Yesterday we talked about how a man could not take away the double portion of inheritance due a firstborn son even if that firstborn son belongs to a less-loved wife than another of his sons. I think today's passage is closely related to yesterday's. Many scholars assume the verses we'll study today apply to a firstborn son or, if the firstborn son has passed away or has disinherited himself by wickedness, to the son who was next in line for the double portion.
The son featured in today's passage is called "stubborn and rebellious" although it's not talking about the typical rebelliousness of a child or teen who may occasionally disobey his parents or talk back to his parents. This son is a grown man, not a child, which is something we have to fix firmly in our minds and keep in our minds as we go through the text. The penalty for his attitude is quite harsh and would never be carried out on someone under the age of majority. In addition we need to keep in mind that there is no record anywhere in the Bible of this penalty being carried out. It could be imposed but we don't know whether it ever was imposed.
In my opinion, the reason Moses supplies the advice given in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 to the congregation of Israel is probably because, after he laid down the law regarding firstborn sons, he faced some questions about what the parents are to do if the firstborn son is morally/spiritually incapable of leading the family. The birthright of the firstborn son involved more than inheriting the largest share of his father's estate. It also placed him in a leadership role. That leadership role meant he had to be a wise and responsible steward of the family finances. It meant he had to be the spiritual head of household as well.
Jacob's brother Esau is an example of a firstborn son who did not have what it takes to be the leader of the family. This is why the Bible says he was carnally minded and a blasphemer who despised his birthright. He treated his birthright so casually that he sold it for a bowl of stew, which shows us how little he valued the honor of serving the Lord as spiritual leader of the family.
I believe some of the congregation asked Moses, "What if the firstborn son is a rebellious sinner? What if we can't trust him to manage the financial and spiritual welfare of the family wisely? What if he is a drunkard and a glutton who will spend every dime fulfilling his carnal desires with wine and women and wild parties? We try to bring our children up right but sometimes they won't listen. Sometimes they despise wise instruction and have no regard for the Lord. Sometimes they will not turn to the Lord and obey Him no matter what we say or what we do. It's not safe to leave a son like this in charge of the family."
Moses replied, "If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.' Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid." (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
You may be thinking: "WHAT?" I know. This is a harsh sentence Moses is giving the congregation his permission to impose. But as we said earlier, we have to keep in mind that although the Israelites could impose this penalty on a sinful son who has no respect for his parents or for the Lord, it doesn't mean the Israelites ever did have any of their rebellious sons executed. However, the Lord has already said in Exodus 21:17 and in Leviticus 20:9 that anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. A son (a grown son) who cursed his father and mother---who broke the commandment which says he must honor them---was a man who would not obey the Lord either. He was a man who despised the instruction of the Lord and was rebellious toward Him. In fact, the rebellion toward the Lord was the main problem. A son who wanted to obey the Lord would obey the commandment that he must respect his parents and care about their welfare. Presumably his parents brought him up in the fear of the Lord and taught him right from wrong, but when he was grown he said, "No more! I don't have to do what you say because I am no longer under the age of adulthood. I don't have to live the way you've taught me to live. I don't have to worship the Lord or obey Him either. I'm a grown man and I will make my own decisions. I will do what I please when I please. You can like it or not; I don't care. I'm done with you."
Jesus quoted the passages from Exodus 21:17 and Leviticus 20:9 when criticizing the religious leaders of His day for allowing a man to let his parents go without basic necessities. He said they were keeping the law that says anything devoted to the Lord cannot be taken back (a man could pledge money to the Lord and his pledge could not be undone) but they were allowing men to use this law to break the commandment that says he was to honor his father and mother. A man who didn't care about his father and mother could pledge to the Lord the money that should have been used to provide his parents' needs. The laws and commandments were being twisted to suit people's evil desires and Jesus called them out on it. The Lord took no pleasure in having money put into the treasury that should have gone to support a man's parents. That didn't honor the Lord at all, so we see how closely intertwined are the commandments to honor the Lord and honor one's parents.
The parents of a sinful, rebellious, dishonorable grown son could take him to the elders at the gate of his town and say, "We've never been able to do anything with him. He despises the Lord and he despises us. His life revolves around the pleasures of sin. Money flows through his hands like wine flows through his lips. He will lose his inheritance as quickly as he gets it. The whole family will suffer financially, morally, and spiritually if he is put in charge. He was brought up in the fear of the Lord and taught the difference between right and wrong but he has no heart for the Lord and he cares nothing about doing what's right. He will bring this family to ruin if he inherits the birthright."
Some scholars believe the death penalty was never actually carried out but that the words of Moses were intended to serve as a warning---so that "all Israel will hear of it and be afraid". Other scholars believe this penalty was carried out from time to time and that hearing of the fate of a rebellious son was intended to prevent other sons from going down the wrong path. They were to take the rebellious son's fate to heart and change their ways.
Something to keep in mind is that we are all sinners and that "the wages of sin is death". (Romans 6:23) The Lord could have rightfully put every single human being to death as soon as each person committed his first sin. If the rebellious son of today's text was put to death, we can't say he wasn't being paid the wages he earned for himself. But the Lord didn't want to put the human race to death and I am sure most parents didn't want their rebellious sons put to death either. It's likely that most of the time they simply disinherited a sinful firstborn son, just as Jacob didn't give the birthright to his firstborn son, Reuben, who committed such a rebellious and immoral act that he disqualified himself as leader of the family.
In modern times a parent can leave the bulk of their estate to whichever child they please, regardless of birth order. A parent can choose to leave everything to only one child, or to leave nothing to one child and split the inheritance among the remaining children, or disinherit all the children and leave the estate to someone else or to a charity. But in ancient Israel the inheritance rights were very clear because the genealogical records had to be very clear in order to keep the proper territories within the proper tribes. A man had to be able to prove his pedigree, so to speak, not only to make a case for property rights but to claim which tribe he belonged to. This was important for so many reasons that we don't have time and space to discuss them all, but these reasons were of financial, political, and religious natures. A man couldn't serve at the tabernacle (and later at the temple) unless he could prove he was from the tribe of Levi, for example. Because the inheritance rights in ancient Israel were so important, the character of a man's primary heir mattered a great deal. Because the character of the primary heir was so important, there had to be a way to prevent giving the bulk of the estate to a profligate firstborn son.
In today's text we've seen the harshest measures of all described to us. We don't know whether anyone ever resorted to these measures or whether they simply disowned such a rebellious firstborn son. As we've said, Jacob set a precedent for disinheriting a firstborn son from receiving the double portion. We might argue that the law of Moses wasn't in place during Jacob's time on earth, and that's true, but I believe the Lord always allows room for mercy. If a parent of a wicked son had grounds to have him put to death but did not want to have him put to death, I don't believe the parent was under obligation to bring his son to the elders at the gate. I think the parent could disinherit him and give the birthright to the next oldest son. If the penalty of today's text was ever carried out in Israel, I believe it was only in the most extreme cases---cases in which the firstborn son was so exceedingly wicked that he presented a danger to his family. Disinheriting him would not have made his family safe from him. The ultimate penalty may have been imposed in such cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment