness. In the cases involving Rachel and Hannah, the favored wife was unable to have a child who could be a candidate for the bekôr. The words for the favored (ʾāhab) and the spurned (śānēʾ) wife link our text directly with Jacob’s household (Gen. 29:30–31), where the unloved wife was prolific and the loved wife jealous of her sister (30:1). Rachel eventually had two sons, but she did not live long enough to see Joseph assume the role of bekôr, nor her younger grandson Ephraim be promised hegemony over the family—ultimately the northern tribes (48:19–20). However, ultimately the status of bekôr in relation to the clan is ceded to Judah, the third son of the spurned wife (Gen. 49:8–12).
Hannah’s case was similar. Her rival, Peninnah, has sons and daughters (1 Sam. 1:4), but Hannah cannot conceive (1:1–8), causing Peninnah to provoke and irritate her bitterly. While we know nothing of the status of the spurned wife’s children, by divinely granted conception and divine call, as prophet and priest Hannah’s son Samuel functions as the bekôr of the nation. But neither case reflects a struggle between wives over whose son will be the bekôr.
Incorrigible children. We cannot tell if Moses’ instructions regarding incorrigible children were ever applied in Israel. Eli’s sons go their own ways (1 Sam. 2:12–17), refusing to heed the rebuke of their father (2:22–25) and eventually losing their lives for their crimes (2:25, 27–36; 3:10–14; 4:10–18), but the narrator never portrays their crimes as persistent rebellion against their father; it was directly against Yahweh. Samuel’s sons also depart from their father’s course (1 Sam. 8:1–3), but this is not cast as rebellion against Samuel. The nearest the narratives come to an event like that envisioned here involves the young lads who mock Elisha as a “baldhead,” for which they are mauled and killed by two female bears (2 Kings 2:23–25). However the episode does not involve parents and sons, but a prophet and someone else’s children. These are not young adults characterized by stubbornness, rebellion, gluttony, and drunkenness, but naughty small boys mocking a prophetic representative of Yahweh.
Whether or not the penalty Moses prescribed was ever enforced, this text emphasizes the high stock covenantal righteousness places in respect for parents.40 The refusal to distinguish between respect for father and mother accords with Proverbs 6:20, which places a mother’s teaching on par with a father’s command. Like later sages in Israel, Moses commends parents for disciplining their children, but he also acknowledges that children make their own choices, and sometimes the courses they choose are opposed to everything they have been taught.41 In such cases parents are neither culpable for their children’s profligate lives, nor are they free to carry out the present policy. That must be left to the community leaders.
Some see this text in the background of Hosea’s portrayal of Israel as a rebellious son in Hosea 11.42 Despite Yahweh’s tender care and sustaining love (11:3–4), the son has gone after other gods (v. 2) and persists in turning from him (vv. 5–7). In describing Yahweh’s agony over his options, and whether or not to inflict Israel with the ultimate punishment as spelled out in the covenant curses, Hosea offers a rare window into the internal turmoil in Yahweh’s mind:
How can I give you up, Ephraim?
How can I hand you over, Israel?
How can I treat you like Admah?
How can I make you like Zeboiim? (Hos. 11:8a)
In the end his compassion wins out over his fury:
My heart is changed within me;
all my compassion is aroused.
I will not carry out my fierce anger,
nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim.
For I am God, and not man—
the Holy One among you.
I will not come in wrath. (11:8b–9)
There is no authority to whom Yahweh can appeal, and he surely has the legal right to punish his son. In the end compassion wins out over wrath; restoration is preferred over judgment.
Hanging on a tree overnight. As with the previous instructions, it is difficult to determine the extent to which the Israelites applied the regulations in verses 22–23. According to Joshua 8:29, Joshua obeyed them scrupulously, even with reference to the Canaanite king of Ai. He hung the king on a tree until evening, but at sunset he ordered the removal of the body. His men deposited it at the entrance of the gate of the city and buried it under a heap of stones. Apparently he did the same with the kings of the southern Canaanite alliance (Josh. 10:26–27).
In later times, this passage was interpreted as advocating a form of execution. This is evident especially in the Temple Scroll from Qumran, which elaborates on the present text:
If a man passes on information against his people or betrays his people to a foreign nation, or does evil against his people, you shall hang him on a tree and he will die. On the evidence of two witnesses or on the evidence of three witnesses he shall be put to death and they shall hang him on the tree. If it happens that a man has committed a capital offence and he escapes amongst the nations and curses his people /and/ the children of Israel, he [sic; read “him”] also you shall hang on the tree and he will die. And their corpse shall not spend the night on the tree; instead you shall bury them that day because those hanged on a tree are cursed by God and man; thus you shall not defile the land which I give you for inheritance. (LXIV:7–13)43
Clear echoes of our text may be heard in the New Testament, especially in references to the crucifixion of Jesus. In Acts 5:30 and 10:39–40 Peter accuses the Jews of killing Jesus by hanging him on a tree. In Acts 13:28–29 Paul uses similar language; after emphasizing the criminal nature of Jesus’ execution (“they found no proper ground for a death sentence,” 13:28), he speaks of Jesus’ removal from the tree and his burial in a tomb.44
Contemporary Significance
MARRIAGE ISSUES AND PRINCIPLES. Deuteronomy 21:10–14 offers our world helpful insights into the biblical view of marriage. (1) Unlike the categorical prohibition of intermarriage with Canaanites in chapter 7, Moses expresses no hesitation in Israelites marrying foreigners. He assumes that, like Ruth, those foreigners will be fully integrated into the community.
(2) This text reminds contemporary readers, especially males, that whether native or alien, women in general and wives in particular must be treated with dignity and respect for their personhood and their identity. The biblical paradigm of marriage and family is clearly patricentric, but this offers God’s people no grounds whatsoever for denying women their rights, disregarding their dignity, or treating them as property.
(3) While this passage seems to assume that divorce was not uncommon in ancient Israel, by no means does it endorse this tragedy in a marriage.45 Whether or not divorce is morally justifiable, like 24:1–4 this text shows it was tolerated in Israel as a legal reality. With Exodus 21:10–11 our text suggests that releasing a slave wife or captive woman whom an Israelite warrior has married is preferable to the man refusing to fulfill his marital duties.
Except for groups that have split off from the Mormon church, the issues dealt with in verses 15–17 seem foreign to the Western world. However, in some parts of the world, particularly in the Muslim world and in sub-Saharan Africa, polygamy is widely practiced. Some social researchers estimate that more than half the men in Kenya are polygamous and one-third of the women are part of a plural marriage.46 Although the Scriptures do not explicitly ban polygamy, the practical problems the institution raises are well documented. A study of polygamy in Somalia revealed three recurring themes: jealous wives and abusive stepmothers, family honor, and respect for the free will and equality of all.47 Our text offers perspective on these situations, declaring that the relative status of one’s mother in such a context has no bearing on the dignity and humanity of the children. The gospel according to Moses and the gospel according to Jesus call on the redeemed to treat all human beings with the respect due them as image-bearers of God.
The rebellious son passage. Deuteronomy 21:18–21 is a favorite text for modern readers who balk at the authority the Old Testament. Texts like this lead many to reject biblical religion as inhumane and abusive.48 In Paul’s admonitions to children to obey their parents in all things for this is pleasing to the Lord (Eph. 6:1; Col. 3:20), he affirms that the principles governing domestic life in Israel are extended to Christian homes. Paul’s observation that this is the only command with a promise (Eph. 6:2) recognizes the link between respect for one’s past as embodied in parents and a satisfying future. However, in challenging children to honor their parents with obedience, he recognizes the fine line between appropriate discipline and abusive exasperations (Eph. 6:3; Col. 3:21). In the end all will account to God for the way they have fulfilled their domestic roles.
While some have advocated literal application of this text even for Christians,49 many simply dismiss this passage as a relic of the old covenant now irrelevant for Christians. If we want to take 2 Timothy 3:16 seriously and recognize that Paul is speaking there of the Old Testament, Christians should try to find a middle way. (1) We recognize that Moses is preaching a farewell address; he is not writing legislation.
(2) As with other constitutional documents of the Pentateuch,50 the regulations in Deuteronomy were not intended to function as a law code to be administered in the courts. The speeches of Moses provide foundational principles, creating a worldview that begins by recognizing Yahweh’s past grace in redeeming Israel from bondage, and then offers guidance in living out those principles. As Moses reiterates so often in the book and as the preamble to the Decalogue emphasizes, Israel is not called primarily to conformity to a code of conduct, but to a relationship with their gracious redeemer.
(3) While we must be cautious about arguing from silence, and while we recognize that the Old Testament narratives do not provide an exhaustive picture of ancient Israelite life, it is striking that the Old Testament provides no hints that these instructions were ever carried out.
(4) Finally, the Jewish interpretive tradition is unanimous in affirming this policy was never applied. Indeed, they engage in remarkable exegetical gymnastics to discount a literal interpretation.51
What, then, shall we do with this text? Recognizing it was given to people who claimed to be the community of faith, we do not expect the world to understand or even to want to be governed by biblical principles. But Christians should observe the high stock the Scriptures place on family relations, particularly the responsibility of parents in shaping the faith and lives of their children. Rebellion against parents may be natural, but it is never right. Alexandr Solzhenitsyn rightly insisted that a clear sign of the decadence of a culture is the loss of respect for the older generation.52 This problem is particularly acute in the modern Western world, where youthfulness rather than maturity is viewed as the ideal, and where, if children are valued, families have become pedocentric. This has produced a narcissistic society, with the individual at the center of the universe, and one’s responsibility to the community is diminished.
Texts like this not only place the burden of training children rightly on parents, but they also admit the potential for pain and disappointment, as children make free choices to rebel. The ultimate goal in parenting is to promote a healthy community beyond the nuclear family. Indeed, this text raises questions about the validity of the notion of a “nuclear family” itself. It does indeed take a village53 to raise godly children. In a healthy community, the well-being of every child is everyone’s business, and parents with rebellious children should not need to carry the burden alone.
On a tree. Since the manner of execution and the public exposure of the body proposed here have been rejected by virtually all modern peoples, it is difficult to talk about the significance of verses 22–23 for us. Nevertheless, while it concerns a criminal, it may have implications for how we treat the bodies of those who have died. Human beings, no matter how low morally, are still image-bearers of God, and the desecration of the image by mutilation of the body or allowing scavenging creatures to mutilate it is surely a biblical taboo.
However, the most striking significance for Christians is found in the allusion to Deuteronomy 21:22–23 in Galatians 3:13: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’ ” In a curious adaptation of this text (substituting “the curse of God” with “the curse of the law,” that is, the curse that the law declared on sinners),54 Paul states the truth concerning ourselves, that we all are sinners deserving the death of the criminal in view in Deuteronomy 21:22–23. This applies also to Jews who try to find salvation by keeping the law rather than by faith, casting themselves on God incarnate in Jesus Christ.
However, Paul also declares the glorious gospel that Christ himself became the curse that we all deserve by virtue of our sinful state. Through his death on the cross, Jesus Christ, the sinless sacrifice, atoned for our sins once and for all, thereby delivering us from the sentence of death that hangs over us all (cf. Rom. 6:23).55
Original Meaning
Righteousness in the Treatment of a Rebellious Son (21:18–21)
THE LOCATION OF THIS paragraph may suggest that the incorrigible son represents the son of the favored wife who, being denied bekôr status, turns against his parents and wastes his life with rebellion and profligate living.21 The foundation for these instructions have been laid in the Decalogue (5:16), echoes of which are heard in the twofold reference to both father and mother in verses 18 and 19. The fate of the rebellious son represents the opposite of the blessing that is presented as the reward for honoring one’s parents—“that it may go well with you.” By having his life cut off, this son experiences the ultimate curse.
The paragraph opens by presenting a hypothetical case of a man with a problematic son who is “stubborn and rebellious” (v. 18), a hendiadys for “stubbornly rebellious” or “utterly incorrigible.” The participle suggests the recalcitrance is neither occasional nor isolated, but a pattern by a young man who, while under the roof of his parents, should be assuming his share of the responsibilities within the household. The last clause of verse 18 adds to this image. Despite discipline by his parents, he refuses to listen. While the term “to discipline” (yissar) may be used of positive instruction or chastisement for wrongful behavior (22:18; cf. 8:5), here the discipline could have involved any actions ranging from rebuke to flogging.22
The description suggests the parents have done all they could to raise their son properly, but he is incorrigible and will not listen to either father or mother. The prescription for this son seems simple. The parents are to seize him, take him to the assembly of the elders in the town where they reside, present their case orally, and leave him with the men of the town, who will stone him to death (vv. 19–21a). Although the procedure appears straightforward, several details deserve comment. (1) The appearance of both father and mother before the elders reflects the status of women in the home.23 Because contempt for one’s mother is as objectionable as rebellion against one’s father, her voice also needed to be heard.
(2) The prescribed procedure shows that ultimate authority over life and death rests with the community. Since the body of elders was made up of heads of households, when parents present the case of a rebellious son to them, they appeal to peers to offer their righteous verdict. The effect is to reinforce social structures designed to promote the health of the community. The procedure in the gate is not conceived as a trial in the modern sense. The parents appear before the elders alone; in the proceedings the delinquent son does not defend himself and in so doing present a picture different from that painted by his parents. This does not mean the process was unfairly one-sided. The entire community, including the elders, will have witnessed the son’s incorrigibility and the efforts of the parents to correct him. The procedure is driven by a commitment to righteousness within the community when parental efforts fail.
(3) With a formal declaration of his social pathology before the elders, mother and father express their frustrations with an insubordinate son, who has renounced the parental bond. To the vices cited in verse 18 they add that he is “a glutton [NIV ‘profligate’] and a drunkard,” who wastes the resources of the community (cf. Prov. 23:20–21). The crisis is not caused by naughty children, but by a young man who refuses to grow up and take his rightful place at home and in society.24 Domestic dysfunction has become a public issue; the son’s conduct undermines the social order and communal peace.25
(4) Finally, Moses calls on the entire community to administer the punishment—in this case, stoning the incorrigible son to death. Unlike 17:7, which requires witnesses to a crime to initiate the execution, here the parents are not mentioned, presumably out of respect for their affection for their son. Having turned him over to the elders does not mean parental instincts have been stifled.
The instructions conclude with a rationale that highlights the significance of this action for the community. (1) Executing the incorrigible son purges “the evil” from the midst of Israel. Invoking the purgation formula, Moses elevates persistent insubordination to parents to the highest class of crimes that violate fundamental standards of covenant righteousness.26 (2) Executing the incorrigible son should inspire fear in the hearts and minds of all Israel. This motivation reinforces the links between insubordination to parents and leading fellow Israelites into idolatry (13:11[12]), refusing the judicial decision of the priest or judge (17:11), and false testimony against one’s countryman (19:19–20). Reports of this outcome should cause all Israelites to be in awe before their God and fear the fate of those who violate the covenant.
Bridging Contexts
ABUSE OF WOMEN. BIBLICAL allusions to these instructions on family and community life are scarce,34 but illustrations of the abuse of women contemplated here are ubiquitous in the narratives. The behavior of men in these accounts violates the trajectory of Deuteronomy 21. This trajectory, which begins in the Decalogue and continues throughout Moses’ second address, seeks to rein in the potential for men to abuse women, including their wives.35 Scholars have long recognized the attention that Deuteronomy pays to women’s rights36 in its concern for widows (10:17–18, et passim), the involvement of women in worship (12:12, et passim), the manumission of female slaves (15:12), and military exemptions for newly married husbands (20:7). This is the first in a series of texts that focuses on protecting women’s dignity within the household.37 These texts assume that the way men treat women is a barometer of the spiritual climate of the nation.38
Although the institution of marriage should have provided security for wives, in ancient Israel not all women were equally secure and equally loved. Apart from variations in the characters of their husbands, institutional factors contributing to a woman’s insecurity included polygamy, divorce, and widowhood. Polygamy—simultaneous marriage to more than one wife, more precisely polygyny—presented challenges for both husband and wives. Although the Old Testament presents monogamy (one husband, one wife) as the ideal (Gen. 2:24–25), the constitutional texts do not outlaw polygamy for the general population, and narratives report numerous polygamous examples.39 Multiple wives reflected a man’s wealth and status within the community. The only person for whom the practice was expressly forbidden was the king (Deut. 17:17), and that for religious reasons—wives (presumably foreign wives acquired through dynastic marriage) would deflect him from wholehearted devotion to Yahweh.
The stresses created by bigamy and polygyny are evident in several Old Testament narratives. However the tensions do not appear to arise over inheritance or the status of the children in the family, but over the problem of barrenness. In the cases involving Rachel and Hannah, the favored wife was unable to have a child who could be a candidate for the bekôr. The words for the favored (ʾāhab) and the spurned (śānēʾ) wife link our text directly with Jacob’s household (Gen. 29:30–31), where the unloved wife was prolific and the loved wife jealous of her sister (30:1). Rachel eventually had two sons, but she did not live long enough to see Joseph assume the role of bekôr, nor her younger grandson Ephraim be promised hegemony over the family—ultimately the northern tribes (48:19–20). However, ultimately the status of bekôr in relation to the clan is ceded to Judah, the third son of the spurned wife (Gen. 49:8–12).
Hannah’s case was similar. Her rival, Peninnah, has sons and daughters (1 Sam. 1:4), but Hannah cannot conceive (1:1–8), causing Peninnah to provoke and irritate her bitterly. While we know nothing of the status of the spurned wife’s children, by divinely granted conception and divine call, as prophet and priest Hannah’s son Samuel functions as the bekôr of the nation. But neither case reflects a struggle between wives over whose son will be the bekôr.
Incorrigible children. We cannot tell if Moses’ instructions regarding incorrigible children were ever applied in Israel. Eli’s sons go their own ways (1 Sam. 2:12–17), refusing to heed the rebuke of their father (2:22–25) and eventually losing their lives for their crimes (2:25, 27–36; 3:10–14; 4:10–18), but the narrator never portrays their crimes as persistent rebellion against their father; it was directly against Yahweh. Samuel’s sons also depart from their father’s course (1 Sam. 8:1–3), but this is not cast as rebellion against Samuel. The nearest the narratives come to an event like that envisioned here involves the young lads who mock Elisha as a “baldhead,” for which they are mauled and killed by two female bears (2 Kings 2:23–25). However the episode does not involve parents and sons, but a prophet and someone else’s children. These are not young adults characterized by stubbornness, rebellion, gluttony, and drunkenness, but naughty small boys mocking a prophetic representative of Yahweh.
Whether or not the penalty Moses prescribed was ever enforced, this text emphasizes the high stock covenantal righteousness places in respect for parents.40 The refusal to distinguish between respect for father and mother accords with Proverbs 6:20, which places a mother’s teaching on par with a father’s command. Like later sages in Israel, Moses commends parents for disciplining their children, but he also acknowledges that children make their own choices, and sometimes the courses they choose are opposed to everything they have been taught.41 In such cases parents are neither culpable for their children’s profligate lives, nor are they free to carry out the present policy. That must be left to the community leaders.
Some see this text in the background of Hosea’s portrayal of Israel as a rebellious son in Hosea 11.42 Despite Yahweh’s tender care and sustaining love (11:3–4), the son has gone after other gods (v. 2) and persists in turning from him (vv. 5–7). In describing Yahweh’s agony over his options, and whether or not to inflict Israel with the ultimate punishment as spelled out in the covenant curses, Hosea offers a rare window into the internal turmoil in Yahweh’s mind:
How can I give you up, Ephraim?
How can I hand you over, Israel?
How can I treat you like Admah?
How can I make you like Zeboiim? (Hos. 11:8a)
In the end his compassion wins out over his fury:
My heart is changed within me;
all my compassion is aroused.
I will not carry out my fierce anger,
nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim.
For I am God, and not man—
the Holy One among you.
I will not come in wrath. (11:8b–9)
There is no authority to whom Yahweh can appeal, and he surely has the legal right to punish his son. In the end compassion wins out over wrath; restoration is preferred over judgment.
Hanging on a tree overnight. As with the previous instructions, it is difficult to determine the extent to which the Israelites applied the regulations in verses 22–23. According to Joshua 8:29, Joshua obeyed them scrupulously, even with reference to the Canaanite king of Ai. He hung the king on a tree until evening, but at sunset he ordered the removal of the body. His men deposited it at the entrance of the gate of the city and buried it under a heap of stones. Apparently he did the same with the kings of the southern Canaanite alliance (Josh. 10:26–27).
In later times, this passage was interpreted as advocating a form of execution. This is evident especially in the Temple Scroll from Qumran, which elaborates on the present text:
If a man passes on information against his people or betrays his people to a foreign nation, or does evil against his people, you shall hang him on a tree and he will die. On the evidence of two witnesses or on the evidence of three witnesses he shall be put to death and they shall hang him on the tree. If it happens that a man has committed a capital offence and he escapes amongst the nations and curses his people /and/ the children of Israel, he [sic; read “him”] also you shall hang on the tree and he will die. And their corpse shall not spend the night on the tree; instead you shall bury them that day because those hanged on a tree are cursed by God and man; thus you shall not defile the land which I give you for inheritance. (LXIV:7–13)43
Clear echoes of our text may be heard in the New Testament, especially in references to the crucifixion of Jesus. In Acts 5:30 and 10:39–40 Peter accuses the Jews of killing Jesus by hanging him on a tree. In Acts 13:28–29 Paul uses similar language; after emphasizing the criminal nature of Jesus’ execution (“they found no proper ground for a death sentence,” 13:28), he speaks of Jesus’ removal from the tree and his burial in a tomb.44
Contemporary Significance
MARRIAGE ISSUES AND PRINCIPLES. Deuteronomy 21:10–14 offers our world helpful insights into the biblical view of marriage. (1) Unlike the categorical prohibition of intermarriage with Canaanites in chapter 7, Moses expresses no hesitation in Israelites marrying foreigners. He assumes that, like Ruth, those foreigners will be fully integrated into the community.
(2) This text reminds contemporary readers, especially males, that whether native or alien, women in general and wives in particular must be treated with dignity and respect for their personhood and their identity. The biblical paradigm of marriage and family is clearly patricentric, but this offers God’s people no grounds whatsoever for denying women their rights, disregarding their dignity, or treating them as property.
(3) While this passage seems to assume that divorce was not uncommon in ancient Israel, by no means does it endorse this tragedy in a marriage.45 Whether or not divorce is morally justifiable, like 24:1–4 this text shows it was tolerated in Israel as a legal reality. With Exodus 21:10–11 our text suggests that releasing a slave wife or captive woman whom an Israelite warrior has married is preferable to the man refusing to fulfill his marital duties.
Except for groups that have split off from the Mormon church, the issues dealt with in verses 15–17 seem foreign to the Western world. However, in some parts of the world, particularly in the Muslim world and in sub-Saharan Africa, polygamy is widely practiced. Some social researchers estimate that more than half the men in Kenya are polygamous and one-third of the women are part of a plural marriage.46 Although the Scriptures do not explicitly ban polygamy, the practical problems the institution raises are well documented. A study of polygamy in Somalia revealed three recurring themes: jealous wives and abusive stepmothers, family honor, and respect for the free will and equality of all.47 Our text offers perspective on these situations, declaring that the relative status of one’s mother in such a context has no bearing on the dignity and humanity of the children. The gospel according to Moses and the gospel according to Jesus call on the redeemed to treat all human beings with the respect due them as image-bearers of God.
The rebellious son passage. Deuteronomy 21:18–21 is a favorite text for modern readers who balk at the authority the Old Testament. Texts like this lead many to reject biblical religion as inhumane and abusive.48 In Paul’s admonitions to children to obey their parents in all things for this is pleasing to the Lord (Eph. 6:1; Col. 3:20), he affirms that the principles governing domestic life in Israel are extended to Christian homes. Paul’s observation that this is the only command with a promise (Eph. 6:2) recognizes the link between respect for one’s past as embodied in parents and a satisfying future. However, in challenging children to honor their parents with obedience, he recognizes the fine line between appropriate discipline and abusive exasperations (Eph. 6:3; Col. 3:21). In the end all will account to God for the way they have fulfilled their domestic roles.
While some have advocated literal application of this text even for Christians,49 many simply dismiss this passage as a relic of the old covenant now irrelevant for Christians. If we want to take 2 Timothy 3:16 seriously and recognize that Paul is speaking there of the Old Testament, Christians should try to find a middle way. (1) We recognize that Moses is preaching a farewell address; he is not writing legislation.
(2) As with other constitutional documents of the Pentateuch,50 the regulations in Deuteronomy were not intended to function as a law code to be administered in the courts. The speeches of Moses provide foundational principles, creating a worldview that begins by recognizing Yahweh’s past grace in redeeming Israel from bondage, and then offers guidance in living out those principles. As Moses reiterates so often in the book and as the preamble to the Decalogue emphasizes, Israel is not called primarily to conformity to a code of conduct, but to a relationship with their gracious redeemer.
(3) While we must be cautious about arguing from silence, and while we recognize that the Old Testament narratives do not provide an exhaustive picture of ancient Israelite life, it is striking that the Old Testament provides no hints that these instructions were ever carried out.
(4) Finally, the Jewish interpretive tradition is unanimous in affirming this policy was never applied. Indeed, they engage in remarkable exegetical gymnastics to discount a literal interpretation.51
What, then, shall we do with this text? Recognizing it was given to people who claimed to be the community of faith, we do not expect the world to understand or even to want to be governed by biblical principles. But Christians should observe the high stock the Scriptures place on family relations, particularly the responsibility of parents in shaping the faith and lives of their children. Rebellion against parents may be natural, but it is never right. Alexandr Solzhenitsyn rightly insisted that a clear sign of the decadence of a culture is the loss of respect for the older generation.52 This problem is particularly acute in the modern Western world, where youthfulness rather than maturity is viewed as the ideal, and where, if children are valued, families have become pedocentric. This has produced a narcissistic society, with the individual at the center of the universe, and one’s responsibility to the community is diminished.
Texts like this not only place the burden of training children rightly on parents, but they also admit the potential for pain and disappointment, as children make free choices to rebel. The ultimate goal in parenting is to promote a healthy community beyond the nuclear family. Indeed, this text raises questions about the validity of the notion of a “nuclear family” itself. It does indeed take a village53 to raise godly children. In a healthy community, the well-being of every child is everyone’s business, and parents with rebellious children should not need to carry the burden alone.
On a tree. Since the manner of execution and the public exposure of the body proposed here have been rejected by virtually all modern peoples, it is difficult to talk about the significance of verses 22–23 for us. Nevertheless, while it concerns a criminal, it may have implications for how we treat the bodies of those who have died. Human beings, no matter how low morally, are still image-bearers of God, and the desecration of the image by mutilation of the body or allowing scavenging creatures to mutilate it is surely a biblical taboo.
However, the most striking significance for Christians is found in the allusion to Deuteronomy 21:22–23 in Galatians 3:13: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’ ” In a curious adaptation of this text (substituting “the curse of God” with “the curse of the law,” that is, the curse that the law declared on sinners),54 Paul states the truth concerning ourselves, that we all are sinners deserving the death of the criminal in view in Deuteronomy 21:22–23. This applies also to Jews who try to find salvation by keeping the law rather than by faith, casting themselves on God incarnate in Jesus Christ.
However, Paul also declares the glorious gospel that Christ himself became the curse that we all deserve by virtue of our sinful state. Through his death on the cross, Jesus Christ, the sinless sacrifice, atoned for our sins once and for all, thereby delivering us from the sentence of death that hangs over us all (cf. Rom. 6:23).55
Original Meaning
Righteousness in the Treatment of a Criminal’s Remains (21:22–23)
OF THE FIVE SUBJECTS dealt with in chapter 21, the disposal of an executed criminal is the shortest—but also the most problematic for modern readers. This topic seems to have been triggered by the reference to the execution of the incorrigible son. The intent of these instructions is to protect the land from the defilement that an exposed body would produce.
Verse 22 assumes three stages in the legal procedure involving a capital crime. (1) It is established that the person is guilty of a crime worthy of death. The opening clause presupposes a careful investigation, leading to the conclusion that follows: The suspect has committed a capital crime and must be executed. This class of crimes includes murder, idolatry, and persistent insubordination to parents, but the location of this paragraph suggests Moses may have in mind particularly the incorrigible son. (2) The person has been executed. (3) The person’s body is hung on a tree.27 The verb tālâ denotes “to hang up” the corpse of someone already executed. Displaying the body of a criminal by hanging it in a public place28 served two purposes: to shame the individual even after his death, and to deter others from committing the crime.
Moses prescribes the treatment of the criminal’s body that has been hung from a tree from two sides (v. 23a-b). Negatively, the people may not let the corpse hang overnight. Positively, they must bury any criminal on the day of execution. Whereas Israel’s neighbors would leave human corpses exposed to be eaten by birds and other scavenging animals,29 Deuteronomy considers this a most severe curse (28:26). The rationale for burying the body is couched in ambiguous terms: “A person who is hanged is a curse of God” (pers. trans.). The statement raises several questions.
(1) How should we interpret the phrase “a curse of God”? The breadth of support in ancient sources argues for interpreting the phrase as an objective genitive; “the curse of God” refers to something people do to or against God (cf. Lev. 24:15).30 However, the NIV’s “[he] is under God’s curse,” which assumes a subjective genitive interpretation, is also ancient.31 Although Paul omits any reference to “God” in Galatians 3:13, this is the interpretation he follows.32 This approach has dominated Christian interpretation from the beginning.33
(2) But this raises a second question: Is the person cursed because his body is hung from a tree, or is he hung from a tree because he is cursed? Since the person who hangs from a tree has suffered “the sentence of death,” it appears the person hangs for all to see because he is cursed of God.
This paragraph concludes with a motive clause, expressing concern for the sanctity of the land that Yahweh is giving to Israel. To spare the relatives of the criminal further grief or to prevent the animals from publicly dismembering the body, burying the corpse seems both natural and humane. This command is rooted in the implications of hanging for the land: The exposed corpse defiles the ground on which the people live and from which they draw their sustenance (cf. vv 1–9). The purity of the land demands the body be removed from sight and buried.
Bridging Contexts
ABUSE OF WOMEN. BIBLICAL allusions to these instructions on family and community life are scarce,34 but illustrations of the abuse of women contemplated here are ubiquitous in the narratives. The behavior of men in these accounts violates the trajectory of Deuteronomy 21. This trajectory, which begins in the Decalogue and continues throughout Moses’ second address, seeks to rein in the potential for men to abuse women, including their wives.35 Scholars have long recognized the attention that Deuteronomy pays to women’s rights36 in its concern for widows (10:17–18, et passim), the involvement of women in worship (12:12, et passim), the manumission of female slaves (15:12), and military exemptions for newly married husbands (20:7). This is the first in a series of texts that focuses on protecting women’s dignity within the household.37 These texts assume that the way men treat women is a barometer of the spiritual climate of the nation.38
Although the institution of marriage should have provided security for wives, in ancient Israel not all women were equally secure and equally loved. Apart from variations in the characters of their husbands, institutional factors contributing to a woman’s insecurity included polygamy, divorce, and widowhood. Polygamy—simultaneous marriage to more than one wife, more precisely polygyny—presented challenges for both husband and wives. Although the Old Testament presents monogamy (one husband, one wife) as the ideal (Gen. 2:24–25), the constitutional texts do not outlaw polygamy for the general population, and narratives report numerous polygamous examples.39 Multiple wives reflected a man’s wealth and status within the community. The only person for whom the practice was expressly forbidden was the king (Deut. 17:17), and that for religious reasons—wives (presumably foreign wives acquired through dynastic marriage) would deflect him from wholehearted devotion to Yahweh.
The stresses created by bigamy and polygyny are evident in several Old Testament narratives. However the tensions do not appear to arise over inheritance or the status of the children in the family, but over the problem of barrenness. In the cases involving Rachel and Hannah, the favored wife was unable to have a child who could be a candidate for the bekôr. The words for the favored (ʾāhab) and the spurned (śānēʾ) wife link our text directly with Jacob’s household (Gen. 29:30–31), where the unloved wife was prolific and the loved wife jealous of her sister (30:1). Rachel eventually had two sons, but she did not live long enough to see Joseph assume the role of bekôr, nor her younger grandson Ephraim be promised hegemony over the family—ultimately the northern tribes (48:19–20). However, ultimately the status of bekôr in relation to the clan is ceded to Judah, the third son of the spurned wife (Gen. 49:8–12).
Hannah’s case was similar. Her rival, Peninnah, has sons and daughters (1 Sam. 1:4), but Hannah cannot conceive (1:1–8), causing Peninnah to provoke and irritate her bitterly. While we know nothing of the status of the spurned wife’s children, by divinely granted conception and divine call, as prophet and priest Hannah’s son Samuel functions as the bekôr of the nation. But neither case reflects a struggle between wives over whose son will be the bekôr.
Incorrigible children. We cannot tell if Moses’ instructions regarding incorrigible children were ever applied in Israel. Eli’s sons go their own ways (1 Sam. 2:12–17), refusing to heed the rebuke of their father (2:22–25) and eventually losing their lives for their crimes (2:25, 27–36; 3:10–14; 4:10–18), but the narrator never portrays their crimes as persistent rebellion against their father; it was directly against Yahweh. Samuel’s sons also depart from their father’s course (1 Sam. 8:1–3), but this is not cast as rebellion against Samuel. The nearest the narratives come to an event like that envisioned here involves the young lads who mock Elisha as a “baldhead,” for which they are mauled and killed by two female bears (2 Kings 2:23–25). However the episode does not involve parents and sons, but a prophet and someone else’s children. These are not young adults characterized by stubbornness, rebellion, gluttony, and drunkenness, but naughty small boys mocking a prophetic representative of Yahweh.
Whether or not the penalty Moses prescribed was ever enforced, this text emphasizes the high stock covenantal righteousness places in respect for parents.40 The refusal to distinguish between respect for father and mother accords with Proverbs 6:20, which places a mother’s teaching on par with a father’s command. Like later sages in Israel, Moses commends parents for disciplining their children, but he also acknowledges that children make their own choices, and sometimes the courses they choose are opposed to everything they have been taught.41 In such cases parents are neither culpable for their children’s profligate lives, nor are they free to carry out the present policy. That must be left to the community leaders.
Some see this text in the background of Hosea’s portrayal of Israel as a rebellious son in Hosea 11.42 Despite Yahweh’s tender care and sustaining love (11:3–4), the son has gone after other gods (v. 2) and persists in turning from him (vv. 5–7). In describing Yahweh’s agony over his options, and whether or not to inflict Israel with the ultimate punishment as spelled out in the covenant curses, Hosea offers a rare window into the internal turmoil in Yahweh’s mind:
How can I give you up, Ephraim?
How can I hand you over, Israel?
How can I treat you like Admah?
How can I make you like Zeboiim? (Hos. 11:8a)
In the end his compassion wins out over his fury:
My heart is changed within me;
all my compassion is aroused.
I will not carry out my fierce anger,
nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim.
For I am God, and not man—
the Holy One among you.
I will not come in wrath. (11:8b–9)
There is no authority to whom Yahweh can appeal, and he surely has the legal right to punish his son. In the end compassion wins out over wrath; restoration is preferred over judgment.
Hanging on a tree overnight. As with the previous instructions, it is difficult to determine the extent to which the Israelites applied the regulations in verses 22–23. According to Joshua 8:29, Joshua obeyed them scrupulously, even with reference to the Canaanite king of Ai. He hung the king on a tree until evening, but at sunset he ordered the removal of the body. His men deposited it at the entrance of the gate of the city and buried it under a heap of stones. Apparently he did the same with the kings of the southern Canaanite alliance (Josh. 10:26–27).
In later times, this passage was interpreted as advocating a form of execution. This is evident especially in the Temple Scroll from Qumran, which elaborates on the present text:
If a man passes on information against his people or betrays his people to a foreign nation, or does evil against his people, you shall hang him on a tree and he will die. On the evidence of two witnesses or on the evidence of three witnesses he shall be put to death and they shall hang him on the tree. If it happens that a man has committed a capital offence and he escapes amongst the nations and curses his people /and/ the children of Israel, he [sic; read “him”] also you shall hang on the tree and he will die. And their corpse shall not spend the night on the tree; instead you shall bury them that day because those hanged on a tree are cursed by God and man; thus you shall not defile the land which I give you for inheritance. (LXIV:7–13)43
Clear echoes of our text may be heard in the New Testament, especially in references to the crucifixion of Jesus. In Acts 5:30 and 10:39–40 Peter accuses the Jews of killing Jesus by hanging him on a tree. In Acts 13:28–29 Paul uses similar language; after emphasizing the criminal nature of Jesus’ execution (“they found no proper ground for a death sentence,” 13:28), he speaks of Jesus’ removal from the tree and his burial in a tomb.44
Contemporary Significance
MARRIAGE ISSUES AND PRINCIPLES. Deuteronomy 21:10–14 offers our world helpful insights into the biblical view of marriage. (1) Unlike the categorical prohibition of intermarriage with Canaanites in chapter 7, Moses expresses no hesitation in Israelites marrying foreigners. He assumes that, like Ruth, those foreigners will be fully integrated into the community.
(2) This text reminds contemporary readers, especially males, that whether native or alien, women in general and wives in particular must be treated with dignity and respect for their personhood and their identity. The biblical paradigm of marriage and family is clearly patricentric, but this offers God’s people no grounds whatsoever for denying women their rights, disregarding their dignity, or treating them as property.
(3) While this passage seems to assume that divorce was not uncommon in ancient Israel, by no means does it endorse this tragedy in a marriage.45 Whether or not divorce is morally justifiable, like 24:1–4 this text shows it was tolerated in Israel as a legal reality. With Exodus 21:10–11 our text suggests that releasing a slave wife or captive woman whom an Israelite warrior has married is preferable to the man refusing to fulfill his marital duties.
Except for groups that have split off from the Mormon church, the issues dealt with in verses 15–17 seem foreign to the Western world. However, in some parts of the world, particularly in the Muslim world and in sub-Saharan Africa, polygamy is widely practiced. Some social researchers estimate that more than half the men in Kenya are polygamous and one-third of the women are part of a plural marriage.46 Although the Scriptures do not explicitly ban polygamy, the practical problems the institution raises are well documented. A study of polygamy in Somalia revealed three recurring themes: jealous wives and abusive stepmothers, family honor, and respect for the free will and equality of all.47 Our text offers perspective on these situations, declaring that the relative status of one’s mother in such a context has no bearing on the dignity and humanity of the children. The gospel according to Moses and the gospel according to Jesus call on the redeemed to treat all human beings with the respect due them as image-bearers of God.
The rebellious son passage. Deuteronomy 21:18–21 is a favorite text for modern readers who balk at the authority the Old Testament. Texts like this lead many to reject biblical religion as inhumane and abusive.48 In Paul’s admonitions to children to obey their parents in all things for this is pleasing to the Lord (Eph. 6:1; Col. 3:20), he affirms that the principles governing domestic life in Israel are extended to Christian homes. Paul’s observation that this is the only command with a promise (Eph. 6:2) recognizes the link between respect for one’s past as embodied in parents and a satisfying future. However, in challenging children to honor their parents with obedience, he recognizes the fine line between appropriate discipline and abusive exasperations (Eph. 6:3; Col. 3:21). In the end all will account to God for the way they have fulfilled their domestic roles.
While some have advocated literal application of this text even for Christians,49 many simply dismiss this passage as a relic of the old covenant now irrelevant for Christians. If we want to take 2 Timothy 3:16 seriously and recognize that Paul is speaking there of the Old Testament, Christians should try to find a middle way. (1) We recognize that Moses is preaching a farewell address; he is not writing legislation.
(2) As with other constitutional documents of the Pentateuch,50 the regulations in Deuteronomy were not intended to function as a law code to be administered in the courts. The speeches of Moses provide foundational principles, creating a worldview that begins by recognizing Yahweh’s past grace in redeeming Israel from bondage, and then offers guidance in living out those principles. As Moses reiterates so often in the book and as the preamble to the Decalogue emphasizes, Israel is not called primarily to conformity to a code of conduct, but to a relationship with their gracious redeemer.
(3) While we must be cautious about arguing from silence, and while we recognize that the Old Testament narratives do not provide an exhaustive picture of ancient Israelite life, it is striking that the Old Testament provides no hints that these instructions were ever carried out.
(4) Finally, the Jewish interpretive tradition is unanimous in affirming this policy was never applied. Indeed, they engage in remarkable exegetical gymnastics to discount a literal interpretation.51
What, then, shall we do with this text? Recognizing it was given to people who claimed to be the community of faith, we do not expect the world to understand or even to want to be governed by biblical principles. But Christians should observe the high stock the Scriptures place on family relations, particularly the responsibility of parents in shaping the faith and lives of their children. Rebellion against parents may be natural, but it is never right. Alexandr Solzhenitsyn rightly insisted that a clear sign of the decadence of a culture is the loss of respect for the older generation.52 This problem is particularly acute in the modern Western world, where youthfulness rather than maturity is viewed as the ideal, and where, if children are valued, families have become pedocentric. This has produced a narcissistic society, with the individual at the center of the universe, and one’s responsibility to the community is diminished.
Texts like this not only place the burden of training children rightly on parents, but they also admit the potential for pain and disappointment, as children make free choices to rebel. The ultimate goal in parenting is to promote a healthy community beyond the nuclear family. Indeed, this text raises questions about the validity of the notion of a “nuclear family” itself. It does indeed take a village53 to raise godly children. In a healthy community, the well-being of every child is everyone’s business, and parents with rebellious children should not need to carry the burden alone.
On a tree. Since the manner of execution and the public exposure of the body proposed here have been rejected by virtually all modern peoples, it is difficult to talk about the significance of verses 22–23 for us. Nevertheless, while it concerns a criminal, it may have implications for how we treat the bodies of those who have died. Human beings, no matter how low morally, are still image-bearers of God, and the desecration of the image by mutilation of the body or allowing scavenging creatures to mutilate it is surely a biblical taboo.
However, the most striking significance for Christians is found in the allusion to Deuteronomy 21:22–23 in Galatians 3:13: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’ ” In a curious adaptation of this text (substituting “the curse of God” with “the curse of the law,” that is, the curse that the law declared on sinners),54 Paul states the truth concerning ourselves, that we all are sinners deserving the death of the criminal in view in Deuteronomy 21:22–23. This applies also to Jews who try to find salvation by keeping the law rather than by faith, casting themselves on God incarnate in Jesus Christ.
However, Paul also declares the glorious gospel that Christ himself became the curse that we all deserve by virtue of our sinful state. Through his death on the cross, Jesus Christ, the sinless sacrifice, atoned for our sins once and for all, thereby delivering us from the sentence of death that hangs over us all (cf. Rom. 6:23).55