Romans 13:1-5 and Separating Children from their Parents

When Paul invokes government in Romans 13:1-5 (see also Titus 3:1; 1 Pe 2:13-14), the context is important. Starting in chapter 12, Paul is exhorting believers to live out their faith by not following the deep patterns of thinking and behavior that characterizes the world (v. 2; see also Ephesians 4). Paul lays out what he considers depraved patterns in 1:18-32 (see also Ephesians 4:17-25). Instead, we need to have minds that are renewed (12:2), specifically into the mind of Christ (Romans 11:34; 1 Corinthians 2:16; Philippians 2:5). See my article on the subject.

In 12:9-21, Paul explains what this looks like. Not surprisingly, it is the ethic of Jesus expressed so fully on the Sermon on the Mount. Paul bases it in love and advocates for a non-retributive ethic. “Bless those who persecute you” (v. 14), “Do not repay anyone evil for evil” (v. 17), “Do not take revenge, but leave room for God’s wrath” (v. 19), and help your enemy (v.20). This is the forgiving, submissive, “turn-the-other-cheek” ethic that should characterize all followers of Jesus. But note again, verse 19: “Do not take revenge, but leave room for God’s wrath.”

As I have noted in other articles, there are two ethics at work within the Bible and within the world. I’ve already mentioned the ethic of Jesus which is that of the Kingdom of God. The other ethic is that “eye for an eye ethic.” As I’ve written elsewhere:

“[This] ethic is predominately found in the Old Testament and is spelled out in Leviticus 24:19. It is basically the ethic that states that a person who has injured another person is to be penalized to a similar degree. While you can find this ethic throughout the Old Testament, the legality of it has its antecedent in the Code of Hammurabi and in almost every society that has come before and after in every place society exists. Its near universality should not surprise us. This is the ethic of justice, of equality. This is how the world works and this ethic works very well. And, as my Old Testament professor stated, this ethic is still grace. It is grace because it mandates that a person or a society cannot mete vengeance upon the guilty party beyond the crime they have committed. This is grace. Nevertheless, it is an ethic of retribution, violence, and the implied threat of violence. This ethic finds its fullest expression and most organized principle in government. The purpose of government is to hold back evil through violence and the threat of violence. Paul talks about this in Romans 13 where government is seen as an instrument of violence whose purpose is to fight against evil. And this is seen as a purpose ordained by God.”

As Paul is transitioning from chapter 12 to 13, this is how he is thinking: Christians should display the ethic of Jesus and leave the retribution and punishment to government because they are “agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (13:4).

Government cannot defeat evil because its methods are evil (12:17-21), but it can hold back evil through its inherent violence. Yet government, with its monopolistic use of inherent violence, its aggregate of authorities, and its God-ordained purpose, establishes it as an immense institutional Power. This is why both Paul and Peter warn Christians about the dangers of going up against it (Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1; 1 Pe 2:13-14). Therefore, because of the immensity of the inherent violence, Christians should advocate for a small, less intrusive government, with less power, fewer regulations, and with more checks and balances to lessen the propensity for violence. Therefore, Christians need to refrain from closely associating ourselves with government and its political parties. Christians need to refrain from using government and its inherent violence as a means of advancing the Kingdom of God through social programs, welfare, property theft, and faith-based programs.

Nevertheless, while we as Christians should forgive those who wrong us, we are nevertheless supposed to turn over to government those who commit evil. For example, if someone comes to us saying they have been assaulted, abused, or harassed, we are to direct them to government. We are not to cover it up or suppress the truth, no matter who the abuser or his family is.

But this ordained purpose of government to hold back evil is twofold. On the one hand, government flexes its muscles by establishing and enforcing laws within its jurisdiction. On the other hand, it flexes its muscles by securing that jurisdiction from outside powers. On the national level, that necessarily and fundamentally means securing a sovereign border to prevent evil from entering by crossing the border. This is a universal application of government’s fundamental purpose. Every nation secures its borders and makes determinations about who enters and who doesn’t. For it not to do so would mean a relinquishment of its fundamental responsibility. The results would inevitably be the chaotic spread of evil. For the government not to enforce the laws that establish the border-crossing determinations would be to nullify those laws and effectively relinquish responsibility. While nations can argue what those determinations are, those determinations must be enforced. The enforcement of those determining laws must fundamentally mean that those who violate those laws be punished; otherwise, the laws mean nothing, and government forfeits its God-ordained purpose.

What the punishment for this illegality consists of will depend on various factors, including past criminal record and the existence of repeat offenses. At the very least, excluding mitigating factors, in order to discourage further law-breaking by others, the punishment should be deportation. Those who are arrested for robbing a bank, even if they are sent to prison, they or their children aren't allowed to keep the money. The process of deportation will vary due to various circumstances, but it will necessarily involve some form of confinement until deportation can be administered. This confinement will be some form of prison preventing the perpetrator from escaping.

Here’s the essential question: when an adult is arrested and put in prison, do the governmental authorities put their children in prison with them? No, they do not. Children are not placed in prison with their parents. Not only would that be cruel, it leaves open the possibility that the child could be put in a dangerous situation. In order to protect the child, the government separates the child from the parent. Ideally, the child is placed with another family member. If there is no other family member, the child is placed in the protective custody of the government (i.e., HHS). Nevertheless, in order to protect the child from prison, the child and the parent must be separated. In other words, in order to protect the child from evil, the government uses its God-ordained purpose to punish. The length of the separation depends upon various factors; nevertheless, separation is necessary for the good of the child.

This is how Romans 13:1-5 applies itself to national borders and separating illegal aliens from their children.