abstract: |

Skip Navigation

by William Einwechter

When I wrote the article for the Chalcedon Report on Deuteronomy 21:18-21, "Stoning Disobedient Children?" ⁰ little did I anticipate the notoriety this short essay would achieve. Apparently, it caught the attention of Rev. Barry Lynn and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AU), and this organization sent out a press release on February 18, 1999 with the heading, "Bible Requires Death by Stoning for 'Rebellious' Teenagers, says PA. Preacher."1 Then, the March 1999 issue of Church & State, which is published by AU, carried a report on my article in the "People & Events" section with the title, "Spare the Rock, Spoil the Child, says Reconstructionist."2 Both the press release and the report sought to paint my article as a prime example of the views of "Christian Reconstructionists," which AU characterized as the most extreme and radical element of the Religious Right.

These AU statements struck a responsive chord among their allies and supporters and summaries of and links to the press release and report appeared on many web sites. The goal of Lynn was achieved, in that these sites expressed horror and disgust at the views that the AU said I held. AU's philosophy seems to be: Why enter into serious discussion or interact on a theological or philosophical basis with those that you disagree with if you can simply marginalize your opponent by distortion and inflammatory words?

But Lynn and AU were not finished yet with their use of the article on Deuteronomy 21:18-21. In the October 2001 issue of Church & State, the AU ran an article on the National Reform Association.3 The article, written by Rob Boston, began with this sentence: "The Rev. William Einwechter has a novel solution to the problem of incorrigible juvenile delinquents--stone them." Boston then gave his summary of the article and indicated that I serve as the vice president of the NRA. Boston figured this would be a fine way to get his readers in the right frame of mind to consider his report on the NRA and our trips to Washington, D.C. in 2000 and 2001.

But this was still not the end of it, and Barry Lynn and AU found more good use for what they characterize as my "extreme" views on Deuteronomy 21:18-21. On November 13, 2002, they issued a press release concerning the annual NRA conference entitled: "Americans United Urges Pennsylvania Congressman to Drop Out of Religious Extremist Conference."4 In the press release, AU made a predictable reference to the Chalcedon Report article saying, "One sponsor of this weekend's event, the Rev. William Einwechter, argued in a 1999 article that juvenile delinquents should be stoned to death." The pressure by AU and others caused the PA Congressman, Joe Pitts, to cancel his appearance (who wants to appear on the podium with a man who wants to stone disobedient children?), and the Associated Press in Washington ran an article on Pitts' cancellation. The AP article stated that I support the stoning of disobedient children. So now my article has reached the notice of the national press.

All of this leads me to revisit the subject of my 1999 Chalcedon Report article for the purpose of answering misrepresentations of my views on Deuteronomy 21:18-21, and for giving further comments and clarifications on that text of Scripture.

1. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is in the Bible. This may seem a strange way to put it (of course Deuteronomy 21 is in the Bible!), but it appears necessary to say so. The idea that a rebellious son could be brought by his parents to the magistrates for trial and possible execution is not something that I or some other "radical" happened to think up--it originated with Moses and the law he gave to Israel by God's command. This text is biblical law.

   Boston states that in my article I give "a novel solution to the problem of incorrigible juvenile delinquents...." As the article was a defense of the justice of God in giving this law to Israel, it hardly seems correct to call it a novel solution. After all, this law was promulgated by the great lawgiver around 3,500 years ago! For three and a half millennia this law has stood as God's written revelation of the righteous response to the circumstances set forth in the text of Deuteronomy 21:18-21. But, then again, to people who think like Boston the serious exposition and use of the whole Bible as the standard of Christian ethics for all spheres of life may be quite novel--both strange and new.

   Orthodox Christians, who believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the inspired Word of God and the only infallible standard of faith and practice, cannot simply dismiss Deuteronomy 21:18-21 from their minds or their consideration. It is part of Holy Scripture, and true Christian believers must seek to understand the purpose of God in giving this law and discern what the law says to us today. The theology that underlies the text and the moral and legal principles revealed in the law need to be grasped and applied to our circumstances today. It is certainly not sufficient to say that Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is "Old Testament law," or that it "was only for Israel," and thereby think that you have dealt with the text honestly and faithfully.

   The fact that Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is biblical law also reveals that all the contempt, ridicule, and scorn expressed by Lynn & Company at my defense of the righteousness of this law is not against me, really, but against God and His law. These people hate the law of God. They are horrified at the thought of biblical law becoming the ethical standard in civil society.

   Furthermore, the way they speak, they must think that Moses was a tyrant, and that to live in Israel under the laws that he gave by revelation from God would be akin to living under radical Muslim clerics in Iran--in fact it would be worse, for Lynn says that those who advocate Old Testament biblical law as the standard of civil law "would make the mullahs in Iran blush." Lynn gives us a novel way to picture Moses: a radical extremist whose laws represent a bizarre and dangerous agenda.

2. The New Testament affirms the righteousness and continuing authority of Deuteronomy 21:18-21. Those who would dismiss this text as irrelevant to Christians and unimportant for the New Testament era of God's kingdom, because it is part of the Old Testament, need to consider the following.

   First, Jesus Christ made it clear that the purpose of His ministry and teaching was not to nullify the authority, teaching, or applicability of the law or the prophets (Matt 5:17-19). He specifically stated that His disciples are responsible to do and to teach even the least of the commandments in the Law (Matt. 5:19). Now it is certain that Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is one of the commandments of the law. Therefore, Christians are commanded by their Lord to do and to teach Deuteronomy 21:18-21. Granted, the proper teaching and doing of this law, as with all biblical law, requires careful interpretation and application. But we cannot, if we claim to be Christians, ignore this law--we must seek to understand its meaning and moral imperatives and apply the law to our day.

   Second, Jesus specifically upheld the requirement of the Old Testament law of Exodus 21:17:

   And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

   He did so in Matthew 15:4, where He said:

   For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death (cf. Mark 7:10).

   If we would cite Jesus in support of the 5th Commandment that prescribes the honor of parents, then we should not shrink from citing Him in support of the law of God that prescribes the punishment of those who would be so vile as to curse their parents. For Jesus, these two laws are united as the expression of the moral law of God: one states the fundamental duty, and the other gives the righteous punishment for those who would violate that duty to such a flagrant and debased degree.5

   This affirmation of Exodus 21:17 by Jesus is of paramount importance for Christians as they consider Deuteronomy 21:18-21. Exodus 21:17, along with Exodus 21:15 --"And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death"-- are statutes that mandate death for those who curse and/or strike their parents. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is a case law that regards a menacing youth who is so wicked and rebellious against parental dignity and authority that he is worthy of death. By explicitly endorsing the death penalty in the statute law of Exodus 21:17, Jesus implicitly endorses the death penalty provisions in the case law of Deuteronomy 21:18-21. Though the text of Deuteronomy does not indicate that the rebellious son had cursed or struck his parents, it can be reasonably inferred that if this would happen, in any particular case, the judges would have to conclude that the rebel was worthy of death.

   Third, the Apostle Paul affirmed the inspiration and authority of Deuteronomy 21:18-21 for Christians and this age when he wrote:

   All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

   It is certain that when Paul wrote of all Scripture the law of Deuteronomy 21:18-21 was included. For Paul, this law was inspired Scripture from which the followers of Christ should seek doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. Paul taught that this law is part of God's revelation to men that will help to equip them to do God's service by good works.

   Fourth, the writer of Hebrews expressly stated that the law of the Old Testament was sure and reliable and that every prescribed punishment for the transgression of it was a just recompense:

   For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; (Heb. 2:2)

   Now, there can be no question that this declaration includes the case law of Deuteronomy 21:18-21. Hence, the New Testament states unequivocally that the death penalty for the kind of rebellious son described in this law is righteous and just, i.e., the punishment fits the crime perfectly. If it was a just penalty against the gross violation of the 5th Commandment then, why would it not be just today? If the law of Deuteronomy 21:18-21 does not give us ethical and legal instruction on how to deal with similar cases today what portion of Scripture does? Or are we now too wise and sophisticated for the law of Moses?

3. The law of Deuteronomy 21:18-21 does not mandate the stoning of "disobedient children." When I submitted my original article on Deuteronomy 21:18-21 I entitled it: "Stoning Disobedient Children?" Please note the question mark. My purpose was to show that the law was not about stoning disobedient children! I sought to show that children are not in view, but those who are young men or women; and that the crime was not simple disobedience to parents, but absolute contempt for parental authority joined to a wicked and riotous life. As it turned out, the editor of the Chalcedon Report, either deliberately or inadvertently, left the question mark off my title. Regardless of this change, the article itself made it very clear that I believed that the law of Deuteronomy 21:18-21 does not instruct parents to have their naughty children stoned.

   The one described in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is not a disobedient child or even a strong-willed child who is constantly challenging the authority of his parents. No, the subject of this Old Testament law would better be described as a young adult who is a full-blown rebel of a criminal disposition. For the parents to consider the step of bringing him to the authorities, they must have judged him as well-nigh hopeless and even dangerous.

   Deuteronomy 21:18-21 has nothing to do with the training or restraint of a child, but with the judgment of God against a reprobate son or daughter who threatens the well-being of all around them and of society in general. It is a solemn law to deal with a grave problem. In view of this, AU's "cute" heading, "Spare the Rock, Spoil the Child," to their Church & State report on my serious article on Deuteronomy 21:18-21, borders on blasphemy against God's Word.

4. As a case law, Deuteronomy 21:18-21 gives God's judgment on how to deal with this and all related cases. In other words, the case laws of the Bible give a particular case and the opinion of the Judge of all the earth on what is the just decision in that case. This decision, along with other biblical laws and principles, enables human judges to work through similar cases and arrive at justice. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 does not mandate death in every case of rebellion. The judges may determine that the problem is pressing, but that it does not warrant death, and may decide on other means of punishment or restraint. What this law does is provide a safety net for the family and society in that it charges civil magistrates to step in, at the parents' request, to restrain and punish a rebellious son or daughter that the parents cannot control.

   This law is also preventive. Its very presence on the books serves as a dire warning to would be rebels and would, no doubt, mercifully dissuade many from that path of ruin. It also would serve to stop at least some of the wicked before they commit other crimes such as theft, assault, murder, rape, and the like. The purpose of God's law is to restrain and punish evil-doers and protect the innocent. Humanistic law protects evil-doers and punishes the innocent.

   AU and Lynn have made much of the manner of execution, and state that I say the Bible requires "death by stoning for rebellious teenagers." As I have noted already, death only would be imposed in the most severe cases of rebellion. Furthermore, as one who holds to the "general equity" of the law, I do not believe that cultural items such as elders sitting in the gates as judges and stoning by the men of the city as the means of execution are essential elements that need to be reproduced today to have the justice of this law upheld. These are peripheral matters, and justice would be served by our courts using more modern methods of execution in those cases that might warrant death.

5. Comments on the law of Deuteronomy 21:18-21 by others. I conclude with comments from others on the nature and meaning of this law. I begin with Calvin, who preached:

   Here first of all is showed what their charge and duty is which have children: and secondly that when children have grown past amendment by their fathers and mothers, they must be rooted out, because their doing is against nature, and is such an infection as provoketh God's wrath upon the whole country.... Here God condemneth such disobedience to death. It is God that gives this sentence, and not man. And he sayeth that it is an unpardonable fault, when a child is so hardhearted that his father's and mother's correction cannot prevail with him. For why? We must ever come back to this point, that such a one is a monster: and whatsoever is against nature we ought to loathe and abhore it.6

   Matthew Poole states:

   The consent of both father and mother is required to prevent the abuse of this law to cruelty. And it cannot reasonably be supposed that both would agree without manifest necessity, and the son's abominable and incorrigible wickedness, in which case it seems a fit and righteous law, because the crime of rebellion against his own parents was so high in itself, and did so fully signify what a pernicious member and son of Belial he would be in the commonwealth of Israel, who had dissolved all his natural obligations.7

   Rushdoony makes the following insightful comments on this law:

   ...[T]he crime of the delinquent son involves an assault or war on fundamental authority.... The law, by its generalization, portrays an incorrigible delinquent whose general conduct confirms his lawless nature.... He is not a weak character, he is a strong one, but his character is dedicated to evil. The family is the cradle of life, and the godly family gives an inheritance of life. To renounce this inheritance is to renounce life.

   ... By law, certain acts are abolished, and the persons committing those acts either [are] executed or brought into conformity to law. The law thus protects a certain class, the law-abiding, and every law-order is in effect a subsidy to the people of the law. If the law fails to enforce protection, it destroys itself in time. The failure of the law to execute the incorrigible and professional criminal is creating a major social crisis and leading increasingly to anarchy.8

   Christenson explains:

   The law here concerns a completely hardened and worthless son.... At the heart of the legislation here lies the need for the stability of the family. Sound family life requires the authority of parents, upheld by respect for the law. Like disrespect for parents, disrespect for the law breeds contempt for discipline in general, whether human or divine, and the ultimate breakdown of society itself.9

   Kalland gives an apt summary:

   The rules for behavior in domestic and civil life generally provided protection for the less fortunate.... In the case of a recalcitrant son, however, no mercy was allowed. The description of such a son alleviates what seems to be a less humanitarian approach. The son was stubborn, rebellious, and disobedient in the face of remonstrance. These words describe incorrigible wickedness.... This son was not only stubborn and rebellious, he was incorrigibly disobedient. No hope remains for such a person.10

Endnotes

0. This note added on the web: There is another copy of the original article on the Books on the Path web site.

Many newspapers picked up the press release and published it with no substantive change and no pretense at research of their own. Dennis Roddy of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette had quite a bit more integrity, producing If we fear even to meet the enemy, our legacy is paralysis.

1. This press release, "Bible Requires Death by Stoning for 'Rebellious' Teenagers, says PA. Preacher," can be read at www.au.org/press/pr21899.htm.

2. This report, "Spare the Rock, Spoil the Child, says Reconstructionist," can be found at www.au.org/churchstate/cs3998.htm.

3. This article, "Operation Potomac," can be read at www.au.org/churchstate/cs10011.htm.

4. This press release, "AMERICANS UNITED URGES PENNSYLVANIA CONGRESSMAN TO DROP OUT OF RELIGIOUS EXTREMIST CONFERENCE", can be read at www.au.org/press/pr021113.htm.

5. I wonder what Barry Lynn would have said had he heard or read of Jesus' teaching in Matthew 15 in the day Jesus delivered it? Would he have condemned Jesus as being extreme in His views? The following parody of the AU press release of February 18, 1999 on my Deuteronomy 21:18-21 article shows how, if consistent, they might have issued a press release on Jesus' teaching in Matthew 15:4:

Bible Requires Death by Stoning for those Who Curse Their Parents, says Galilean Preacher

Nazareth Teacher Insists Bible Mandates Execution

The Bible mandates death by stoning for those who curse their parents, according to a Galilean preacher and Religious Right teacher and healer.

Jesus' speech against observing traditional washing of the hands before eating was delivered before an angry group of Pharisees and included a remarkable reference to the need for executing those who curse their parents. In the speech, Jesus cited Exodus 21:17 which advises parents to bring a son who curses them to the civil authorities for execution.

Jesus' viewpoint drew sharp criticism from church-state separationists.

"Rabbi Jesus reminds us all of why we need a clear separation between religion and government," said Rabbi Harry Lind, Sadducee and executive director of Jews United for the Separation of Church and State, a Jerusalem based watchdog group. "I doubt if most Jews think we should turn Palestine into a fundamentalist version of Ancient Israel," said Lind.

In his speech, Jesus stated bluntly that those who curse mother and father should "die the death," and that obedience to God's law was more important than keeping man-made laws and traditions.

Jesus is the leader of 12 disciples and a growing Messianic movement, and represents an extreme contingent of the Religious Right. Jesus and his followers reject the divinity of Rome and deny that the Pax Romana is the kingdom promised to Israel. Under their version of "biblical law" every area of life, including the civil, would be governed by God's commands.

Although the movement's numbers are relatively small, its ideas have often filtered into other Religious Right groups.

Jesus, a Nazareth resident, is only a carpenter by trade and holds no position in any recognized organization. Yet, he sets himself up as a teacher and calls men to obey all the laws of God; even such a harsh one as Exodus 21:17!

6. John Calvin, Sermons on Deuteronomy (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, [1583] 1987), pp. 755, 759.

7. Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, [1685] 1962), 1:377.

8. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973), pp. 190-191.

9. Daune L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 21:10-34: 12, in Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2002), pp. 484-484.

10. Earl S. Kalland, Deuteronomy, in The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 3:133.

back to top