Category: Theonomy

Scott Clark has long been a critic of the Federal Vision. He spouses the “retreatist” position of Westminster, California; who in turn spouses the defeatist position of the Platonic dualists. In a recent post, he notes:

Theonomy, theocracy, Christendom revived are all important elements behind the FV movement. I’m not sure that all the FV proponents are theonomic, but most of them are and all of them support the revival of Christendom and the civil enforcement of the first table of the decalogue.

What Clark is attempting to do with these statements is to eagerly prove to the Reformed world that the old Rushdoonian theonomic and Kuyperian transformationalist position is in some sense attached to the current revival of sacramental theology in the Federal Vision. I must confess: I have never felt such pleasure in being guilty. In order to facilitate his undeniable analogies, I have five statements that I would like to affirm:

1) A theonomic view of God’s world affirms the goodness of creation. Hence, creation under God’s law is meant to be redeemed.

2) Creation provides the necessary ingredients for a heavenly feast on earth, namely, bread and wine. Hence, bread and wine are to be redeemed.

3) Sacramental theonomy affirms that all God’s covenant people including our children and our children’s children are to be beneficiaries of covenant benefits/blessings. Hence, they are recipients of the goodness of God’s creation, which includes bread and wine.

4) Bread and wine transforms and nourishes the body on the Sabbath and also transforms and nourishes the body outside Sabbath worship.

5) The earth is the Lord’s and redeeming the earth occurs through the Lord’s ordinary means. It is impossible to deny the outworking of sacramental theology beyond the church.

These statements affirm that a theonomic and sacramental theology lead to a revival of Christendom; the very manifestation of God’s heaven on earth as we pray corporately every Sabbath that “Thy kingdom come, on earth as it is in heaven.”

The uniqueness of this passage is that there is no crying mentioned or regrets. The assumption is that crying has already taken place, an attempt to find reconciliation has taken place, and since all that has failed, the final option is to put the son to death. The other element in that there is a societal purpose for the death of the incorrigible son. That is, according to verse 21: “All Israel shall hear, and fear.” This example will serve as a reminder for the sons and daughter who decide to live autonomously. This will serve as a reminder that the God of Israel intends that children honor their father and mother.

What about modern application? Some will inevitably argue that this was unique to the nation of Israel under a theocracy, and should not be so today. After all, we live in a pluralistic society where all religions and practices are permitted. In the case of a disobedient son who fits the paradigm of Deuteronomy 21, the humanist would say he should be sent to certain centers for rehabilitation.¹ The answer to this objection is the state has not given the authority to invent their own method of punishment. Who has given the authority to the state to abandon God’s written Law-Word concerning their responsibility to execute that child? Who are we to say that the law of God for Israel concerning the incorrigible son loses its ethical efficacy in the New Testament? It does not take a trained penologist to realize that that the solutions the messianic State² has offered over the years have failed one after the other. In these offender centers they learn to be better criminals³ besides the libertarian argument that there are better things the people can do with their money than to pay for gangsters to enjoy three meals a day and all the pleasantries it affords.⁴

In terms of modern application, the text makes explicit that it is not the parents’ role to execute their children. If this takes place, their blood shall also be required.⁵ The text explicitly gives that responsibility to the local authorities. In this time of redemptive history God has given that authority to the state and to the state alone.⁶ If the son is a member of a church, the church has the authority to excommunicate that son.⁷ It is further the church’s duty to encourage the parents during this time of trial. If after the church tries to restore him and fails, he is to be treated as a pagan. Nevertheless, the text seems to indicate that it is the parent’s final judgment to turn their son to the governmental authorities, not the church.⁸

In the end, Biblical Law reveals the wisdom and patience of God. The death penalty is not applied at the first offense, but as a last resort, when all efforts have failed. Those who hold firmly in Biblical law should not be embarrassed at this covenantal sanction. In the words of Rev. William Einwechter: “Contempt of parental authority, if left unchecked, is the death of the family, law, and order. The question then is: Who or what should die? The rebel, or family and society?”⁹

The forgotten premise of the Bible is that the family carries a stabilizing role in the social order. When the family is dysfunctional, society is dysfunctional. These covenant curses are not replaced by excommunication in the New Covenant as some would support, because a form of excommunication was also practiced in the Old Covenant. After all, not all punishments deserved the death penalty, and for those particular punishments, a form of excommunication was applied (consider being put out of the city). In the words of Jesus himself in Matthew, “For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’”¹⁰ Jesus confirms the Old Testament penalty. Furthermore, our Lord himself did not come to abrogate the law, but to fulfill it.¹¹

Parental care and concern for their children will lead churches and pastors to place a proper focus on the family unit. Any church that is not concerned about the future of the family, is not concerned about the future of the church. Christ has promised to bring victory through his Bride in history. The family is the chosen vessel to bring about the fulfillment of the Cultural Mandate.

 

1. The prison system has been one of the greatest tragedies in modern society. According to Vern Poythress, when the Bible makes any mention of something like a prison, it is supposed to be a waiting place for execution. See The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses. [↩ back]
2. I borrow this language from the late Rousas Rushdoony who believed that the state was messianic, since it appeared to take the place of the Messiah for the peoples. [↩ back]
3. According to recent statistics, 90% of all youngsters who are part of some rehabilitation program go back to their old habits and gangs. This is not a good average. [↩ back]
4. Giving them tickets to football matches, and taking them on expensive foreign holidays; all of which are kindly paid for by the taxpayer! [↩ back]
5. Genesis 9:6. [↩ back]
6. Romans 13. [↩ back]
7. The father will have no right to be in any pastoral ministry, since his home are not ruled well. [↩ back]
8. This may require some more work, but it would appear that the church can educate these parents to turn them over to the state, after all options have been tried. [↩ back]
9. Einwechter, Stoning Disobedient Children. [↩ back]
10. Matthew 15:4 [↩ back]
11. For a 50-page exegesis of Matthew 5:17 see Greg Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics. [↩ back]

Let us turn our attention to the text itself. This law in Deuteronomy 21 gives the classic formulation for a case law, “if…then.” If this happens, this is the necessary consequence according to God’s Law.¹ Here are a few preliminary comments concerning this law. The first thing to note is that this child is rebellious and stubborn. The Hebrews words sarar (rebellious) and marah (stubborn) are very similar.² They have a range of meanings. They can refer to one who provokes or disobey. Since both adjectives are together, the author conveys a very negative attitude. At the outset, the reader is aware that the death penalty is not being given to a son or daughter because they have simply disobeyed their parents. This is far beyond mere disobedience. After all, this is why the rod is needed, so that a child will never get to the point of Deuteronomy 21:18.

This is exactly the point of verse 18. It presupposes that there has already been a firm attempt to bring the son into reconciliation with the parents and with society. Verse 18 reads, “though they discipline him, he will not listen to them.” Here is where a careful reading of the text may bear much fruit. The text reads, “stubborn and rebellious son.”³ The Hebrew word for “son” ben is indefinite. It is used to refer to both sexes elsewhere (Exodus 21:5), but most often it refers to man, in particular this may be the reference in this text. But what is the age of this son? In other passages, it may refer to a child or a young man. However, the text in Deuteronomy gives us clues to the age of the rebellious and stubborn son. In this context, it is impossible to conclude that the son is view is a 6-10 year old. In fact, we can be clear that he was probably a young adult. Einwechter summarizes:

The sins brought forth in testimony to show his contumacious manner are gluttony and drunkenness (v. 20), hardly the sins of the average 6 or 10 year old! The case also indicates that the parents have tried to restrain their son, but all their efforts have failed (vv. 18, 20); specifying that he is physically beyond their control. Furthermore, the parents bring their son to the magistrates to judge the matter (v. 19); hence, the son would have opportunity to speak on his own behalf. All of this indicates that the “son” in question is no mere child, but, rather, a young man at least in his middle teens or older.⁴

The rebellious and stubborn child is not a little child or a naughty child who hits his little brother because his toys were taken, nay; this refers to a mature teenager (at least mature in physical strength) who has severally rebelled from the teachings of their parents.

Notice also that he is a “drunkard” and a “glutton.” These are two of the most contemptible sins in the Bible. As a drunken young man, he is uncontrollable. He is harm to society⁵ and puts at risk every one that comes in his way. He may be violent, threatening his parents⁶ and other family members. He curses his brothers and sisters and curses his parents out of contempt for them.⁷ As a glutton, he causes financial stress to his parents and is also constantly sick due to excessive eating. Furthermore the idea of “gluttony” in this text is much more than just excessive eating. The Hebrew word “zalal” indicates that the son is “worthless.” His existence serves only to bring turmoil and sadness. He does not add one iota of good to society or family. The point of these descriptions is that repeated attempts to bring him to accept the authority of his parents over his life have failed. The only solution, the last solution, is to bring him before the courts.

After all this, the parents have no option, but to bring him before the magistrates. The parents bring him before the magistrates; they are the authoritative two witnesses. They are the ones who have suffered and have seen everything first hand. In verses 19 and 20 the parents present their case before the judges, and if they are convinced of the evil done⁸ the men of the city are to stone him to death.⁹ All this so evil may be purged and the parents may once again live in tranquility being free from the threats within the household.

 

1. The penalties for adultery and homosexuality, which are reasons for the death penalty in the Older Covenant, are not reinstated in the New Covenant. This to me is no reason to deny those civil penalties either. However, in the case of the rebellious child, our Lord Himself in Matthew mentions that particular case law. This is not the proper place to discuss those laws, or to engage John Murray and his arguments. [↩ back]
2. It is used in the Old Testament of a wild, untamed heifer (Hos. 4:16 [↩ back]
3. By Biblical implication we note that the daughter is also in view, though in this text and throughout the Old Testament, the son is the disobedient one. [↩ back]
4. Rev. William Einwechter, Stoning Disobedient Children. [↩ back]
5. In our modern day, he would be a harm on the road driving. [↩ back]
6. Exodus 21:15 [↩ back]
7. Exodus 21:17. [↩ back]
8. At this point I am not sure that if the son shows any remorse. I would assume that even if he did, it is too late. He had every opportunity to repent and obey and abandon his evil ways. [↩ back]
9. Since stoning is an old practice, it may need to be adjusted to our modern situation. However, some theonomic scholars like Gary North gives convincing reasons to use stones, as opposed to modern methods of execution. [↩ back]

After Noah landed, a new constitution was written for this new people in a new land. Before the flood God told Adam to be a) fruitful and multiply¹ b) to eat of all the trees, except the tree of good and evil,² and c) forbade the death penalty.³ After the flood, God re-affirmed a) the dominion mandate to be fruitful and multiply,⁴ b) gave access to all the trees and animals,⁵ but c) affirmed the death penalty.⁶ God was intent in making sure that what happened before the Flood would never happen again.

In Genesis 9:6 we find the Divine support for the death penalty: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.”⁷ Before the flood God maintained that the exercising of the death penalty belonged to Him alone, but in the New World, God grants that responsibility to humanity. We may find here the first glimpses of an organized civil government clearly stated later in the nation of Israel and affirmed in the New Covenant in Romans 13.

In order to defend the position that the death penalty for incorrigible children must be applied today, it is important that the Biblical idea of the death penalty is established. It is clear that without the death penalty, any society is bound to destruction. In the words of Gordon Tullock, of Virginia Polytechnic Institute: “Eighty percent of the people who seriously think about crime think of punishment as a deterrent – except for the sociologists, and they wrote all the textbooks. Statistically speaking, for each prisoner executed there are 50 murders averted. This has been documented in the U.S. between the years 1967-1984. During these years, capital punishment was abolished in most states and then reinstated with new guidelines. During the years that capital punishment was not allowed, murders began to rise.”⁸ The reason it is so effective is because it is God’s Law.⁹ Only His righteous laws can judge a nation.

The uniqueness of God’s Law (Theonomy) is that it is comprehensive. It may not deal with modern crimes in particular, but the penology associated with the case laws given may prove to be applicable in just about any situation. This does not mean it is always easy to determine what penalties go with what, but nevertheless, God has provided a just system of punishment. The law provides a lex talionis for each crime.

It is because of the uniqueness of this law, that the attention is now turned to the incorrigible child. What is the just punishment for the delinquent juvenile? The Older Covenant provides for us grounding for the execution of the incorrigible child. In Deuteronomy 21 we read:

If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Unlike humanism, which seeks to improve depraved man by unbiblical techniques of recovery, the Bible offers a unique solution for certain crimes.

At this point, the idea of fairness and justice may be brought to question by some. After all, the law of God is too harsh and strong on this issue. Some say that it has no more validity in light of this particular sanction concerning rebellious children. This, for them, proves that the Old Testament laws died with the “theocracy” of Israel and has no permanent validity for us today.

Rev. William Einwechter states in his authoritative article on this case law¹⁰ :

…this objection to the use of the Old Testament case laws is based on a shallow reading of the law, a misunderstanding of the actual case law requirement, and an attachment to sentimental impulses as opposed to a commitment to the high ethical provisions of Biblical law. When this case law, which applies the moral law of the Fifth Commandment to a specific circumstance, is understood it will prove to be “holy, just, and good,” a delight to the heart of God’s true people (Rom. 7:12, 22).

 

1. Genesis 1:28. [↩ back]
2. Genesis 1:29. [↩ back]
3. Genesis 4:15. [↩ back]
4. Genesis 9:1-2. [↩ back]
5. Genesis 9:3-4. [↩ back]
6. Genesis 9:6. [↩ back]
7. English Standard Version [↩ back]
8. Tullock, Gordon. Capital Punishment,” Biblical Principles, (Plymouth Rock Foundation), 1984, p. 17. [↩ back]
9. Dr. Mark Ross, from Erskine Theological Seminary argues persuasively that in an imperfect world, there will be cases where the unjust will go free and the just will be punished. Professor Ross argues that God could have chosen 7 witnesses as his model (in this case little conviction would take place) or He could have chosen only one witness to convict of a crime (in which case many would go unpunished), but he chose 2 to 3 witnesses as the universal standard. [↩ back]
10. Rev. William Einwechter, Stoning Disobedient Children, see link: http://www.patriarchspath.org/Articles/Docs/Stoning_Disobedient_Children.htm. I will be using his exegesis at a few points. [↩ back]