Deuteronomy 21:14 & 20 –
But if you marry her and she does not please you, you must let her go free. You may not sell her or treat her as a slave, for you have humiliated her.The parents must say to the elders, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious and refuses to obey. He is a glutton and a drunkard.
This was an interesting chapter, it was much of the old Law that many point to and say “why?” We have “progressed” to a point in society where much of the Law gets questioned. It’s hard not to question God when reading this chapter and wonder where these regulations came from and why. In exploring verse 14 we, you have an instance where it is ok to marry a foreigner. At the same time if you don’t like her, you can “let her go” and effectively divorce her.
I immediately questioned this since divorce is often mentioned as bad and the only reason for it is adultery. But here if the “foreigner” does not “please” you, that is justification for divorce! What?? Jesus actually comments on this in Matthew 19:8 and said it was allowed not because it was ok with God, but because of their harden hearts. Again it seems odd that this would be mentioned since it’s such an easy way out of a “contract” where if she were a Jew it would be much more difficult.
Now verse 20 hit me straight up having teens and knowing many parents with teens. The common threat with almost all of them is rebellion and disrespect. So when I read this I figured God had the solution for my woes! Well was I shocked to read the “solution” from verse 21! My first response is how could a parent bring their child in front of elders when the punishment was stoning … TO DEATH!! This is taking “honor thy father and mother” to an extreme. Again this is a part of the Law I may never understand. Some justify this by God having to be hardline with His people because they needed strict regulations. Now Jesus teaches forgiveness and since he died for our sins, Laws like this are “voided.”
Jesus’ best example of this is the story of the “prodigal son” and how his father accepts him back. My question is why did Jesus not mention this child being stoned to death? Or was he “rebellious” after leaving the family? Also, when a woman was to be stoned Jesus stopped it by saying throw only if you have no sin. So technically only the pure could stone others and therefore that punishment is voided. One could spin a web, like what if the parents were being overbearing and unreasonable, does a child have the right to rebel and not face stoning? Also, what about a rebellious daughter?
I can’t help but question this chapter and wonder its purpose and origins. I did not get any insight looking at different translations or asking Google. Seems the only people that want to talk about verse 21 head on are people trying to show inconsistencies in the Bible. Really, “thou shalt not kill” unless it’s a disrespectful son … really? I don’t care how bad it got, I could NEVER hand my son over for execution unless it was for murder. Being a “normal” teen is not ground for execution in my mind. The only justification I can imagine is this is to be taught to the sons, but never practiced, so they will exhibit self-control.