"Biblical" Denial of Spanking

Status
Not open for further replies.

Corey Powell

Puritan Board Freshman
Hello,

As my first child steps [literally] into toddlerhood and starts to show active rebellion, my house finds itself divided over the question of spanking. I have always assumed the biblical nature of spanking which seems apparent in Scripture. Yet the modern gentle parenting movement has sought to discredit this and call all spanking abuse.

As I have searched for a defense against the claims of GP, all I ever find is those simply making the same assumptions as me, discrediting GP concerns and neglecting to address them.
My wife came across stuff from "Flourishing Homes and Families" which takes a clearly integrationist approach to counseling and parenting. But my wife found their arguments about spanking convincing, and while I see their hermeneutics as suspect at best, I am having trouble putting my finger on it enough to satisfy her fears of damaging our child, much less finding a resource to refute their claims. The accusation is often that there is just a toxic "culture" of spanking that wrongly assumes its goodness.

Below is a series of post that lay out their arguments. It is not a long read, and I would really appreciate any help in examining these claims through a biblical lens. They call into question what is a "rod", who proverbs says it can be used on, and uses the nature of a "proverb" to say its just a principle of discipline. Else where they also argue that spanking has been shown to have "sexual" effects on children somehow?
The questions that is really being asked: does the Bible actually command use to spank children, or is proverbs being misinterpreted? Again, the command aspect is usually assumed but I would like to be able to defend this.





Thank you!
 
Let me be super clear. Pay attention to exactly what I say. Ready?

ALL of the arguments for so-called “gentle parenting” are smoke and mirrors, absolute subterfuge, they are gentle whispers into the ears of the soft by the Enemy, and using the pretense of “gospel concerns”, he sews rebellion, anarchy, and disorder of every kind.

The proof is simply in the pudding: “gentle parenting” has been an abject failure. Our people are weaker - psychologically, constitutionally, spiritually, relationally, and physically - than at any point in history, simultaneously more easily provoked and less able to be consoled/calmed down, and paradoxically less capable of sound independent decision-making and more resistant to God-ordained authority than ever before.

Reject “gentle parenting” outright, even if it seems to appeal to aspects of your nature.
 
Last edited:
William Gouge. Domestical Duties (RHB republished as "Building a Godly Home") speaks well to this. Keep in mind that there are 43 points about duties and raising children prior to these ones, so that there is a whole theology of parenting, not just "spanking" and all of it should be considered together, prayerfully, not just pick and choose the pieces that appeal to our nature. Treatise 6 "Duties of Parents".

44. Of parents reproving their children.
The other means of helping nurture is correction. Which is of two sorts; Verbal by Words, Real by Blows.

The former is reprehension: and it must always go before the latter, which is most usually and properly called Correction.

Reprehension is a kind of middle thing betwixt admonition and correction: it is a sharp admonition, but a mild correction.

It is the rather to be used because it may be a means to prevent strokes and blows, especially in ingenuous, and good natured children [for a reproof entereth more into him that is wise, than a hundred stripes into a fool (Prov 17:10)] and because it may be used, when it is not so meet to use strokes and blows: as when children are grown to man-age.

The many good fruits which the Holy Ghost noteth to proceed from due reproof do shew that it is a duty whereof parents ought to make conscience as they desire to promote the good of their children: and so much the rather because many good fruits redound to the parents that reprove, as well as to the children reproved. In regard of their good who are reproved, it is said, Reproofs for instruction are the way of life (Prov 6:23): they cause understanding (Prov 15:32); and make prudent (Prov 15:5). In regard of their good who reprove, it is said, To them that rebuke shall be delight [that is, much comfort and matter of rejoicing, so as they shall not need to repent what they have done] and a blessing of good shall come upon them (Prov 24:25), that is, either a blessing of good men, who will bless, praise and commend them: or a blessing of good things, and that from the Lordwho will reward them for this conscionable performance of their duty.

Upon these grounds holy men have not spared to rebuke their children as there was occasion (Gen 9:25; 34:30; 49:4). Though Eli did somewhat in this duty, yet because he was not more severe therein, he brought destruction both upon himself and his children (1 Sam 2:23). The direction noted in Section 40 and 47 and Treatise 4, Section 35 may be here applied.

45. Of parents cockering their children.
Contrary is their too much doting on children, who are loath to give them a foul word. David [though otherwise a very wise man] herein manifested much folly, for he displeased not Adonijah at any time in saying, why hast thou done so? (1 Kings 1:6) and like enough it is, that also he so cockered his other rebellious son Absalom. Note the fearful issue that followed thereupon both to father and children. Though their father would not displease them, yet they cared not to displease their father, yea to grieve his heart, and vex his soul. The like may all foolish doting parents look for at their children's hands. For first parents by neglect of this duty highly displease God: therefore in just revenge will God give their children over to displease and vex them. Secondly, neglect of reproof is a means to make children rude, presumptuous, rebellious, and so careless to please their parents. Yea all things wherein children offend through want of education shall be required at their parents' hands.

46. Of correcting children.
The latter and more proper kind of correction which is by stripes and blows is also a means appointed by God to help the good nurture and education of children. It is the last remedy which a parent can use: aremedy which may do good when nothing else can.

It is by the Holy Ghost both expressly commanded, and also very oft pressed under these and such like phrases, Chasten thy son (Prov 19:18): correct thy son (Prov 29:17): withhold not correction from the child (Prov 23:13): thou shalt smite him with the rod (Prov 23:14). Were there no other motive, this were sufficient. God's charge was such a motive to Abraham, as at it he would have sacrificed his son (Gen 22:2,3): and wilt not thou at God's command correct thy child?

It is further commended by God's own example, which is not only set forth in some particular instances, but by his general constant dealing with all, and that as an especial token and fruit of his love. For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye be without chastisement whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards and not sons (Heb 12:6,8). Let this example of God be well weighed, for it is of great weight. Who can better tell what kind of dealing is fittest for children than God? Who can better nurture children than God? Who doth more truly aim at, and procure the good of children than God? Yea who doth more tender children than God? If God the father of spirits in wisdom and love thus deal with his children, fathers of the flesh may not think by the contrary to shew wisdom or love. Their wisdom will be folly, their love hatred. Upon these grounds it is taken for a thing granted, that parents [who tender the good of their children as they should] do chastise their children as need requireth: for it is said, that the Lord correcteth whom he loveth, as a father the son in whom he delighteth (Prov 3:12). If parents used it not, this were no good inference to say, as a father: again, as a thing without controversy it is said, we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us (Heb 12:9).

The grounds of the equity of this duty, respect partly the children corrected, and partly the parents that correct. In regard of children, it freeth them from much evil, and worketh in them much good.

Correction is as physic to purge out much corruption which lurketh in children, and as a salve to heal many wounds and sores made by their folly. In which respect Solomon saith, that foolishness is bound in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him (Prov 22:15) and again, The blueness of a wound is a purging medicine against evil: so do stripes the inward parts of the belly (Prov 20:30). In regard of the inward operation of this physic, correction is further said to preserve a child from death, [if thou beatest him he shall not die (Prov 23:13)] and that not only from temporal death [as many children are thus preserved from the Magistrate's sword] but also from external death [thou shalt deliver his soul from hell (Prov 23:14)]. Note this ye cockering parents, whose over-much lenity is very great cruelty. For may we not justly count him a cruel parent, that should suffer diseases, boils, sores, and wounds to remain, increase, and fester in his child, and give him no physic, nor apply any plasters, or medicines to him? Nay rather who seeth his son running into a flaming fire, or deep water, and would not hold him back? Even so cruel, and more cruel are they, who suffer their children to run on in evil, rather than correct them.

Object. Who can endure to make his own child smart, and to put him to pain?

Answ. The future fruit is more to be considered, than the present pain. Potions, pills, and corrosives, are fulsome, bitter, and painful; but because there is a necessity of using them, and great mischief is prevented by the use of them, wise parents will not forbear them forthe sensible bitterness, and pain. Fitly doth the Apostle thus answer that objection, No chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous, nevertheless, afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness (Heb 12:11). This may be applied to parents' corrections as well as to God's.

The good which correction bringeth to children, is by Solomon noted in this and such like phrases, The rod giveth wisdom (Prov 29:15): for it maketh children observe, what is good, and what evil; what commendable, and what blame-worthy: and accordingly to do the good, and leave the evil, which is a great point of wisdom.

Object. Instruction will better do this.

Answ. Instruction may give them more knowledge, but it is correction which bringeth them to practice what they know, which is the chiefest point of wisdom (Matt 7:24).

In regard of parents, due correcting of their children both freeth them of many inconveniences, and also bringeth to them much quiet. 1. It spareth them much pains. For many admonitions oft repeated, and inculcated again and again, will not make many children so much to heed wholesome and good advice, as a little correction. They are much more sensible of smart, than of words.

2. It preventeth much grief, shame, and vexation: for a foolish son is a grief to his father, and bitterness to her that bare him (Prov 17:25). But it is the rod of correction that driveth away foolishness (Prov 22:15), and so preventeth that grief andbitterness.

3. It freeth them from the guilt of their children's sin, so as they are not accessory thereto, as Eli was (1 Sam 3:13). For correction is the last remedy that a parent can use: if by that he can do no good, it is presupposed that he hath done his uttermost endeavour: in which respect, though the child die in his sin, yet the parent hath delivered his own soul. The quiet which is brought to parents by correcting their children, is thus noted out by Solomon, Correct thy son, and he shall give thee rest, yea he shall give delight unto thy soul (Prov 29:17). For children well nurtured, and by correction kept in a filial awe, will so carry themselves, as their parents may rest somewhat secure, and not disquiet themselves [as they do with children set at liberty] yea, as trees well pruned, and ground well tilled, they will bring forth pleasant and abundant fruit; and so their parents will have just cause to rejoice in them.

47. A direction to parents in correcting their children.
For well using this biting corrosive of correction, parents must have respect to the matter for which they do correct, and to their manner of correcting.

In regard of the matter, these three things must be noted. 1. That they be sure there is a fault committed: that so there be just cause of correcting, else more hurt than good will proceed from thence. If corrosive be laid where there is no sore, it will make one. If correction be unjustly given, it may provoke to wrath, but will do little good. This is it wherein earthly fathers are taxed,and made unlike to God, for that many times they correct after their own pleasure (Heb 12:10): which is a point of great injustice.

2. That the fault be made known to the child corrected: and he apparently convinced thereof. Correction must be for instruction, which cannot be, except the child know why he is corrected: for it is all one to him, as if he were corrected for no fault, if he know not his fault. God thus at first proceeded with the serpent, with Eve, and with Adam (Gen 3:11). Thus Judges proceed in punishing malefactors. Yea thus will men deal with a dog. Should they not much more with a child?

3. That the faults be such especially, as the parents can shew to their children [if at least they be of so much discretion] to be against God's word; as swearing, lying, pilfering, and the like: for 1. these are most dangerous faults, and therefore more carefully to be purged out, 2. the child corrected will thus be the better evicted of his fault, the more condemn himself, and more contentedly bear the correction. In regard of the manner of correcting, four general, and four particular rules are to be observed.

The general rules are these. 1. An eye must be had to God's manner of correcting his children, and in particular of God's correcting the parent himself: no better general direction can be given: for God's pattern is a perfect rule.

2. Prayer must be made by parents for themselves and for their children: for themselves, to be directed in doing it: for their children, to be bettered by it. Thus will good physicians in ministering physic. In all duties is prayer to be used; especially in this: for a parent is ready, partly through his own intemperate passion, and partly through the child's impatience, to fall into one extreme or other. This is not to impose upon all, whensoever they take up the rod, to go and make a solemn prayer, but to lift up the heart for direction and blessing.

3. Correction must be given in love. All things must be done in love (1 Cor 16:14): much more this, that carry a shew of anger and hatred. In love they will give physic to their children, and splinter a joint, if need be. God correcteth his children in love: so must parents, Love will make them do it with tenderness and compassion.

4. Correction must be given in a mild mood, when the affections are well ordered, and not distempered with choler, rage, fury, and other like passions. Disturbed passions cast a mist before the understanding, so as a man cannot discern what is enough, what too much. When passion is moved, correction must be deferred. God correcteth in measure. The particulars are these. 1. Due order must be kept. Correction by word must go before correction by the rod. I rebuke and chasten, saith the Lord. Thus a parent will shew that he taketh no delight in smiting his child: it is necessity that forceth him thereunto. Thus a parent sheweth himself like to God, who doth not punish willingly (Lam 3:33). Physicians, when they minister strong physic, will givepreparative: rebuke may be as a preparative. Good and pitiful surgeons will try all other means before they come to lance and sear.

2. Due respect must be had to the party corrected: if he be young and tender, the lighter correction must be used. Solomon oft mentioneth a rod, as meet oft for a child; for that is the lightest correction. So if the child be of a flexible and ingenuous disposition, soon snapped, the correction must accordingly be moderated. If he be well grown, and withal be stout, and stubborn, the correction may be more severe.

3. Due respect must be had to the fault: Sins directly against God, open, notorious, scandalous sins, known sins, sins often committed, in which they are grown up, and whereof they have gotten an habit, are with greater severity to be corrected.

4. A parent must behold his own faults in correcting his child's: so more compassion will be wrought in him.

48. Of parents' too much indulgency.
Contrary to this duty of correcting are two extremes. 1. Too much lenity. 2. Too much severity.

Many so cocker their children, as they will suffer them to run into any misdemeanour, rather than correct them. They cannot endure to hear their children cry: and therefore their children must be pleased in all their humours and evil desires. These parents bring shame tothemselves, and mischief upon their children: for God is oft forced to correct such. Heavy are God's corrections: and oft light on parent and child both: as appeareth by the judgments on Eli and his sons: for such parents make themselves accessory to their children's sins: yea also to the judgments laid upon their children. God saith of such parents, that they honour their children above God (1 Sam 2:29). It is therefore a fond indulgency which maketh parents regard neither God's honour, nor their own or children's safety.

Mothers for the most part offend herein, who are so far from performing this duty themselves, as they are much offended with their husbands if they do it. And to proclaim their folly to all the world, they cannot commit their children to a tutor or schoolmaster, but with a straight charge, that they correct them not. 1. Object. Correction maketh children sots and blocks. Answ. If God's spirit deserve to have more credence than such foolish women, that objection is most false, for we heard before (see Section 46) how correction giveth wisdom, and driveth out foolishness. 1. Object. Mothers may be the more born with herein, because with long trouble they did bear, and with great travail bring forth their children. Answ. That may be a good motive for them to seek the true good of their children, that so their trouble and travail may not be in vain: but not to uphold them in the broad way that leadeth to destruction.

49. Of parents' too much severity in correcting their children.
They who offend in the other extreme of severity, of the two are the more unnatural parents; they offend directly against the first branch of this text [Provoke not to wrath]. Nothing more provoketh than immoderate severity: for 1. It argueth no love in the parent, but rather hatred, at least wrath, and other such like distempered affections.

2. It softeneth not the child's heart, but hardeneth it rather.

3. It maketh him dull, and stupid, and clean perverteth the right and true end of correction.

4. It oft maketh a child think of doing some mischief to his parent or himself. That parents may the rather take heed of this extreme, I will briefly note wherein excess in severity is shewed.

It is shewed, when correction is given 1. For no fault. In this case, though correction be never so light, it is too severe. 2. For small faults, in wrath and fury, though the stripes be few and light, yet the parent's behaviour is too much severity. 3. To children that are young and tender, or soft, mild and ingenuous, as if they were in some years, the most obstinate and perverse that could be. 4. Too often: for every thing done amiss: whereas parents should seem not to see or hear many things which they see, and hear. 5. Too sorely: so as the child is lamed, or some way so hurt as he shall feel it as long as he liveth.
 
I have profited greatly from Ginger Hubbard's podcast and other materials on parenting. She has discussed spanking and gentle parenting a few times.
 
Scripture is clear. There is no weaseling out of its plain meaning. If you want healthy, spiritually and emotionally stable children, spank them. Their soul is at stake.

“Do not withhold correction from a child, For if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with a rod, And deliver his soul from hell.”
‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭23‬:‭13‬-‭14‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
 
As long as you avoid anything by the Pearls or Gothard, you should be fine.

How literal do we want to be with the rod? I take it no one is getting a broom stick handle and going Ken Griffey Jr on the five year old.
 
Prooftext parenting is a bad idea. If you're looking for godly proverbs to guide you in your parenting (which certainly might be helpful), take care not to pick out just a few of the many proverbs and build an entire parenting doctrine around those few. Instead, look at all the Proverbs, the whole book. Learn the full range of godly wisdom, and parent accordingly.
 
Proverbs gives us teaching based on wise experience -- a father to a son type of lessons. It is not simply true because it is in Proverbs. It is in Proverbs because it has been tried and found to be true. Beware of reading the book like a divine prescription for life. It is meant to be "perceived" as a part of the training of the wise man. Think about what is said and compare it to what you see in life.

As for the rod, it is used elsewhere in Scripture, and it is always metaphorical for discipline and correction in general. It is like the sword with respect to civil punishments. It is an emblem of authority and the extent to which that authority might go. It includes the possibility of physical punishment but it doesn't necessitate it. It is best thought of as the extreme and final resort.
 
Scripture is clear. There is no weaseling out of its plain meaning. If you want healthy, spiritually and emotionally stable children, spank them. Their soul is at stake.

“Do not withhold correction from a child, For if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with a rod, And deliver his soul from hell.”
‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭23‬:‭13‬-‭14‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
As Matthew pointed out, it is not as clear and plain as you are claiming. A literalist would go in the direction Jacob indicated and use an actual rod. There must be more humility and care in teaching on this topic. Matthew’s explanation is the correct approach.
 
As Matthew pointed out, it is not as clear and plain as you are claiming. A literalist would go in the direction Jacob indicated and use an actual rod. There must be more humility and care in teaching on this topic. Matthew’s explanation is the correct approach.
Indeed.
I believe it was one of our late contributors who said that the goal is to break the child's will, and it's not always physical. I'll have to look it up.
 
Wouldn’t it be better to focus more on the fact that we are under a new covenant because of Jesus and the Old Testament punishments no longer apply? It’s all taken care of by Jesus on the cross?
As someone who wanted to be completely obedient to Scripture why weren't we advocating for truly biblical spanking? My answer was because it's too horrific.
I am just astounded at how horrible the underlying theology of the page (and the comments) is - the implying that proverbs isn't God's word, the division between the old and new covenant where apparently spanking was fine with God under the old but is now evil under the new, and the appeal to God's "character" contrary to the plain meaning of the text. It all sounds good and spiritual, but it's unbiblical, progressive garbage. The loss of the traditional view of the law (in this case, the 2nd) seems to be causing a whole lot of damage here too. Anyone who's going to make an argument along the lines of "the Bible says X, but X isn't consistent with God's character (a progressive morality) so it can't be true" doesn't have much theologically worth saying in my opinion.
 
Some kids need a swat now and then, some do not. Some parents are able to rule their children with a stern look or word. If that works, spanking is not necessary.

A bigger concern is our looking to our children for our spiritual succor, affirmation. Of idolizing them, and idolizing OUR reflection in how they behave outwardly.

Your children are blessings, sure. But sometimes NEGATIVE blessings that God uses to draw YOU to your proper stance before Him.

Gentle parenting or stern, focus FIRST on your Lord. Not as a mom or dad, but as His creature. If you get that part right, the rest will follow, although not always as our flesh would like or choose.
 
I and my wife are reformed gentle parents of 3 boys. There is a whole community of reformed gentle parents that are committed to the scripture, the confessions of faith, and biblical reformed traditions. I hold that spanking is a doctrine and commandment of men and is to be throughly refuted, rejected, and condemned. If the reformed community wants to go to war over this, we will cheerfully hold the line. This is what got us kicked out of our last church as heretics, yet they could not and did not discipline us according to proper book of church order procedure. I have attached a few scholarly article on why the "child" in proverbs is a youth or teenager and not a toddler. Funny thing about advocates of corporal punishment is that none of them can agree about the meaning of anything :rolleyes:

It's also worth noting that the sciatic nerve, which is the largest nerve in the human body, runs through the buttocks and is not something to be messed with, especially in the infant years.

Edit: I had another article from the journal of near Eastern studies title "the status and role of the na'ar in Israelite society". I can send it another way if anyone is interested.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
I am just astounded at how horrible the underlying theology of the page (and the comments) is - the implying that proverbs isn't God's word, the division between the old and new covenant where apparently spanking was fine with God under the old but is now evil under the new, and the appeal to God's "character" contrary to the plain meaning of the text. It all sounds good and spiritual, but it's unbiblical, progressive garbage. The loss of the traditional view of the law (in this case, the 2nd) seems to be causing a whole lot of damage here too. Anyone who's going to make an argument along the lines of "the Bible says X, but X isn't consistent with God's character (a progressive morality) so it can't be true" doesn't have much theologically worth saying in my opinion.
Plain meaning of the text? So you use a literal rod? And you beat them till they are black and blue (Proverbs 20:30)? And you apply it to the back (Proverbs 10:13; 19:29; 26:3)? Or are we going to make stuff up as we see fit and call it obedience to the written word?

How come we don't take homesteading seriously (Proverbs 27:23-27)?
 
Indeed.
I believe it was one of our late contributors who said that the goal is to break the child's will, and it's not always physical. I'll have to look it up.
The goal is to win a child's will, not break it.

Pro 11:30 KJV The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise.
 
Scripture is clear. There is no weaseling out of its plain meaning. If you want healthy, spiritually and emotionally stable children, spank them. Their soul is at stake.

“Do not withhold correction from a child, For if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with a rod, And deliver his soul from hell.”
‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭23‬:‭13‬-‭14‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
The rod never saved any child or anyone from hell, ever. That alone belongs to the Lord Jesus:

Isa 53:4-5 KJV 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
 
We are to fear (respect/revere) God. He chastens us when we willfully disobey, even as His children (Hebrews 12:6) - and He links that to the kind of chastening that good fathers deliver. Let us also never forget that the Lord often afflicts his people bodily as a form of chastening, to draw them to Himself (think of those who have cried out to the Lord when in sickness or the Lord sending physical chastisements on backsliders to turn them to Himself). This is indisputable. To deny that afflicting the body might be a means used to turn us to the Lord would be to deny the nature of man and perhaps could turn into a weird form of gnosticism. One remembers that it was the threat of starvation that turned the prodigal back home and caused him to remember the goodness of his father. Being good and chastening when needed (even physically) are not to be at odds if the goal is to save the soul. Because high handed sin left uncorrected leads to the pit.

That said, some children and even some families could function without spanking depending on the children. For a couple of my children, all I had to do is give them a stern look of disapproval and they would be convicted and melt. But I have had other children that required (very infrequent) spankings. I think I could probably count the number of times our children have been spanked. The Gouge excerpt is helpful.

We must be good to our children and kind and gracious. But we must also be firm and stern when necessary. It reflects the nature of our God. But in it all, we remember that all we do is because we want their heart and for it to be given to the Lord, ultimately, “My son give me thine heart” (Pr. 23:26). That is primary.
 
I think some on here would greatly benefit reading some Aristotelian ethics and learning to avoid extreme interpretations. No, it isn't the Bible. Yes, the entirety of the church, including the Reformers, took it seriously.
 
I think some on here would greatly benefit reading some Aristotelian ethics and learning to avoid extreme interpretations. No, it isn't the Bible. Yes, the entirety of the church, including the Reformers, took it seriously.
That, or a course in biblical hermeneutics …
 
I and my wife are reformed gentle parents of 3 boys. There is a whole community of reformed gentle parents that are committed to the scripture, the confessions of faith, and biblical reformed traditions. I hold that spanking is a doctrine and commandment of men and is to be throughly refuted, rejected, and condemned. If the reformed community wants to go to war over this, we will cheerfully hold the line. This is what got us kicked out of our last church as heretics, yet they could not and did not discipline us according to proper book of church order procedure. I have attached a few scholarly article on why the "child" in proverbs is a youth or teenager and not a toddler. Funny thing about advocates of corporal punishment is that none of them can agree about the meaning of anything :rolleyes:

It's also worth noting that the sciatic nerve, which is the largest nerve in the human body, runs through the buttocks and is not something to be messed with, especially in the infant years.

Edit: I had another article from the journal of near Eastern studies title "the status and role of the na'ar in Israelite society". I can send it another way if anyone is interested.
I’m curious what you think about the biblical idea of capital punishment
 
Gentle parenting appears to deny that the Proverbs are God breathed Scripture if those quotes above are related, that are talking about making an idol of Solomon. God wrote the Proverbs, so they appear to be in serious error on their view of Scripture. In terms of spanking, in our family, we believe it is commanded by God. Some type of physical punishment as necessary. We do not always spank as the rod could also mean other punishment, but we believe that other punishment has to "hurt" so to speak (e.g. losing dessert, losing electronics time). I will say with toddlers though, especially boys, and we have one right now, spanking is generally the best tool for discipline as he doesn't understand much else. When using spanking though, it needs to be done in control and under strict measure and not out of anger or annoyance. I still believe the best book on this subject is Shepherding a child's heart by Ted Tripp.
 
Plain meaning of the text? So you use a literal rod? And you beat them till they are black and blue (Proverbs 20:30)? And you apply it to the back (Proverbs 10:13; 19:29; 26:3)? Or are we going to make stuff up as we see fit and call it obedience to the written word?

How come we don't take homesteading seriously (Proverbs 27:23-27)?
So what exactly are you arguing for? And how would you say that we should read the proverbs? Nowhere did I advocate for a wooden Gothard-esque literalistic reading of the proverbs. We read proverbs as proverbs, apocalyptic literature as apocalyptic literature, history as history, etc. the clear underlying meaning is that discipline of a child (including physical) is a sanctifying agent, just as God's discipline of us sanctifies us. I would agree with Matthew's comment above. My point is that the argument of that page was consistent with the liberal tendency to interpret scripture based on an understanding of God's character that is derived from a progressive ethos. I've found that gentle parenting often forgoes all discipline and punishment, this page seemed to justify that on the basis of an appeal to God's character contrary to the plain meaning of the text (which is that discipline is beneficial).
You singled out something I said (and, I think, missed the point I was making), but would you find the other criticisms to be valid? Is it appropriate to consider the proverbs as being contrary to or less than God's word elsewhere? Should we forgo any discipline or punishment on children because "Jesus has taken the punishment?" Was this appropriate under the old covenant but now bad under the new?
 
Last edited:
What's the aversion to a literal rod? I hear only modern squeamish sensibilities which themselves are part of the problem. Historical fact: rods of various kinds - anyone recall the classic "go get me a switch" - were used for all sorts of corporal punishments up until very recently.

For us, our rod was a stout wooden spoon - I think it was a fudge stirring spoon. We named it "The Tickler."
 
What's the aversion to a literal rod? I hear only modern squeamish sensibilities which themselves are part of the problem. Historical fact: rods of various kinds - anyone recall the classic "go get me a switch" - were used for all sorts of corporal punishments up until very recently.

For us, our rod was a stout wooden spoon - I think it was a fudge stirring spoon. We named it "The Tickler."

As noted before, neither a "switch" nor a "spoon" constitute a "rod." No one, save perhaps for some heretics like the Pearls, advocates for hitting kids with a broom handle. (And I'm not against capital punishment. Just being honest that no one is actually beating their kids black and blue with a pole, as a literal reading of Proverbs suggests).
 
Excerpts from, "Parents, Discipline Your Little Children," by William Boekestein, published this year here: https://www.reformation21.org/blog/parents-discipline-your-little-children

"Proverbs 13:24 isn’t saying that physical discipline is the only way. And surely there will be a cut-off age for spanking your children, perhaps somewhere between age six and ten. As children grow the discipline they receive should become more nuanced, and better matched to their changing situations. If older children fail to do a chore, make them do it with added penalties.

"But for young children physical discipline is vital. Toddlers cannot be reasoned with. They have not yet developed abstract cognitive abilities. They simply can’t process the sentence, 'Mommy doesn’t appreciate that behavior.' It doesn’t register. Spankings register. Physical discipline seems crude to modern parents. It is crude. By design. Little children aren’t sophisticated. Their correction must be as concrete as their minds.

"The tool that Scripture frequently promotes is the rod. And the rod isn’t a euphemism for generic discipline. Using just the book of Proverbs it should be clear to an honest interpreter that the rod is presented as an instrument for inflicting measured pain as a penalty for disobedience.[iii] Here’s why Scripture commends the rod: 'Defiance starts in the heart and works its way out into behaviors of the body (tantrums, disobedience, mouthiness, rebellious facial expressions), so spanking works in the opposite direction: it moves toward the heart by first gaining the attention of the body, commonly via the well-padded buttocks.'[iv] Obviously the rod should not be used alone; verbal reproof must be given alongside physical discipline (Prov. 29:15). In connection with the rod even little children can start to understand the word 'no.' And isn’t that one of life’s most important lessons? God’s grace 'teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age' (Titus 2:12 NIV). We must help our little children put to death their old nature; depravity cannot be appeased. Little children who obey their passions need stronger medicine. 'By mere words a servant is not disciplined, for though he understands, he will not respond' (Prov. 29:19) ...

"Parents, discipline your young children. Help them to understand early that God disciplines those he loves. Jesus’s death and resurrection cancels the worst part of the curse of sin. Hallelujah! But we still need chastening. Believe it: If received with faith and submission God’s discipline will yield 'the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it' (Heb. 12:11)."

Earlier in the article he opens with:

"Perhaps there was a time when parents generally over-disciplined. Today too we must believe that 'correcting [children] unduly' is a sin against the fifth commandment. But the more common modern problem seems to be insufficient discipline. Couple our cultural moment of permissiveness with the unpleasantness of administering discipline and we understand why parents err on the side of lenience. But lenience, like severity, is still an error. We need to recover the biblical paradigm of loving but firm physical discipline, especially for little children. 'The Lord disciplines the one he loves' (Heb. 12:6). So must we."
 
Last edited:
As noted before, neither a "switch" nor a "spoon" constitute a "rod." No one, save perhaps for some heretics like the Pearls, advocates for hitting kids with a broom handle. (And I'm not against capital punishment. Just being honest that no one is actually beating their kids black and blue with a pole, as a literal reading of Proverbs suggests).
I think you’re being kind of artificially constrained in what you call literal and trying to act like you’re making a point in the process.

A rod is any relatively long straight piece of something.

It’s like calling a cross a tree. Oh snap.
 
One thing that is worth noting is that… Just like I said in my sermon from this past Sunday… We miss the boat and reveal a terribly anemic understanding of the concept of “discipline“ if we only or even primarily think of it in terms of the specific chastisement applied to someone when they have done something wrong. As if for the rest of the time they get to be left alone to do whatever, and then when they cross a line, we then “discipline” them and then let them go back to doing what they want.

And we often, because we have that faulty view of what discipline is, think that’s what God basically does with us: that he’s only “disciplining“ us when we have done something wrong and otherwise we implicitly expect “a loving Father” to essentially leave us alone or make things pleasant for us because that’s what we’ve been told a good parent does… And instead we need to realize that what He’s actually doing is subjecting us to a process of character formation which includes chastisement but is not limited to it.

The fact of the matter is that we ought to think in terms that for us to discipline our children refers to subjecting them to years of a process (which includes corporal punishment but is not limited to it). Almost like in terms of a kid going off to the Citadel or VMI - a process of inconvenience, regulation, deprivation, instant feedback, rigid standards, etc., that’s the disciplining process that trains a person to have character. And it’s within this process that rugged people are forged. Every culture used to understand this, and we’ve lost it. We’ve become too pampered and too… gentle.

The whole process is vital. So stop letting your kids have their own rooms. Stop letting your kids have their own private TVs in their rooms. Stop letting your kids participate in every sort of extracurricular activity just because it’s fun. Stop protecting your children from the consequences of their bad behavior. Make your kids work. Expect your kids to pitch in around the house. Expect your kids to pitch in at church. Expect your kids to clean up after themselves.

So gentle parenting is not just wrong because it denies what the scriptures prescribe… It’s wrong in the entire orientation of what they’re trying to accomplish as a parent.

And again, the results speak for themselves. It’s just the worst.
 
As noted before, neither a "switch" nor a "spoon" constitute a "rod." No one, save perhaps for some heretics like the Pearls, advocates for hitting kids with a broom handle. (And I'm not against capital punishment. Just being honest that no one is actually beating their kids black and blue with a pole, as a literal reading of Proverbs suggests).
You seem to be arguing against something that no one is suggesting. No one in this thread appears to be advocating for a literal rod (which you are defininf as a broom handle). As far as I can tell people are saying "the rod" is some form of punishment, both physical and/or non-physical. Is there someone or something you had in mind specifically when you keep coming back to a literal rod?
 
You seem to be arguing against something that no one is suggesting. No one in this thread appears to be advocating for a literal rod (which you are defininf as a broom handle). As far as I can tell people are saying "the rod" is some form of punishment, both physical and/or non-physical. Is there someone or something you had in mind specifically when you keep coming back to a literal rod?
A fishing rod, a lightning rod, a soldering rod… all of these are very different. Different lengths, different thicknesses… But yet they are all rods. He doesn’t get to determine what a “literal“ rod is.

My use of a long stout spoon is quite literal, or at least literal enough. :deadhorse:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top