PUNISHMENT VERSUS DISCIPLINE

Thesis: There is no Church Age scriptural authorization to employ any form of punishment, including corporal punishment, to bring about a change in a person’s behavior, including children’s behavior.

Introduction

Four Different Sets of Rules by Which to Live

The Holy Bible contains four different sets of rules by which to live. Each set of rules is prescribed for a different era of human history. These eras are referred to as dispensations of time. Theologically, these rules have been titled as follows:

1. Inherent Law: valid from Adam to Moses (Dispensation of the Gentiles)

2. Mosaic Law: valid from Moses to Christ’s death on the cross (Dispensation of Israel)

3. Royal Family Honor Code: valid from the death of Christ until the rapture of the Church (Dispensation of the Church)

4. Kingdom Law: valid during the last 1,000 years of human history with Christ ruling on earth (Dispensation of Christ, also referred to as the Millennial Kingdom)

Each of these four sets of rules is sufficient in and of itself for the dispensation in which it was to be applied. There never was and there remains absolutely no need to borrow even one rule from one dispensation to make up a single deficiency in the set of rules applicable to any other dispensation.

Although there are similarities in the four sets of rules, the danger is to believe that no distinction should be made between them because of their similarities, when in fact, it is their dissimilarities that make them distinct from one another. The contrasts between law and grace are best studied in Lewis Sperry Chafer’s Systematic Theology, Volume IV, pages 203-233.

The following principles should be applied when interpreting the Bible:

1. Do not apply a rule for living during one dispensation of time to a subsequent dispensation if the rule is not restated in the scriptures applicable to the subsequent dispensation.

For example, “Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy” is the fourth commandment among the Ten Commandments under the Mosaic Law. Interestingly, this commandment is the only commandment of the Ten Commandments that is not restated as a rule to be followed by Christians. (See Lewis Sperry Chafer’s Systematic Theology, Volume IV, pages 209-210.)

2. If a rule from a previous dispensation happens to be restated in a subsequent dispensation, the earlier rule becomes an illustration and is not the rule to be followed.

For example, the eighth commandment of the Ten Commandments under the Mosaic Law is “Thou shalt not steal.” Ephesians 4:28 restates this same truth: “Steal no more.” Church Age believers are to refrain from stealing because they are commanded not to steal in Ephesians 2:8, not because Israel was commanded not to steal in Exodus 20:15. Exodus 20:15 bears no weight with the Christian.

In part, this is the meaning of the Apostle Paul’s injunction to the young pastor Timothy when he told him to “rightly divide the Word of truth.”

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (KJV)

3. Do not apply rules for living associated with one dispensation to a previous dispensation.

For example, the nine beatitudes found in Matthew 5:3-11 are truths associated with the reign of Jesus Christ on earth during His millennial reign in the last one thousand years of human history. These beatitudes were to be truths associated with His kingdom rule had Israel accepted Him as their Messiah during His first advent; however, Israel rejected their Messiah during His first advent, and the rules associated with His kingdom have been suspended until His return to establish His kingdom at His second advent. Any attempt to impose kingdom rules on the church is to erroneously impose rules for a future dispensation on our present dispensation.

Failure to adhere to any of these three principles will cause faulty application of scriptural truths to certain life’s situations. If the wrong rule is applied to a life situation, you can no more expect a satisfactory outcome than the person who applies wrongly prescribed medicine to his particular disease.

Let me illustrate: If corporal punishment is valid in the Age of Israel, a similar rule must be stated again as a rule for the Church Age, and if it is not restated, corporal punishment is not valid during the Church Age simply because it was valid for the Age of Israel.

A valid application of this principle is seen in the principle of giving. Tithing is oftentimes taught as the valid principle for giving to the Church, yet it is commanded in the Mosaic Law only of Israel during the Age of Israel, and never commanded of the Church during the Church Age.

Let us use caution that we do not violate any of the three principles just stated above when discussing the issue of discipline versus punishment.

Working Definitions

Ed Ford, in his book, Discipline for Home and School, Book One, provides working definitions for both discipline and punishment.

Discipline defined: Discipline is teaching children to respect the rights of others through responsible thinking by learning to obey rules. (p. 13)

Punishment defined: Punishment is trying to change what children do by hurting them, either physically or verbally, or by giving them no options or choices. (p. 14)

Mr. Ford adds, “With discipline, none of the options may be what a child currently wants, but there are no other options available to the person in charge of the child.” (p. 14)

A Place for Corporal Punishment?

Is there a place for corporal punishment to alter behavior in the Church Age? Nowhere in the Church Age rules for living is corporal punishment advocated. Church Age believers are enjoined to raise their children in the “nurture and admonition of the Lord?”

Passages of Scripture in the Book of Proverbs dealing with corporal punishment associated with child rearing are linked to commands from God found in the Mosaic Law and should not be used by the Church Age Christian parent as guidelines for child rearing. Why? Because the Mosaic Law has no jurisdiction over the Church Age believer.

The following question is offered to stimulate reader thinking, something that will be required throughout this document. The question is simply this: Would you, as a parent, prefer to punish your child’s bad behavior and see him change because he is motivated by fear of punishment, or would you prefer to teach your child to think about his bad behavior, then have him draw a conclusion that his behavior is unacceptable, and then as a matter of his own choice change his behavior to that which is acceptable? The issue in this question is changed behavior motivated by fear of punishment versus changed behavior motivated by right thinking.

Comments: Unger’s and Author’s

The following information contains excerpts from Unger’s Bible Dictionary, written by Merrill F. Unger who is still on the staff at Dallas Theological Seminary. The following information also contains my thoughts and comments regarding my thesis in view of my understanding of the Bible and the information provided by Unger in his Bible dictionary.

On page 901, Unger discusses “punishment” and makes the following comments:

“Biblical View. (1) In the Old Testament

“In the Old Testament the punishments most frequently mentioned, and upon which chief stress is laid are temporal. They were inflicted directly by God, or divinely prescribed to be inflicted by persons duly authorized.”

Author’s Comment: Note that Unger uses the word temporal. This means that the punishment being discussed is punishment while people are alive in their physical bodies rather than punishment dealt by God in the after life, that is, in eternity future. Unger also recognizes that God delegated authority to certain human beings for the purpose of carrying out punishment; however, remember that right now we are discussing the biblical view of punishment in the Old Testament, that is, punishment during the Age of the Gentiles and punishment during the Age of Israel. The Church Age is not in view.

Unger says, “The severity of the Old Testament dispensation in this respect has often been made a subject of unfavorable criticism.”

Author’s Comment: This unfavorable criticism comes from people whose perception of God does not permit a God of wrath. These people picture God as a God of love whose characteristic love excludes any form of divine punishment. They see an “Old Testament God of punishment” vs. a “New Testament God of love.”

Unger says, “But the character of the people, and the condition of the times, and the necessity for impressing the importance of morality and religion, and of developing the right national life furnish the sufficient explanation.”

Author’s Comment: The “character of the people”—and who are these people? These are the Old Testament Israelites functioning under the Mosaic Law. Unger is saying that God dealt severely with the people of Israel because of their character. The implication is that these people after 400 years of bondage in Egypt had developed a national character, the nature of which was such that it required the type of punishment described in the Mosaic Law.

“Biblical View. (2) In the New Testament.”

Unger says, “In the New Testament we find a relaxing of the severity of the Old Testament with respect to temporal penalties; but in connection with this the bringing into prominence of the motives and the influences of the Gospel revelation. (Matthew 5:19-48; Luke 7:37-50; John 8:3-11)

Author’s Comment: Again, Unger makes reference to temporal penalties. This is just another way of saying divine punishment for wrongdoing in the lives of those still alive and functioning under the Mosaic Law.

Unger says, “. . . The retribution, however, upon which the New Testament lays chief stress is that of the future. Of the fact of future punishment and of the eternal duration in some form the teachings of Christ and the apostles leave no room for doubt. (Matthew 12:32; Mark 3:29; 9:43; Revelation 14:11; 20:10)”

Author’s Comment: Retribution, here—this is a reference to divine punishment for wrongdoing, but note that we are now talking about punishment related to failure to abide by New Testament policies. The focus has shifted from temporal punishment to future punishment of eternal duration. This brings into focus punishment associated with hell and the lake of fire, not what happens while someone is alive in a physical body. It should also be made clear that the five biblical references just cited refer to eternal consequences, not temporal consequences. These passages, though New Testament in nature, have nothing to do with temporal punishment of Christians for bad behavior.

“Theological and Ethical”

Unger says, “The primary ground for the infliction of punishment is NOT the reformation of offenders. In the divine administration a distinction is clearly made between chastisement and punishments properly so called. And in the administration of human government the object of reformation often has a proper recognition, though the reason and warrant for the penal sanctions of the law are deeper than that. The chief end is not the discouragement or prevention of crime or wrongdoing. This is often an important effect, and a proper though still subordinate object. The underlying idea—that most deeply fundamental—is justice.”

Author’s Comment: (We are now looking at punishment theologically and ethically without specific reference to life under the Mosaic Law or life under grace in the Church Age. Unger might well have said by way of introduction, “Hey, this is the way it is, now and in the past.”)

Author’s Comment: Look at Unger’s first statement, and learn from it—“The primary ground for the infliction of punishment is NOT the reformation of offenders,” and yet, that seems to be the primary reason why parents and others to whom authority over children is delegated administer punishment, namely, to modify bad behavior. Unger makes it clear what punishment was never primarily intended to do, namely, reform bad behavior; and it should be made clear that if reformed behavior actually occurs in conjunction with punishment, this does not justify Church Age punishment associated with child rearing—just in case it might result in modified behavior. That’s unjustified rationalization, and there is no place for such rationalization in the spiritual life associated with the Christian life.

Author’s Comment: Unger uses the word chastisement. This comes from the Greek word “paideuo” meaning “to instruct, train, correct.” Note that punishment is not mentioned.

Author’s Comment: Unger continues, “And in the administration of human government the object of reformation often has a proper recognition, . . .” This means that when punishment is rendered by duly authorized individuals, it is recognized that reformed behavior may result, but he adds, “though the reason and warrant for the penal sanctions of the law are deeper than that.” This means that while modified behavior may result from penal sanctions of the law (which means punishment for wrongdoing), the reason and justification for punishment run deeper than changed behavior. Again, this implies that punishment used to modify behavior is a rationalization based upon a false notion of its primary purpose, namely, justice.

Author’s Comment: Unger continues, “The chief end [ of punishment ] is not the discouragement or prevention of crime or wrongdoing.” If not, then what is the chief end [ objective ] of punishment? Here it is! JUSTICE. Unger says it this way, “The underlying idea—that most deeply fundamental—is justice.” In other words, “He is getting what’s coming to him.”

Author’s Comment: Justice has nothing to do with modified behavior. Modified behavior is not a guaranteed spin-off from justice, and to deem it so is both rationalization and unrealistic expectation. If it occurs, it occurs, but there is no cause and effect relationship between justice and modified behavior.

Author’s Comment: I’d be remiss if I did not mention Unger’s statement, “This [ reformed behavior ] is often an important effect [ result from punishment ], and a proper [ meaning “it’s good if it occurs” ] though still subordinate [ to justice ] object [ objective, goal ].”

Author’s Comment: Unger is saying that modified behavior is a worthy goal in any person’s life, and if modified behavior occurs in conjunction with punishment for wrongdoing, modified behavior is an important result, but punishment was not administered with the intention of modifying the behavior of the one being punished. Here’s an illustration: If someone commits a crime, the nature of which demands imprisonment, justice is the motivation behind sending the criminal to prison. If, however, the prisoner chooses to become a believer in Jesus Christ while in prison and chooses to modify his behavior, it must be understood that there is not now, nor has there ever been, a cause and effect relationship between punishment as justice and modified behavior.

Punishment. Mosaic Law.

Important to our thesis is Unger’s comments that follow:

“The law of retribution seems to underlie punishment in all ages.”

Author’s Comment: Do we understand what he is saying? Retribution means deserved punishment for wrongdoing, and Unger says that from ages past right up to today, man on this planet has viewed punishment as deserved for wrongdoing. Note that it’s the law of retribution, not the law of changed behavior.

Unger says that punishment is found in the form of blood revenge among many ancient peoples as primitive (Genesis 27:45) custom, going back for its final basis in Genesis 9:5.

Genesis 27:45 until your brother's anger against you subsides, and he forgets what you did to him. Then I shall send and get you from there. Why should I be bereaved of you both in one day?" (NAS)

Genesis 9:5 "And surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from {every} man, from every man's brother I will require the life of man. (NAS)

Unger says, “Very naturally, in acting as redeemer the person would be tempted to inflict greater injury than that which he avenged.”

Author’s Comment: “Very naturally” means “while acting under the influence of the human sinful nature (sometimes referred to as the old-sin-nature or the Adamic nature), and the context of this statement refers to people of Genesis 27:45 and Genesis 9:5 who historically lived prior to the Mosaic Law.

Author’s Comment: Here, the “redeemer” is the duly authorized person responsible for executing justice.

Author’s Comment: “tempted to inflict greater injury than that which he avenged” means that the punishment is greater than the crime. Does this sound familiar?

Author’s Comment: Now, Unger is going to take us from pre-Mosaic Law to the Mosaic Law under which a correction is to be made. The punishment should now equal the level of the crime. Remember, prior to the Mosaic Law, the redeemer is said to be tempted to inflict greater injury than that which he avenged.”

Unger states: “According to the Mosaic code, punishment was made to correspond to the heinousness of the offense, that there should fall upon the culprit what he had done to his neighbor, no more, thus giving no authority for personal revenge.”

Author’s Comment: This means that under the Mosaic Law it was intended that punishment for wrongdoing would equal the level of wrongdoing, and the person rendering the punishment was given no room to abuse the wrongdoer by over-punishment.

Unger says, “What is said in Deuteronomy 19:19 in regard to the false witness holds good of all the penal enactments of the Mosaic Law:

Deuteronomy 19:19 then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. (NAS)

Deuteronomy 19:19 his penalty shall be the punishment he thought the other man would get. In this way you will purge out evil from among you. (TLB)

Unger says, “This we see, at the root of all the enactments of the Mosaic penal code there lies the principle of strict but righteous retribution, and its intention is to extirpate [ to pull up by the roots; root out; to destroy completely; exterminate; abolish ] evil and produce reverence for the righteousness of the holy God in the heart of the people.

My comments: Righteous retribution (punishment)—this is at the root of the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law’s goal was not to over-punish people for wrongdoing. In fact, the Mosaic Law when applied properly would have negated that possibility.

Author’s Comment: “to extirpate evil” occurred when the wrongdoer was excommunicated from the community. This is not a reference to the modified behavior of the wrongdoer. When the cancerous cells are removed, the remainder of the body becomes healthy.

Author’s Comment: Reverence was produced in the heart of the people for the righteousness of the holy God when they saw evil extirpated from the community by excommunicating the evildoer. When the rest of the community saw the evildoer excommunicated, they would reason that it is better to do right than to be excommunicated from the community. Once again, punishment did not alter the behavior of the evildoer.

Capital Punishment

Unger writes (page 902) with my comments in brackets, “The wide range of crimes punishable by death according to the Mosaic Law may be accounted for by the peculiar conditions of the Israelites. A nation of newly emancipated slaves, they were probably intractable [ hard to manage; unruly or stubborn ]; and their wanderings and isolation did not permit of penal settlements [ plea bargaining ] or remedial punishments [ something less than the death penalty ]. They [ the Israelites as they wandered in the wilderness ] were placed under immediate divine government and surveillance [ God was watching ]. Willful offenders [ people violating God’s law and knowing that they were doing so ], under such circumstances [ willful disobedience ], evinced [ manifested ] an incorrigibleness [ cannot be corrected, improved, or reformed ] which rendered death [ capital punishment ] the only means of ridding the community of such transgressions [ those punishable by death ], and this was ultimately resorted to in regard to all individuals above a certain age, in order that a better class might enter into Canaan (Numbers 14:29, 32, 35).”

Numbers 14:29 your corpses shall fall in this wilderness, even all your numbered men, according to your complete number from twenty years old and upward, who have grumbled against Me. (NAS)

Numbers 14:32 `But as for you, your corpses shall fall in this wilderness. (NAS)

Numbers 14:35 `I, the LORD, have spoken, surely this I will do to all this evil congregation who are gathered together against Me. In this wilderness they shall be destroyed, and there they shall die.'" (NAS)

Author’s Comment: This was punishment in accordance with the Mosaic Law. This has no application to Church Age believers (people living between the dates of Pentecost AD 30 and the Lord’s return for His church (the rapture—yet future).

Corporal Punishment

Author’s Comment: If we read further on pages 902-904, we read about the following things associated with the Mosaic Law: Capital Crimes; Capital Penalties; Secondary Punishments: Retaliation, Compensation, Corporal Punishment, and Imprisonment. It is my purpose here to set forth information about corporal punishment under the Mosaic Law. Unger writes:

“Stripes, consisting of forty blows with the rod (Deuteronomy 25:1-3)

Deuteronomy 25:1-35

1 "If there is a dispute between men and they go to court, and the judges decide their case, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked,

2 then it shall be if the wicked man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall then make him lie down and be beaten in his presence with the number of stripes according to his guilt.

3 "He may beat him forty times {but} no more, lest he beat him with many more stripes than these, and your brother be degraded in your eyes. (NAS)

Author’s Comment: We can see that corporal punishment was permitted under the Mosaic Law. The rod was used to administer this punishment, and that’s why we read the following passages in Proverbs:

Proverbs 10:13 In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding. (KJV)

Proverbs 13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. (KJV)

Proverbs 22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him. (KJV)

Proverbs 23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. (KJV)

Proverbs 23:14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. (KJV)

Proverbs 26:3 A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back. (KJV)

Proverbs 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame. (KJV)

Author’s Comment: One of the biblical meanings of the word “rod” is a stick used for punishment.

Author’s Comment: The Mosaic Law authorized the use of the rod for corporal punishment during the Age of Israel—from the time of Moses until the death of Christ on the cross. This is why we read about the rod in these Proverbs passages. It was a biblically valid tool used for punishing evildoers; however, make certain you realize these passages were authorized during the Age of Israel, not the Church Age.

Question: Are we as Christians under the Mosaic Law? The answer is, no. Read the following passage of Scripture [ my comments added in brackets ]:

Galatians 3:19-25

19 Why the [ Mosaic ] Law then? It was added [ added to Inherent Law that preceded it ] because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed [ Jesus Christ ] should come to whom the promise had been made.

20 Now a mediator is not for one {party only} whereas God is {only} one.

21 Is the [ Mosaic ] Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if [ and there has been none ] a law [ that is, any law ] had been given which was able to impart [ spiritual ] life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on [ that form of ] law.

22 But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise [ of spiritual salvation ] by faith [ alone ] in Jesus Christ [ alone ] might be given to those who believe [ in Christ ].

23 But before faith [ alone in Christ alone ] came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the [ type of ] faith [ alone in Christ alone ] which was [ much ] later [ after the giving of the Mosaic Law ] to be revealed.

24 Therefore the [ Mosaic ] Law [ by providing a list of rules that the Israelites were unable to keep, and thereby pointing out their personal sins ] has become our tutor [ schoolbus ] {to lead us} [ to transport us ] to Christ [ for spiritual salvation ], that we may be justified [ made righteous ] by faith [ alone in Christ alone ].

25 But now [ with the physical birth of Jesus Christ ] that faith [ faith alone in Christ alone ] has come, we are no longer under a tutor [ the Mosaic Law ]. (NAS)

The Living Bible puts it this way:

Galatians 3:19-25

19 Well then, why were the laws given? They were added after the promise was given, to show men how guilty they are of breaking God's laws. But this system of law was to last only until the coming of Christ, the Child to whom God's promise was made. (And there is this further difference. God gave his laws to angels to give to Moses, who then gave them to the people;

20 but when God gave his promise to Abraham, he did it by himself alone, without angels or Moses as go-betweens.)

21 Well then, are God's laws and God's promises against each other? Of course not! If we could be saved by his laws, then God would not have had to give us a different way to get out of the grip of sin-- for the Scriptures insist we are all its prisoners. The only way out is through faith in Jesus Christ; the way of escape is open to all who believe him.

23 Until Christ came we were guarded by the law, kept in protective custody, so to speak, until we could believe in the coming Savior.

24 Let me put it another way. The Jewish laws were our teacher and guide until Christ came to give us right standing with God through our faith.

25 But now that Christ has come, we don't need those laws any longer to guard us and lead us to him. (TLB)

Author’s Comment: This passage, when properly understood, makes it clear that the Mosaic Law ceased to function with the coming of Christ, namely, with the coming of His death on Calvary’s cross. Therefore, if Christians are no longer under the Mosaic Law, then by what authority do we as Christians use corporal punishment on our children?

Author’s Comment: We cannot disassociate the use of the rod in Proverbs from the Mosaic Law, and since we as Christians are not under the Mosaic Law, we are not authorized to make application of the rod passages to Christian parenting. The basis for the rod was the Mosaic Law, and if someone argues for punishment without the rod, Unger says on page 931 that the word “rod” in Proverbs 13:24 and Proverbs 29:15 is used as a figure for punishment, therefore, we are once again pressed to understand that all forms of punishment in the Old Testament are associated with the Mosaic Law—and we as Christians are not subject to the Mosaic Law.

Further Comments by This Author

It is my considered opinion that Unger’s comments on punishment as taught in Scripture are an accurate portrayal of what the Bible teaches on the subject in both the Old and New Testaments. I find his comments quite interesting for the following reasons:

1. Many of my friends vindicate themselves for punishing their children’s “bad behavior” by appealing to the Old Testament, primarily, the book of Proverbs.

2. While my friends appeal to the Old Testament for vindication, I find this conflict: parents punish with the primary thought that such punishment will eventuate in a reformed child, and if not, at least they will have absolved themselves of guilt if and when the child grievously fails in life. Let us be reminded that the primary purposes of Old Testament punishment was retribution and justice, not reformation. (I don’t know even one parent who punishes a child with retribution or justice in mind. Reformed behavior seems to be their elusive goal. -- Perhaps my “swans are still all white” because I haven’t yet seen any black swans.)

3.  Regarding the Old Testament, Unger states categorically that “The primary ground for the infliction of punishment is NOT the reformation of offenders.” This seems very clear, and it would seem to me that any appeal to Scripture would only be valid if a parent was attempting to justify punishing his child for the sake of retribution or justice—and that makes absolutely no sense to me. Parents don’t seek retribution or justice from their child. They seek reform, a purpose for which biblical punishment was not designed.

4. If punishment angers a child, and it eventually does, it seems as though the parent who seeks behavioral change through punishment, and then self-vindicates by an appeal to Old Testament Scripture, has overlooked an important New Testament (Church Age) principle taught by the Apostle Paul:

Ephesians 6:4 And, fathers, do not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. (New American Standard Version)

Colossians 3:21 Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged. (King James Version)

In the Ephesians 6:4 passage above, the Greek word for “discipline” is paideia (pahee-di'-ah) meaning “tutorage, i.e. education or training; by implication, disciplinary correction” (this is teaching the child to do right, and then he follows through and does it; this does not connote punishment).

5. Ephesians 6:4 is translated from the Greek to English in the following manner in each of the following versions of the New Testament:

Ephesians 6:4 And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord. (New King James)

Ephesians 6:4 Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. (New International Version)

Ephesians 6:4 And now a word to you parents. Don't keep on scolding and nagging your children, making them angry and resentful. Rather, bring them up with the loving discipline the Lord himself approves, with suggestions and godly advice. (The Living Bible)

6. THERE IS NO HINT OF PUNISHMENT IN EITHER THE EPHESIANS OR COLOSSIANS PASSAGE.

Concerning Moses vs. Jesus

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. (KJV)

John 1:17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. (NAS)

John 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. (NIV)

John 1:17 For Moses gave us only the Law with its rigid demands and merciless justice, while Jesus Christ brought us loving forgiveness as well. (TLB)

This passage teaches us that Moses is associated with the Mosaic Law, but Jesus is associated with grace and truth. Christians are not subject to the Law of Moses. (To argue differently is to fly in the face of Scriptural truth.) We are subject to the grace and truth of Jesus Christ. Remember, the rod passages of Proverbs are associated with Moses and the Mosaic Law, not Jesus Christ and grace.

The “My Commandments” of Jesus

John 14:15 "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. (NAS)

John 14:21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him." (NAS)

John 15:10 "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love. (NAS)

Jesus is not asking that we keep the commandments of Moses. He says that we are to keep His commandments, and there is a vast difference between the commandments of Moses and the commandments of Jesus Christ. It is the difference between law and grace. Christians, we are not under the Mosaic Law.

For behavioral change, we, as Christians, need to get out of Proverbs and get into Ephesians and Colossians:

Ephesians 6:4 And, fathers, do not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. (New American Standard Version)

Colossians 3:21 Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged. (King James Version)

Punishment and the Word “paideuo”

The following underlined words translate some form of the English verb “chastise” by the Greek word “paideuo.” I am providing four different versions of the Bible to show how the same Greek word has been translated in these versions.

It should be noted that where there is more than one possible meaning of a specific Greek word, the translation of that Greek word demands that the context first be interpreted by the translator, followed by a translation consistent with the translator’s contextual interpretation of the verse or passage. This explains why one Greek word can be translated “chasten,” “discipline,” and “punish” in the same verse in three different versions, and “chastened,” “disciplined,” and “trained” in another verse in three different versions. Translators are often required to interpret before translating, and when one translator interprets differently from another, different translations may result. That’s why you and I may have differing opinions regarding what God thinks about a subject, especially if we are reading from different versions of the Bible.

My purpose in the following discussion is to show that the scriptural use of the Greek word “paideuo” grants no basis for punishing a child to alter his behavior.

chasten (KJV)

Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. (KJV)

Revelation 3:19 'Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; be zealous therefore, and repent. (NAS)

Revelation 3:19 Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. (NIV)

Revelation 3:19 I continually discipline and punish everyone I love; so I must punish you unless you turn from your indifference and become enthusiastic about the things of God. (TLB)

Conclusion: Here, it is the Lord Jesus who will do the chastening, not human beings.

chastened (KJV)

1 Corinthians 11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. (KJV)

1 Corinthians 11:32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord in order that we may not be condemned along with the world. (NAS)

1 Corinthians 11:32 When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. (NIV)

1 Corinthians 11:32 Yet, when we are judged and punished by the Lord, it is so that we will not be condemned with the rest of the world. (TLB)

Conclusion: Here, it is the Lord doing the chastening, not human beings.

Hebrews 12:10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. (KJV)

Hebrews 12:10 For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He {disciplines us} for {our} good, that we may share His holiness. (NAS)

Hebrews 12:10 Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. (NIV)

Hebrews 12:10 Our earthly fathers trained us for a few brief years, doing the best for us that they knew how, but God's correction is always right and for our best good, that we may share his holiness. (TLB)

Conclusion: Here, the Jewish author refers to his own Jewish father under the Mosaic Law and other Jewish fathers under the Mosaic Law who chastened their children. This Jewish reference is an illustration, not a doctrinal injunction for Christians to follow.

chasteneth (KJV)

2 Corinthians 6:9 As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed; (KJV)

2 Corinthians 6:9 as unknown yet well-known, as dying yet behold, we live; as punished yet not put to death, (NAS)

2 Corinthians 6:9 known, yet regarded as unknown; dying, and yet we live on; beaten, and yet not killed; (NIV)

2 Corinthians 6:9 The world ignores us, but we are known to God; we live close to death, but here we are, still very much alive. We have been injured but kept from death. (TLB)

Conclusion: Here, the Apostle Paul is talking about things that have happened to him as a result of serving God. There is no reference here to a valid use of corporal punishment upon human beings to change bad behavior.

Hebrews 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. (KJV)

Hebrews 12:6 For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son whom He receives." NAS)

Hebrews 12:6 because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son." NIV)

Hebrews 12:6 For when he punishes you, it proves that he loves you. When he whips you, it proves you are really his child." (TLB)

Conclusion: Here, it is the Lord who chastens, not human beings.

Hebrews 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? (KJV)

Hebrews 12:7 It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom {his} father does not discipline? (NAS)

Hebrews 12:7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? (NIV)

Hebrews 12:7 Let God train you, for he is doing what any loving father does for his children. Whoever heard of a son who was never corrected? (TLB)

Conclusion: Here, it is the father who chasteneth his son. Note that the (NAS) and (NIV) use the word discipline and (TLB) uses the word corrected. There is no reason to believe that corporal punishment is intended in this verse.

chastening (KJV)

Hebrews 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? (KJV)

Hebrews 12:7 It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom {his} father does not discipline? (NAS)

Hebrews 12:7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? (NIV)

Hebrews 12:7 Let God train you, for he is doing what any loving father does for his children. Whoever heard of a son who was never corrected? (TLB)

Conclusion: Here, it is God who is chastening, not human beings.

Hebrews 12:11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. (KJV)

Hebrews 12:11 All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness. (NAS)

Hebrews 12:11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it. (NIV)

Hebrews 12:11 Being punished isn't enjoyable while it is happening-- it hurts! But afterwards we can see the result, a quiet growth in grace and character. (TLB)

Conclusion: Here, the reference is to both earthly fathers (vv. 9-10) and God as our heavenly Father (vv. 9-10) who are chastening us. Since both earthly father’s and Father God are included in this verse as chasteners, the issue is what method of chastening would each use that would be similar. Since God the Father does not literally spank us personally, it seems unlikely that corporal punishment is an issue in this verse. Remember again, this is the Book of Hebrews, a book written to Jewish Christians who have a Mosaic Law frame of reference, therefore, the reference to a father’s chastening is illustrative only, and certainly not an injunction for Christians to use corporal punishment on their children to bring about reformed behavior.

chastisement (KJV)

Hebrews 12:8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. (KJV)

Hebrews 12:8 But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. (NAS)

Hebrews 12:8 If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons. (NIV)

Hebrews 12:8 If God doesn't punish you when you need it, as other fathers punish their sons, then it means that you aren't really God's son at all-- that you don't really belong in his family. (TLB)

Conclusion: Here, God, again, is the One doing the chastising, and if one would argue for corporal punishment to be included as an indirect method (God authorizing a human being to administer His chastising), there would need to be a biblical reference that granted Church Age authority to use corporal punishment, and the question arises as to whether that authority exists. It seems as though the answer is, no.

Other Verses Using Paideuo in the New Testament

Strong’s Number 3811 (KJV)

Luke 23:16 I will therefore chastise him, and release him. (KJV)

Conclusion: This is Pontius Pilate, an unbeliever, having Jesus beaten with leaded thongs—certainly not intended to authorize Christians to punish to bring about reformed behavior.

Luke 23:22 And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go. (KJV)

Conclusion: This is Pontius Pilate, an unbeliever, having Jesus beaten with leaded thongs—certainly not intended to authorize Christians to punish to bring about reformed behavior.

Acts 7:22 And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds. (KJV)

Acts 7:22 "And Moses was educated in all the learning of the Egyptians, and he was a man of power in words and deeds. (NAS)

Conclusion: Here the word “paideuo” is translated “learned” (KJV) and “educated” (NAS). Punishment is not in view, especially, corporal punishment.

Acts 22:3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. (KJV)

Acts 22:3 "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated under Gamaliel, strictly according to the law of our fathers, being zealous for God, just as you all are today. (NAS)

Conclusion: Here, the word “paideuo” is translated “taught” (KJV) and “educated” (NAS). If corporal punishment was used in Paul’s upbringing, it is very clear from this verse that it was in accordance with the Mosaic Law, and therefore, justified under the Mosaic Law; however, there is no basis for transferring legitimate Mosaic Law function to Church Age function without Church Age scriptural authority for doing so.

1Corinthians 11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. (KJV)

1 Corinthians 11:32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord in order that we may not be condemned along with the world. (NAS)

Conclusion: This is chastening directly from the Lord. No corporal punishment in view. The form of chastening is seen in 1 Corinthians 11:30: “That is why many of you are weak [ physical weakness ] and sick [ physical sickness ], and some have even died [ physical death ].” (TLB)

2 Corinthians 6:9 As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed; (KJV)

2 Corinthians 6:9 as unknown yet well-known, as dying yet behold, we live; as punished yet not put to death, (NAS)

Conclusion: In this passage, the Apostle Paul speaks of things that happen to a Christian in service for the Lord, and implies that this chastening of a Christian is accomplished at the hands of unbelievers. No legitimate Christian authority can use this verse to validate the use of corporal punishment to reform the behavior of anyone under his authority.

1Timothy 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. (KJV)

1 Timothy 1:20 Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered over to Satan, so that they may be taught not to blaspheme. (NAS)

Conclusion: Here, the same word “paideuo” is translated “learn” (KJV) and “taught” (NAS). Delivering a person over to Satan is not associated with any form of corporal punishment. Delivering a person over to Satan is a matter of excommunicating that person from the Christian community, leaving him with no Christian support.

2Timothy 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; (KJV)

2 Timothy 2:25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, (NAS)

Conclusion: Here, the word “paideuo” is translated “instructing” (KJV) and “correcting” (NAS). Obviously, punishment, and certainly corporal punishment, is not meant to be the means of getting the thinking of these Christians back on track.

Titus 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; (KJV)

Titus 2:12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, (NAS)

Conclusion: Here again, “paideuo” is translated “teaching” (KJV) and “instructing” (NAS). Obviously, punishment, and certainly corporal punishment, is not in view in this passage.

Hebrews 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. (KJV)

Hebrews 12:6 For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son whom He receives." (NAS)

Conclusion: This is chastening directly from the Lord. No corporal punishment in view.

Hebrews 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasten eth not? (KJV)

Hebrews 12:7 It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom {his} father does not discipline? (NAS)

Conclusion: This is chastening directly from God. No corporal punishment is in view.

Hebrews 12:10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. (KJV)

Hebrews 12:10 For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He {disciplines us} for {our} good, that we may share His holiness. (NAS)

Hebrews 12:10 Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. (NIV)

Conclusion: Here, the children of God receive “paideuo” from both earthly fathers and God Himself. Please note that earthly fathers “paideuo” for earthly father benefit—“after their own pleasure” (KJV), “as seemed best to them” (NAS), “as they thought best” (NIV)—but God “paideuo’s” his children for their benefit. The conjunction of contrast—BUT—indicates a difference in purpose, namely, who would benefit from “paideuo.” In the case of our earthly father’s “paideuo”, the father benefited. In the case of God’s “paideuo,” the child of God benefits.

Conclusion: The fact that earthly fathers “paideuo” for their own benefit--“after their own pleasure” (KJV), “as seemed best to them” (NAS), “as they thought best” (NIV)—seems to be very consistent with the Old Testament idea of punishment rather than discipline, and the author’s use of “fathers” in this verse means Old Testament fathers.

Conclusion: The use of the “rod” as a means of punishment in Proverbs 13:24 is authorized in the Mosaic Law. Punishment was used primarily for justice, and reformation was a secondary consideration, whether reformation actually occurred or not.

Proverbs 13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. (KJV)

Author’s Comment: The fact that a father used the rod in love does not imply that reformation was the primary goal of punishment. The purpose of the rod was to teach the Jewish child that there is a just God who will execute justice upon His people for disobedience to the law.

Leviticus 26:3-4

3 If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them;

4 Then I will . . . (blessings are listed from verse 4 to verse 12)

Leviticus 26:14-16

14 But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments;

15 And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant:

16 I also will do this unto you; . . . (the cursings of God under the five cycles listed in verses 16-39)

It is my considered opinion that the rod taught justice, not reformation. Unger states that reformation, if it ever occurred because of punishment, it occurred as a secondary effect, not the primary effect, and if the child never reformed, he still had the basis for understanding why Israel as a nation was being disciplined by God, namely, because of His justice associated with Israel’s failure to be obedient to the Mosaic Law.

Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. (KJV)

Revelation 3:19 'Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; be zealous therefore, and repent. (NAS)

Conclusion: This is direct chastening by the Lord Jesus. No corporal punishment is in view.

Thought #1

(Curtailing Excessive Human Punishment)

Interestingly, with the giving of the Mosaic Law, it was ultimately placed in writing. It was not in writing during the previous dispensation—the Age of the Gentiles from Adam to Moses. With the coming of the Mosaic Law, the law was very specific so as to curtail excessive levels of punishment of the previous dispensation, wherein the level of punishment might have exceeded the nature of the wrongdoing. With the coming of the Church Age, capital punishment is permitted, but the offense or offenses for which capital punishment might be used are not specified. Of this we can be certain: In God’s eyes, the primary purpose of punishment was not and is not to reform bad behavior.

Thought #2

(Capital Punishment: Murder vs. Killing)

The question might arise concerning incorrigible children during the Church Age. Should corporal punishment not be used to bring about reformed behavior? The answer is, no, because it won’t work, and the reason it won’t work is that the very nature of incorrigibleness is that it can not be corrected. That is why incorrigible people in Israel functioning under the Mosaic Law were put to death.

This raises another question. If Israel functioning under the Mosaic Law put to death its incorrigibles, what is the Church Age means of handling its incorrigibles? Romans 13:1-5 recognizes the use of capital punishment during the Church Age:

Romans 13:1-5

1 Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

2 Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same;

4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.

5 Wherefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. (NAS)

“Bearing the sword” in verse 4 is a reference to capital punishment.

While not stated specifically here, the answer for Church Age incorrigibles can be the same as that for incorrigibles under the Mosaic Law, namely capital punishment, but only as a final measure at the end of a series of isolations and excommunications from various levels of society that end with no remaining alternative other than death by capital punishment.

Biblically, Capital Punishment Is Not Tantamount to Murder

Look at the following verse in several versions of the Bible:

Exodus 20: 13 Thou shalt not kill. (KJV)

Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder. (NAS)

Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder. (NAU)

Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder. (NIV)

Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder. (NKJ)

Exodus 20:13 "You shall not kill. (RSV)

Exodus 20:13 "You must not murder. (TLB)

Exodus 20:13 “Do not commit murder. (TEV)

Exodus 20:13 .jx*r+T! aý (Hebrew RATSACH)

In the preceding verses, the Hebrew word rendered “kill” and “murder” is the Hebrew word RATSACH (raw-tsakh') and has the following meanings: a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), especially to murder.

The common argument that capital punishment is “killing” and killing is forbidden by Exodus 20:13 is a bogus argument because the intent of this commandment is to forbid murder, not killing. Killing and murder are distinguished from one another in the Hebrew language by the use of different words for each. For example, the Hebrew word HARAG means "to kill, slay, destroy."

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old Testament Words say of HARAG, “This term is commonly used in modern Hebrew in its verb and noun forms to express the idea of "killing, slaughter." The fact that it is found in the Old Testament some 170 times reflects how commonly this verb was used to indicate the taking of life, whether animal or human. Harag is found for the first time in the Old Testament in the Cain and Abel story. (Genesis 4:8, 14-15).

Vine’s continues, “Rarely suggesting premeditated killing or murder, this term generally is used for the ‘killing’ of animals, including sacrificially, and for ruthless personal violence of man against man. Harag is not the term used in the sixth commandment (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17). The word there is ratsach, and since it implies premeditated killing, the commandment is better translated: "Do not murder," as most modern versions have it.

Vine’s continues, “The word harag often means wholesale slaughter, both in battle and after battle (Numbers 31:7-8; Joshua 8:24; 2 Samuel 10:18). The word is only infrequently used of men's killing at the command of God. In such instances, the causative form of the common Hebrew verb for ‘to die’ is commonly found. In general, harag refers to violent ‘killing’ and destruction, sometimes even referring to the ‘killing’ of vines by hail (Psalm 78:47).”

Our Lord's rebuke to Peter in the garden was a warning against capital punishment because of criminal action (Peter's), not a warning about military killing. Matthew 26:52, "Then Jesus said to him, `Return your sword to its scabbard, for all who draw the sword [in crime], shall die by the sword [in capital punishment].'"

Killing in battle is not murder. Psalm 144:1, "Blessed be the Lord who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle." 2 Samuel 22:35, "He [God] trains my hands for battle."

In Isaiah 37:36, Jesus Christ Himself killed 185,000 Assyrian soldiers in battle, and the biblical indication is that He will kill far more than that at the Second Advent when He returns to terminate the Armageddon campaign. Revelation 14:20, 19:11, 15; Isaiah 63:1-6; Ezekiel 39:11-13; Joel 2:20.

Fear Produces Counterfeit Spirituality

2 Timothy 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. (KJV)

When punishment is used to change behavior, any change in behavior is most often motivated by fear of future punishment. When a measure of punishment is severe enough to bring about a desired change in behavior, that change is brought about because the one being punished fears the punishment more that he wants the desired change. His motivation is fear of punishment, not desire for reformation.

When a person’s behavior changes because of fear, the resultant behavior is a counterfeit spirituality. It appears as though the person is doing the right thing, but the omniscience of God knows he is doing it for the wrong reason. God knows that the changed behavior is motivated by fear, and 1 Timothy 1:7 teaches us that fear does not come from God.

Punishment forces changed behavior that cannot be approved by God because the motivation is wrong, and motivation is an important factor to God.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts [ what you think that leads to what you do ] and intents [ motivations ] of the heart. (KJV)

The word “thoughts” refers to what is being thought or done. The word “intents” refers to motivation behind what is being thought or done. If motivation is wrong, the righteousness of God cannot approve what is being done, even if what is being done is right. God honors only the right thing done for the right reason where the right reason refers to the motivating factor behind the right behavior.

Let me illustrate. Let’s suppose that for the first time in months you meet “so-and-so,” whoever he may be, in church. Your immediate thought might be how wonderful it is for “so-and-so” to be back in church after having been gone for an extended period of time. Your immediate thought is that it will be to his spiritual benefit to be back again. You later learn, however, that God is not nearly as pleased to see “so-and-so” as you are because God knows what you didn’t know—why he returned. You see, financial times had become rough for old so-and-so, and since he works in sales, he realized that the church members where he attended represented a whole news sales market that he had not yet tapped. So, it’s back to church again—but with the wrong motivation. What we need to realize is that God’s righteousness cannot and will not accept a good thing done that is wrongly motivated—no matter how good that good thing appears to you and me. If it’s not a right thing done for the right reason the righteousness of God cannot and will not honor what is being done.

Fear is a powerful motivator, but it is an invalid motivator within the plan of God for Church Age believers, therefore, those who punish for the purpose of changing behavior do a disservice to God and the one being punished. Punishment should not be used as a means of changing behavior during the Church Age. It is discipline that should be used, not punishment. (See the definitions on page 2 of this document.)

Conclusion

My thesis restated: There is no Church Age scriptural authorization to employ any form of punishment, including corporal punishment, to bring about a change in a person’s behavior, including children’s behavior.

I have tried to set forth biblical support for my thesis. Perhaps my efforts will raise more questions than they answer, however, I am remain open to further defend my thesis.

A legitimate question might be this: Could a secularized version of this thesis be supported by non-biblical support? I believe the answer is, yes.

First the secularized thesis: Punishment should not be used as the means to reform behavior.

Support for this thesis can be found in a proper understanding and a proper application of the perceptual control theory and the responsible thinking process as written about by Mr. Ed Ford. Why? Because both are founded upon the most fundamental principle by which all of life is designed to be lived, namely, by the principle of freedom.