Radical home-schooling exegesis of Deuteronomy 6:6-9

[Reformed Covenanter]

And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. Deuteronomy 6:6-9

In recent years this passage has been cited in an attempt to prove that a) home-schooling is the best or only way to educate children; b) the state cannot financially maintain education, as this duty has been given to the "sphere" of the nuclear family.

What are the main problems with such exegesis? I can think of several problems, the primary objection being that it appears to be an ideological assumption read into the text, rather than a teaching derived from a fair analysis of the passage.

I have another question: from whence did the radical home-schooling interpretation arise?

 

[pilgrimmum]

Good question Reformed Covenanter. As a mother of 9 children who has home schooled all of them for various periods for 17 yrs I am a little qualified to answer that I feel. More than likely it is frustrated Christian parents in this day and age who are using this scripture to support their endeavours to bring their children up in the Lords way I would say. Many parents with large families cannot afford Christian school fees and so see homeschooling as a viable Christian schooling option. Also many parents are not very happy with the curriculums and tone of Christian schools these days as well. The homeschooling community provides another need as well and that is fellowship , support and friendship for families training up their children in the Lord which they are often not getting much of from the church apart from "youth" groups some of which are just worldly social clubs.

 

[Pergamum]

It is no radical view to believe the implications of Deuteronomy 6 demand us not to farm out the education and moral instruction of our children to Third Parties while we stay uninvolved.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

It is no radical view to believe the implications of Deuteronomy 6 demand us not to farm out the education and moral instruction of our children to Third Parties while we stay uninvolved.

Perg, although I am not against home-education per se, the above exegesis is "Radical" from the point of view of historic Reformed orthodoxy. The Reformed confessions uniformly recognise the validity of schools outside the home, while at the same time the Reformed have recognised that parents are primarily responsible for ensuring that their children are given a godly upbringing. Is this a contradiction? I do not think so, because it is simply a non-sequitur to assume that because parents are responsible for ensuring their offspring are brought up in the fear of God that therefore they need to do all the academic education themselves. Indeed, until relatively recently it would have been virtually impossible for many middle-class people to home-school and modern home-schooling did not even exist when Deuteronomy 6 was written. Moreover, the assumption that Deuteronomy 6 applies to nuclear parents and no-one else is just that - an assumption, which appears to me to reflect the presuppositions derived from Kuyperianism. This scriptural injunction was given to the nation of Israel, not just to nuclear families alone. If a command is given to a nation (collectively), then surely a nation has the collective responsibility to see that this commandment is obeyed.

That said, I am not against home-schooling and respect those who think it is the most prudent model of education to employ in our current circumstances. What I am opposed to is people reading things into scripture in order to justify this preference, and then turning it into a rigid dogma when it has no biblical or confessional warrant.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Good question Reformed Covenanter. As a mother of 9 children who has home schooled all of them for various periods for 17 yrs I am a little qualified to answer that I feel. More than likely it is frustrated Christian parents in this day and age who are using this scripture to support their endeavours to bring their children up in the Lords way I would say. Many parents with large families cannot afford Christian school fees and so see homeschooling as a viable Christian schooling option. Also many parents are not very happy with the curriculums and tone of Christian schools these days as well. The homeschooling community provides another need as well and that is fellowship , support and friendship for families training up their children in the Lord which they are often not getting much of from the church apart from "youth" groups some of which are just worldly social clubs.

Thank you for your reply, Mrs pilgrimmum. Your comment reflects what I have been thinking as well in relation to this issue: that the above exegesis tells us a lot more about our current circumstances than it does about the actual meaning of the text in question.

It is also interesting how the justification for home-schooling has developed. When I first heard about people home-schooling, it was in order to shield their children from ungodly influences (an entirely legitimate desire). Nowadays, however, it appears that home-schooling is being increasingly advocated on the basis that it is the Christian way to educate children. Perhaps the zeal of people rightly wanting to protect their children from unChristian influences has carried them too far, and they have regretfully overstated the case in order to defend their current practice.

 

[Logan]

I wonder if it really is a reading into Scripture. As a Reformed, Christian parent who looks around and sees the state of the public schools, and who recognizes that he is "primarily responsible for ensuring that their children are given a godly upbringing", wouldn't a natural conclusion be that one of the only viable choices is homeschooling, or Christian schools?

It may be different in other areas (these are my views and mine alone), but in my area I see the godlessness of the public educational system and believe that part of my responsibility in bringing up my children is to keep them out of it.

I understand your point if we are looking at a "neutral" society and people are pointing to this passage to say everyone should move toward homeschooling, but I think the interpretation comes from looking at what is an incredibly ungodly society and then asking, from this verse, what are my options?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Logan, I detect that you are advocating home-schooling as the only viable choice in your current circumstances. If that is your view, then I have no objection to it. That view may even be a valid deduction from the passage cited above. My point, however, is that you cannot impose current circumstances upon the biblical text in order to formulate a theory that all schools outside the home are wrong in all ages and places regardless of the circumstances. Would anyone here seriously argue that it was a sin to send children to public schools in Calvin's Geneva or Reformation Scotland? What about the multitudes of people throughout history who had neither the time, money, nor academic ability to home-school? Were these people sinning by sending their children to Christian public schools?

 

[sevenzedek]

Perhaps the passage is adequate to support home-schooling; but not sufficient to support it to the exclusion of other forms of Christian education. Besides, who needs a Bible verse to support the idea that it is wrong for Christian parents to allow their children to be taught ideas that support damned lifestyles and ideologies? Can you imagine David sending his children to a Philistine public school for their instruction if there ever was such? The adult people of Israel; let alone their children, had negative consequences for their saturation into Babylonian society. The result was the Talmud. Oh, yes. There are such things as Darwinian-evolutionary Christians and those churches that support gay marriage. Where did they get such blasphemous ideas to begin with? Faithful Bible teaching or the world and its propagating teachers?

 

[Logan]

You "have objection to it" or did you mean you "have no objection to it"?

I think you're saying much the same thing I just said. In no way am I saying that schools outside the home are wrong in all ages and places, but my exegesis of the text leads me to believe my responsibility in my age and place require something other than the public school system.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

You "have objection to it" or did you mean you "have no objection to it"?

I think you're saying much the same thing I just said. In no way am I saying that schools outside the home are wrong in all ages and places, but my exegesis of the text leads me to believe my responsibility in my age and place require something other than the public school system.

Thanks for spotting the typo, Logan. Don't ever let anyone tell you words do not matter.

Yes, I think that sounds like a reasonable enough application of the text in your current circumstances.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Perhaps the passage is adequate to support home-schooling; but not sufficient to support it to the exclusion of other forms of Christian education.

Yes, that is why I used the modifier "Radical" before home-schooling. Most home-schoolers I know recognise the validity of other forms of Christian education, but some extremists have run with this text in order to justify making their preference an absolute dogma.

 

[sevenzedek]

Perhaps the passage is adequate to support home-schooling; but not sufficient to support it to the exclusion of other forms of Christian education.

Yes, that is why I used the modifier "Radical" before home-schooling. Most home-schoolers I know recognise the validity of other forms of Christian education, but some extremists have run with this text in order to justify making their preference an absolute dogma.

That is a good modifier, my friend.

 

[Jack K]

I do what the Deuteronomy passage speaks of with my kids. I also send my kids to school (and I am involved with that schooling). The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Tim]

And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. Deuteronomy 6:6-9

It seems to me that the interpretation and application of this passage depends on:

1) the extent of these commanded words - that is, does this include all instruction given to a child, no matter what kind?

2) what it means to teach;

3) the definition of child - What would have been the OT definition of a child? I suspect that it would have been a lot younger than 17-19! If a person is no longer a child, then they may receive instruction outside the home. Most homeschoolers, even the so-called radical ones, make the division after "high school" age, but this could be incorrect, depending on the understanding of when adulthood occurs.

4) understanding of the "all the time" aspect - if it must be done all the time, there is no place for any other kinds of instruction.

 

[Tim]

I do what the Deuteronomy passage speaks of with my kids. I also send my kids to school (and I am involved with that schooling). The two are not mutually exclusive.

Can you show why you believe they aren't mutually exclusive, in light of my points #1 and #4 above. I am not taking any position here; just asking the question.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Daniel:

Good post, brother, and I believe that you are spot-on: an implication of the passage might support homeschooling but the passage in no way mandates it.

Tim, in answer to your question--any parent, whether they homeschool or send their children to school, has the opportunity to do what the verses require. All of us fail at it: none of us, the best of us (whoever that is) do it as we ought or want to. But all parents have the occasion to sit with their children, to walk with them, to rise up and lie down with them--and in all these facets of life to teach them the law of the Lord, the ways of the Lord, the things of the Lord. This is not a commandment to teach them everything that they might learn as if I must teach them piano, art, German, etc. As Jack said, "the two are not mutually exclusive."

Peace,
Alan

 

[Hemustincrease]

Sending children as young as 4 years old into the hands of the pagan state to have their minds and hearts shaped by a curriculum which opposes truth and Christ is extremely radical! Actually, I could stop at “sending children as young as four into the hands of the pagan state.........” is extremely radical.

Home schooling, whether backed by ‘extremists’ or not is not (when we look at history overall) even remotely radical.

 

[Edward]

while we stay uninvolved

So you agree that government school is an appropriate option so long as parents stay involved?

 

[Jack K]

1) the extent of these commanded words - that is, does this include all instruction given to a child, no matter what kind?

It would seem not to. Moses specifies the things he has taught the people. The words Moses commanded and is referring to did not cover everything a child must learn, only many spiritual things. We have no record that Moses taught, say, cooking skills or geometry. These are a necessary part of a child's education if the people are to eat or build a Tabernacle, but not part of what Moses has in mind here.

4) understanding of the "all the time" aspect - if it must be done all the time, there is no place for any other kinds of instruction.

Common sense would suggest the meaning here is closer to "regularly, as you go about your business" rather than "all the time without stopping for anything."

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Sending children as young as 4 years old into the hands of the pagan state to have their minds and hearts shaped by a curriculum which opposes truth and Christ is extremely radical! Actually, I could stop at “sending children as young as four into the hands of the pagan state.........” is extremely radical.

Hi Jo,

I have pointed out that home-schooling is fine if someone wants to guard their children from harmful influences; that, however, is a different thing from saying that home-schooling is the only valid way to educate children in all circumstances. As it happens, I would probably home-school partly in order to protect children from the influence of Federal Visionism, Reconstructionism, Kuyperianism, Voluntaryism, Libertarianism, and other unconfessional teachings that are often disseminated in supposedly Reformed Christian schools.

Home schooling, whether backed by ‘extremists’ or not is not (when we look at history overall) even remotely radical.

I realise that you are writing from a Baptist/Voluntaryist background, so I cannot speak for the historical practice in your tradition. In the Reformed and Presbyterian churches, however, it was historically confessed that their should be common schools. These schools were to be Christian, often supervised by the church, and financially maintained by the state. Although home-schooling was not necessarily precluded, the ideal of the Scottish Reformation was to have a school in every parish.

For some pointers as to the historic Reformed position on education, please feel free to check out these extracts from earlier Reformed writings: Christian Education | Reformed Covenanter

Kind regards,

Daniel

 

[Hemustincrease]

I realise that you are writing from a Baptist/Voluntaryist background, so I cannot speak for the historical practice in your tradition. In the Reformed and Presbyterian churches, however, it was historically confessed that their should be common schools. These schools were to be Christian, often supervised by the church, and financially maintained by the state. Although home-schooling was not necessarily precluded, the ideal of the Scottish Reformation was to have a school in every parish.

Hello Daniel. Yes, I am aware of the history of education, however, my point was that when we look back over the entire 2000 years since Christ, we will find that home education has rarely been considered ‘radical’.

I am not personally opposed to (and I see no opposition to it in Scripture) a genuine Christian school, where the Word of God is revered and the environment maintained as one which positively disciples children in the Christian faith, but this is not to be found anywhere in the UK today (that I am aware of). As such, it is not a surprise that those who home educate often consider their choice to do so, as the only obedient one open to them.

If we take the full 2000 years of Christendom into consideration, we would be asking the question “how did the church ever reach a point where state schooling of an openly humanistic nature was considered the unquestioned normal for the children of believers?”

The ‘home education is the only obedient form of education’ view, sometimes heard today, is a view which needs to be understood in the light of the generation we now live in, rather than in certain times past when ‘school’ was synonymous with the fear of the Lord.

 

[RamistThomist]

It is no radical view to believe the implications of Deuteronomy 6 demand us not to farm out the education and moral instruction of our children to Third Parties while we stay uninvolved.

Perg, although I am not against home-education per se, the above exegesis is "Radical" from the point of view of historic Reformed orthodoxy. The Reformed confessions uniformly recognise the validity of schools outside the home, while at the same time the Reformed have recognised that parents are primarily responsible for ensuring that their children are given a godly upbringing.

Martin Bucer was very pro-state funding on issues like this.

 

[RamistThomist]

Just a thought:

I don't have my Biblia Hebraica with me, but if Moses is speaking to the plural "you," then the emphasis would be off of home-school only, since he isn't speaking to dads at a Vision Forum Conference (I say this as someone who plans on homeschooling). Such an emphasis would allow for a communal education.

 

[MW]

I have another question: from whence did the radical home-schooling interpretation arise?

I think pilgrimmum has explained the dynamics of why home-schooling becomes preferable in certain situations. The "radical" element can be explained in the same way we would explain any radical movement -- self-justification. Through the process of self-justification "self" becomes the centre, wisdom becomes law, and preservation becomes propagation.

Exegetically, a separatist mindset approaches Scripture with a feeling of displacement and a craving for divine validation. When this is added to a fundamentalist view of Scripture which tends to neglect its redemptive-historical message the result is often sectarian literalism.

Theologically, there is a failure to distinguish the spheres of Family, State, and Church authority. Once the State is seen as fundamentally evil the parents assume to themselves the power to make laws and punishments, and to turn the "godly remnant" into a semi-State. There is no appreciation for the church as an institution of grace, and when this is accompanied with the sectarian mindset it gives the "remnant leadership" the warrant to establish their own ecclesial structures.

 

[Pergamum]

while we stay uninvolved

So you agree that government school is an appropriate option so long as parents stay involved?

Yes, I agree that tutors and third parties can be used if the parents can stay involved and if the principles taught at home are not contradicted when away from home.

I think Deut. 6 demands that we get highly involved. I don't think this always demands home-schooling. And there are benefits to grouping kids together and pooling knowledge for subjects such as advanced math as an aid to their parents.

Currently in the USA, I would have a hard time sending my kids to public school. Furthermore, the US public schools don't seem to "serve" parents anymore but seem to have taken the lead role as masters over the children, telling the parents what to do instead of the other way around.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I have another question: from whence did the radical home-schooling interpretation arise?

I think pilgrimmum has explained the dynamics of why home-schooling becomes preferable in certain situations. The "radical" element can be explained in the same way we would explain any radical movement -- self-justification. Through the process of self-justification "self" becomes the centre, wisdom becomes law, and preservation becomes propagation.

Exegetically, a separatist mindset approaches Scripture with a feeling of displacement and a craving for divine validation. When this is added to a fundamentalist view of Scripture which tends to neglect its redemptive-historical message the result is often sectarian literalism.

Theologically, there is a failure to distinguish the spheres of Family, State, and Church authority. Once the State is seen as fundamentally evil the parents assume to themselves the power to make laws and punishments, and to turn the "godly remnant" into a semi-State. There is no appreciation for the church as an institution of grace, and when this is accompanied with the sectarian mindset it gives the "remnant leadership" the warrant to establish their own ecclesial structures.

What about the question of when it arose in history? At present, I would be of the opinion that this opinion first arose in the 1990s. Even the early Reconstructionist leaders, R. J. Rushdoony et al, were in favour of schools outside the home. I am possibly mistaken in this assertion, but is R. C. Sproul JR's When You Rise Up (2004) the only book-length defence of this view-point or is their other literature which advocates this principle prior to the publication of this work?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Hello Daniel. Yes, I am aware of the history of education, however, my point was that when we look back over the entire 2000 years since Christ, we will find that home education has rarely been considered ‘radical’.

I do not consider home education in and of itself to be a radical aberration. I do, however, consider exclusive home-schooling being advocated as a universal principle to be a novel theory from a confessional Reformed point of view. My problem with the extremist home-schoolers is not that they advocate home-schooling as the best option for the present, but that the condemn all common schools (or even private Christian schools) in the abstract. Indeed, I have even heard some of them assert that common schools in Calvin's Geneva and Knox's Scotland were wrong and sinful. This view needs to be resisted as it is only bringing reproach on moderate people who have to home-school as it is the only option open to them.

 

[RamistThomist]

I have another question: from whence did the radical home-schooling interpretation arise?

I think pilgrimmum has explained the dynamics of why home-schooling becomes preferable in certain situations. The "radical" element can be explained in the same way we would explain any radical movement -- self-justification. Through the process of self-justification "self" becomes the centre, wisdom becomes law, and preservation becomes propagation.

Exegetically, a separatist mindset approaches Scripture with a feeling of displacement and a craving for divine validation. When this is added to a fundamentalist view of Scripture which tends to neglect its redemptive-historical message the result is often sectarian literalism.

Theologically, there is a failure to distinguish the spheres of Family, State, and Church authority. Once the State is seen as fundamentally evil the parents assume to themselves the power to make laws and punishments, and to turn the "godly remnant" into a semi-State. There is no appreciation for the church as an institution of grace, and when this is accompanied with the sectarian mindset it gives the "remnant leadership" the warrant to establish their own ecclesial structures.

What about the question of when it arose in history? At present, I would be of the opinion that this opinion first arose in the 1990s. Even the early Reconstructionist leaders, R. J. Rushdoony et al, were in favour of schools outside the home. I am possibly mistaken in this assertion, but is R. C. Sproul JR's When You Rise Up (2004) the only book-length defence of this view-point or is their other literature which advocates this principle prior to the publication of this work?

There were a number of home-school only books before then, but RCjr's was the most popular (and probably the most cogent), if only because of his dad's name. Whereas the others were written by people who were likely evading the IRS (I say this from attending a Rushdoony conference and those two issues came up).

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

There were a number of home-school only books before then, but RCjr's was the most popular (and probably the most cogent), if only because of his dad's name. Whereas the others were written by people who were likely evading the IRS (I say this from attending a Rushdoony conference and those two issues came up).

Do you have a rough idea of when these were published? I guess RC Jr's was the only one published by a mainstream Reformed publisher. And while we are on this subject, does anyone know of a scholarly response to that book?

 

[timmopussycat]

It is no radical view to believe the implications of Deuteronomy 6 demand us not to farm out the education and moral instruction of our children to Third Parties while we stay uninvolved.

It is noteworthy that God's Old Covenant people did "farm out the education and moral instruction" of their children to some extent as Edersheim has shown in his The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah pp. 230-33.