A Biblical Perspective on Spanking, Part 2

Father and son

Previously we examined Proverbs 13:24, a passage from which we understood three powerful principles: (1) proper discipline is associated with the use of the rod, (2) proper discipline is associated with love, and proper discipline is not described here in terms of abuse or causing harm, nor is it described as punishment.

While 13:24 is clear in regard to these principles, there are some important details that are not so easy to discern from that passage alone. Among them is the exact nature of the rod itself. Is the rod to be taken literally as referring to an implement for inflicting physical pain as a part of discipline, or is it instead a metaphor for general (non-physical) guidance and correction? Proverbs 22:15 is a helpful verse for helping us understand the meaning and application of the rod in Proverbs: “Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of discipline will remove it far from him.” (NASB)

Before discussing the specifics of the verse there is some important hermeneutic (interpretive) groundwork that must be considered. On this and other challenging passages we often see two competing methods of interpretation employed. On the one hand, is the literal grammatical-historical method of interpretation. This approach is literal, in that it seeks to understand the natural or literal meaning. It is grammatical, in that it follows the rules of grammar of the language used. And it is historical, in that it recognizes the importance of historical context of the grammar and other aspects of the writing. The literal grammatical-historical approach seeks always to find the intended meaning by looking for the plain sense of a passage. This methodology recognizes there is figurative language used in the Bible, but waits for the text itself to announce when figures are being used.

On the other hand is allegorical interpretation or spiritualization. Allegorical interpretation often either seeks a deeper meaning or seeks to resolve perceived conflicts in the text by interpreting in a non-literal way. This approach is not as concerned with rules of grammar and context, but gives the interpreter instead more influence in determining the meaning.

In order to understand this (or any other) passage, it is important to first agree on a set of interpretive principles, otherwise we find ourselves speaking different languages (I say bad, but mean good; you say bad but mean bad—we won’t get very far without defining our terms). I find that most theological disagreements are rooted in interpretive method, and if we aren’t aware of our interpretive presuppositions and assumptions, then we are inviting irreconcilable differences.

So, in the spirit of transparency, I approach the text from a literal grammatical-historical method. I seek to understand the authors’ original meaning in the original languages and context, and then diligently apply what it says—as it says. And there is an important interpretive rule I adhere to: I may not assume a non-literal interpretation unless the literal is first ruled out by the immediate context of the text itself. Furthermore, I find, again, that most theological conflict is related directly to the application or non-application of this particular rule.

Proverbs 22:15 is a verse that, having various hermeneutic methods applied to it, has been made to say strikingly different things. Let’s begin to examine the verse itself:

Folly or foolishness (Heb., iuelet, feminine singular noun) is being bound (Heb., qasurah, verb passive participle) in the heart (Heb., beleb, preposition and noun) of a child (Heb., nayer, masculine singular noun), a rod (Heb., shebet, masculine singular noun) of discipline (Heb., musar, masculine singular noun) will cause it to be distant or far (Heb., yarechiyqenah, hiphil or causative verb, imperfect, third person singular feminine suffix) from him (Heb., mimenu, preposition with third person singular masculine suffix).

First, the reader will notice that there is an interesting admixture of feminine and masculine words. It should be noted that words often grammatically are either masculine or feminine, but that does not mean that they are limited to referencing only masculine or feminine. For example, the Hebrew word for folly is a feminine word, but that is no indication that foolishness itself is feminine. The Hebrew word for discipline is also a masculine word, but again—not implying only an application to males.

As the passage flows, we are told that the hearts of children brew foolishness. The Hebrew nayer (translated child in the NASB) is used of children of all ages in the Bible: Moses as an infant crying in the basket (Ex. 2:6), Samson as a growing boy (Judg. 13:24), and Abram’s “young men” who ate well (Gen 14:24). There are many, many other uses of this word (more than 250 in the OT), but these few I have mentioned illustrate the breadth of the term. It can reference a child anywhere from newborn to teenager.

The Greek Septuagint (LXX), an early 3rd—2nd century BC translation of the Hebrew Bible, translates the Hebrew nayer with the Greek neos. Though the Greek word has additional meanings, it usually references young men (teenagers). Interestingly, though, the Greek translation of nayer in Exodus 2:6 is paidion, and paiderion in Judges 13:24. The Greek translation implies that the term used in Proverbs 22:15 is one speaking of young men—teens, not infants or children. However, the passage was originally written in Hebrew, and nayer is not as limited as is the Greek paidion. In short, the Hebrew term is inclusive of a broad range of child from infancy to young adulthood.

Based on the employment of this term, it seems Solomon is telling us that foolishness knows no age limitations in the hearts of children. It is constantly—and naturally—being fomented in their hearts. Solomon identifies in other contexts the consequences of foolishness, and they are very unpleasant. He instructs here that this foolishness can be avoided.

The vehicle Solomon identifies is the rod of discipline. It is at this juncture we discover a hermeneutic challenge. The issue is just this simple: those who favor physical discipline view this reference as at least being partially literal—that the shebet is at least in part a literal shebet, whereas those who do not favor physical discipline suggest shebet is figurative—a metaphor for parental guidance in general or a metonym alluding to shepherding a young person.

But the only view with which we should be concerned is that of Solomon, as the author of the text. The term shebet is used eight times in Proverbs, though perhaps not all by Solomon. In addition to 22:15, the other uses are as follows:

10:13—On the lips of the discerning, wisdom is found, But a rod is for the back of him who lacks understanding.

13:24—He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.

22:8—He who sows iniquity will reap vanity, And the rod of his fury will perish.

23:13—Do not hold back discipline from the child, Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die.

23:14—You shall strike him with the rod And rescue his soul from Sheol.

26:3—A whip is for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, And a rod for the back of fools.

29:15—The rod and reproof give wisdom, But a child who gets his own way brings shame to his mother.

Here is the question: What specifically in the contexts of these passages gives indication that the language is intended as non-literal?

How does one “strike” a person with a metaphorical rod? Why would a person be afraid of “striking” a person with a metaphorical rod for fear of killing him? (“Oh my goodness! I am afraid that if I give general parental structure and guidance—nonphysical, of course—that my child might just fall down dead. Oh My! I am not so sure I want to parent with a metaphorical rod…”) I don’t mean to be glib—of course this is a serious topic, and certainly no laughing matter. Especially in recent months attention has been drawn to child abuse cases in which parents who were claiming to discipline their children actually harmed them to the point of death. That is despicable child abuse. This is something that does not result in death. This is something that never harms a child. This is something that offers the child freedom from foolishness.

Especially in light of 23:13-14 (which I plan to examine in detail in a future installment), there is no textual basis to understand the meaning as non-literal. And if there is nothing in the text itself to suggest a non-literal meaning, then how would we justify a figurative interpretation? These are challenging issues, for sure.

Having introduced some of the hermeneutic underpinnings of this passage, I have only covered half of the verse. We still must consider the exact nature of the rod and its application, and we must observe the purpose for the rod—a purpose identified in the last phrase of 22:15. So, while it is tempting to outline some principles from the passage, we haven’t yet earned that right, because we haven’t yet finished assessing the passage. In the next installment, we will finish 22:15, consider some principles from this passage and introduce 23:13-14.

In the meantime, I ask every reader to diligently consider each passage and test his or her own hermeneutic assumptions. Those assumptions will have more to do with the conclusions we draw than we may realize. Are we open to what the Bible has to say, or are we so influenced by our own preferences that we will not listen? We all must ask these questions, and we all must be diligent in answering them.

Discussion

I’m for taking a text literally unless there is good reason to do otherwise. But I’d include a couple more things under “good reason” than just the immediate context. For one, the genre.

But it may be that I’ve been describing my view incorrectly. I’ve been saying for years that I believe the rod is a metaphor for real discipline (which involves pain) but that the metaphor does not exclude the literal referrant (if that’s the right word).

It may be more accurate to say that the word itself is literal, but the application is quite broad.

But I’m not sure this works either.

I don’t think the rod passages require that every parent use an actual stick—and most “pro-spanking” people I know don’t believe that either. So does anyone really think the rod is “literal” and refers only to the use of a piece of wood on a backside? (Can’t use a belt or a flexible piece of plastic?)

This would really not be consistent with the genre, in my opinion. Proverbs are extremely compact statements with very broad intent. And we classify them as poetry for a reason. I have to admit though, that at the moment I’m a little foggy on just where the meaning of the statement itself ends and the necessary implications (and then applications) begin.

But either way, I don’t see how “it’s a metaphor” really helps anybody’s case against spanking. To me it argues for including it in the list of parental tools. (In other words, even if someone takes the view that there is no command to spank with a literal rod, the wisdom of the centuries on this point doesn’t disappear… that wisdom being that there are times when some “swats” are necessary.)

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

those who do not favor physical discipline suggest shebet is figurative
there is no textual basis to understand the meaning as non-literal. And if there is nothing in the text itself to suggest a non-literal meaning, then how would we justify a figurative interpretation?
The non-spanking Christians I know do not necessarily believe that the shebet is figurative. There is room for literal interpretation while still not coming to the conclusion that spanking is what is being described in these verses.

There is room for literal interpretation while still not coming to the conclusion that spanking is what is being described in these verses.
How does that work, exactly?

Seems like whatever is being described in the verses is being commended to us… so if the rod is literal, seems like use of it has to be literal.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

A literal interpretation involves hitting a young man on his back with a stick the size of your wrist.

The people I know who spank:

1. Stop using spankings at about the age the literal interpretation references

2. Do not hit the back, but instead hit the buttocks

3. Do not use a shebet-sized instrument, but instead use a hand or small implement like a wooden spoon

SPANKING, as understood by the western mind, is not what is literally described in the Proverbs.

Here’s some of how Mike Durning http://www.mpbchurch.com/home/369/369/docs/Family%209.doc?sec_id=369] preached/researced this topic :
In each of these verses [i.e., Prov 22:15, 23:13-14, 29:15] , the Hebrew word that the King James Version translates as child is a word that should almost always be translated “youth”, with reference to young folks typically from ages 16-24, roughly. There are some exceptions, like when referring to “Jewish royalty” – people like Moses, Samson – the word can be applied to infants. But generally speaking, it applies to older teens and young adults. So, the majority of the verses that refer to the rod are with reference to ages far above small children. I’m not saying that’s always the case, but it’s a pattern that’s strong enough that it should give us pause.

In fact, the Jewish rabbis of ancient times frequently admonished people not to apply any verses about the rod to children before the age of 10.

By the way, that Hebrew word that means “young adult” crops up in a variety of Bible stories in the King James Version that you’ve heard told a little off. Remember the children who got attacked by bears when they mocked the prophet Elisha? Young adults. Elisha was being accosted by an angry mob of teens and young adults. Not teased by 9 year olds.

Here’s another thing you need to know. Some of the verses that involve “the rod” have been terribly misunderstood, I suspect.

Take Proverbs 23:13-14.

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

I know of one preacher who preaches that if you are not beating your child until that child has bruises, you are not following the Bible. Never once does he put the word “child” in the Hebrew word context of a young adult. Never once does he explain that “the rod” includes the whole range of disciplinary options for the parent.

… .

What is Proverbs 23:13-14 talking about? Well, first, let’s hear it in another translation.

Prov. 23

13 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die.

14 Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death.

Note the change, almost certainly correct in this case, where the Hebrew word sheol is rendered “death” instead of “hell”. Read that way, he is saying if you punish your older teen or young adult with the rod, he won’t die – in fact, you’ll save his soul from death.

Here’s what I think is going on here.

In the Old Testament law, there was provision for an ultimately defiant young adult, wild, evil, drunken, violent, disrespectful. In extreme cases, the young adult might be executed.

So I’m reasonably certain that what’s in view here is quite literal: if you had a young adult who is so defiant and so wicked as to be in danger of that kind of penalty, you may have to take the matter very seriously, and provide serious punishment to correct that person before the town elders decided to execute him.

It’s important to remember it was a different culture. Many times the family patriarch was responsible for the sons well into what we would call adulthood.

Think of David’s son Amnon, who sexually assaulted his sister.

Think of David’s son Absalom, who stirred up a rebellion that cost thousands their lives.

Think of Jacob’s sons who murdered a whole village.

And not a sheriff in range for 1300 years.

Yes, the rod was appropriate in some extreme cases. And those guys still didn’t use it.

I say all that to say this: Do not let anyone tell you that the Bible says you should be beating your 9 year old.

There is a place for spanking, administered correctly, not in anger, with explanation, when necessary. Particularly, for defiance. Sure. But the Bible is not a Child Abuse manual, and Christ would not make you a child abuser.

That’s not to say that corporal punishment is not in your toolbox. It’s just to remind you that there are limits. Do not forget that God loves children, and promises judgment to those who do not care for them properly.

Number 1 was addressed by Doctor Cone…
[Rachel L.]

The people I know who spank:

1. Stop using spankings at about the age the literal interpretation references
[Cristopher Cone]

The Greek Septuagint (LXX), an early 3rd—2nd century BC translation of the Hebrew Bible, translates the Hebrew nayer with the Greek neos……However, the passage was originally written in Hebrew, and nayer is not as limited as is the Greek paidion. In short, the Hebrew term is inclusive of a broad range of child from infancy to young adulthood.
If there is no agreement on the age, then much of the discussion will be moot. Seems to me those who are strongly opinionated against physical pain parenting are also of the mindset that the literal interpretation of the passages refers only to what we would call teens and tweeners.

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)

Just to clarify, I never claimed that all the verses about the rod are directed toward young adults. And I believe in corporal punishment (with care) for children.

I merely pointed out that the situation in the rod passages is far more complex than some have painted it, and that the most simplistic sermons based on them have done a disservice to the texts.

[Rachel L.] A literal interpretation involves hitting a young man on his back with a stick the size of your wrist.
This is one view of what the rod references mean. That idea is a fairly new one, though.

There are several “rod” references in Proverbs that don’t fit this view.

The widely respected Brown Driver and Briggs Lexicon

1. rod, staff, club, sceptre. 2. tribe;


The Gesenius lexicon

a staff stick, rod, so called from supporting: (to this answer, σκήπτων, σκῆπτρον, σκηπίων, scipio, scapus, Germ. Schaft); specially—(1) used for beating or striking, Isa. 10:15; 14:5; and chastening (virga), Prov. 10:13; 13:24; 22:8; hence שֵׁבֶט אֱלוֹהַּ the rod with which God corrects (used of calamities sent by God), Job 9:34; 21:9; 37:13; Isa. 10:5.—Isa. 11:4, שֵׁבֶט פִּיו “the rod of his mouth,”

Gesenius, W., & Tregelles, S. P. (2003). Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (801). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.


William Holladay Concise Lexicon

1. stick, staff, rod: of shepherd Lv 27:32, teacher 2S 7:14; scepter Zc 10:11; as weapon 2S 23:21, tool Is 28:27; šēbeṭ ʾappî (of God) Is 10:5; šēbeṭ pîw (of Messiah) Is 11:4; — 2. tribe (143 ×), esp. of Isr. Gn 49:16.

Holladay, W. L., Köhler, L., & Köhler, L. (1971). A concise Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament. (358). Leiden: Brill.


The evidence for taking “rod” as a heavy cane of a certain diameter in every instance is far from clear.
The people I know who spank:

1. Stop using spankings at about the age the literal interpretation references

2. Do not hit the back, but instead hit the buttocks

3. Do not use a shebet-sized instrument, but instead use a hand or small implement like a wooden spoon

SPANKING, as understood by the western mind, is not what is literally described in the Proverbs.
All of the above presuppose an inadequately supported conclusion about what the rod is in Proverbs.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

It’s pretty clear that the rod in various Scriptures can be either literal or figurative.

Literal usage:
Exodus 21:20 “If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished.

Leviticus 27:32 For every tenth part of herd or flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth one shall be holy to the LORD.
Figurative usage:
[of Solomon] 2 Samuel 7:14-15 “I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, 15 but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you.

Job 9:34-35 Let Him remove His rod from me, And let not dread of Him terrify me. Then I would speak and not fear Him; But I am not like that in myself.

Psalm 23:4 Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.
It just becomes much more sensical, the meaning of this Proverb, when it is read literally. That may be my, and others’, humble opinion, but it started making much more sense, esp in the light of a passage like this:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 18 “If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his hometown. They shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear.

it’s occurred to me that we are just arguing something illogical.
Previously we examined Proverbs 13:24, a passage from which we understood three powerful principles: (1) proper discipline is associated with the use of the rod, (2) proper discipline is associated with love, and proper discipline is not described here in terms of abuse or causing harm, nor is it described as punishment.
Then the author goes on to discuss if the “rod” is literal or figurative.
Especially in light of 23:13-14 (which I plan to examine in detail in a future installment), there is no textual basis to understand the meaning as non-literal. And if there is nothing in the text itself to suggest a non-literal meaning, then how would we justify a figurative interpretation? These are challenging issues, for sure.
So the author is saying that the rod here is literal.

Yet he also is saying that the literal rod means spanking? … . I think this is an illogical argument.

So, people who say that the “rod” means a spectrum of parental discipline … I don’t see why this is required to mean that spanking must be in that spectrum. Is there a reason some are insisting that spanking itself is God-ordained? Can just the spectrum of discipline be God-ordained? If I choose not to spank, can I still be in that God-ordained area of discipline? Why not?

There are several possible ways to view spanking

1) As something good parenting requires

2) As something good parenting excludes

3) As something that may or may not be included in good parenting

So you have at least those three possibilities from a topical standpoint.

From a biblical standpoint, more possibilities emerge, overlapping somewhat (but not entirely) w/the previous three:

1) Scripture requires that spanking be a part of parenting

2) Scripture forbids that spanking be a part of parenting

3) Scripture neither forbids nor requires spanking (a.k.a. “allows” or “encourages”… for two more sub-options)

My point with these lists is to help avoid the tendency to lump views together. Not everyone who is “against prohibiting spanking” believes that “spanking is required.” And not everyone who believes “spanking is required” believes “Scripture expressly requires spanking.”

I lean toward the view that the language itself does not require spanking in every case, but that the practical realities of the nature of children make that application nearly impossible to avoid… and that this is why the witness of history favors the judicious use of pain to the rear end.

On the age question. Did a little digging to see how likely it is that Proverbs means for “rod” to only be used on young men. Even a cursory study of the term for “child” in Proverbs 22.15, shows that the word cannot be limited to “young men” on lexical grounds (so the case would have to be made some other way). Several passages use the same word clearly in reference to younger children (and I did not finish going through the OT, so there are probably more).

Isaiah 3:4 (“children” - the implication is that these are youths far younger than would be normal age for “princes”)

Isaiah 7:16 (“child” in KJV - in ref. to one too young to know right from wrong)

Isaiah 8:4 (in the NKJV, translated “child” - the verse clearly has a very young child in view who cannot say “mamma”)


It’s true that there many occurrences of the term in a context that is clearly more like “young man.” My point is that the term is flexible, so the conclusion that “child” is “young man” in Prov.22.15 (and similar passages) is not obvious and needs support.

The evidence suggests that use of this particular word (na’ar) means that no particular age is specified. It’s intentionally general and left to the judgment of wise parents—who would have a good idea of when the use of that method is suitable.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

About spanking required vs. spanking permitted etc., please see:

http://sharperiron.org/comment/40395#comment-40395

As for literal vs. other… I agree that there seems to be a logical problem with saying the rod is literal and then taking a rod passage to be commanding an activity that is different, such as using your hand or a belt or some kind of plastic.

But here we run into problems with what “literal” means. That is, you can be literal and still have varying degrees of precision. If we mean “literal” as in the opposite of “symbolic,” the rod could be literal yet not be intended to be all that precise.
  • A precision scale would have “a stick and only a stick” at one end of the scale of possibilities (very precise) and “use pain as a tool” at the other end (very imprecise).
  • The literalness scale would have “actual impact of instrument on body” at one end (entirely literal) and “no actual impact of instrument on body” at the other end (entirely symbolic).
Looking at this way, my view would be “entirely literal but not intended to be all that precise.”

I’m not claiming here to be using “precision” and “literalness” in any authoritative way here. Just illustrating that hermeneutics is complicated stuff at times and no small battle has raged over what literal means (esp. in covenant vs. dispensationalist debates) and doesn’t mean when interpreting texts.

It’s probably best to look for likely authorial intent and likely readership understanding and focus on that. It’s pretty obvious to me that several of these Proverbs are not about civil justice (caning young men) but rather about parenting and that these timeless words of wisdom admonish parents not to be afraid to use physical pain. The spirit of them is clearly a call to diligent and active correction and instruction. But the spirit doesn’t neutralize the practical advice.

Parents have understood for millennia that kids need to experience some paintful consequences (chosen intentionally for instructional purposes) in order to learn good habits. Only recent decades have seriously questioned that.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[Aaron Blumer] It’s probably best to look for likely authorial intent and likely readership understanding and focus on that.
But assuming that spanking or something like it is what readers/Solomon was meaning/reading into it is a very far stretch. How do you know what they were thinking in that culture?
[Aaron Blumer] It’s pretty obvious to me that several of these Proverbs are not about civil justice (caning young men) but rather about parenting and that these timeless words of wisdom admonish parents not to be afraid to use physical pain. The spirit of them is clearly a call to diligent and active correction and instruction. But the spirit doesn’t neutralize the practical advice.
that is fine. I think even if you read them literally, there are still applicable lessons for parenting today. But you are assuming age where, in the Bible, which explains that culture, and there are probably other sources which explain that culture that we have no access to right now, there is no example of using physical pain as discipline on a small child. There are places that talk about using physical pain with older guys or slaves, for example.
[Aaron Blumer] Parents have understood for millennia that kids need to experience some paintful consequences (chosen intentionally for instructional purposes) in order to learn good habits. Only recent decades have seriously questioned that.
Kind of a sweeping assertion with several assumptions. I don’t think this is accurately portrayed… . I may not intentionally inflict parent-caused pain on my child, but they do experience painful consequences of their actions. Also, there is a lot that is painful about just making one’s flesh obey. This doesn’t count as “painful”?

anyway … on to martin luther …

My point was basically:

If we say these particular “rod verses” should be viewed through a more literal lens, then we must be honest about what each word most commonly means and at minimum apply them in that manner BEFORE we extrapolate the instructions to less-commonly understood meanings.

Na’ar is sometimes used for younger children. But if we are using a literal interpretative lens, why would an honest Christian scholar take these passages to mean that young toddlers should be spanked, but that spankings should CEASE when the individual becomes a youth?

Too often, I’m accused of allowing culture to shape my non-spanking conviction by people who are prescribing to a CULTURAL view of “appropriate” spanking. I’m told that I’m not taking the Bible seriously by people who DO NOT beat their 14 year old son on the back with a rod for sneaking alcohol. If it is okay for a Christian to NOT beat a 14 year old on the back with a rod (the literal interpretation), then it is certainly okay to NOT swat a 2 year old on his bottom for touching something forbidden (the extrapolated interpretation).