Well, you can turn to Deuteronomy chapter 21. We continue to see various emphases within the community, the covenant community in old covenant Israel. And as we read chapter the things will seem a bit odd to us and a bit far removed because we don't live in a society like but I think as we move through particular chapter the equity of God's law and its blessedness aside in civil society and the various matters that affect us in life in this world. So basically what we want to cover in terms of the sections we see the law concerning an unsolved homicide in verses 1 to9 the law concerning female in verses 10 to 14 law concerning the firstborn son in vers 17.
The law 18 to 21 and then finally the law concerning the hang in verses 22 and 23. So I'll read beginning in verse one. 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 heer which has not been worked and which is not pulled with a yoke. The elders of that city shall bring the heer down to a valley with flowing water which is neither plowed nor sown. and they shall break the heer's neck there in the valley. Then the priests, the sons of Levi shall come near. The L uh 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 heer 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 shall put away the guilt, 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 God delivers them into your hand and you take them captive and you the captives beautiful woman and her take her for your wife. Then 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 mother month. After that you may go into her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free, but you shall not 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 borne him 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 bequaths his possessions to his sons, that he not 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 unlo loved 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 stubborn son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother and who when they have chasened 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 obey our voice. He is 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 in fear. If a man has committed a sin deserving of death and he is put to death and you hang him tree, his body shall not remain on the tree. shall bear 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 a cursed of God. Amen.
Introduction: Blood Guilt and the Land
Verse one and then again in verse 23 we see one of the primary emphases in the passage it is to prevent blood guilt guiltiness from settling upon the land. So notice in verse one,
Scripture Reading: Deuteronomy 21
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 and then dropping down to verse 9. 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. Same emphasis there with reference to the hanged man in verse 23. The idea being is that the guilt incurred by inhabitants of old covenant Israel bring defilement upon the land.
So there were remedies and there were prescriptions given such to remove that guilt such that the people of God could enjoy the favor and blessing in spite of the commission of crime in spite of the various penalties appended to the breaking of the law. As I said, there are uh uh specific instances here concerning an unsolved homicide, female captives, and then specific family me uh matters with reference to the the firstborn and the rebellious son, and then the hang. So,
The Unsolved Homicide (vv. 1–9)
let's look at the law concerning an unsolved homicide in verses 1 to9. We see the death of a person in verse one. I don't know is there the possibility is there certainly there that it was a murder or the possibility was is that it was an accidental homicide but the bottom line is is that somebody is found slain and there's no perpetrator there's no suspect there's nobody accused of actually killing this particular individual the point specifically is regardless of how the person was killed the law applied as undelt with blood in the land would defile the land. And I think behind this is numbers 35.
You can turn there and there specifically in numbers 35:33. It demands the execution of a murderer. But the specific reason or rationale I think the theological principle carries over here to Deuteronomy 21 35:33. 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. So in other words, if somebody's guilty of the crime of murder, the law demanded that they be executed such that the pollution of that be lifted from the land. And then notice in Deuteronomy 12 at or I'm 19 we similar emphasis in Deuteronomy 19 specifically at verse 13. Your eyes shall not pity him but you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel that it may go well with you.
So the situation in chapter 21 at verse one we have no criminal. We have no suspect. We have nobody who accidentally committed this homicide and thus must flee to the city of refuge. But nevertheless, God's law speaks even to this one that is unknown perhaps to a multitude of people.
Nevertheless, there must be atonement provided. And thus, the rules are given. Notice the responsibility of the community in verse two. Then your elders and your judges shall go out and measure the distance from the slain man to the surrounding cities.
The elders in the city nearest assume responsibility to comply with the specific law governing this unsolved homicide. And again, if you're thinking thus far, you'll understand that God puts a priority on human life. This is a very sanctity of lifeish passage that demands our attention because while it seems far removed from us, it nevertheless underscores something different concerning old covenant Israel and the way they were supposed to function and what we find today. How many people are murdered?
How many people die? How many people or uh bloodshed has polluted the land? And we don't even think about it. We don't have any consciousness of it.
It's from us and it demands no attention whatsoever. Not so was the case in old covenant Israel. Notice then the atonement for this man in verses 3 to six tells shall be nearest to the slain man take heer which has not been wor which is not pulled with a yoke going to argue that this is typological that this shows forth an atonement provided by a substitute. Other words, I think what Moses is doing here on the plains of Moab is foreshadowing the work of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Not only here in verses 1-9, but also in verses 18 and then again in verses 22 23. This is a very Christocentric passage in terms of typology, but specifically with reference to the context, you take this heer that has not been worked and has not been uh pulled with a yoke. Notice then in verse four, the that city shall bring the heer down to a valley with flowing water, which is neither plowed nor sown, and they shall break the heer's neck there in the valley. Then the priests, the sons of Levi shall come here, 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 hepher whose neck was broken in the valley. So in terms of the procedure, we've got the death of the heer. Probably not simply as a sacrifice, but somewhat of a sacrifice. I think the accent falls on the substitutionary nature of this particular beast represented the representing slain man whose innocent blood was shed and thus could pollute or defile the land.
Notice as well the function of priests in civil and matters. They didn't just have ecclesiastical functions or functions associated with worship in the cult, but they had civil and criminal uh uh functions as well. And most likely the washing of the hands was probably an elimination right, a depiction that while they accepted responsibility, they themselves were free from guilt associated with that particular crime. So what Moses is legislating or what God is legislating through Moses again is to make sure that defilement doesn't upon the land for innocent blood that was shed.
There must be atonement made. And that brings us to verse seven in the prayer by the elders. 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.
An atonement shall be provided on their behalf for the blood. Craigy says the basis for forgiveness is offered in prayer. It is not in the merit of Israel, but the fact that God had ransomed his people from the bondage of Egypt. The act of ransom had been an act of grace.
And on the basis of such glorious precedent, the elders are sought another act of grace in receiving the forgiveness of God. Again, Numbers 35 demands the execution of a murderer such that the land is not defiled or polluted. Deuteronomy 19:13 indicates the same thing. You need to punish criminal offenders lest the innocent blood of those shed defile and pollute the land.
That brings us to the particular purpose here in verse 9. So you put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you and when you do what is uh when you do what is right in the sight of the Lord. I mentioned that often times murders and homicides and things go unnoticed in our own generation. And that wasn't supposed to be the case in old covenant Israel.
Again I know that it happened. I know that subsequent to the giving of the law here in Deuteronomy the people of Israel sinned. People of Israel gave you know safe haven to criminals. The leadership in Israel often acted like criminals.
Kings in Israel offered their sons up to Molech. But in terms of the way God intended civil society to function is that we ought to be concerned about the shedding of innocent blood. We ought to be concerned about the sorts of things that go on unabated in our own generation. Christopher Wright makes this observation.
He says, "
Corporate Responsibility for Innocent Blood
It is often when the Old Testament seems most culturally remote from us that we need to pay closest attention to its challenge. What ought to strike us from this law is not the oddity of a cow with broken neck in an uninhabited brook, but the expected response of a whole community through its civic, judicial, and religious leaders to a single human death. In our society, a violent death had to be particularly gruesome or shocking to become even newsworthy, let alone a matter for public penitence. We have lost not only any concept of corporate responsibility for blood guilt, having rejected a sovereign moral God to whom we might be corporately responsible, but we have increasingly 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 a sign? Shedding innocent blood sign has become a fact of life.
Silently sanitized by statistics. I think he makes a very good observation and a very valid point. If you get anything from chapter 21:es 1-9, don't get wow that's an odd ritual breaking the neck of a heer then God and asking for atonement. get the fact that God is concerned with the death of an unnamed person stumbled upon by somebody else and structures within his law a mean atonement for the guilt involved in the shedding of that blood. God does oppose murder.
God uphold the sanctity of life and numbers 21 1-9 highlights that very clearly.
The Female Captive (vv. 10–14)
Now the next is the law concerning captives. Notice in verse 10, you go out to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hand and you take them captive. Now remember back in chapter 20, we looked at this last Wednesday night. You had the rules of engagement for enemies.
And specifically in verses 10 to 15, you had the cities outside of Canaan. And then in verses 16 to 20, you had the cities within Canaan. Now in 16 to 20 with reference to the land in uh the the the enemies within the land of Canaan, they were bound by holy war to utterly destroy them and to dispossess the land of all the Canaanites. Not such was not the case in vers 10 to 15.
You offer them peace. If they accept peace, put them under tribute. If they don't accept peace, then you engage them. And when you engage them, you're going to win because God fights for you.
And when you win, you're going to kill the combatants, but you're going to be left with a lot of non-combatants visav women and children. Go back with me to chapter 20 at verse 10. When you go near a city to fight against it and proclaim an offer of peace to it, and it shall be that if they accept your offer of peace and open to you, then all the people who are found in it shall be placed under tribute to you and serve you. Now if the city will not make peace with you, but war against you, then you shall besiege it.
And when the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, you shall every male in it with the edge of the sword, but the women, the little ones, the livestock, and all that is in the city, and all its spoil, you shall plunder for yourself. And you shall eat the enemy's plunder, which the Lord your God gives you. Thus you shall do to all the cities which are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations. those nations stipulated in verses 16 to 18 the cities within the land of Canaan that they were under the stricture of holy war to utterly destroy and dispossess from the land. So notice then in terms of the victory of God over God's enemy o over Israel's enemies.
We're reminded in verse 10 that it's the Lord your God who delivers them into your hand. That was a recurring emphasis in the principles of warfare chapter in chapter 20 specifically in verses 1 to4. Don't fear them. Don't fear their horses.
Don't fear their multitude, but rather know that God is present with you and he's the power behind you. And even the passage we just read specifically at 20 verse4, and you shall eat the enemy's plunder which the Lord your God gives you. So God stipulates this. God prescribes this.
You engage in this warfare, you slay the combatants, you're going to be left with the non-combatants, the women and the children. And so now here in chapter 21, we see what happens to those women and to those children. And a cursory reading might suggest this is quite brutal. This is quite unsaavory.
This is quite unnecessary. But I think that as we move through it, you will see that it's actually very gracious and very generous. So notice in verse 11, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman and desire her and would take her for your wife. So the specific purpose in view is that an Israelite soldier sees a woman and she's pleasing to him.
He wants not to rape her, not to brutalize her, not to just have indiscriminate relations with her, to marry her. He wants her as a wife. That's the specific expressed here. Christopher Wright again says, "We might like to live in a world without wars and thus without prisoners of war." However, Old Testament law recognizes such realities and seeks to mitigate their effects by protecting the victims as far as possible.
If we ask whose interests this law serves, the answer is clearly the female C. You're going to have to that as we move through. Again, we read this and we can't even imagine such a thing because we don't go out to warfare. We don't destroy combatants.
We're not left with a whole host of women and children wondering what now with them. This particular law protects the female captives. He goes on to ask whose power is beinged the answer equally clearly is the victorious soldier. The law is thus a paradigm case of the Old Testament to defend the weak against the strong.
War being one of the most tragic human expressions of that situation. So let's look then at the protection afforded to this woman. Again, the intention of the Israelite soldier is marriage to her. rape, not indiscriminate sexual relations, not as a slave, not as a servant, as you know, whatever, but specifically relative to marriage. That is specified in verse 11.
And then again in verse 13 in 12, then uh then shall bring her home to your house. Notice, not put her in a prison camp, not put her in the bottom of your well, not feed her bread and water once in a while or treat her like an animal. No, you bring her into your house. Now, with reference to the shaving of the head and the trimming of her nails, that might be the most offensive thing to a lot of modern readers.
Well, how dare them make them cut their hair and sh and their nails. Well, it was most likely purification rights if we considered Leviticus 14 and Numbers 8. It was most likely transfer from a foreign community to the covenant community. And it was most likely symbolic of mourning.
The text goes on. Why would she be mourning? Because her husband, the played in battle against this Israelite soldier who now desires me and I'm currently residing at his house. Then notice as well there is restraint and again protection for the woman.
Verse 13, she shall put off the clothes of her captivity. Remain in your house and mourn her father and her mother a after that you may go into her. So a full month, 30 days she's living in his house. He's not brutalizing her.
He's not raping her. He's not having relations with her for full 30 days. He's affording her that time to mourn. He's affording her that time for comfort.
He is affording her that time to get back feet as it were. And 13 it says after that go into her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. Again, not your slave, not your servant, not your not your dish, but your wife. Then notice in verse 14, "And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free." Imagine that she been a slave in the city state she lived in.
Her combatant husband gets killed in war against the Israelites. An Israelite soldier takes her to his house, does what the law specifies, makes sure she shaves her head, makes sure she trims her nails, makes sure she has those 30 days to mourn. He goes into her, but there's something about her and he doesn't want to retain her as a wife. So what does he do?
He sets her free. She's not a slave. She's not to be sold. She's not to be treated treated.
I would suggest in some ways it's actually a step up. Had she been a slave in her city state, now she's a free woman in old covenant Israel. And when the text says it shall be, if you have no hered, then you shall set her free, but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not treat her brutally because you have humbled her. I would I would suggest that what we're going to see in Deuteronomy 24:es 1:4 with reference to the certificate of divorce or the bill of divorce would be the same thing that would have to obtain here and and brethren I I you know what would it be for an Israelite soldier who was captivated initially by the beauty of a female captive I mean she would have had to really have messed up for him to want to send her out.
How often would this man have sent her out? Probably not a lot. I wouldn't imagine. But again, it's uh designed to protect her.
It shall be, if you have no delight in her, shall set her free. You shall certainly not sell her for money. She's not a slave. You shall not treat her brutally because you humbled her.
Do you think that nations surrounding Israel were as kind and gracious and generous and accommodating as as Israel was to be? Do do you think they took female captives and brought into their house and said, "I'm lay a hand on you for a for 30 days, honey. I want you to mourn. I want you.
I want you acclimated. I want you to. And then at the end of the 30 days, then I will marry you." Well, the that the marriage will be consummated. No, they didn't do that.
They didn't go with any kind of respect. They probably brutalized every woman that was left on her own. So, this was beneficial ultimately. Again, I guess it depends on what side of the coin you're on, but if you were a female captive, this was a pretty good arrangement versus any other arrangement you were going to meet with the various itites that inhabited the earth at that particular time.
They would have brutalized you. They would have enslaved you. They would have raped you. They would have killed you if they weren't pleased with you.
And all of this is is laid down as a restriction upon the Israelite soldier and a path of freedom and liberty and good treatment that was taken as a result of this particular war. Now, next is the law concerning the firstborn son. And in this law, there's an assumption of polygamy. Just like in the previous law, there's an assumption of war.
Remember, we make a distinction. There's pre-lapsarian and post-lapsarian. Lapsarian refers to the fall. In the pre-lapsarian or prefall world, you didn't need legislation concerning war.
There would have been no war. In the prelaps world, you wouldn't legislation concerning polygamy. There'd be no polygamy. One man, one woman forever.
In a pre-lapsearian world, you wouldn't have had any laws respecting slavery because there wouldn't have been slavery. But in a post, in a postfall world, God legislates, God gives law, God gives principle such that parties can be protected. And this is one of those instances with reference to the rights of the firstborn. So again, the assumption is is polygamy. verse 15.
A if a man has two wives and then it expresses or explains the particular situation. One is loved and the other is unlo and they both or have uh and they have borne him children both the loved and unloved and if the firstborn son is of her loved shall. So you you see the problem two wives one he loves the other he doesn't love. If the firstborn son is the son of the unloved one, his preference will most likely prevail the side of the loved one and he'll want to give the firstborn status to that one.
Again, polygamy shouldn't be in a postfall world, but is laws in place. There need to be regulations in place. There need to be principles in place so that innocent parties like of an unloved woman doesn't get short within. So again the equity the justice and the righteousness of God's law comes out in spades in chapter 21 of the book of Deuter.
So then notice he's got the one wife he loves, the unh the other wife he doesn't love. The unloved one has the actual firstborn, but his tendency might be to give firstborn status to the son of the wife he loves. No, you're not supposed to do that. Verse 16.
Then it shall be on the day he bequaths his possession 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. The Bible speaks to things that probably are going to happen, right? Oh, that would never be me. Well, you know, it's a law out there for somebody because somebody must have needed this particular law wherein you'd favor the not firstborn son of the wife that you really love to the neglect genuine firstborn son of the wife that you don't really love.
No, you can't do that. Verse 17, he shall acknowledge the son of the un as the firstborn by giving him a double portion of all that he has. For he he is the beginning of his strength. The right of the firstborn is his.
And I think there's an interesting connection between verses 15 to1 17 and then verses 18 to 21. Verses 15-1 17 stress tyranny on the part of the father. Okay. Verses 18 to 21 stress anarchy against the mother.
So in terms of family relations, both of these things are absolutely crucial. Both of these things are absolutely necessary. Meredith Klein says if misuse of authority produced tyranny verses 15-1 17 he says disrespect for property would produce anarchy verses 18 to 21 the very contradiction of the covenant order as a manifestation of God's lordship. In other words, if you see the obvious problem in 15 to1 17 for the father that is preference in a direction he ought not and the problem in verses 18 to 21 is when the father actually does do but he's met with rebellion on the part of his son.
And again when we read verses 18 to 21 man it seems pretty strict. It seems pretty hardcore. We can't imagine ever operating in such a particular way. But again, as you work through the text, I think it's pretty obvious that it's not barbaric, but rather it is just, it is right, and it is good.
So
The Rebellious Son (vv. 18–21)
notice the description of the man rebellious son in verse 18. 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 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 god and a drunkard." Then all city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall put away the evil from among you and all Israel shall hear in fear. Now just a couple of things to observe. First of all, the text is dealing with an adult son.
Two-year-olds aren't glutton and drunken drunkards. An adult rebel son. Okay? Don't think that your kid who didn't eat his peas is going to be marched out to the elders of the of the town.
And this son is a rebel wretch sinner and has engaged in in utter disrespect. Stone him so all Israel shall hear in fear. He's an adult rebel. He he he won't listen.
He will not be prevailed upon. Notice as well the text assumes the parental discipline. Brethren, it's a hard fact and a hard reality in life. Sometimes even good parenting can be frustrated by sin.
Look at the text. when they have chasened him. It concerns me at times when Christians get judgmental of other Christians whose children didn't turn out all that. We always want to blame the parents. Well, maybe they did do their job.
Maybe they did chase it. Maybe the kid just has a rebellious spirit. He's thriving in his place in Adam. And if you take that particular argument, you have to indict God ultimately with reference to Luke 15 and the prodigal son.
The prodigal son takes his share of the inheritance and he goes out and he blows it. Who's the father in the prodigal son? It's God. You mean God didn't exercise such restraint over his son that he wouldn't ask for the share of the inheritance and he wouldn't go out and spread it spend it on prostitutes and prodigal living?
We we've got to be careful that we don't judge our fellows based on the condition of their children. If we do see obvious sin, if we see obvious, you know, not restraining, if we see obvious, you know, breaches of of parental authority, well, yeah, as brothers and sisters, brother, you need to you need to deal with that. You need to restrain your child. You need to give them some discipline, whatever.
But the tendency often times is when children turn out bad, it's got to we got to throw the parents under the bus. Well, in this instance, the parents shouldn't have been thrown under the bus because they had chasened him. Notice as well, the text underscores equal authority, both father and mother. [clears throat] Both father and mother. Honor your father and your mother.
The mother has authority over the children just like the father has authority over the children as well. The fifth commandment. The text as well demonstrates the state's role in the punishment of evildoers. I think that's maturing here in Deuteronomy.
Earlier you had the kinsman redeemer. Earlier you had the f uh the family member that would go out as the avenger of blood. But as old covenant Israel moves along to some degree of centralization, not bureaucratic overarching Leviathanike centralization, but when they come as a civil polity, we have a monopoly in terms of execution on the part of the civil state. So they turn him over to the elders of the city.
They don't take up stones against him. And then the text identifies the nature of the violation is stubborn and rebellious. And two symptoms of gluttony and drunkenness. Okay, it's not the pro the problem isn't gluttony and drunkenness.
That illustrates the problem of stubbornness and rebelliousness to their parent to the parents. The latter words, Craigy says, "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. The crime, in other words, is disobedience, but the result of the crime is the dissolution of a proper style of life. Sensey and drunkenness didn't execute you by stoning.
If you were a glutton and a drunkard, that would be overboard. That's not eye for eye. That's not tooth for tooth. That's not burn for burn or stripe for stripe.
That's overboard. The problem is his rebellion and his stubbornness to parental authority. It's a transgression and breach of the fifth commandment. The parents occupy a god-given authority over this young man.
And if the young man doesn't listen to his parents and displays through a discipline lifestyle, then ultimately he is delivered up the elders of the city, they report what is in view. And from Deuteronomy 17 and 19, we can conclude that the elders would investigate. They wouldn't just take their word for it and say, "Okay, witnesses, grab your stones and let's put this kid to death." No, no, no, no. They had to make careful inquiry.
They had to investigate. They had to make sure that the crime was committed. They had to engage in cross-examination. All those things, rules, evidence.
And verse 21, 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 in fear. I'm going to hide behind a author named Vern Pythus as he explains this particular part. He says, "The death penalty for wholesale violation of parental authority may seem harsh to modern sentiments, but I would argue that it is not only just, but realistic.
Parental authority, even if imperfectly exercised, takes place in the context of personal relationships and natural pressures in the direction of love. Parents have many advantages over the state. If a person does not receive instruction from parents, the chances receiving instruction from the state's more impersonal discipline are nil. Person who reels in wholesale fashion against parents will also rebel against the state and create general destruction and disorder until eliminated.
It is mere sentimentality to refuse to come to grips with this reality. See what he's saying? If the parents can't prevail on him, you think the impersonal civil state's going to prevail upon him, you think his boss is going to prevail upon him? You think his neighbors are going to No.
If a man has engaged in that degree of abject rebellion against his parents, then the implication is most likely there and this law seems to at least foreshadow reality that they're going to be problematic for any place they participate in in civil society. So this is the prescription with reference to the rebel son. Again, not your little child that won't eat its broccoli, but for the adult rebel son that has resisted the pressure of love given him by parents who chasened him, who no doubt prayed for him, who exhorted and encouraged him, brought him to the house of God, who brought him to the means of grace. He has shunned all that.
He has resisted all that. He has now stood before a court according to verse 20. And he his sentence and the death penalty is what is given and that by stoning. And then
The Hanged Criminal (vv. 22–23)
the final section deals with the law concerning the hanged criminal in verses 22 to 23. The situation verse 22. If a man has committed a sin deserving of death, excuse [clears throat] me, and he is put to death and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain 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 a cursed of God.
It's not because on the tree, he's accursed. He's accursed and that's the reason he's on the tree. The law specifies, get them down trees so that this pollution spread to the land. Again, do not defile the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
For he who is hanged is a cursed of God. So the idea specifically is even in this there is dignity for the capital executed criminal. He's buried. He's to be given that dignity by way of, you know, at least respect in the sense of image bearer.
But what we have sort of bookcasing or or uh bookending this chapter is the emphasis on the land. God's giving them the land. This is how you're supposed to function within the land and you're supposed to conduct yourself in accordance with these rules. And if you don't, you're going to bring a whole heap of judgment upon yourself and a whole host of curses which are going to be specified in chapters 27 and 28.
So in terms of a summary statement, the equity of God's law dealing with the guilt of innocent blood, the treatment of non-combatants, the firstborn son, the rebellious son, and the hang criminal. You you see that Deuteronomy is that when they get into the land, they're going to be a mess. God doesn't just give us these laws and these rules and these pieces of legislation just in case we might someday need them. Of course, we're going to need them.
Of course, old covenant Israel was going to need them. Laws concerning firstborn, laws concerning rebellious sons, laws concerning hanged criminals, laws concerning female uh non-combatants, laws concerning unsolved murder. All these things God sees and through Moses on the plains of Moab communicates that to them such that when they get into the land, they're supposed to function in the land the way that Deuteronomy 4 told us. They're to shine the light of Yahweh on the nations around them, the nations around them.
We're supposed to look at them and say, "What nation has such a God like this that displays such wisdom in their laws?" But the fact is is that they didn't do these things. They failed. They resisted. They rejected.
They themselves became the rebellious son and thus deserved the the the the judgment of God which they got via Assyria. They got via Babylon and they got via Rome in AD.70. But as I said, Christ is here. Christ is here in the Heer a substitute.
Again, the whole idea being we we don't have a murderer with this homicide, so we can't put to death the murderer, so there must be some bloodshed. And in this instance, it's the heer. It's not a direct correlation. Every principle of penal substitutionary atonement isn't carried out here, but it's certainly suggested.
It's certainly hinted at that is certainly present. the blood of the just one. The hepher that had never worked. The hepher that had never plowed. The heer that didn't kill the guy that was found laying slain.
The heer has its neck broken. The hepher has its blood shed. The hepher takes the place as it were so that blood guiltiness is not imposed upon the land. There is atonement provided through a substitute which certainly speaks concerning our Lord Jesus Christ.
I think the second bit of typology here is in verses 18 to 21. If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son specifically in verse 20 he is a glutton and a drunkard. Turn to Matthew's gospel. Matthew chapter 11, Jesus is facing opposition from unbelieving Israel.
There is various responses to him. There's rising opposition to him. And we see that opposition. And if we understand that opposition with the background of the rebellious son in Deuteronomy 21, perhaps we can understand what it is that these unbelieving Jews wanted with reference to Jesus.
Notice in 11:16, but to what shall I like in this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their companions and saying, we played the flute for you and you did not dance. We mourned to you and you did not lament. For John came, neither eating nor drinking.
And they say he has a demon. The son of man came eating and drinking. And they say, "Look, a glutton and a wine bber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners, but wisdom is justified by her children." Why do you think they were calling Jesus a glutton and a wine bber? Do you think Jesus was sitting outside of 7-Eleven with a great big jug of wine, eating Doritos, and fattening himself up?
No. They wanted to portray him as the rebellious and stubborn son. And if they can portray him as the rebellious and stubborn son, then it naturally follows that he should be stoned to death. The nature of the opposition against our Lord Jesus is seen in this invocation of the penalty for the rebellious son in Deuteronomy chapter 21.
He is a glutton and a wine bber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners. That was their indictment when in fact they had been the rebellious son. They had been stubborn. They had not listened to God most high.
And then the final passage is in Galatians 3. You probably remember Deuteronomy 21 22- 23 because of Galatians 3. Galatians 3:13, "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. For it is written, curses everyone who hangs on a tree that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the spirit through faith." So we see in the Old Testament, specifically in Deuteronomy 21, a whole lot of legislation governing civil life in Old Covenant Israel, but hinting at things that would be true of our Lord Jesus Christ, the substitute who provides atonement, the son that's not rebellious, that upgrades the actual rebellious son, and the one who would ultimately be hanged on a tree, a cursed of God, such that we may be free, blessed, and included in the co covenant promises of God and receive the adoption as sons.
Well, let us pray. Our father, we thank you for your word. We thank you for the clarity of these Old Testament texts and for the obvious justice and righteousness that they convey, the equity of your law with reference to the protection of the the the weak, the innocent, the victim. We thank you, God, that you are so merciful, so gracious, and so kind.
Help us to think through these things. help us to be more concerned about the blood guiltiness in our own land with reference to abortion and euthanasia and just what does seem to be at times a wholesale disregard of human life. God be merciful to this land. We pray against these particular sins, these crimes against you and pray ultimately that you would have mercy and that more sinners would find atonement through our Lord Jesus Christ. That they by grace would believe on him and would be saved.
And we ask in his most blessed name. Amen.
Well, any comments or questions on anything? Yes, sir.
One question I have on the
polygamy part is why why is there no law that says to like basically forbidding it? It would be like you'd think they could just add a line in there say you shouldn't have two wives if someone does.
Okay.
Yeah. Um I think there is. I don't think it's by way of precept. I think it's by way of pattern.
I think what we see in the Genesis account is paradigmatic for creation. God could have made Adam and Eve and Jane. He he could have brought two women to Adam. He could have brought 10 women to Adam, but he brought one woman.
And the reason why I suggest that it's parad paradigmatic and thus takes on an imperatal force is in Matthew chapter 19. Our Lord is asked about the lawfulness of divorce. Verse three, the Pharisees also came to him testing him and saying to him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" And he answered and said to them, "Have you not read that he who made them at the beginning made them male and female?" And said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So then they are no longer two, but one flesh.
Therefore, what God has joined together, let not men separate. So Jesus takes the Genesis account as paradigmatic forind. It's one man, one woman permanently until death does us part. And I think Sabbath is in that same category.
Sabbath in Genesis 2:es 1:3, it's paradigmatic or it's a pattern. God Sabbath, therefore creatures should Sabbath. Now, there are Sabbath regulations subsequent to that. But I would argue that Paul picking up on the Genesis account when he's arguing for how men and women are to function in the home assumes a one-man onewoman relationship.
But as sin entered into the world, polygamy did happen. And so God, as I said, provides legislation to protect the inner parties in that relationship. But I mean if you ask a simple question says that thou sh only ever have or marry one woman and not have a polygamous relationship. I haven't found that verse.
No I'm just it's
no it's a it's a very excellent question.
I mean many people have asked the question. Many people have thought through it and you know with reference to I I mentioned this preaching through the qualifications for elders a couple of weeks ago. the husband of one wife. Some take it as he cannot be a polygamist and thus be an elder. And I mentioned just by way of a sideline observation, if we were in another country and a man was polygamous and he becomes a Christian, I'm not sure I would be comfortable telling him he has to divorce wives two to five.
I'm not sure that's the corrective in that particular situation. Polygamy happens. I'm not condoning it. I'm not endorsing it.
I'm not for it. I'm not suggesting it by any stretch, but if we're in another culture or in another society where it is rampant and it is in play based on what scripture says concerning polygamous relationships, would it be correct to say you must then divorce some of them? I again the light I have and thankfully I have an with polygamy uh practically in the ministry here. I know pastors that have had to and pastors in other countries that must deal with it.
So I would seek their counsel on how best to proceed.
Yeah. I guess it's just odd that like okay so Sabbath for example there is a direct legislation that specifies there's a lot of legislation in Deuteronomy and Leviticus that goes over lots of detail but you think that if it was the intent they could have like I mean I agree that yeah Jesus speaks on it and Genesis speaks on it but I find it odd that it's not in here just because why Well, then the law would have said in Deuteronomy 21, if a man has two wives, he's in sin, should repent, and either one away or the other away.
Do you know what I'm saying? Like that the the laws that we're looking at, especially in Deuteronomy, teasing out the ten commandments for civil application in the land. It's not I agree if there was a Genesis 51 or you know a Deuteronomy 35 that then got into particular details you know you can't have more than you know one wife but well I don't know of a text that says you own slaves but we shouldn't own slaves right why is that Because paradigmatically God made Adam and Eve in his own image to be free men, free women, exercising dominion, expanding the garden, temple, encompassing the earth, and then man sins.
And what does man do in his sin? He grabs slaves. I don't know of any legislation along the way that is seeking to rectify problems with slavery by saying don't own slaves. It it doesn't do that.
I think it assumes that we know what the norm is from creation in terms of ethical response. But because of the introduction of sin, we got to deal with messy situations in the world around us. I mean, if I was in a culture where there was polygamy and I was the preaching pastor, I would count people to know you should only have one wife. Well, everybody else has five.
Yeah, but God in the beginning made one man for one woman to be together forever. That's the paradigm. That's the emphasis. That's the pattern.
So that's what I would encourage them. You know, if a we we had a church filled with people and most of them were polygamous and their sons started growing up and wanting to get married, pastor, I want to marry these three. I'd say no. The original intention by God.
But what about my dad? Well, they're breaching the original intention by God. What about David? What about Solomon?
What about all these people? Again, they breached what was in plain sight in terms of the one man, one woman arrangement that God intended at the beginning to obtain throughout the history of the world. [snorts] So, yeah, I don't know of any verses that say no slavery either. So I think that postfall ethics, yeah, if we had a checklist, if we had, you know, an addendum, these things you ought not to do. But I think we can make the case these things you ought not to do based on just a a bare reading of Genesis 1:3.
From the beginning, it was not so. You know, when they say, is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason? Haven't you read the be, you know, the the beginning? It was not so.
One man, one woman forever. But because of the hardness of your hearts, Moses permitted the bill of divorce in Deuteronomy chapter 24. And it wasn't Moses. God through Moses permitted this legislation.
So all things being equal, don't get divorced. All things being equal, don't be a polygamist. All things being equal, don't be a slave owner. That's how Genesis presents what is God's plan and purpose for mankind.
But if you do take on additional wives, if you do take on slaves, if you do engage in in in the the sorts of things, divorce, then understand that there's rules, legislation, and guidance to help protect the innocent parties along the way so that brutes and tyrants don't get to just ru over innocent people. That's how I understand it. But great question. You know, I if somebody said, "Where does the Bible forbid polygamy?" I would go to Genesis 1:3 and and Matthew 19. [clears throat]
Well, for the king, he wasn't supposed to multiply wives, most likely political alliances.
I think probably that's how Solomon started off. you know, he starts multiplying wives, but then he's, you know, loving those wives and and then those wives are leading them to leading him to their gods. But the the the prohibition against the wealth, uh the the the horses, the women, it were they were things that would take their confidence away from God and their trust ultimately in God and put them in their weapons, put them in their alliances forged by marriages to to other women and by their wealth. But yeah, it certainly hints at it. You shouldn't multiply.
But again, all of them did. You know, I mean, you get you get to the kings of Israel and and Judah and you know, they weren't choir boys when it came to those things. But a lot of times those marriages were were for alliances with other countries. I always say just comments because I don't always have the best answers, but uh good good question.
Very good question. All right, that's it.
All right.