IV. FURTHER REGULATIONS CENTRAL TO THE MAINTENANCE OF SOCIETY AND THE MAINTENANCE OF FAMILY UNITY (Deuteronomy 21:10-23).
The remainder of Deuteronomy 21 deals with what is to happen in certain cases concerning close relatives. Its stress is on the maintenance of family life in harmony, and on the honour to be shown to different members of the family.
The contents of Deuteronomy 21 also connects with Deuteronomy 20:14 in that it deals in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 with how to deal with women captives who are taken in marriage by Israelites, something which would be commonly happening.
The protection of family honour and harmony covers the following aspects:
1). Treatment of women captives who are viewed as desirable (Deuteronomy 21:10-14).
2). The attitude towards the wife in verses 10-14 then leads on into another case of an unloved wife, which deals with the rights of inheritance of the firstborn (Deuteronomy 21:15-17).
3). This then leads on to establishing the principle of the authority of father and mother, and the treatment of a violently rebellious son (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).
All these three regulations seek to deal with the disruption of family life, the first dealing with fairness towards captives who are brought into the family, the latter two dealing with matters at the very heart of society's welfare, inheritance rights and the maintenance of authority.
The chapter closes with a brief reference to dealing with those who behave in such a way as to deserve sentence of death (Deuteronomy 21:22-23). This harks back to the rebellious son (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), and to what should happen to the murderer in Deuteronomy 21:1-9 if he was ever found.
Treatment Of Women Captives Brought Into The Family (Deuteronomy 21:10-14).
This follows on from Deuteronomy 20:14 and gives instructions with regard to particular women captives who have been brought back to Israel. Similar situations would probably already have been met up with after earlier conflicts. Where one of these women captives was desired by an Israelite as a wife (her husband would be dead, having been slain after the siege, or in battle) he must not just callously take her and marry her. Certain consideration must first be given to the woman.
Analysis using the words of Moses.
a When you go forth to battle against your enemies, and Yahweh your God delivers them into your hands, and you carry them away captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have a desire for her, and would take her to you for wife (Deuteronomy 21:10-11).
b Then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails, and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her (Deuteronomy 21:12-13 a).
b And she shall remain in your house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month, and after that you shall go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be your wife (Deuteronomy 21:13 b).
a And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall let her go where she will; but you shall not sell her at all for money, you shall not deal with her as a slave, because you have humbled her (Deuteronomy 21:14).
Note that in ‘a' the man has a desire for the woman and takes steps to take her for his wife, then in the parallel if he then have no delight in her he must let her go free. In ‘b' he brings her home to his house, and she shaves her head, and pares her nails, and puts the raiment of her captivity from off her, and in the parallel she remains in his house, and bewails her father and her mother a full month, and after that he can go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be his wife (Deuteronomy 21:13 b)
‘ When you go forth to battle against your enemies, and Yahweh your God delivers them into your hands, and you carry them away captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have a desire for her, and would take her to you for wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails, and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in your house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month, and after that you shall go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.'
This might of course apply to any battle, not just a siege, and it is clear that it does not refer to Canaanites. In the constant conflicts this could often happen in those days. Especially with a wandering people like the Israelites such battles and such captives would have been fairly common, partly as a result of skirmishes with desert tribes. It would equally happen in the future because of warfare with belligerent neighbours. But the stress here is on the treatment of a woman captive whom an Israelite desires for himself. She must be brought to the family residence of the man who wished to marry her, then she must shave her head and pare her nails, and get rid of the clothes in which she came. After which she was to be given a month for mourning her family. (They may not have been dead, just lost for ever). Once that was over the marriage could then take place.
The shaving of her head and the paring of her nails possibly refers to the removal from her extremities (head and hand and foot) of all connections with the old life (compare Leviticus 14:14). The hair and the nails were also the parts of a woman that could grow long and enhance her beauty. Thus the cutting may have symbolised the end of her old pagan beauty and the growth of a new beauty now that she was an Israelite. Or the purpose may have been to make her ritually clean (compare Leviticus 14:8; Leviticus 14:14; Numbers 8:7). She would now be expected to become a member of the covenant. The changing of her clothes implied something similar. She was now an Israelite and to be brought within the covenant. She must put off the clothes which distinguished her background and dress like an Israelite woman from now on. The mourning period, which was a standard period of mourning in Israel (see Deuteronomy 34:8; Numbers 20:29), was out of consideration for her feelings. She would have had little chance to mourn while captive, but once the month was over she would be expected to forget her old life. On marriage she would now be a free Israelite woman.
‘ And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall let her go where she will; but you shall not sell her at all for money, you shall not deal with her as a slave, because you have humbled her.'
The question here is as to what is intended. On the face of it, it is the alternative to marriage. He has had a month to think it over and he is now not convinced that he wants to go ahead with marriage. His attachment has worn off and he no longer has any delight in her, which may also be explained by her reaction to the situation which has made him recognise that it bodes ill for the future. But all have been living in expectation of the marriage. She is being shamed. By sending her away he is humbling her. Thus as compensation he must not sell her, or deal with her as a slave. She must be sent away as a free woman, the position she would have held if he had married her.
Others, however, see the situation as signifying a marriage, made in haste, which has turned out to be a disaster. He had discovered that a beautiful woman did not necessarily make a good wife, especially if she had foreign tastes, and foreign habits. Furthermore she had been given little choice in the matter, and might well have been feeling angry and bitter, or have been traumatised. She might well have been behaving like a shrew. The man might have discovered that he found little delight in his marriage. This may even signify that she had refused him his conjugal rights.
It is clear that both wished the arrangement to end and in these circumstances he could ‘let her go' presumably by divorcing her (see Deuteronomy 24:1). She must then be allowed to go where she wished for the marriage had made her a free woman, which might well be back to her own country (compare for all this Exodus 21:8-11). He must not try to sell her as a slave, or treat her as such, because he had ‘humbled her'. This may simply refer to having put her in her difficult position, or of having ‘forced' her to marry him, or because he has had intercourse with her on equal terms, or to the fact that divorce was necessarily usually looked on as a humbling experience for the woman. Whichever way it was he must not try to take any further advantage of her.
Just as he had been freed from slavery by the deliverance from Egypt, so he had to set her free from slavery. Having given her hope for the future it would not be just to restore her to her former condition when she was a captive. She now shared in the deliverance from Egypt.
But this latter case is only a possibility if divorce was so easily obtained. If Deuteronomy 24:1 actually indicates that divorce was only available for serious misdemeanours it could not apply in all cases of women captors who proved a disappointment. And there is actually no mention here of a divorce or a bill of divorcement.
One lesson for us from this example is the importance of giving people who have been good to us their due. The woman had done right by him. He must do right by her.
Excursus: Should Israel Have Had Any Part In Such Slavery?
We must keep in mind that a part purpose of the Law was to control life as it was already lived, to control what already actually took place, so as to ensure fair treatment for the weaker party. The receiving of slaves and treating them as slave wives was universal practise. Conditions of the day rendered it inevitable. Both war and extreme poverty resulted in there being a certain quantity of people for whom there was little practical alternative. The only alternative was their being killed off or left to die. No nation could offer open house for all. They would never have survived. And we must not think in terms of modern slavery. Slavery was then an economic means by which the helpless and dispossessed could obtain food and shelter in return for service.
We know from the time of Abraham that Hagar was an Egyptian, and that his steward was possibly a Damascene. In Israel the permanent slave was required to enter into the covenant. They had no right to retain their own religion. They had to became an integral part of the covenant community. Thus there was little danger of their leading their masters and husbands astray. It is a fact of life that had such marriages not been allowed then particularly desirable women would simply have been ravaged. It was in order to protect against this that this law was introduced. We could say 'for the hardness off your heart Moses gave you this law' as Jesus said about the law relating to divorce.
Divorce was allowed in Israel, in so far as it was allowed, simply because, had it not been, worse things would have occurred. It was not God's will. As Jesus said it was His concession to man's weakness and the need to protect the weaker party. Without divorce a woman may have been cast off with no hope of any future marriage. If the case we have been looking at was a case of divorce, without the provision made here a slave wife might simply have been got rid of in one way or another. By having regulation it ensured right treatment. God had to take into account man's tendencies for these laws were intended to be practically applied and He knew that the people were not perfect. Impractical laws would simply have led to infamous behaviour and the suffering and death of the weak.
But if this was so, and people could so be integrated into society, why was this option not given to Canaanite women?
There was a twofold difference between Canaanite women and other women. Firstly was the fact that the Canaanites were especially corrupt with their particular debased religion. They were like a cancer which had to be totally eradicated. They had sinned so greatly that God had determined final judgment on them. They had to be 'devoted' to God (compare Joshua 7). They were under The Ban. Like all the goods in Jericho they were Yahweh's. There were to be no exceptions. This principle was fixed in the Israelite mind without exception, without compromise. God had determined final judgment on all Canaanites. It was to be Israel's privilege to act as the judgment of God on them. If we question God's right to so judge it may be that it is we who do not really understand either God or the final demands of righteousness.
As we know, in the event they did not follow God's command which was a large part of the reason for their continued failure before God. The cancer of the Canaanites actually destroyed the nation of Israel. When man thinks that he knows better than God it usually ends in disaster.
Secondly there is a great deal of difference between someone who has been uprooted from their environment, with the result that, finding themselves in a totally new land with nothing to remind them of the past and with no chance of returning to the old land, they can be exorcised from their old religion, as compared with someone who was constantly surrounded by their old environment, to whom every high hill, every high place, every green tree constantly kept alive in their hearts the old ideas and became a means by which they could tempt men into misbehaviour and idolatry. That scourge had to be fully eradicated. God knew the hearts of men.
Furthermore every Canaanitish woman absorbed into Israel would have been a magnet to neighbouring Canaanites inciting them to smite the Israelites so as to free their own. They would have caused constant conflict. And even worse the old behaviour had probably introduced into, and multiplied in the Canaanites, certain sexual diseases that could easily be passed on. God wanted to keep His people as free from these diseases as possible. We can compare how in our modern society free sex has resulted in a multiplicity of sexually transmitted diseases in many countries. But in those days there were no cures for such things. These are just a few reasons why Canaanite women alone were to be treated as untouchables.
(End of Excursus.)