When I first came to Singapore as a secondary school student, I spoke “proper” English and I had to learn Singlish. One of the first Singlish expressions I learned was “abuden”, which is a combination of Hokkien “a-bo”, meaning “if not”, and the English word “then”. Put together it is used to say “if not then how” or, in other words, “obviously”.

We see something similar in the language in Deuteronomy 21 as Moses lays out God’s laws covering five different areas of life. Moses uses what is termed as casuistic laws, which is just a fancy way of describing laws with pre-conditions, laws that say “if … then”: IF ABC happens, THEN do XYZ.

The first section (21:1-9) deals with making atonement for unsolved murders. IF the murderer’s identity was a mystery, THEN the elders from the town nearest to the body were to undergo a ceremony to cleanse the guilt of innocent blood from their midst (see also Deuteronomy 13:5, 17:7, 19:13, 19:19).

Although this may look very strange to our “modern eyes”, where only if you are convicted of a crime are you guilty of that crime. Guilt is thought of in terms of legality rather than morality. In our modern culture, therefore, even we Christians are conditioned to think that as long as something is legal, it is also morally acceptable. This is not so in God’s eyes. So, in the case of an anonymous murder, even though legal responsibility could not be assigned, moral guilt still existed and had to be removed from God’s community through corporate atonement. That was the purpose of the elders’ solemn declaration that no one in their community was the murderer or knew of the murderer’s identity.

Japan has a very high level of collective civic consciousness to keep their neighbourhoods clean. If an unknown person had simply thrown his soda can on the pavement, it is very likely in Japan for a passerby to pick it up and throw it in the nearest trash can. The passer-by is under no legal obligation to do that. He was not legally responsible for the soda can being thrown on the pavement but if he were to leave it lying on the pavement, instead of helping his community by throwing away the offending soda can, he would feel morally guilty.

In the second section (21:10-14) God laid down laws to protect foreign women taken as captives in war outside the Promised Land (Deuteronomy 20:13-15). It was very common for women captured during wars to be raped, taken as slaves, tortured or killed. God set Israel apart from the pagan nations around her, prohibiting Israel from many of the pagan practices of the time, e.g., child sacrifices, worship of idols, and, here in Deuteronomy 21, the treatment of female captives.

IF an Israelite man wished to marry (not rape!) a female captive, THEN he had to show her proper respect and provide her with:

shelter (21:12 “you bring her home to your house”),

decent clothing (21:13 “she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured”),

protection/security (21:13 “shall remain in your house”), and

appropriate period of time to mourn (21:13 “lament her father and her mother a full month”).

IF the man decided later that he wished to divorce this woman, THEN he was to release her to begin a new life as a completely free woman – she could no longer be treated as a slave, the husband could not sell her or mistreat her.

We must be careful to note that God’s concern in this section was for the welfare and protection of vulnerable women. This passage IS NOT about God’s approval of divorce. Similarly, we must again be careful in the third section (21:15-17) to understand that this passage is not about God’s approval of polygyny (having more than one wife at the same time) or polygamy (having more than one spouse at the same time). What is important here is that the husband’s attitude toward his wife could not affect his legal responsibilities to her and her children – IF he did not love his first wife, THEN he could not reject the rights of his firstborn son.

We do not have to be at war and taking female prisoners as slaves to see parallels in our society today. Many men, Christians included, treat women not with respect but as “things”. You only need to visit Geylang or any of the seedier sides of Singapore to find beautiful but vulnerable women bought for an hour or an evening of pleasure, their bodies rented out like property. We also have no lack of examples where Christian men have affairs, marry their mistresses to start new families and turn their backs on their children from the first marriage.

The fourth section (21:18-21) addresses punishment for rebellious sons (probably older youths or young adults, see 21:20 where they are described as “gluttons and drunkards”). IF the sons were beyond the ability of their parents to govern, THEN the elders were to sentence them to death. Although our Old Testament, and rabbinical traditions and records show no evidence of this form of punishment ever being carried out on rebellious offspring, this showed how serious God was about insubordination of children toward their parents, so much so that Jesus would say in Mark 7:10 “For Moses said, ‘Honour your father and your mother;” and “whoever reviles father or mother must surely die”.

The young generation of today feel dismissed by the older generation. They feel like the older generation look down on them or do not take them seriously. There is truth to that. But it is also true that the younger generation no longer have a healthy respect for the older generation. This perspective is not really the fault of the younger generation – for decades, the world has set the example! Survey after survey show that over 80% of employers feel that those under the age of 35 are ideal for all jobs except cleaners and company directors. We have forgotten that John Wesley was still preaching powerfully at 88, or that Monet was still producing great masterpieces after age 85, or that Michaelangelo painted The Last Judgement in the Vatican when he was 69.

Just as God pronounced capital punishment for defiant sons in the previous section, God turns in the fifth and final section (21:22-23) to laws governing the treatment of those who had been executed by hanging or by stoning and then hanged on display. Hanging and being hung on display in a public place were widely practised by both the Israelites and the nations around her (Genesis 40:22, Joshua 8:29, 10:26, Esther 2:23, 5:14, 7:10, 8:7, 2 Samuel 4:12, 21:12). However, as a nation set apart as holy to Him, God forbade the Israelites to inflict further emotional pain on the victim’s family.

IF the body of the man was hung on a tree, THEN it was not permitted for his body to remain on the tree after sunset but was to be buried by the end of the day (21:22) because the curse that was on the criminal would otherwise defile the community and land (Numbers 35:33, Leviticus 18:24-27). Little did the Israelites know that on a dark Friday afternoon 1,000 years later, God’s Anointed One would be hung on a tree till sunset to redeem believers from the curse of the Law

Galatians 3:13 “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree’”.

Reflection & Prayer : What is one action that you can think of that might be legally permissible but morally wrong? Should Christians try to make everything that is immoral also illegal? Why or why not?