A Biblical Perspective on Spanking, Part 1
Especially in light of increasing public pressures not to spank children, parents are legitimately questioning whether or not spanking should be a part of their repertoire. As parents who seek to train up our children as God has prescribed, we must look to His word as our authoritative source for parental training. Thankfully, the Bible has much to say regarding parental discipline. But can it bring clarity to the question of spanking? Does the Bible teach that parents should spank their children?
I believe yes, and yes—but with very specific parameters and limitations. The Bible is quite clear about disciplinary method, purpose, and results. Biblical discipline is always to be conducted in love and for the purpose of the growth and godliness of the one being disciplined. It is never punishment, and never abusive. It is painful, yes, but should never be harmful. Over the course of five articles I will consider in detail five very direct passages pertaining to the physical disciplining of children: Proverbs 13:24, 22:15, 23:13-14, and 29:15, and Hebrews 12:5-13.
As this series begins, I must preface it by noting that many events of the Hebrew Bible take place under the economy of the Mosaic Law, and because that Law governed Israel as a nation and not church-age believers of today, we need to be cautious to properly understand Old Testament context. We certainly don’t want to misapply a principle or a mandate. But the book of Proverbs makes things relatively simple. Proverbs is filled with universal truths not restricted to any particular era or economy, but broadly applicable to God’s people in any age. So, we begin there.
He who withholds his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently. (NASB, Prov. 13:24)
The Hebrew shebet, references a rod or staff, used typically in the pastoral setting as a physical restrainer and teacher for the governing of a flock. The one who hates his son is withholding (Heb., cho-sek, participle) the rod from, or refraining to use the rod on his son.
Hate (Heb., sane) is a prominently used word indicating a disposition one might have toward an enemy. In a literal grammatical-historical understanding, the meaning of the phrase is crystal clear: withholding the rod of discipline is simply hateful toward a child.
By contrast, the one who is loving (Heb., ahav—here in the participle form) his son disciplines diligently. The Hebrew shahar (is diligent) is a verb in the Piel stem—a stem that is intensive or emphatic. The phrase could be accurately translated as, “The one loving his son is a very, very diligent discipliner.” A discipliner in this phrase is contrasted with the withholder of the rod in the previous one. The simple question implied for parents is this: “Do we or do we not love our children?” We do so (at least in part) by providing them discipline (Heb., noun, musar—reproof, chastening, or correction). In this context there is but one litmus test for parental love.
Some practical implications
While we can’t yet flesh out a functionally comprehensive understanding of the Biblical perspective on spanking until we have examined all the related passages and considered them synthetically, there are some principles immediately evident from this first passage:
(1) Proper discipline is associated with the use of the rod. How much and how forcefully, and when to apply the rod and for what purpose, are issues not addressed in this particular passage. We can’t even assert from this passage that the rod should be the exclusive method of discipline. Such an assertion goes beyond the text itself. Nonetheless, the association of the rod to proper discipline is undeniable.
(2) Proper discipline is associated with love. The reasons are not explained in this verse, but the only passages in Proverbs that mention parental love (3:12 and 13:24) describe the expression of that love in terms of discipline. Whereas punishment may be associated with retribution and wrath, discipline is not related to those ideas.
(3) Proper discipline is not described here in terms of abuse or causing harm, nor is it described as punishment. Likewise, God does not punish His children; instead He disciplines them. There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1), and punishment is related to condemnation. On the other hand, discipline is for training up in righteousness—and that is an important part of every believer’s walk. Since God exemplifies righteous fatherhood, we should, of course, seek to emulate His approach with His children: discipline is to be conducted as an expression of love for the spiritual well-being of the child, and punishment should have no place in the parental vocabulary of the believer.
We begin, then, to catalog the principles, until we have examined each of the related passages in order to understand how the principles complement one another, and finally to address the questions of how spanking is to be utilized by the believer, if at all.
While I hope to clarify some of these things as the series progresses, I challenge readers not to wait for me—and not to simply rely on my words, but rather to search these things out on their own. If these articles accomplish anything at all, I hope they challenge readers (1) to value the Scriptures as the ultimate guide for parenting (and even life itself) and (2) to be diligent in searching its pages.
Christopher Cone Bio
Christopher Cone (ThD, PhD) is the President of Tyndale Theological Seminary and Biblical Institute, pastor of Tyndale Bible Church and author and editor of several books.
- 1070 views
I appreciate the essay and the series.
I’ve seen critics of this view make two claims regarding the rod:
a) It’s a metaphor for parental correction and doesn’t advocate physical pain
b) It refers to caning young men, not spanking children
Some even try to affirm both of these at the same time.
In any case, I’m interested in what you’d have to say in response to these views of “the rod” 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.
1) It is a metaphor for discipline that is “not pleasant” (to borrow from Heb. 12.11… and since “painful” seems to make so many break out in hives).
2) The metaphor does not exclude a few whacks on the behind or going to bed w/out supper once in a while. Certainly, during the times when these passages were written (and for every century thereafter until the 19th and 20th), people would not have been squeamish about using a little pain to teach a child things that will save him or her enormous amounts of pain later in life.
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.
The ancient mind would reason it this way: “If they have the authority to use the sword (that’s take a life in execution), they certainly have the authority to provide all lesser penalties as well.” So the sword is not only a literal sword, but also a symbol of the entire range of punitive options the government has.
Similarly, the rod is not only a literal rod, but symbolic of the entire range of disciplinary options. If you have the authority up to the rod for punishment, you have the authority to provide all lesser punishments.
Now, regarding ages involved, I think that SOME of the Rod passages use a Hebrew word that generally refers to young adults. Proverbs 22:15, 23:13-14, and 29:15 all contain a Hebrew 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. This does not mean they were right, but their perspective was probably influenced by these passages and the word used in them.
Misinterpretations also arise. The KJV’s rendering of Proverbs 23:13-14 refers to saving a child from Hell. The Hebrew is probably warning about saving a young man from death - as in keeping him from criminal acts that will result in his being sentenced to stoning under the Mosaic Law.
I am a traditionalist in the sense that I believe spanking, wisely applied, is an option. I simply believe it is not the only option. And that a lot of bad preaching has arisen on this under-investigated topic.
But speaking from experience, I think we may have some of this backwards.
By the time a kid is 16, he/she is able to understand far more sophisticated forms of discipline. But a three yr old cannot be reasoned with. This is one pt. where some of the efforts to develop parenting strategies from idealized theological premises (rather than from what Scripture actually plainly says on the subject) border on ridiculous. You can’t have a chat w/2 yr old junior about law and grace when you need him to stop hitting his sister or running off at grocery stores or screaming loudly at the table when adults are trying to converse.
He can’t understand that kind of reasoning. He can understand pain, whether it’s the pain of losing access to some cherished item he’s clinging to, or being removed from adult company or a slap on the wrist.
Though it’s true, as the critics say, the kid may think it’s all about Mommy and Daddy’s disapproval rather than being about sin and salvation, that’s really not a problem at that point. Abstractions are for later.
What they need to learn as small children is to begin to acquire clear distinctions between right and wrong, based very much on what Mommy and Daddy say. we learn a great deal on the basis of authority long before we learn it from personal conviction and reasoning.
You have to talk to kids at their level.
So I’m very skeptical of the value of corporal punishment for older kids. My son, who is 10 now, benefits from it once in a great while (I think I spanked him once in the last year and half—probably not enough), but he is old enough to look at his choices in terms of personal belief, love for God, honor where honor is due, and the gospel. The rod has become a secondary means of reinforcement—a dose of reality—when those ideas don’t yet seem real enough.
As for the parenting strategies extrapolated from theological ideals: even from that POV, you have to learn law before you can learn grace. Gal. 3.24.
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] The metaphor does not exclude a few whacks on the behind…When a figurative vehicle (in this case, the rod) is included in the category for which it stands (discipline), it is more properly termed metonym than metaphor.
[Aaron Blumer] Haven’t had a chance to study out the age related words in Proverbs yet.Aaron,
But speaking from experience, I think we may have some of this backwards.
By the time a kid is 16, he/she is able to understand far more sophisticated forms of discipline. But a three yr old cannot be reasoned with. This is one pt. where some of the efforts to develop parenting strategies from idealized theological premises (rather than from what Scripture actually plainly says on the subject) border on ridiculous. You can’t have a chat w/2 yr old junior about law and grace when you need him to stop hitting his sister or running off at grocery stores or screaming loudly at the table when adults are trying to converse.
He can’t understand that kind of reasoning. He can understand pain, whether it’s the pain of losing access to some cherished item he’s clinging to, or being removed from adult company or a slap on the wrist.
Though it’s true, as the critics say, the kid may think it’s all about Mommy and Daddy’s disapproval rather than being about sin and salvation, that’s really not a problem at that point. Abstractions are for later.
What they need to learn as small children is to begin to acquire clear distinctions between right and wrong, based very much on what Mommy and Daddy say. we learn a great deal on the basis of authority long before we learn it from personal conviction and reasoning.
You have to talk to kids at their level.
So I’m very skeptical of the value of corporal punishment for older kids. My son, who is 10 now, benefits from it once in a great while (I think I spanked him once in the last year and half—probably not enough), but he is old enough to look at his choices in terms of personal belief, love for God, honor where honor is due, and the gospel. The rod has become a secondary means of reinforcement—a dose of reality—when those ideas don’t yet seem real enough.
As for the parenting strategies extrapolated from theological ideals: even from that POV, you have to learn law before you can learn grace. Gal. 3.24.
Remember the famous caning case in Singapore a few years ago? An American teenaged tourist named Michael Fay committed the crimes of theft and vandalism there. He was sentenced to caning – being beat with a rod on the back 6 times. Americans were horrified. But customs in the east and in ancient cultures run to more stern treatment than we are used to.
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.
Again, the word “child” is the English translation, even though the Hebrew word probably is referring to a young adult male.
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 by stoning.
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.
In our society, we have the police to serve the same purpose, and we don’t typically stone our young adults for being drunk and disorderly.
This is NOT to say that we shouldn’t spank kids. I’m just saying that a few verses typically used to justify spanking small children are probably about something else. There are still others in which a Hebrew word is used whose dynamic range would indicate that the spanking of small children is an appropriate option.
I suspect some of the Proverbs may have the former in view, and some certainly have the latter in view. Prov.13.24 is certainly not about caning a criminal.
On metonymy… yes, that may be a better word. “Inclusive metaphor” might be a little more clear to most people though.
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] Civil law/crime & punishment is quite a different thing from parental discipline.I understand that, but I was speaking of the consequences themselves that we use to teach right/wrong, not the relationships or the motivations for doing so. When we ‘create’ consequences, aren’t we (along with the other bazillion reasons we discipline) also attempting to give kids some sense of what might happen if they don’t learn to respect authority? Even if they never embrace the concept of right/wrong itself, most people have enough of a sense of self preservation to not break the law.
I suspect some of the Proverbs may have the former in view, and some certainly have the latter in view. Prov.13.24 is certainly not about caning a criminal.
Which is, of course, why Christ focused on the heart. The only reason some people don’t commit murder is fear of the consequences, not their own personal moral compass.
Here is another perspective on the Proverbs matter, too; however he doesn’t get into the age-level question. JUst a much broader treatment of parenting advice in Proverbs. http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/48/48-4/JETS_48-4_715-732.pdf
I also wish that fundamentalists would be more honest and academic about the Proverbs rod texts. Thank you, Mike Durning, for starting that.
About Aaron’s comments about spanking very young children—as necessary b/c they don’t understand reason yet—well, it’s just not necessary. It is pretty much behaviorism—do this, zap. do that, zap. There are tons of ways to teach small children to behave and that parents’ words have meaning w/o the use of pain infliction. People can use spanking if they want, they are free in the Lord to do that. But they are just as free in the Lord not to spank, too.
;)
But they are just as free in the Lord not to spank, too.Of course they are. God doesn’t make people love their children, but He does command it. Obedience to God then requires it.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
This is an interview with Elyse Fitzpatrick, author of, among other things, a book called Give them Grace: Dazzling Your Kids with the Love of Jesus, which she wrote with her daughter Jessica.
http://castroller.com/Podcasts/WhiteHorseInn/2639057?start=undefined
She talks a lot about coming to understand grace and then how that applies to discipline. It’s very good. She recalls overhearing this discipline moment with her daughter and grandkids. One little brother is beating up the other littler brother. Mom says something like, You need to love your brother! Brother says: I can’t! Mom says, That’s right; you can’t. You need a Savior.
And that’s the truth. Even when you’re an adult. I like too her explanation of grace and sanctification. I think this is one of the most misunderstood ideas in Christianity/fundamentalism.
They don’t love their son enough to spank him.
They don’t love their other son enough to teach him that justice is good.
Double fail.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[Susan R]Yes… I was responding more to Mike in #7 and some other bits and pieces in the thread. My point was just that we can’t use the civil law/punishment passages in Proverbs to explain away the parental ones.[Aaron Blumer] Civil law/crime & punishment is quite a different thing from parental discipline.I understand that, but I was speaking of the consequences themselves that we use to teach right/wrong, not the relationships or the motivations for doing so. When we ‘create’ consequences, aren’t we (along with the other bazillion reasons we discipline) also attempting to give kids some sense of what might happen if they don’t learn to respect authority? Even if they never embrace the concept of right/wrong itself, most people have enough of a sense of self preservation to not break the law.
I suspect some of the Proverbs may have the former in view, and some certainly have the latter in view. Prov.13.24 is certainly not about caning a criminal.
Which is, of course, why Christ focused on the heart. The only reason some people don’t commit murder is fear of the consequences, not their own personal moral compass.
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.
Discussion