Vers. 10-15.-The captive wife. The kindness, thoughtfulness,andstrictjustice of the Mosaic laws is very striking. The Law here interposes to secure- !. CONSIDERATE TREATMENT OF ONE BEREAVl!D, (Vers. 10-14.) The case sup- posed comes under the law of eh. xx. 14. Tbe woman was a captive in war and a heathen, yet the Israelite is required to respect her chastity, and, if he conceive a passion for her, must not only make her his wife in a proper manner, but must allow her a full month to bewail her dead relatives. The question of religion is a difficult one in such cases, but we may suppose that no force was applied to captives and strangers further than forbidding to them the outward practice of idolatry. The laying aside of the symbols of captivity, and the purificatory rites of cutting the hair and nails, could only imply reception into the fellowship of the covenant nation in the event of the woman freely accepting Jehovah as her God (cf. Ruth i. 15, 16). Learn: 1. '!'hat the tumult and disorder of war is no excuse for immoral licence. 2. We are to consider the situation and feelings of those whose circumstances place them at our mercy. 3. Natural affections are to be respected underneath all differences of creed and race. II. PROTECTION FOR ONE UNFRIENDED. (Ver. 14.) The captive stranger wedded to an Israelite was not left to be treated by him as he listed. Her unfriended position exposed her to the risk of suffering from her husband's caprice and unfeelingness. While, therefore, he is permitted, if he lose delight in her, to divorce her-for the "letting her go" must be construed in the light of eh. xxiv. 3-he must on no account sell her or detain her as a captive. Another instance of God's care for" the stranger." Hasty marriages, founded on passion inspired by mere external attractions, seldom result in lasting happiness.-J. 0.
Vere. 15-18.-The firstborn of the hated wife. The firstbom, in patriarchal and tribal societies, had recognizecl rights and honours, correlative with the duties and responsibilities which his position as prospective head of the household entailed on him. The principle is here asserted that individual preferences and partialities are not to be allowed to set aside the rights of the son who is lawfully the firstborn. Men would fain, sometimes, bend justice to their likings. Where an Israelite had two wives, either together or in succession, the one loved and the other hated, he might be tempted to pass by the son of the hated, and confer the rights of the fi.rstborn on the son of the· wife whom he loved, though it was the son of the hated wife who was entitled to that honour. With strict impartiality, the Law steps in and forbids this act of injustice. It demands that the son of the hated wife have all his rights. It will tolerate no tampering with them. Lessons: 1. The evils of polygamy. 2. The sin of allowing likes and dislikes to influence us to acts of injustice. 3. The danger of natural preferences degenerating into blameworthy partialities. 4. The duty of doing always what is right, whatever the bent of our private inclinations.-J. 0. Vera. 18-21.-The rebellious son. A law of this kind, which left it to the parents themselves to impeach their disobedient son, while ordaining that, when the charge was proved against him, and it could be shown that the parents had duly corrected him, tbe otreoder should bo put to death, would, we ma.y believe, very rarely be enforced. 350 THE BOOR OF DEU'l'ERONOMY. [en. xxr. 1-23.
In cases B0 aggravated that its enforcement was necessary, the penalty, judged by the usages and state of feeling of the time, would be thought auything but sevoro. 'l'he law, whetll('r enforced or not, was a standing testimony to the enormity attaching in the ems or Goel to the sin of filial disobedience. ,ve learn- I. .h.'SUBORDINATION TO PARF.NTS IS A GRAVE OFFENCE AGAINST SOCIETY. It iB treat<'d here, not simply as a private wrong, but as a crime, Hebrew society rested so largely on the patriarchal basis that tho due maintenance of parental authority was 11 necessity of its existence. The theocratic principle, according to which parents were in,·ested wit.h a peculiar sacredness as representatives of God, likewise called for the repression or incorrigible disobedience. But, whatever the form of social order, a spread of the spirit of insubordination to parents is the invariable prelude to a universal loosening of the ties and obligations of corporate existence. "It has been found," says Dr. Fleming, in his 'Moral Philosophy,' "in the history of all nations that the best security for the public welfare is a wise and happy exercise of parental authority; and one of the. surest forerunners of national degradation and public anarchy and disorde.r is neglect or contempt of domestic happiness or rule." lI. PARENTS ARE NOT Els'TITLED TO COMPLAIN OF THE DISODEDIBNCE OF CHILDREN, SA YE WHERE THEm OWN DUTIES TO THEm CHILDREN HAVE BEEN FAITHFULLY DIS- CHARGED. To secure a conviction, the parents had to show, not only that they had done their best to b1ing the son up in right ways, but that they had corrected him, and otherwise endeavoured to reclaim him from his vices. Before parents are entitled to complain of the disowdience of children, they must have done their utmost (1) by instruction, (2) by admonition, (3) by correction, (4) by example, (5) by a firm assertion of parental authority generally, to keep them from error. Parents who neg:lect these duties have little cause to wonder at a son turning out ill; the wonder would be if he should turn out well. It is they, as much as the son, who deserve blame. Lesson : Compare with the behaviour of this rebellious son our own treatment or our heavenly Father.-J. 0.