Thread Split: Does the Bible Require Corporal Punishment?

[TimV]

[Moderator] This is a splinter discussion from this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f119/discipline-children-70822/
Tim didn't just make this statement out of nowhere. But any discussion of the Biblical necessity of corporal punishment should happen here, not on the original thread. [/Moderator]

You have to either hate your children by not spanking them, disobey the law and possibly lose them to the State or leave the country.

 

[rbcbob]

Christoffer,

Please do not mistake my brief input to be from any lack of sympathy for your difficulty. But to get to the point the Apostles gave us the example saying “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Act 5:29)

Your conscience was rightly stirred at your reading of the duty to discipline your children. This was given to ancient Israel but is a duty to parents in every age and in every land.

Do you want God's blessing upon you and your children?

Isaiah 66:2 "For all those things My hand has made, And all those things exist," Says the LORD. "But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, And who trembles at My word."

I trust that you love your children and do not hate them. The Lord says: He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him promptly. (Proverbs 13:24)

Trust in the Lord who holds your life and soul, your wife and children, and your ruler's heart in His hands.

In Christian love,
Bob

 

[Tripel]

...the Apostles gave us the example saying “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Act 5:29)

Correct, but we're not talking about whether or not Christoffer should obey God. Of course he should obey God. What's in question is whether he should use spanking as a form of discipline with his children. The Bible does not command that parents spank their children.

I trust that you love your children and do not hate them. The Lord says: He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him promptly. (Proverbs 13:24)

That is a proverb that speaks to discipline, not specifically to spanking.
There are ways to discipline a child apart from spanking. Nobody is arguing that Christoffer should refrain from disciplining his children.

 

[PhilA]

...the Apostles gave us the example saying “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Act 5:29)

Correct, but we're not talking about whether or not Christoffer should obey God. Of course he should obey God. What's in question is whether he should use spanking as a form of discipline with his children. The Bible does not command that parents spank their children.

I trust that you love your children and do not hate them. The Lord says: He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him promptly. (Proverbs 13:24)

That is a proverb that speaks to discipline, not specifically to spanking.
There are ways to discipline a child apart from spanking. Nobody is arguing that Christoffer should refrain from disciplining his children.

Amen!

 

[rbcbob]

...the Apostles gave us the example saying “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Act 5:29)

Correct, but we're not talking about whether or not Christoffer should obey God. Of course he should obey God. What's in question is whether he should use spanking as a form of discipline with his children. The Bible does not command that parents spank their children.

I trust that you love your children and do not hate them. The Lord says: He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him promptly. (Proverbs 13:24)

That is a proverb that speaks to discipline, not specifically to spanking.
There are ways to discipline a child apart from spanking. Nobody is arguing that Christoffer should refrain from disciplining his children.

You fail to notice that "the rod" is the form of discipline referenced in the Proverb.

According to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament -"The rod was also used as an instrument for either remedial or penal punishment. As a corrective instrument it was used for a SLAVE (Exo 2 Exo 1:20), a FOOL (Prov 10:13; Prov 26:3), and a SON (PROV 13:24; Prov 22:15; Prov 23:13-14; Prov 29:15). In Prov it is the symbol of discipline, and failure to use the preventive discipline of verbal rebuke and the corrective discipline of physical punishment will end in the child's death, Metaphorically, the Lord used Assyria as his instrument to correct Israel (Isa 10:15) and the nations to correct his wayward king (2Sam 7:14). it is also used metaphorically of penal affliction of Israel's ruler by the enemy (Mic 5:1 [H 4:14]) but the Lord's righteous King will smite the wicked with the "rod" of his word of judgment (Isa 11:4)."

Proverbs 20:30 Blows that hurt cleanse away evil, As do stripes the inner depths of the heart.

Proverbs 22:15 Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of correction will drive it far from him

In the formative years, before cognitive discourse can have the desired results of later childhood, the rod quickly establishes the consequences of disobedience.

To use an illustration; One might, try to distract a toddler from all electrical outlets, diverting his attention to other interesting things, but the fact is that the WILL of the child has never been persuaded that sticking the key into the socket is forbidden and transgression will CERTAINLY be unpleasant. But after a few instances of defying mommy's "NO" each results in corporeal punishment the very young child learns the importance of complying with parental directives. Later the child may be taught the technicalities of electricity.

The older the biblically trained child gets the less will the rod be needed. Commands, and even calm discourse, will suffice.

 

[Tripel]

You fail to notice that "the rod" is the form of discipline referenced in the Proverb.

No I didn't. I realize what "the rod" represents, but the form of discipline is not the point of this Proverb. It's about discipline itself.

To think that this Proverb is a command to use "the rod" specifically as a form of discipline is to think that you are hating your child if you use any other means of discipline. That is ridiculous.

 

[TimV]

Daniel the only thing foolish is to say that the Bible doesn't tell parents to spank kids.

Pro 23:13 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die.
Pro 23:14 If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol.

 

[he beholds]

...the Apostles gave us the example saying “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Act 5:29)

Correct, but we're not talking about whether or not Christoffer should obey God. Of course he should obey God. What's in question is whether he should use spanking as a form of discipline with his children. The Bible does not command that parents spank their children.

I trust that you love your children and do not hate them. The Lord says: He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him promptly. (Proverbs 13:24)

That is a proverb that speaks to discipline, not specifically to spanking.
There are ways to discipline a child apart from spanking. Nobody is arguing that Christoffer should refrain from disciplining his children.

I like the advice of this lady who is a mom of 10. She advocates spanking as an effective form of discipline, but also has some suggestions for those who are unable to spank for various reasons. Scroll down to the bottom of the page to see "Options Other Than Spanking."

Raising Godly Tomatoes

She recognizes that it is more difficult to raise a child when spanking is not an option, but encourages her readers that success is still possible, if you are EXTREMELY diligent, and 100% consistent.

There's no thumbs-up button, so I wanted to show my support for these two posts!

I don't even know if Proverbs is supposed to be read like manual. I think those who are saying if you hate your child you won't spank are being pretty awful and insensitive. This is a serious question and a pat answer may not work. We are supposed to obey the gov't unless it causes us to sin. Are you 100% certain that disciplining by means other than spanking is sin or withholding spanking from a child is sin? I am not. I am certain that neglecting to discipline and train children is a sin. But I am not convinced that that proverb is a command. I would guess that it is really good advice and it is possibly the most effective manner of discipline. But my parents did not spank me, I don't think that means they hated me.
Here's an admittedly cherrypicked Proverb to say what I mean:

28 Don’t say to your neighbor, “Go away! Come back later.
I’ll give it tomorrow ”—when it is there with you.

Have you ever told someone to wait for something they needed? I think this is a PRINCIPLE, not a command regarding a specific event. I know I tell my kids to wait and I'm sure I've told others I can help them later. I think Proverbs is dealing more in principles. My life should be such that I am willing to help at the ready, but if I do postpone something I don't think it means I'm sinning--but if this proverb is a commandment, it would.

Here's what Matthew Henry says about Proverbs 13:24

He acts as if he hated his child, who, by false indulgence, permits sinful habits to gather strength, which will bring sorrow here, and misery hereafter.

I agree with Henry that this is what we need to be concerned with as parents.

 

[Tripel]

Daniel the only thing foolish is to say that the Bible doesn't tell parents to spank kids.

Pro 23:13 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die.
Pro 23:14 If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol.

OK, so clearly you understand those proverbs to be speaking to the specific form of discipline rather than discipline itself. So what if you strike your child with something other than a rod? The Bible plainly says "rod", and after all, this proverb is commanding how we are to discipline, right?

So is it hatred to swat your child's bottom with your hand?

 

[TimV]

So is it hatred to swat your child's bottom with your hand?

Why would it? The rod being mentioned doesn't exclude other forms of discipline. The law that requires an eye for an eye doesn't exclude a toe, that's just how Biblical law is set up. Besides, a wooden spoon is much less likely to do damage to a young child's back etc.. than a hand, and cultures have always understood it. All Christian cultures have always seen the rod as the norm, but no Christian culture has ever seen the rod as exclusive. No civilized culture in general has ever had a problem with spanking a child with a rod, and no civilized culture has ever had a problem with a parent slapping a child's hand. Another case where natural law obviously sides with inspired Scripture.


You're making this much more difficult than it needs to be.

 

[jogri17]

You're making this much more difficult than it needs to be.

Some could say that you are over simplifying.

 

[TimV]

Some could say that you are over simplifying.

By your own admission you come from a completely different political worldview than I do. You describe yourself as a leftist, and consistently after a bunch of exotic animals were euthanized you complained about people having the right to own guns and wild animals and took a very harsh dig at an American politician who believes in a small, non intrusive government that would be within their rights to allow citizens those liberty..

I don't have those views, and think it an outrage that the State would ban spanking. In California I was harassed by the State so I moved the family to South Africa until the kids were older.

As an aside, I didn't start this thread, some moderator split this off. I wouldn't start a thread in such a manner, but I stand by my statement.

 

[Tripel]

You're making this much more difficult than it needs to be.

No, I'm not. You and I read those proverbs in very different ways, so it's important to point that out. If you're going to take the proverb as a literal instruction in how discipline is to be administered, I think you should restrict yourself to only using rods.

I read those proverbs as words of wisdom regarding the importance of discipline. Since "the rod" is mentioned in Scripture, it is clearly an appropriate form of discipline, but the form itself is not what is being emphasized in Proverbs.

I find all of this talk about people hating their children due to the form of discipline they administer to be greatly disturbing. To suggest that someone hates his child because he administers discipline in a way that is in line with state law is ridiculous. It is a gross misunderstanding of Scripture.

 

[he beholds]

Well, I've never used a rod in my life. So if we're going with it's not a sin to use additional means but it is a sin if you don't also use the rod, then I hate my children.
I don't even have a rod--what is it, a stick? I'm not about to go outside and get a stick if my kid needs a spank.

 

[Peairtach]

The Bible requires corporal punishment if the child's behaviour warrants it.

That might be by using a hand or a rod - a rod here doesn't mean a rod of iron or a thick stick or plank, but a switch or cane.

Obviously the parent should use corporal punishment lovingly and wisely and will hope to use it sparingly when other types of intervention have failed.

 

[TimV]

No, I'm not. You and I read those proverbs in very different ways, so it's important to point that out

.

It's true. You always take the leftest side in every discussion here. And that's fine. A discussion board is best when there are the broadest positions available within whatever standards the owners allow.

If you're going to take the proverb as a literal instruction in how discipline is to be administered, I think you should restrict yourself to only using rods

.

Do you recommend I take them non literally?? Like the fundy baptists who say the Song of Songs isn't about romance??? You may think what you want but I have no responsibility to cater to your pet theories. When the Bible says a child will not die if you strike him on the butt with a salad spoon it's obviously speaking to those who's emotions blind them to the lessons of history, Scripture and natural law. It's saying "Listen. If you whoop your kid on the butt with a switch you won't kill him. Rather you'll be doing him a service".

If it doesn't mean that, what does it mean??? Is any parent, even an emotional one, afraid that taking away a kid's toy will kill him? Duh, no. It's been obvious for 3000 years that the verse is talking about corporal punishment, and I feel slightly dirty taking the time to point this out.

 

[jwithnell]

Tim, back to your original post, I do believe that spanking is a necessary tool when rearing children and that God blesses those who discipline their children appropriately. We home school, we have a special needs child in our house, so I am extremely circumspect in how I discipline my children. But I cannot ignore a Biblical means for doing so.

Another thought: children can widely differ (of course!). Some kids honestly melt at a sternly spoken correction, others are tougher cases. So I would not say that a parent who raises a compliant child with little external discipline is somehow wrong. But to raise a wild child without even attempting to use Biblical means? You'll hear about that one on judgment day.

 

[kvanlaan]

I don't know that we need to use a rod exclusively (actually, I really don't think so) but it is fairly clear that corporal punishment, when required, is called for. To be confronted with a wild and disobedient child that plainly requires a spanking (in LOVE!, as a means of correction, not inflicting pain as a punitive measure) but then wilting in fear over what needs to be done due to the requirements of the state is disheartening (though real - I feel for Christoffer in the worst way). I remember Governor Keating of Oklahoma telling folks after the Columbine Massacre that they should indeed spank their children if they need it and that it was legal in the great state of Oklahoma. It is indeed necessary for some and unnecessary for others. But where it is necessary, why are we hesitant?

 

[Tripel]

It's true. You always take the leftest side in every discussion here.

How is my position "leftest?" What does right vs. left have to do with this?

If you're going to take the proverb as a literal instruction in how discipline is to be administered, I think you should restrict yourself to only using rods

Do you recommend I take them non literally?? Like the fundy baptists who say the Song of Songs isn't about romance???

No. My complaint is not that you are taking the passage literally -- rather, it's that you see the word "rod" and believe it's a command in how discipline is to be administered.

It's saying "Listen. If you whoop your kid on the butt with a switch you won't kill him. Rather you'll be doing him a service".

If it doesn't mean that, what does it mean???

That's exactly what it means. I agree with you on that. I've never argued against the use of corporal punishment, and in fact I think it is the most effective form of discipline in many cases. BUT, I don't think that proverb is a command in the form of discipline we are to use.

Is spanking encouraged in Scripture? Yes!
But is choosing a different form of discipline equivalent to hating your child? No!

 

[JoannaV]

He who does not use the rod when he should use the rod hates his son. He that loves his son chastens him in good time. From this we can infer that the rod referred to is a valid form of chastening. But we cannot say that chastening is exactly equivalent to the rod, nor calculate in what percentage of cases the rod is the form of chastening required.

 

[Peairtach]

You're making this much more difficult than it needs to be.

No, I'm not. You and I read those proverbs in very different ways, so it's important to point that out. If you're going to take the proverb as a literal instruction in how discipline is to be administered, I think you should restrict yourself to only using rods.

I read those proverbs as words of wisdom regarding the importance of discipline. Since "the rod" is mentioned in Scripture, it is clearly an appropriate form of discipline, but the form itself is not what is being emphasized in Proverbs.

I find all of this talk about people hating their children due to the form of discipline they administer to be greatly disturbing. To suggest that someone hates his child because he administers discipline in a way that is in line with state law is ridiculous. It is a gross misunderstanding of Scripture.

I think the mention of the rod indicates that corporal punishment, and corporal punishment using "the rod" in certain circumstances, can't be called wrong - even morally wrong - as the modern muesli-munchers would affirm.

 

[Jack K]

Regarding Proverbs 13:24...

Good biblical interpretation requires attention to the type of literature and the context surrounding a particular verse. When in doubt as to how to interpret a particular verse, always start by looking at context.

In this case, the type of literature is a list of proverbs, not a list of commands. It is truisms—wisdom that is generally true and/or useful to live by but not necessarily true or to be applied in every case. The surrounding verses confirm this premise. The proverb immediately proceeding: "The fallow ground of the poor would yield much food, but it is swept away through injustice." The proverb immediately following: "The righteous has enough to satisfy his appetite, but the belly of the wicked suffers want."

We see easily enough that that neither of these proverbs is a command, nor is either true in every case. There may be implied commands to seek justice and live in righteousness, but even if we do these things we can't be assured of the results the proverbs speak of. They're merely proverbs.

But somehow we have an urge to take the "whoever spares the rod" proverb, which just like the others is NOT stated in the form of a command, and treat it as a command nevertheless.

I suspect this is because we sometimes are uncomfortable with gray areas. We've had too much liberalism, and would like to think that God always speaks in black and white. Well, he does in many places. But the fact that he also speaks proverbs—that he also speaks into the gray areas of life that require discernment in how and when and sometimes even if we apply the proverb—does not detract from God's Word. On the contrary, it adds to it. It means God's Word speaks to ALL of life, not just the black and white situations.

Proverbs 13:24 certainly gives us wisdom regarding the importance of disciplining our children. It even suggests that corporal punishment is often a good means. But it ought to be applied following the same rules as any proverb. That is, it must be applied judiciously, considering the full scope of God's Word and the circumstances of the occasion. In Christoffer's case, the laws of the state are part of that consideration. And the fact that he's wrestling through these issues makes him an excellent hearer of God's Word.

 

[TimV]

But somehow we have an urge to take the "whoever spares the rod" proverb, which just like the others is NOT stated as a command, and treat it as a command nevertheless.

Who made the claim it was a command?

Pro 12:1 Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

It's not one of the 613 laws to not hate reproof, but that doesn't mean it's a sin, or stupid, or wrong to ignore Scripture. The same with spanking. Sure, due to things like herd immunity with vaccines, some people get by with not giving their kids vaccines, and the kids do fine. But when they start saying skipping vaccines doesn't affect their kid's health, that's just foolish because their kids have the advantage of other parents who are being more responsible. It's the same with spanking. Anyone who's ever been around cultures or societies where kids aren't spanked has seen the same sort of behavior that our Finnish brother described. Rotten kids marching towards Hell.