Romans 13:4 is undoubtedly the most commonly employed Bible verse in defense of the civil government’s duty to use violence as a means of enforcing law and order—and rightly so. It reads:
For he [the ruler] is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil (NKJV).
Although the passage evidently refers to the duty of civil authorities, nothing in the text itself implies that the execution of punishment upon those who practice evil is the exclusive domain of civil government. While we often think of the government’s duty to execute justice as entailing a monopoly on the use of violence as a means of punishment, its duty is only unique in terms of the sphere of human life to which it pertains. In fact, Scripture clearly teaches that parents ought to employ corporal punishment—also a form of violence—to discipline their children (Proverbs 23:13-14; 29:15).
Correctly understanding biblical civic ethics entails recognizing that parents’ duty to discipline their children is in fact the basis of the state’s duty to punish evildoers. A common (Arminian) objection to the idea of capital punishment as demanded by the Law of God is the idea that taking the life of a murderer or rapist robs them of time they may have to repent and come to faith in Christ. However, this amounts to a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of criminal law itself. The biblical rationale behind inflicting corporal punishment upon a child—meaning to “deliver his soul from hell” (Proverbs 23:14)—also applies to biblical dictates with regard to capital punishment.
In prison, the inmate longs for a way to escape, either by means of being granted parole or through breaking out (after all, “where there is life there is hope, right?”). On death row, there is no possibility of parole and no time to escape. The convict, faced with the reality of immanent death, has nowhere to turn but to Christ for deliverance. Therefore, capital punishment confronts the criminal with the need for repentance much more than prison sentences tend to do. A capital sentence in the justice system therefore serves the purposes not only of restitution, rehabilitation, and taking away the sting and desire for vengeance on the part of those afflicted and affected by the crime, but it also confronts the offender with the need and urgency of repentance. The duty of the state to punish evildoers is as such evidently rooted in the duty of parents to discipline unruly children.
This fact can also clearly be seen through a proper understanding of one of the most controversial passages in all of Scripture. In Deuteronomy 21:18-21 we read the following:
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 who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out of the elders of his city, to the gate of the city. And they shall say to the elders of the city, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear.
This is, of course, a favorite passage of antinomians. How often have we not heard this passage employed against the principle that God’s Law provides the unchanging and perpetual moral standard for all human societies? It is also a favorite passage of atheists, who love to use it as an argument against the authority of the Bible in general. But the representation of the text by haters of God’s Law never actually accords with the text itself. So, for a change, let us look at the text and its context.
First of all, the command must be seen in the context of all of Scripture. It is impossible to understand a passage of Scripture in isolation, and it is exegetically irresponsible to do so. Earlier I referenced Proverbs 23:14 as providing the rationale for inflicting corporal punishment upon a child, namely to “deliver his soul from hell.” The Hebrew word translated here as hell, namely שְּׁא֥וֹל (“Sheol”) literally conveys the place of the dead or hades. Thus, the word can be understood to refer either to physical death, eternal death, or both. And in this particular case I believe it is indeed the latter.
Solomon, the author of Proverbs would have been familiar with the laws of Deuteronomy. Therefore, he wisely advises parents to inflict corporal punishment upon unruly children so they may seek the path of righteousness and avoid becoming the absolutely lost case referred to in Deuteronomy 21:18.
In Deuteronomy 1:31 the love of a father for his children is used as an analogy for the unfathomable love of God has for his children: “in the wilderness where you saw how the Lord your God carried you, as a man carries his son.” The importance of parents loving their children is also emphasized in Malachi 4:6, where it is written that God “will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers.” Moreover, in 1 Thessalonians 2:11 the apostle Paul writes that he and his co-laborers “exhorted, comforted and charged every one of you, as a father does his own children.”
Thus, the commands of Deuteronomy 21:18-21 must be understood in light of the normative expectation of texts such Deuteronomy 1:31, Proverbs 23:14, Malachi 4:6 and 1 Thessalonians 2:11—namely that godly parents ought to love, take care of, and desire what is best for their children. It cannot, in fact, be rightly understood apart from this biblical norm. In fact, Fatherly love is such a prevalent biblical message that Jesus reminds us what an immense salvific privilege it is to call God our Father now that we have been lovingly adopted as children into His family (Matthew 23:9).
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 does not teach that parents should stone their lost children to death. It teaches they should bring them to the elders of the city. And one of the reasons for this is so that the elders cannot only judge the behavior of the children but also the intention of the parents. This point needs to be stressed time and again—biblical law simply does not allow parents to stone their disobedient children to death. If parents were to do this, even in ancient Israel, they would be found guilty of murder. What biblical law does teach is that parents who have tried everything to discipline their children on the path of righteousness and have truly lost all hope for their incorrigible children are allowed to bring their children to the court for judgment. If the elders of the city were to find that the parents had any malicious intent in bringing their son for judgment or that they had not yet exhausted all other possibilities, the child would of course be exonerated and certainly not be executed. The same principle was, in fact, applied by Jesus in the trial of the woman caught in adultery, where there were no reliable first-hand witnesses present to participate in her execution, meaning the legal requirements for neither a conviction nor an execution were met.
Biblical law therefore does not simply command parents to kill unruly children. In fact, the very principle contained in the text of Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is ingrained in our human sensus iustitia (sense of justice), as is evident from the reaction of the local community of Eldorado Park in Johannesburg, South Africa in 2018 to the trial of Veronica Raquel Dunn, a 48-year old mother, for killing her drug-addicted daughter, Avent. As anti-drug activist Dereleen James addressed mourners at Avent’s funeral, she publicly told Ms. Dunn, “We will support you throughout this journey. I vouch to you and your family that your daughter’s death is not in vain… It is for us to stand together against the evil that is wiping out the future of Eldorado Park.” This reflected the prevalent sentiment among both parents and leaders of this drug-infested community.[1] They understand what it entails to live with meth and heroin addicts in the same home.
Of course, under biblical law, Ms. Dunn would actually be found guilty of murder for killing her daughter. She did not take her daughter to be tried by the proper authorities and therefore committed an illegal act of vigilante justice. But the point is that biblical law would have allowed her that option of taking her daughter to be tried and sentenced by the proper authorities. While biblical law does not allow for a government-sanctioned war on drugs as such,[2] it would have provided the Dunn family and the community a legal avenue whereby they could have been truly liberated from the mess which is, in the words of miss James, “wiping out the[ir] future.” The threat of capital punishment for perpetual rebellion against parental authority to the point of making the lives of others a living hell would in itself also serve to disincentivize hard drug abuse and other destructive behaviors.
The case law outlined in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 shows that civil authority in the biblical sense is not only an extension of familial authority, but it also makes clear that the civil execution of justice is a natural extension of that very same duty of parents. It would therefore be erroneous to view family government and civil government as fundamentally differing in nature as opposed to jurisdiction. The principle of subsidiarity,[3] consistently applied, necessitates such a view. The duties of family government and civil government differ in practice, but not in essence. Both are bound to God and the authority of His good and perpetually authoritative law.
[1] Editorial, “Mom who killed drug-addict daughter breaks down in hysterics at funeral,” All 4 Women (December 20, 2018): https://www.all4women.co.za/1654947/news/south-african-news/mom-who-killed-drug-addict-daughter-breaks-down-in-hysterics-at-funeral.
[2] The war on drugs is one of the many counterproductive measures implemented by modern governments. For an overview of how the war on drugs has effectuated increased government tyranny, listen to the discussion on the matter by R.J. Rushdoony, Mark Rushdoony, Otto Scott, and Douglas Murray at https://pocketcollege.com/transcript/RR161DJ206.html.
[3] Subsidiarity is a mechanism that aims to ensure the liberty of citizens from the interventions of the central government, by emphasizing that socio-political matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, and least centralized authority.
Dr. Schlebusch is a historian, philosopher, and theologian from South Africa. He holds two BA degrees (theology and Latin) and a Master’s degree in philosophy from the University of the Free State. In 2018, he graduated with a PhD from the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands.
