Everything in this section has some connection with the sixth commandment remote though it may be in some cases.
Israelite men could marry women from distant conquered cities taken as prisoners of war provided they did not already have a wife. Such a woman had to shave her head and cut her nails. These were rituals of purification customary in the ancient Near East.228She received one month to mourn her parents (v. 13). This may presuppose that they had died in the battle or, more likely, that she was to cut off all ties to her former life.229
"Such kindly consideration is in marked contrast with the cruel treatment meted out to women captured in war among the neighboring nations . . ."230
"This legislation could have two basic results: the men would be restrained from rape, and the women would have time to become adjusted to their new condition."231
The provision for divorce (v. 14) receives further clarification later (24:1-4). We should not interpret the fact that God legislated the rights of sons born into polygamous families as tacit approval of that form of marriage. Monogamy was God's will (Gen. 2:24; cf. Matt. 19:4-6).232However, God also gave laws that regulated life when His people lived it in disobedience to His will. In other words, God did not approve of polygamy, but He tolerated it in Israel in the sense that He did not execute or punish polygamists through civil procedures. Similarly He did not approve of divorce, but He allowed it in this case (cf. Gen. 21:8-14; Ezra 9-10).233
God did not feel compelled to comment in Scripture whenever people disobeyed him. That is, He did not always lead the writers of Scripture to identify every sinful practice as such whenever it occurs in the text. This was especially true when the people's sins produced relatively limited consequences. He did comment more on the Israelites' sins that directly involved their relationship to Himself and their sins that affected many other people. This fact reflects God's gracious character (cf. Luke 15:12).
The first-born son was to receive the traditional double portion of his father's inheritance. This was to be Israel's practice even though he may have been the son of the wife her husband loved less than another wife he had (cf. Gen. 25:5-6).234The father's authority, therefore, was not absolute in the Israelite home. Ancient Near Easterners regarded the first-born son as the beginning of the father's strength (cf. Gen. 49:3).
Just as men were to treat their wives with consideration (vv. 10-14) so too were fathers to treat their children with consideration (vv. 15-17).
The previous ordinance guarded a son from a capricious father. This one maintained the rights of parents whose son (or daughter, presumably) was incorrigible. While the problem in view was one of lack of respect for parents (the fifth commandment), the offense could result in the death of the child (the sixth commandment).
This case presupposes a long history of rebelliousness. The son had become a glutton and a drunkard (v. 20). That is, he had developed a lifestyle of deviant behavior. Before loving parents would take the step available to them in this law they would doubtless try every other measure to secure their son's correction. This was the last resort for the parents. This law withheld the right of parents to slay their children for rebelliousness while at the same time preserving parental authority fully.
Commenting on the terms "stubborn"and "rebellious,"David Marcus wrote the following.
"Both terms form a hendiadys to indicate a juvenile delinquent. Now when one examines how these terms are used in the Hebrew Bible one sees that they belong to the didactic vocabulary of biblical literature.235They generally connote disobedience, in particular in Israel's relationship to God. (The pertinent references may be found in Bellefontaine's article [see below] from which the present author has greatly profited.) For example, in Psalms 78:8 the generation of the desert is termed sorer umoreh[stubborn rebellious]. Isaiah castigates the people for being sorerand following its own way (Isa. 65:2). Jeremiah proclaims that Israel has a heart which is sorer umoreh(Jer. 5:23). Israel is portrayed as rebellious and disloyal, and in so doing repudiating its God and its relationship with him.236In like manner, the son, by being rebellious and disloyal, has repudiated his parents and his relationship with them. The authority of the parents has been rejected by the son since he has refused to obey them. The son, in renouncing his relationship with his parents, has effectively declared, if not by his words, then certainly by his deeds, what the adopted son in the Mesopotamian adoption contracts says when he abrogates his contract, I am not your son; you are not my parents' (Ibid., 17)."237
It may appear at first that God was commanding the Israelites to exercise less grace with their own children than He showed the whole nation. However, God had previously promised never to cut off His people (Gen. 12:1-3). The Israelites were to be God's instruments of judgment in many specific situations, as we have seen in Deuteronomy. The punishment of sinners, be they Canaanites or Israelites, for specific types of sin was imperative for Israel to fulfill God's purpose for her in the world (Exod. 19:5-6).
Parents should put their love for God above their love for their children.
