The Person Who Attacks Their Parents

Exodus 21:15 says if someone strikes their father or mother—something like self-defense being an exception (Exodus 22:3)—he or she is to be put to death.  This is one of the only assaults other than the kind involving murder (Genesis 9:6, Exodus 21:12-14, etc.) that is directly prescribed the death penalty, though it would follow from Deuteronomy 17:12 prescribing execution for the mere verbal display of contempt for a righteous judge of Yahweh's Law (similar to how cursing one's father or mother deserves death according to Exodus 21:17 and Leviticus 20:9) that attacking them physically, a greater offense, would also deserve death.  But what of a child, not in the sense of biological relationship but of age, who attacks their parent?

While a very young son or daughter striking their parent out of malice might seem petty to some, they have still intentionally struck their own parent without a morally justifiable reason, and they would still be the type of offender condemned to die by Exodus 21:15.  It would not matter if the offender is six or 10 or 15 years old: they would deserve to die all the same, just as they would if they committed murder (see also Numbers 35:31) despite their age.  Children are, like adults, individuals who are capable of sin that varies in motivation and intensity from person to person.  Age (like race, class, and gender) does not exempt someone, if such an act is truly immoral, from the guilt of murder, and the same would by necessity be true of attacking one's parents maliciously.

The seven year old who willfully strikes their father or mother—such laws as this one and those of Exodus 20:12, 21:17, Deuteronomy 5:16, and 21:18-21 are explicitly egalitarian, in contrast to what some assume the Torah teaches about fathers—simply deserves to perish.  1 Timothy 1:9 says that those who kill their fathers and mothers are among those who deviate from God's commands, possibly referring to an extreme case of the child-parent assault described in Exodus 21:15.  It is utterly untrue that the New Testament revokes such penalties, as if Jesus and Paul could possibly be on Yahweh's side (a deity whose moral nature does not change according to Deuteronomy 5:29, Malachi 3:6, and James 1:17) while promoting anti-theonomist philosophy.

Jesus very directly acknowledges that those who curse their parents as addressed in Exodus 21:17 and Leviticus 20:9 deserve to die (Matthew 15:3-6, Mark 7:8-13), as if he had not already said he did not come to abolish or alter the obligations of Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-19).  Paul, who repeatedly affirms Mosaic Law as being of divine origin and thus perfect righteousness (Acts 23:1-5, 24:14, Romans 7:7, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, and so on), says the kind of disobedience to parents mentioned in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 deserves death in Romans 1:28-32.  The New Testament rather overtly does not in any way contradict the Old Testament on a plethora of moral matters, which of course includes terrestrial justice, and if it did, the New Testament could not possibly be true since it would then conflict with what it stands on.