← Back to sermon library

Okay, you can turn in your Bibles 
to Deuteronomy chapter 21 as we return to our study in this 
fifth book of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy, remember 
it's a series of addresses by Moses on the plains of Moab to 
the children of Israel prior to their entrance into the promised 
land prior to their entrance into Canaan, where they will 
indeed dispossess the land of the Canaanites and take their 
possession, or take the possession that God had given to them by 
his grace. The largest section of the book 
deals with the law, chapter 4, verse 49, all the way to chapter 
26 and verse 19. Remember that in chapter 5, the 
Decalogue, or the 10 words, the 10 commandments are given That 
is the foundation, the sum and substance of Israel's moral code, 
not just Israel but all men everywhere. And then what we have after Deuteronomy 
chapter 5 is an application and a detailed exposition of how 
those laws apply in the land that the Lord God is giving to 
them. Now we need to remember, as we 
approach this particular chapter, we are not a theocracy. Israel 
was a theocracy, that means they were ruled directly by God, and 
these were rules or laws that would apply to them in the land 
of Canaan. So as we work our way through 
this particular chapter, you will see things that do not apply. 
like when we want to take a wife that's a captive or a prisoner 
from war. Obviously, that's not something 
that is directly applicable to us in our current situation. 
So basically, what I want to do is study the passage with 
a view, to expound it, to see what it meant in its context, 
and then draw out some lessons that are appropriate to us. And one of the things that I 
think is helpful as we approach this book is to read it or to 
have a bit of an understanding in terms of apologetics. By apologetics, 
I mean defense of the faith. Very often, Christians sound 
like they're embarrassed of what we find in the Old Testament. 
In fact, the non-Christian oftentimes takes shots at the Old Testament, 
saying that it's barbaric and it's inhumane and it's just filled 
with, you know, a wrathful, vengeful God doing horrific things. Well, I think one of the points 
or one of the things that I want to get across tonight as we study 
this passage is that it is equitable, that it is fair, that it is righteous, 
that it is just, and that it does reflect the character of 
a good and a holy and a gracious God. So basically there are five 
sections in chapter 21 or five particular issues that Moses 
deals with. The first is the law concerning 
an unsolved murder. or an unsolved homicide. The 
second is the rule on how to obtain a wife with reference 
to female prisoners of war. Again, I know that sounds a little 
bit shocking that we would study this in our context, but please 
bear with me. The third section is the inheritance 
right of the firstborn son. The fourth section deals with 
the rebellious son or the incorrigible son. And then the chapter ends 
by detailing the disposition of the body of an executed criminal. So now that we've alienated everybody 
that's out there listening, who are probably shutting off their 
computer, I would say stick around. This does have a lot of bearing 
for us. So I'll just read the chapter, 
beginning in chapter 21, verse 1. If anyone is found slain lying 
in the field in the land which the Lord your God is giving you 
to possess, and it is not known who killed him, then your elders 
and your judges shall go out and measure the distance from 
the slain man to the surrounding cities. And it shall be that 
the elders of the city nearest to the slain man will take a 
heifer which has not been worked and which is not pulled with 
a yoke. The elders of that city shall bring the heifer down to 
a valley with flowing water, which is neither plowed nor sown, 
and they shall break the heifer's neck there in the valley. Then 
the priests, the sons of Levi, shall come near. For the Lord 
your God has chosen them to minister to him and to bless in the name 
of the Lord. By their word, every controversy 
and every assault shall be settled. and all the elders of that city 
nearest to the slain man shall wash their hands over the heifer 
whose neck was broken in the valley. Then they shall answer 
and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, nor have our eyes 
seen it. Provide atonement, O Lord, for 
your people Israel, whom you have redeemed, and do not lay 
innocent blood to the charge of your people Israel. And atonement 
shall be provided on their behalf for the blood. So you shall put 
away the guilt of innocent blood from among you when you do what 
is right in the sight of the Lord. When you go out to war 
against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into 
your hand, and you take them captive, and you see among the 
captives a beautiful woman, and desire her, and would take her 
for your wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, 
and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall 
put off the clothes of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn 
her father and her mother a full month. After that, you may go 
into her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. And 
it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her 
free, but you certainly shall not sell her for money. You shall 
not treat her brutally because you have humbled her. If a man 
has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, and they have 
born him children, both the loved and the unloved, and the firstborn 
son is of her who is unloved. Then it shall be, on the day 
he bequeaths his possessions to his sons, that he must not 
bestow firstborn status on the son of the loved wife in preference 
to the son of the unloved. the true firstborn, but he shall 
acknowledge the son of the unloved wife as the firstborn by giving 
him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning 
of his strength. The right of the firstborn is 
his. If a man has a stubborn and rebellious 
son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of 
his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not 
heed them, Then his father and his mother shall take hold of 
him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate 
of his city. And they shall say to the elders 
of his city, this son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He 
will not obey our voice. He is a glutton and a drunkard. 
then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with 
stones. So you shall put away the evil 
from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear. If a man 
has committed a sin deserving of death, and he is put to death, 
and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain overnight 
on the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day, so that you 
do not defile the land which the Lord your God is giving you 
as an inheritance. For he who is hanged is accursed 
of God. Amen. So just a reminder, we 
are not in a theocracy. There is not a direct one-for-one 
correlation between chapter 21 and the situation that we find 
ourselves in. Again, this is not the land of 
Canaan. But nevertheless, there are very 
valuable and very important lessons here. So our confession of faith 
says the judicial law has expired with that body politic, speaking 
of the theocracy of Israel. But it does go on to indicate 
that the general equity of those laws do continue on. I take from 
that there is wisdom to be gleaned, there is instruction to be had 
when we look at these judicial laws as they function in the 
land of Canaan. So the first section, as I mentioned, 
deals with the rule regarding an unsolved homicide. Presumably it was a murder, but 
I don't think anything argues against it being an accidental 
homicide. Basically, somebody comes across 
a dead body. There's no evidence, they didn't 
have the DNA capability to figure out who it was that was responsible 
for that particular body. That's the situation. Verse 1, 
If anyone is found slain, lying in the field in the land, which 
the Lord your God is giving you to possess? It's important. You 
note that, you note the last verse in the chapter, where it 
speaks of not defiling the land which the Lord your God is giving 
you as an inheritance. The Lord gave them this gift 
and the Lord regulates how they are to conduct themselves in 
the land. It was paramount and it was absolutely 
crucial that through their own recklessness and through their 
own sinfulness and through their own waywardness they didn't defile 
the land. That's why these laws are given, 
that's why these prescriptions are set down, so that the people 
of Israel would not abominate the land that the Lord God had 
given to them. So someone finds lying in the 
field, in the land, which the Lord your God is giving you to 
possess, and it is not known who killed him. So we don't understand 
or we don't have a particular perpetrator, we don't have a 
particular suspect. That then introduces a particular 
rule in verses 2 to 8. Basically what happens is the 
elders and the judges go out and measure the distance from 
the slain man to the surrounding cities. Now these elders and 
judges more than likely are from that central tribunal, those 
indicated in chapter 17, verses 8 to 13. Not the local city, 
not the local level judiciary, probably these are from the central 
tribunal. We notice that because priests 
then make an appearance in verse 5, they too made up. that central 
tribunal. So basically they find the body 
and then they measure the distance and the city that is nearest 
assumes responsibility for this particular corpse. So then what happens in verse 
3? it shall be that the elders of the city nearest to the slain 
man will take a heifer which has not been worked and which 
is not pulled with a yoke. This isn't a typical common garden 
variety cultic sacrifice. This is not the rule prescribed 
for how one does a sacrifice. Probably what we have here is 
a particular right associated with this civil crime that does 
bring atonement or provides atonement or covering for the guilt of 
the sin that has been incurred. Notice in verse 4, the elders 
of that city shall bring the heifer down to a valley with 
flowing water. Again, not take it to the altar, 
but take it to this particular valley? Probably because the 
crime itself happened in an isolated place. Not that they're duplicating 
the crime in a one-for-one manner, but it's not a cultic situation. It's not a sacrifice per se, 
rather it is a means by which this particular victim, his blood 
is being atoned for. And so the elders take the heifer 
down to a valley with flowing water which is neither plowed 
nor sown and they shall break the heifer's neck there in the 
valley. And then verse 5, the priests, 
the sons of Levi shall come near for the Lord your God has chosen 
them to minister to him and to bless in the name of the Lord 
by their word every controversy and every assault shall be settled." 
So they break the neck, it's not, you know, put the knife 
in as it would be in a cultic sacrifice, but they break the 
neck and then they bring the heifer down to 
a valley with flowing water, and then they break the neck 
in the valley there, and I think what is being, oh there it is, 
verse six, and all the elders of that city nearest to the slain 
man shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken 
in the valley. So they've assumed responsibility, 
but they are free from the guilt of this particular criminal activity. So there is responsibility assumed 
by the city that is nearest. They're not saying they've actually 
done this, but they're going through this particular rite 
so that the land does not bear defilement as a result of this 
innocent blood. And then notice the prayer in 
verses 7 and 8. Then they shall answer and say, 
Our hands have not shed this blood, nor have our eyes seen 
it. Provide atonement, O Lord, for 
your people Israel, whom you have redeemed, and do not lay 
innocent blood to the charge of your people Israel." So again, 
what is being done here is atonement for this particular crime. Because 
we can't find the perpetrator, because we don't have a suspect, 
the elders from the closest city accept responsibility. They break 
the neck of this particular heifer And then they, as sort of a visible, 
tangible way of getting rid of the guilt of this sin, they engage 
in this particular activity. They wash their hands over the 
heifer whose neck was broken in the valley. We see something 
similar in the rite dealing with the scapegoat. Remember what 
happens with the scapegoat, Leviticus 16. They send the goat out into 
the wilderness as a visible, emblematic sign that sin has 
been removed from the camp. That's what I think is going 
on here in verse 6 with this particular rite. But then notice 
the nature of their prayer. When they pray, they say, Our 
hands have not shed this blood, nor have our eyes seen it. Provide 
atonement, O Lord. It's a very interesting concept. 
They took seriously life. Even if they didn't have a perpetrator 
and they didn't have a suspect, they didn't just say, well, you 
know, that's the way things go when you live in the land of 
Canaan. No, each body, each criminal activity, each unaccounted for 
death, murder, homicide needed to be reckoned with. And I'll 
give a quote in just a moment that shows something of the significance 
of that. But notice in this prayer. Craigie 
says, the basis for forgiveness is offered in the prayer. It 
is not the merit of Israel, but the fact that God had ransomed 
his people from the bondage of Egypt. Notice, our hands have 
not shed this blood, nor have our eyes seen it. Provide atonement, 
O Lord, for your people Israel, whom you have redeemed. not who 
are a wonderful lot, not who is an excellent group, but rather 
the ones whom you have redeemed, Lord. The act of ransom itself 
had been an act of grace. And on the basis of such glorious 
precedent, the elders sought another act of grace in receiving 
the forgiveness of God. So you see, when a man was wandering 
by and he saw this body, he didn't just write this off. No, he took 
it to the tribunal. They sent out officers. They 
measured the distance. The elders within the city that 
was closest assumed judicial responsibility for the blood 
that was shed by breaking the neck of the heifer, by laying 
their hands over it, by giving this tangible evidence and then 
praying to the Lord, there was atonement. And this is precisely 
what the text specifies. It says, and atonement shall 
be provided on their behalf for the blood, and then the very 
specific purpose, so you shall put away the guilt of innocent 
blood from among you when you do what is right in the sight 
of the Lord. You need to remember that death 
murder, accidental homicide, while oftentimes ignored by us, 
is not ignored by God the Lord. He actually values his image 
bearers. Christopher Wright said this. 
It's a bit of a lengthy quote, but I think it really does draw 
out a most excellent lesson that we ought to gain from this section. He says, it is often when the 
Old Testament seems most culturally remote from us that we need to 
pay closest attention to its challenge. He says, what ought 
to strike us from this law is not the oddity of a cow with 
a broken neck in an uninhabited wadi. but the expected response 
of the whole community through its civil, judicial, and religious 
leaders to a single human death. One person matters in Old Covenant 
Israel. He goes on to say, in our society, 
a violent death has to be particularly gruesome or shocking to become 
even newsworthy. I mean, it's probably going to 
be the case that if you walk into a bank and you only shoot 
five people, you're not going to make it on the 11 o'clock 
news. I mean, we've got people shooting, 
you know, whole scads, you know, movie theaters full of people. 
He says, We have lost not only any concept of corporate responsibility 
for blood guilt, having rejected a sovereign moral god to whom 
we might even be corporately responsible, he says, but we 
increasingly have lost any sense of the sanctity of life itself. We, or at least our emergency 
services, can cope with hundreds of road deaths. We can tolerate 
millions of abortions. What need have we for rituals 
of cleansing that would acknowledge responsibility even where personal 
guilt cannot be assigned? Shedding innocent blood, which 
is what verse 9 says, has become a fact of life, silently sanitized 
by statistics. I mean, that is a pretty conspicuous 
lesson from this passage. I mean, we're talking about one 
body that somebody finds. There's no perpetrator. There's 
no suspect. Do we just bury them in a field 
and say, well, you know, that's the price of doing business in 
a fallen world? No, we go to the tribunal. we 
measure out the distance, the elders accept responsibility, 
they take the heifer into the prescribed place, they break 
its neck, they cleanse their hands, they seek God in prayer 
for atonement, for the blood guiltiness of the land, and God 
grants them this favorably. I mean, that passage in Numbers 
35, I think, I've always thought, is very chilling in light of 
things like abortion, in light of things like unpunished murderers. In Numbers 35, it says, moreover, 
you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is 
guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death. You shall 
take no ransom for him who has fled to his city of refuge, that 
he may return to dwell in the land before the death of the 
priest. So you shall not pollute the land where you are, for blood 
defiles the land and no atonement can be made for the land for 
the blood that is shed on it except by the blood of him who 
shed it." Again, this isn't Canaan. This isn't a theocracy, but certainly 
God still abominates hands that shed innocent blood. There was 
a stipulation in place to deal with an unsolved homicide in 
Old Covenant Israel. It highlights and underscores 
for us the value of the sanctity of life. The life of man has 
sanctity because we are made in the image of God Most High. As Gerhardus Voss said, when 
man assaults another, when man seeks to destroy another, it 
is the image of God that is ultimately under attack because we bear 
God's holy image. So chapter 21, verses 1 to 9, 
in terms of cows and neck breaking and flowing water and all that 
sort of thing may seem far removed. But the underlying principle 
in terms of the value of human life and the dignity of life 
and dealing even with an unsolved murder or an unsolved homicide 
goes a long way to furthering the interests of God Most High. Notice, secondly, the female 
prisoner of war. These next three have to deal 
with family matters. We have the female prisoner of 
war, and I call it a family matter because a man is seeking a wife. 
Then we have the account of the firstborn son, and then we have 
the account of the rebellious son. So the three central ones 
deal with the home, deal with family. Notice specifically in 
verses 10 to 14, when you go out to war against your enemies 
and the Lord your God delivers them into your hand and you take 
them captive. We need to remember Deuteronomy 
7 and we need to remember Deuteronomy 20. There were seven nations 
specified that they were not to take captive. There were seven 
nations specified that they were to obliterate. They were to utterly 
destroy. In fact, if you go back to Deuteronomy 
chapter 7 for just a moment, just to remind ourselves that 
the cities in view in chapter 21, 10 to 14, are those cities 
far away. not the cities under the ban, 
not the cities of the Canaanites. Notice in chapter 7 verse 1, 
when the Lord your God brings you into the land which you go 
to possess and has cast out many nations before you, the Hittites 
and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites 
and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier 
than you. And when the Lord your God delivers 
them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with 
them, nor show mercy to them. nor shall you make marriages 
with them. You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor 
take their daughter for your son. For they will turn your 
sons away from following me to serve other gods. So the anger 
of the Lord will be aroused against you and destroy you suddenly. 
But thus you shall deal with them. You shall destroy their 
altars and break down their sacred pillars and cut down their wooden 
images and burn their carved images with fire." So those are 
not the cities in view here. with these female captives. Going 
back to Chapter 21, if you look over in Chapter 20, verses 10 
to 15, deal with those cities which are very far from you. Those were the cities that you 
could offer a peace treaty to and bring them into subjection 
and plunder their goods. So there's a distinction here. 
Not the cities under the ban. So these female captives come 
from those cities that were conquered in war according to the plan 
and will of God. Now notice the law concerning 
these female captives. When you read this, it probably 
seems a bit bizarre, doesn't it? Do you know that this passage 
is protecting the female captive? That's what the text is about. See, this body of legislation, 
far from being a barbaric and brutal code, is equitable. It is good. It is righteous. It is kind. The person protected 
is the woman. Christopher Wright, again, says 
this. We might like to live in a world 
without wars, and thus without prisoners of war, right? However, 
Old Testament law recognizes such realities and seeks to mitigate 
their worst effects by protecting the victims as far as possible. If we ask whose interests this 
law serves, the answer is clearly the female captive. If we ask 
whose power is being restricted, the answer, equally clear, is 
the victorious soldier. The law is thus a paradigm case 
of the Old Testament's concern to defend the weak against the 
strong, war being one of the most tragic human expressions 
of that situation. So if we ask the question, what 
are the means of protection specified in the passage for this particular 
woman? Notice verse 11, you see among 
the captives a beautiful woman and desire her and would take 
her home for your wife. Then you shall bring her home 
to your house and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. 
Don't let that you know, just throw you into a tizzy here. 
That was what the leper had to do in a law of purification. 
That's what a Levite had to do in a law of purification. Speaks 
of purifying oneself. Speaks of transfer from the foreign 
community to the covenant community. Also indicates the mourning that 
would go on. She shall put off the clothes 
of her captivity, remain in your house and mourn after her father 
and her mother a full month. After that you may go into her 
and be her husband and she shall be your wife. First of all, the 
woman is not to be raped or violated. What is in view is marriage, 
a binding, solemn covenant before God the Lord. Verse 13 indicates 
that. Verse 13 highlights that. After that, you may go into her 
and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. Do you actually 
think that armies alongside of Israel had a mandate from their 
God not to go out and plunder the women and use them as the 
objects of their lust? The Yahweh of Israel specifies 
that if you see a female captive that you are interested in, there 
are laws and rules regulating how you are to pursue that particular 
individual. The woman is not to be raped 
or violated, only marriage is intended. Secondly, the woman 
is to be given time to adjust to her new circumstances within 
the home, not a prisoner of war camp. She is given time. She is given space. Now again, 
we may not like this particular arrangement. It might not be 
the way that we would choose. But remember, we just conquered 
this particular city-state in war. No other persons or or people 
groups have such noble ways of conquest. Remember, this is a 
wartime situation, a wartime contingency. The shaving of the 
head, the trimming of the nails indicates, again, purification 
rights, transfer from the foreign community, the covenant community, 
And then mourning, as the text goes on to indicate. She mourns 
her father and her mother. She's giving time to adjust to 
her new surroundings. Notice, thirdly, the soldier, 
the victor, the man, has to restrain himself for an entire month. He's not supposed to engage in 
sexual relations. He's not supposed to engage in 
sexual congress with the intention here of a full month. Again, 
I doubt that Babylon or Assyria operated in such a noble fashion. When they went in and conquered, 
I doubt that marriage was the issue, I doubt that rules were 
prescribed, and I doubt that they waited a month before they 
engaged in satisfying their desires. But then notice, specifically 
in verse 14, And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, 
then you shall, here it is, set her free. Now, feasibly, she 
could have been a slave woman in the city that you conquered. 
She could have been a slave in that body politic. She has now 
been brought into a covenant community. She has been married. Yes, the man finds no favor in 
her, so he sends her out. But she is not property. She 
is not for purchase. She is free to go wherever she 
wants. You shall set her free. You certainly 
shall not sell her for money. You shall not treat her brutally 
because you have humbled her. So what we find here is consistent 
with what we'll find in Deuteronomy 24. We are not to assume that 
this divorce is any different than what we find in Deuteronomy 
24. But the point is, when she is sent out, she is sent out 
as a free woman, not a prisoner of war, not a conquered piece 
of property, not a piece of chattel that is up for grabs for anybody 
out there. She has legal rights. She has 
legal protection. And she has the law of God on 
her particular side. It really is quite a blessed 
state. and position for a woman whose 
city was destroyed, she's been brought into the community, and 
not only being brought into the community, she may be married 
to this particular man until death does them part, or he may 
send her away, but she goes away as a free woman, not as a prisoner 
of war. It's really amazing, the equity 
that we find here. Thirdly, the right of the firstborn 
son. forgot to mention in the introduction. 
Polygamy is also in the passage here, right? If a man, verse 
15, has two wives, One loved and the other unloved, 
and they have born in children, both the loved and the unloved. 
And if the firstborn son is of her who is unloved, then it shall 
be on the day he bequeaths his possessions to his sons that 
he must not bestow firstborn status on the son of the loved 
wife in preference to the son of the unloved, the true firstborn." 
Pretty easy. Guy's got two wives. You know, 
he really loves this one, and this one not so much. So what 
is the tendency? The tendency is to favor the 
son in that union. Right? That's not what you're 
supposed to do. If the firstborn is from the 
woman that you don't love so much, he has the legal prerogatives. He has the rights. And in fact, 
he gets a double portion of the inheritance. So what, again, 
is God doing here? He is protecting the innocent 
in this particular arrangement. Now polygamy is not sanctioned 
here. It is assumed. But the fact that 
it is there, God regulates it for the protection of the innocent. 
There are various things since the fall that have been introduced 
into this world that if there was no fall, there wouldn't be 
that. But because there was a fall 
and there is that, God then regulates to protect the innocent. I probably 
just lost everybody, so let me say that again. If we lived in 
an unfallen world, you wouldn't need a law for divorce, right? If we lived in an unfallen world, 
you wouldn't need detailed legislation about capital punishment. If 
we lived in an unfallen world, you wouldn't need legislation 
on how to treat a thief. But we don't live in an unfallen 
world. We live in a fallen world such 
that laws concerning slavery, laws concerning polygamy, laws 
concerning punishment, laws concerning warfare are given to protect 
the innocent people in that particular circumstance. So that polygamy 
was being practiced, no one will argue, based on this text. But that God regulates it so 
that this woman's son, because the man doesn't love her as much 
as this one, he is not without protection. He has the law of 
God on his side to afford him, not just the firstborn inheritance, 
but a double portion. Verse 17, he shall acknowledge 
the son of the unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a 
double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning 
of his strength. The right of the firstborn is 
his. So there are issues that exist 
as a result of sin. And what God then does is speak 
to those circumstances to afford protection for those who are 
most vulnerable in a given situation. That's why in Deuteronomy 24 
there's legislation concerning divorce. It's to protect the 
women. It's to afford them legal status. It is to cover them so they're 
not left to bandy about in Israel seeking what they may from whomever 
they may. These laws are good and right 
and just, and that is what Moses is giving them on the plains 
of Moab. Now, unfortunately, as soon as they enter into the 
land of Canaan, they don't do any of this, right? They go in 
and they set up a store. But on this side of the plains 
of Moab, this is their marching orders on how they are to conduct 
themselves in the land of Canaan, in the language of Deuteronomy 
4, so that the nation surrounding them would see them as a model 
and would see the wisdom of God and the wisdom of their laws 
displayed in that particular body politic. Now we move from 
this situation, which speaks of Basically, parental fatherly 
abuse, right? Isn't that what we find here? 
The firstborn inheritance rights speaks and seeks to reduce the 
tyranny of a father. Right? Everybody with me? If 
I'm a father and I've got two wives and I prefer this one over 
this one, so I'm going to make sure he gets the large share, 
that's a tyrannical decision on my part. I am living arbitrarily. I am living with disregard to 
God and His Word. No, we need to honor the inheritance 
laws of the firstborn. So if verses 15 to 17 deal with 
the tyranny that can affect the family, verses 18 to 21 deal 
with the anarchy they can deal, or they can affect 
the family. You see? We move from the son 
that is being shunned to the son that needs to be shunned. That's the connection here. Meredith 
Klein says it this way. If misuse of authority produced 
tyranny, disrespect for proper authority would produce anarchy, 
the very contradiction of the covenant order as a manifestation 
of Yahweh's Lordship." It's a great statement. Meredith Klein, Varsalou 
calls him the theological Shakespeare. He and I just read a book together 
by Meredith Klein and it was like reading theological Shakespeare, 
but he nails it. There's a connection here. We've 
got tyranny in the first section. We've got anarchy in verses 18 
to 21. Now, this passage has been misunderstood, so we're 
going to try to navigate our way through it so that we have 
a proper understanding. Again, it probably cuts against 
the grain of what we're used to. It certainly is not what 
we witness in our own generation, but it's not what oftentimes 
it's purported to be. Notice, with reference to the 
identification of this sun. We need to identify what we're 
dealing with here in verses 18 to 21. We're not dealing with 
a five-year-old. We're not dealing with the terrible 
twos here. The text does not apply to a 
naughty child, but to a rebellious adult son. Probably late teens 
is where he's at. Some use the word adolescent. I don't think the word adolescent 
was even acknowledged in this particular time frame. You had 
child, you had adult, okay? You didn't have sort of this 
in-between where kids play Nintendo and, you know, do nothing. They 
were either a child or they were adult. Adolescence is an American 
phenomenon. That's, you know, what we categorize 
that age when they don't do anything except they're a pain in the 
neck. So the text does not apply to a naughty child, but to a 
rebellious adult son. How do we know that he's a rebellious 
adult son? Because five-year-olds are not 
gluttons and drunkards. I mean, a five-year-old may eat 
an extra piece of cake, or he may eat an extra piece of pie. 
But the text is specific. And notice, that's not his sin. It's not that he's being brought 
up to be stoned to death because he's a glutton and a drunkard. 
gluttony and drunkenness are symptomatic of his life as a 
rebel disobedient to his parents and therefore disobedience to 
the God of Israel remember the fifth commandment is absolutely 
crucial in the proper order of society it's not only parental 
authority, but it's societal authority. If a young man is 
going to disobey his parents, he is certainly going to disobey 
the RCMP, or whatever the equivalent was in Old Covenant Israel. So 
the text does not apply to a naughty child, but to a rebellious adult 
son. Secondly, the text presupposes 
the exercise of parental discipline. These aren't shoddy parents. 
These aren't terrible parents. Aren't we often prone to do that? 
We see a particularly good son, whatever we want to 
call him, a knucklehead. We automatically assume that 
his parents must be Satan. No, maybe they actually have 
sought to chasten him. That's what's envisioned here. 
When they have chastened him and will not heed them. This 
is a last resort. They're not just saying to this 
son who came home on a Friday night drunk, hey, I'm taking 
you to the elders and they're going to stone you. No, these 
parents have borne long with this particular child. Thirdly, 
this passage demonstrates the state's, follow me, monopoly 
on capital punishment. You know what a monopoly is? 
That means when the state has the absolute right for a particular 
task. It is the state that executes 
criminals, not the family. It is the state that executes 
the criminal, not the church. God has given the sword, not 
to the family, not to the church, but he has given the sword to 
the state. Genesis chapter 9 verse 6 and 
Romans chapter 13 verses 1 to 4 make this evident, make this 
clear. Fourthly, this particular case 
shows the equality of parental authority for both father and 
mother. Notice, he will not obey the 
voice of his father or the voice of his mother. Honor your parents, 
plural, not just your father. The mother has the crown set 
on her head by God Most High for the infliction of parental 
discipline. And then fifthly, this case highlights 
the specific violation in view. He is stubborn and rebellious. That's his issue. The two symptoms 
are drunkenness and gluttony. So it's not as if he ate too 
much and he drank too many beers, let's take him to the city, let's 
take him to the elders rather, and have the men of the city 
take him outside and stone him. No, he is rebellious, he is incorrigible, 
he cannot be reasoned with, he will not listen, he will not 
submit himself, and two of the symptomatic patterns of his life 
are this gluttony and drunkenness. Craigie says, the latter words, 
glutton and a drunkard, do not specify the crime, but indicate 
by way of example the kind of life that has resulted from disobedience 
to parental authority. We need to inculcate this in 
our children. No good ever comes from disobeying 
your parents. No good ever comes from learning 
how to resist authority. No good ever comes because God 
has stationed authority over you. And to resist your parents, 
and according to Paul in Romans 13, to resist the state is to 
resist God Himself. That is bad. Notice the particular 
rule involved, verses 19 to 21. The parents are involved. They take him to the elders of 
the city. The parents level charges concerning 
his crimes. They bring him out to the elders 
of the city, to the gate of the city, and they shall say to the 
elders of the city, this son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. 
But brethren, again, I don't think these people are cavalier 
here. I don't think they're just, you know, hey, well, you know, 
he did this. This is killing these parents. This is tough. Their son is beyond hope. Their 
son is resistant. Their son is rebellious. Their 
son is incorrigible. They now have to come and participate 
in the judicial proceedings. We're not to suppose that the 
laws of Deuteronomy 17 don't apply. What we find here is some 
shorthand. They make the report. The son 
is executed. Well, certainly the laws of witnesses 
and evidences, all that's taken into play. They're just a bit 
of shorthand here to get to the particular point. So they shall 
say to the elders of the city, imagine having to do this. This 
son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey our voice. He 
is a glutton and a drunkard. They probably said this with 
tears, knowing the inevitable result. This is the last resort. This isn't, you know, I'm going 
to check him into rehab. What's the result here? Verse 
21. Then all the men of his city... 
And again, I believe Deuteronomy 17. It's taken into place. They've heard the witnesses, 
they've surveyed the data, they've interviewed friends, they've 
interrogated witnesses. Then all the men of his city 
shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall put away 
the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear. Verne Poythress in his helpful 
book called The Shadow of Christ and the Law of Moses said this, 
the death penalty for wholesale violation of parental authority 
may seem harsh to modern sentiments. He says, but I would argue that 
it is not only just, but realistic. Listen to his reasoning. Parental 
authority, even if very imperfectly exercised, every parent exercises 
it imperfectly, right? Even the Apostle in Hebrews 12, 
they disciplined us as seemed best to them. There's an arbitrariness 
about parental authority. There's an inconsistency. There 
is a sinfulness. But nevertheless, He says, parental 
authority, even if very imperfectly exercised, takes place in the 
context of personal relationships and natural pressures in the 
direction of love. He says, parents have many advantages 
over the state. If a person does not receive 
instruction from parents, the chances of receiving instruction 
from the states, more impersonal discipline, are nil. He says 
the person who rebels in wholesale fashion against parents will 
also rebel against the state and create general destruction 
and disorder until eliminated. He says it is mere sentimentality 
to refuse to come to grips with this reality. There's some bad 
eggs out there. There's some incorrigible sons 
out there. And there was an old covenant 
Israel. It was at least in view. And if it got to that point, 
then these sons themselves were a threat to the very order. And 
so the parents had a responsibility to bring him to the elders of 
the city. to make this statement and then 
turn him over for execution. Again, it's not a five-year-old. 
It's not the first. This is after a long process, 
I am sure. Probably the last thing that 
the husband or the wife wanted to hear was, we need to take 
him to the elders. Probably a lot of chastening 
and a lot of hardship and a lot of tears and a lot of pleading 
and a lot of loving and a lot of pressure went on that young 
man before he ever got to the point where he was turned over 
for this particular punishment. And then fifthly and finally, 
the disposition of the body of an executed criminal. And again, 
just reading that is like, whoa, man. But this was something you 
had to deal with. I mean, God, through Moses, is 
laying down the necessity for capital punishment. That creates 
an issue. What do we do with these bodies 
after we stone them to death? Well, it seems to be the case 
that they would put the body on a tree. But they weren't supposed 
to leave the body on the tree overnight. That's what this particular 
law speaks to. This doesn't have in view military 
operations. There were times they would hang 
up offending kings and offending soldiers on a tree. This is to 
deal with those who had within the body politic committed a 
sin deserving death. He is put to death not by hanging 
on the tree. He is put to death more than 
likely by stoning and then he is hung on the tree probably 
so that Israel would hear and fear. so that they would not 
engage in the same activity. So the disposition of the body, 
according to verse 23, his body shall not remain overnight on 
the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day, so that you 
do not defile the land which the Lord your God is giving you 
as an inheritance, for he who is hanged is accursed of God. So it is a rule or a law prescribing 
the disposition of the body of the executed criminal. You don't 
leave him on the tree overnight. You take his body off of the 
tree and then you bury the body. Even in the execution of just 
judgment and righteousness, There is a humanity involved, there 
is a dignity that goes alongside even the disposal of the body 
in this particular situation. Craigie reminds us, the body 
was not accursed of God because it was hanging on a tree. It 
was hanging on a tree because it was accursed of God. Now I 
submit that these five lessons or these five sections in Deuteronomy 
21 teach us something of the equity of God's law. God's law 
is just. God's law is right. Whether we 
are familiar with thinking about how to deal with female prisoners, 
if we want to marry them or not. You cannot come away from this 
thinking that God did not speak to a situation and build into 
it protection for the victim or protection for the, not the 
victim necessarily, the protection for the weak one or for the one 
that was at a position of disadvantage. We see the equity of law In verses 
15 to 17, the firstborn gets the inheritance, a double inheritance, 
even if it happens to be his mother isn't as loved as much 
as the other mother. And then we see the equity of 
the law with reference to the unsolved murder, the rebellious 
son, and then this situation concerning the hanging of a body. But I think this passage or this 
section also teaches us something about the glory of God's Son. You might wonder, how? Well, 
21, 1 to 9, uphold the principle of substitutionary curse bearing. It upholds the principle of substitute. Now, there are differences between 
the cultic sacrificial death of animals in the temple or in 
the tabernacle. But nevertheless, this heifer 
who had its neck broken, there was death that occurred to an 
innocent victim. And it was based on the death 
of that innocent victim that atonement came to the land. But as well, this rebellious 
son narrative teaches us something about the glory of the Son of 
God. Remember that instance in Matthew 
11, specifically in verse 9. Oops, sorry about that. Verse 
19, what did they accuse Jesus of? What? That's right. What do you think was in their 
mind? He's a winebibber and a glutton. He's a drunkard and a glutton. He deserves to die. Well, Jesus, the innocent, takes 
on all of our wine-bibbing and gluttony and dies in our stead. I think really what we're supposed 
to see there with the theologian, Matthew, is that that was their 
charge against Jesus, wine-bibber and a glutton. In other words, 
he was the sinful and the rebellious son. But the section as a whole 
teaches us it's really Israel. that is the Deuteronomy 21, winebibber, 
glutton, disobedient son. And if you say, well, that's 
a bit of a stretch there. Well, different terminology to 
be sure. If we went to the Greek translation, 
different words than what are used specifically in Matthew 
21. But certainly the concepts are 
there. But you see, we have a New Testament use of Deuteronomy 
21 with reference to the death of Jesus Christ. in this last 
statement, for he who is hanged is accursed of God. Paul the 
Apostle appeals to this in Galatians chapter 3 verse 13. Christ was made a curse for us. So we see the equity of God's 
law in Deuteronomy 21, but we see the glory, the beauty, and 
the majesty of God's Son. Substitutionary curse bearing, 
Christ taking on himself the role, not the actual activity 
of the rebellious son, but standing in the place of the true rebellious 
son, you and I, and being taken outside the city and essentially 
stoned to death with stones. And then we find this statement 
that he who is hanged is accursed of God, applied to the Lord of 
glory, in Galatians chapter 3 verse 13. So Deuteronomy 21, though 
with a bit of a different application, does show itself in Matthew 11 
and in Galatians 3, and it teaches us that not only is God's law 
equitable, but God's Son is glorious. So let us pray. Our Father, we 
thank You for Your Word, we thank You for Your holiness, we thank 
You for the fact that You have dealt so graciously and so mercifully 
with us. We thank You, God, for blood 
atonement through the Lamb, We thank you for that one who died 
in our place and who rose again and now lives at your right hand 
where he always lives to make intercession for his people. 
God may these passages teach us about our Savior and may these 
passages as well teach us about your kindness and your grace 
and your goodness. Even in your law you regulate 
society so that the innocent and the victim and the the weak 
are oftentimes protected. We just pray now that you would 
go with us, watch over us in the remainder of this week. Bless 
all of our brothers and sisters who are unable to be with us 
tonight. Bless all those, Lord God, in our local church. And 
we pray through Christ our Lord. Amen.