7 Verses in Proverbs Command Parents to Spank. Or do they?
For many years my wife and I believed in spanking children. We learned that the two main ways to parent children were to talk to them and spank them. We believed smacking our children was the best way to train them not to do things we did not like and to train them to obey us in everything. It was the means to making our children into better people and if possible, turning them into Christians. Then something woke us up in terms of how we should best parent. You can read our story here.
The paradigm shift from the yack and smack philosophy to a mercy and grace-based approach was needed but very hard. What we knew was that we needed to err on the side of grace and not law. However, how could we reconcile what we believed as true with our changing perspective? How could we justify a kinder, gentler, more gracious way of parenting with all those commands in Proverbs to be punitive and to spank little children? We had to be faithful to what God says, right?
Like a majority of Bible-oriented Christians, I believed God commands parents to spank and to be punitive. After all, those commands come from God’s parenting manual, the book of Proverbs. And there are seven key verses that prove the necessity for teaching and spanking. Seven key verses in Proverbs command parents to spank, right? Or do they? Asking the question I had never asked before started me on a several-year journey to study what Proverbs was all about and what those verses really mean.
One thing that stunned me was to learn that Proverbs is not a child training manual. Over the years, I put my findings in blog posts, which you can read here and here. It turns out Proverbs was not designed as a how-to yack-n-smack manual for raising compliant Christian children. In fact, there is very little in the whole Bible that tells parents how to parent. A few examples can be seen in Deuteronomy 6:1-6, Ephesians 6:4, and Colossians 3:21. Even though the Bible has much to say about children and parents, it does not provide specific instructions for how parents raise their little children. That is because the Bible is not a manual and is not about parenting. The Bible is about the good news of Jesus Christ (Luke 24:27).
What about those key verses in Proverbs? Aren’t they about how to parent?
Great question. Before diving into the seven key verses, let’s begin with the most well-known and quoted verse, Proverbs 22:6. It says, “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it” (King James Version). Tradition says this verse means, train a child in the way he’s supposed to be trained (the Bible and Christian way) then he will grow up to be a good Christian.
Proverbs 22:6 is an excellent example of how unclear the original Hebrew language can be. Over the years, I’ve read various Bible commentaries and comments in Christian child training books. Those that presuppose parents must train children in a certain way (supposedly God’s way) interpret this verse as a method (train the child in the way he must be trained) and as a promise (if you’ve trained the child in God’s way, then he will not depart from the faith).
Another way this passage has been translated is, “Train a child according to his natural bent and he will not deviate from it.” A third translation is, “Train up a child the way he wants to go, he will not deviate from that.” To complicate things even further, the Masoretic text reads, “Enoch for a child according to his way [i.e., the way of Enoch]; even when he is old (like Methuselah) he will not depart from it.”
There are other legitimate translations for it. For example, Dr. Peter Gentry points out the word “train up” does not mean to train. He says the word means to dedicate / initiate:
The four other occurrences of this verb in the Old Testament appear in contexts of dedicating or initiating the use of buildings (Deuteronomy 20:5, 1 Kings 8:63 and 2 Chronicles 7:5). Clearly, the verb involves a celebration marking the use of something for the first time. It may also indicate consecrating something for a particular use. Similarly, the eight occurrences of the noun related to our verb all involve dedicating or initiating something in the religious worship of Israel: either an altar or a temple. Yet how do these texts relate to our passage? All of them involve the initiation of things, but our passage is speaking about the initiation of a person. Here we can find help in Genesis 14:4—an important use of the word we are studying since it has an adjective from this root. !ere Abraham rescues Lot by sending out his 318 ‘trained’ men. It would be a mistake to think of these men as novices. Rather they seem to be sent out as men who were strong, experienced and already initiated into military affairs.
There are also some ancient letters from a Canaanite city called Taanach. All these letters are in Akkadian but have some Canaanite words in them. They date from the 15th century B.C. The same word occurs there that we have in Genesis 14:4. In the context of mustering troops for war, this same word is used and means military cadets or retainers. The emphasis in the verb ‘to initiate’ seems to be not so much the process of training as the responsibility and status of the person initiated. (Equipping the Generations; J D F M 2 . 2 ( 2 0 1 2 ) : 9 6 - 1 0 9)
In my opinion, this is the best translation from the original Hebrew to English.
The point is that this verse is a great example of how difficult it can be to translate ancient Hebrew.
When we come to understand how to study the Bible and then, how to study Proverbs, and understand what Proverbs says in the context of rearing children, we come to see that the rigid traditional approach to Proverbs 22:6 is flawed. The article by Dave Miller in SBC Voices and the translation by Dr. Douglas K. Stuart is one I adhere to.
It is unwise to easily adopt a perspective and translation that fits our personal tradition and worldview. We need to question our own presuppositions, develop the wisdom to critique our ideas and be willing to grow in knowledge and understanding of the truth.
With this cautionary statement, let us examine those seven verses in Proverbs that supposedly command parents to spank.
What about Proverbs 10:13?
In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding (King James Version, KJV).
On the lips of the discerning, wisdom is found, but a rod is for the back of him who lacks understanding (New American Standard Bible, NASB).
Wisdom is found on the lips of the discerning, but a rod is for the back of one who has no sense (New International Version, NIV).
On the lips of him who has understanding, wisdom is found, but a rod is for the back of him who lacks sense (English Standard Version, ESV).
In his commentary on Proverbs, the Hebrew scholar Dr. Tremper Longman translates it this way: “Wisdom is found on understanding lips, but a rod is for the backs of those lacking heart.”
There are similar verses, such as Proverbs 10:20 “The words of the godly are like sterling silver; the heart of a fool is worthless.” So, it is best to compare other verses for a more complete view.
1.Understand the context
The context of this verse is where the surrounding verses make a comparison between wise sons and foolish sons. This particular passage gives us another description of the fool. The fool lacks godly character and fails to follow the way of righteousness. In Proverbs, the fool has three definitions:
a. One who is spiritually dull and obstinate (50x in Proverbs) to God’s Word
b. One who is morally stupid and stubborn (19x)
c. One who is close-minded (see the description of the “blind” in Ephesians 4).
The fool consistently refuses to hear and obey God.
(1) Foolishness rejects God’s wisdom, which is displayed in bad behaviors.
(2) Foolishness also rejects God’s Law-Word and incurs God’s wrath, so punishment is done in righteous anger.
(3) The fool is essentially one who denies God by his life and lip. He’s an atheist (Psalm 14:1; Prov. 26:3). The fool deliberately chooses to walk the path of unrighteousness, violating God’s Law to the extent that he deserves punishment (Deut. 25:3). The fool’s mouth invites flogging (Prov. 18:6). Why? He has a pattern of contradicting God and every one of God’s commandments. The fool is one who ultimately contaminates the people of God, bringing God’s warning of punishment on the nation Israel (Deuteronomy 28).
d. We also need to understand that the definition and description for a fool cannot be of a young child. Rather, it fits the na’ar (older son or youth) who habitually and perpetually rebels against God. Find out more about “the son” by clicking here.
2. The comparison is between a wise son and a foolish son.
Proverbs 10:13 is one of many verses that compare those who have godly understanding to those with evidence of bad character (heart). These individuals are at the point of demonstrating a character that contradicts God’s moral law and righteous ways. This is not talking about a singular incident but overall behavioral patterns of consistently violating God’s Law (moral, civil, and religious). It is not asking about occasional incidents but a pattern of deviance. In other words delinquents or criminals.
a. These are people who take God’s name in vain (contradicting a life of covenant faith) and behave like unbelievers (Proverbs 26:3 with 13:24; 14:3; 22:8, 15; 23:13; and 29:15).
b. Dr. William Webb in Corporal Punishment in the Bible points out that there were up to 160 different violations of the Law that called for corporal punishment. Contrast this with the hundreds or perhaps thousands of ways little children violate their parent’s rules or preferences. To be consistent with the Old Testament a child would need to be older than twelve and would need to commit a serious offense that required justice to be done. Hence, to make this verse apply to young children violates the meaning of the verse and harms the child.
c. Further, as the scholars who wrote The Child in the Bible (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing) point out, there is no biblical warrant or evidence children under twelve were punished.
3. This verse is descriptive and says what is or what can be. It is not a command.
a. Proverbs 10:13 serves as a warning to older sons in training if they deviate from God’s Law and righteous path.
b. The broader impact was more than merely one’s personal affront(s) to God’s Law.
(1) Such a person dishonored his parents. For a culture with the family honor code, it was a very serious thing to bring shame to the parents and family. We see this type of culture in our day with conservative Muslim families or various traditional Asian families.
(2) This wayward son person easily influenced other members of the community (siblings, friends, group rebellion, etc.)
c. This verse is not commanding a parent to use the rod on the fool. Rather, it is a visual description of the kind of person a fool is. Everyone in that society knew the fool was identified with the rod of punishment. They went together like butter to toast or ducks to water (for example, see Proverbs 26:3).
4. What about the rod?
a. The rod was often a club made from a young oak tree about one to three feet tall. It had a firm ball on the root, which was very hard. The root ball would be trimmed and made smooth. The young trunk, about one to two inches thick would be cut off between twelve to twenty inches. At the other end of the stick, some would bore a hole through which a leather strap could be looped and tied. This allowed the owner to hang it on the belt or wrap it around one’s wrist. The rod was used sometimes as a weapon to defend against lions, wolves, wild dogs, or enemies. Like the whip, it could be used for punishment.
b. The broad use of the word was to demonstrate authority and the imposition of law and punishment. Depending on the context, the rod was often a metaphor for authority and judgment.
c. In the narrow sense of the term, it was a tool that at times, was used for corporal punishment. Punishment was the penal corrective for violating God’s Law (moral, civil, and religious). In the Bible, except in a very few instances, punishment is not discipline. Punishment in the Bible has to do with justice in the law of retribution. It could require a harsh beating or it might require a fine or confiscation of property. There is no place in the Bible that calls for punishing a child.
(a) The rod had to do with a matter of justice. The Law had sanctions: blessings for obedience and cursing for disobedience.
(b) This type of punishment with the rod was frequently used on slaves and obvious fools.
d. The rod was applied to the back, not the hands, legs, or buttocks.
(1) To be literal and consistent with the Old Testament and the Mosaic Law, we need to follow the biblical forms of punishment. The rod and whip were two common instruments for punishment. Then, there was the hatchet or “heavy knife.” William Webb goes into depth on this in his book.
(2) We also need to understand the rod and whip passages in the context of the Old Testament’s requirements for corporal punishment. This punishment happened with those who violated God’s civil and religious laws and in certain cases, God’s moral law.
(a) The Law’s requirement was to use certain instruments of punishment:
(1.1) The rod was applied to the back (not a paddle or stick on the bum) (Prov. 19:29; 20:30; 26:3). The person doing the punishment would beat/hit (nakah) with a rod. We cannot get around the historical fact with Ancient Near Eastern cultures and in ancient Israel, that the common use of beating a criminal or slave was with a rod.
(2.2) The whip on the back was another (Prov. 20:30).
(3.3) The hatchet or heavy knife was for a wife’s hand who injured another man’s testicles, rendering him sterile (Deut. 25:11ff). This was a penalty even if she acted in her husband’s defense.
(4.4) Stoning to death was punishment for severe violations of the Law (Ex. 19:13; Lev. 20:27; Num. 15:36; etc.).
(b) When did they use the rod?
(1) They used the rod when needed (Prov. 13:24) as harsh punishment for
those who were found guilty of a civil or religious crime.
(2) It was used in proportion to the offense or crime (Deut. 25:2).
(c) How did they beat the offender? What was the manner for using the rod?
(1) The one authorized to do so, literally beat-hit (nakah) with a rod (Prov. 23:13-14).
(2) The number of strokes could be up to forty (Deut. 25:3) for free people or non-slaves. It is possible the number of hits was based on the offender’s age.
(3) The offender had to lie down on his face to be beaten on the back (Deut. 25:2; Isa. 50:6).
(4) Therefore, the strikes were on the back and not on the butt (Prov. 10:13; 19:29; 26:3; Isa. 50:6).
(d) But there were limitations.
(1) Leaving bruises or marks on the back or side (such as the ribs) was considered a good thing (Prov. 20:30).
(2) But there must be no permanent injury.
(3) The offender must be able to get up one or two days after the beating (Ex. 21:20-27)
(4) He or she cannot be killed by the rod or whip unless the sentence warranted it. If it was a death sentence, then the offender would be stoned.
e. When a Christian parent claims to follow Proverb’s directives to “spank,” serious consideration must also be made for all the forms of punitive discipline we find in the Old Testament. One cannot accurately say he is following the explicit command to spank when, as we have seen, the foolish teenaged son in the Old Testament was not spanked. He was beaten with a rod or flogged with a whip up to forty lashes. Bruising was quite acceptable and so was injuring him to where he was incapacitated for one or two days. Again, punishment of this sort is not found in connection with young children.
Now, I am not advocating we bring back the Old Covenant Law with all its sanctions and punitive measures. Nevertheless, it is important to ask ourselves why, when we do not live under the Old Covenant we want to be selective with certain verses to justify how parents supposedly must spank their children. At the very least, we need to be consistent in its applications, right?
Again, this passage is descriptive not a command. It paints a vivid picture of two kinds of sons:
The wise son – one who speaks with discernment and prudence, living the blessings of a covenant life in God’s community and sharing those verbal blessings with God’s people.
The fool – the one who lacks heart. His character runs counter to godliness. His oppositional defiance to God, God’s people, and to his family warrants God’s curse, which is punishment.
It makes no sense if we attempt to force Proverbs 10:13 to say this is about young children. Little children do not have the capacity for morality, wisdom, or foolishness as defined and described in Proverbs. They do not speak with discernment or express moral wisdom until later in life. Only Jesus had this level of wisdom and then it was when he was twelve-years-old. Neither do children have the years to demonstrate persistent and blatant rebellion against God.
Let’s look at Proverbs 13:24
He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes (KJV).
He who withholds his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently (NASB)
Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them (NIV).
Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him (ESV).
This is the popular verse from which we get the phrase, “Spare the rod, spoil the child.” Kyle Blevins tells us in Crosswalk.com,
There is often confusion between this phrase and a biblical Proverb regarding “sparing the rod.” This phrase was actually coined by a 17th-century poet and satirist by the name of Samuel Butler in his poem “Hudibras.” The poems’ main characters, Hudibras and the widow he longs for are planning to start a love affair, but before the widow commits to it, she asks Hudibras to prove his love for her by committing to twisted acts. The widow then states:
If matrimony and hanging go
By dest’ny, why not whipping too?
What med’cine else can cure the fits
Of lovers when they lose their wits?
Love is a boy by poets stil’d;
Then spare the rod, and spoil the child.
1. What’s the context?
a. The context of Proverbs 13:4 is comparing fathers of wise sons with foolish sons (13:1).
b. Proverbs does a lot of comparing and contrasting. This is a common Hebrew technique.
c. This is descriptive. The verse is not an imperative. It is not a command. The verse describes family life and training in the Old Testament era under the Law and is a commentary on the character of the teacher-father as reflected in the student-son.
2. Who is the father?
a. In the Old Testament, most often the father is the immediate progenitor. But father could also refer to grandfather, clan patriarch, tribal leader or elder, or a wise teacher (sage) of the Law.
b. These fathers were responsible for drilling the Law into the trainees. The Law-Word brought tangible blessings and life to the son, father, family, clan, tribe, and nation.
c. In Proverbs, the father is the teacher and the son (ben or na’ar) is the student-learner.
(1) The Hebrew term, ben, doesn’t tell us the age but the context of passage with the word ben in Proverbs does. Proverbs is talking about na’ar/son who is 12 to 24 years-old. Again, see this article.
(2) The specific and limited interpretation would see this as the na’ar/son in training.
(3) The broad interpretation would interpret this as any offspring.
(a) The rod might have been applied to the back of a young boy (5 or older), though some scholars make a point that in ancient Jewish culture, the son was not accountable to the Law until he was a na’ar/son, about twelve years old.
(b) Samuel Martin and Clay Clarkson bring out there is a lack of evidence to show this kind of beating happened with younger children.
(c) William Webb says it is possible the ancient Jews followed the 40 lashes limit for adults and possibly worked backward to 1-2 smacks on the back for a child. But there is no hard evidence for this.
(d) In his commentary, Tremper Longman says it is probable the father or sage did beat a child on the back, though not severely or with as many hits. He brings out that the Egyptian symbol for training was a man beating the student.
(e) The extra-biblical ancient text, The Wisdom of Sirach makes it clear that children were also beaten on their backs with rods.
Note: I have no problem accepting the possibility that beating on the back with a rod was a practice in ancient Israel, even possibly on young children. Most of the scholars who wrote, The Child in the Bible refute this. Further, that was under the Law in Old Covenant times. Like Dr. Webb argues, to remain consistent with these concrete Old Testament statements we would also need to apply the whip, the hatchet, and stoning. We would need to live by the ancient O.T. Law in full, which was the constitution of God’s ancient people. That would require us to apply all of the Old Testament Law to our day.
Yet, in his active obedience, Jesus completely fulfilled the Law on our behalf (Matthew 5:17, Romans 8:2; Romans 10:4; Ephesians 2:15). As the High Priest, Christ fulfilled the law of expiation. As the Prophet, he fulfilled the moral law, and as King, he fulfilled the civil Law. In our current New Covenant era, we live according to the love of Christ, for love fulfills the Law (Matt. 22:36-40; Rom. 13:8). Acts 15, Romans 14-15, and Galatians put to rest the argument that we are required to live under the Old Testament Law. Those passages and others show we are not under the civil law (Rom. 6:14; 7; Gal. 2:9; and Eph. 2:15), under which the use of corporal punishment was required.
Agreeing with many others, I contend that believers in Christ in this New Covenant era derive our understanding of how to live from the New Testament. This would include parenting. For more on this, see What About Proverbs as a Context for Child Discipline and How to Study Proverbs.
3. To understand this Proverb, it is necessary to compare and contrast hate and love.
a. Biblically, wise ones live in the realm of love; God’s love. Fools live in the realm of hate. A great depiction of the foolish life can be seen in Ephesians 4:17-19.
b. The father who does not bring discipline to the rebel son essentially condones a hate-filled lifestyle. We have an example of this with Eli’s sons in 1 Samuel 2:12. Eli’s sons, like David’s son Absalom (2 Samuel 13) were members of the Old Covenant but they were not true believers in God. They are excellent examples of the fool in Proverbs. If the rebel teen’s behaviors and speech consistently show serious anti-God characteristics, then the rod was applied. If the rebel son did not accept the consequence of his wayward ways or refused discipline he proved himself to be a fool.
Naturally, fathers do not want to see their sons in pain or inflict pain on them, so this is urging the Jewish father to use the rod for rebellion. Again, the Law defines rebellion. It is not talking about every little infraction, mistake, or sin we can cover with love (Proverbs 10:12; 1 Peter 4:8).
4. Love seeks discipline.
a. Discipline in this verse could mean chastisement, chastening, correction, rebuke, or reproof. Discipline does not always mean hitting or spanking. The central meaning of discipline is to disciple, which is to teach or train. Therefore, there are various aspects to discipline and once again, context informs us what that aspect is. Applying the rod in this situation tells us this is talking about physical chastisement.
b. An obvious means of discipline in this passage is using the rod on the teenage son. That was the custom of the day. In fact, it was a common understanding in certain Ancient Near East cultures that beating a person was the mental and spiritual equivalent of beating a dirty rug to remove the dust and dirt.
But there’s PROVERBS 14:3
In the mouth of the foolish is a twig/shoot of pride but the lips of the wise (a wooden translation of the Hebrew text).
In the mouth of a dupe is a sprig of pride but the lips of the wise guard them (Dr. Tremper Longman’s translation).
In the mouth of the foolish is a rod for his back, but the lips of the wise will protect them (NASB).
Note: the interpreters are taking liberty to insert some words that are not in the text.
In the mouth of the foolish is a rod of pride: but the lips of the wise shall preserve them (KJV).
A fool’s mouth lashes out with pride, but the lips of the wise protect them (NIV)
By the mouth of a fool comes a rod for his back, but the lips of the wise will preserve them (ESV).
1. Context is key.
It is essential to compare similar verses about the language of the fool in contrast with the language of the wise. They are all over the place in Proverbs.
Again, this passage is descriptive and not a command.
We must keep in mind that the narrow context is Proverbs and its purposes.. The broader context points us to Jesus Christ. He is wisdom in the flesh whose words bring life and light (1 Cor. 1:24; 1:30).
2. A wonderful study of Proverbs reveals the importance and power of words.
The fool’s words bring dishonor, the power to curse, evil, deceit, slander, lies, and destruction.
The wise one’s words bring refreshment, healing, life, honesty, honor, and flourishing.
3. What is the sprig or shoot of pride?
a. Literally, it is a branch or twig. This is not the normal term for rod, though in a few rare cases, translators interpret this as a rod.
b. It is a figure of speech, a metaphor for the start of pride in an individual, namely the fool. It is the kind of hubris we see with God haters and Satan. The picture is of a foolish person who has a small branch growing out of his mouth, presumably connected to the plant in his wicked heart and from it comes the fruit of pride.
Literally, “In the mouth of a dupe.” Dupe is a synonym for a fool; someone who is obviously foolish.
A person’s speech reveals his heart.
The fool’s talk ultimately brings about his death.
The words of the wise protects him and preserves his life.
c. This sprig of pride, translated “rod” by some translators is not a reference to the rod of punishment. Further, only a couple of translators insert “his back” to fit their presupposition, even though “his back” is absent in the original Hebrew.
4. If one sticks with the concrete translation of this verse, it has nothing to do with beating someone with a rod.
“In the mouth of the foolish is a twig/shoot of pride but the lips of the wise guards.” Out of a dupe’s mouth we can observe pride growing like a young sapling. It is just the opposite type of tree that we read about in Psalm 1.
Look at PROVERBS 22:8
Whoever sows injustice reaps calamity and the rod they wield in fury will be broken (NIV).
He that soweth iniquity shall reap vanity: and the rod/staff of his anger shall fail (KJV).
He who sows iniquity will reap vanity, and the rod of his fury will perish (NASB).
Whoever sows injustice will reap calamity, and the rod of his fury will fail (ESV).
1. What is the Context?
This Proverb is an observation of a general truth. Once again, this is not a command.
This is the fruit of one who is a fool and quite possibly this is talking about a foolish king.
Sowing injustice or iniquity often happens when a foolish son trains for future leadership and comes to power as a ruler or king. There are many examples of this in the Old Testament with the accounts of wicked kings.
Or this could also be saying that those who do bad or wicked things will suffer bad things? In any case, this is not talking about disciplining children.
2. What about this rod?
In Hebrew, the shebet is a branch, club, a shoot of a tree, rod, staff, scepter, tribal rod, staff, or the shaft of a spear. It’s likely a shepherd’s tool or the scepter of a clan or tribe representing authority.
Okay, but PROVERBS 23:13-14 proves spanking!
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 (KJV).
Do not hold back discipline from the child, although you strike him with the rod, he will not die. You shall strike him with the rod and rescue his soul from Sheol (NASB).
Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish them with the rod, they will not die. Punish them with the rod and save them from death (NIV).
Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol (ESV).
Don’t withhold discipline from young people. If you strike them with a rod they will not die. Strike them with a rod and you will extricate their lives from Sheol (Dr. Tremper Longman).
1. What is the context?
a. Proverbs 22:17-24:34 are a collection of the sayings of the wise. Research shows that the wise ones who collected the Old Testament book of Proverbs also included the sayings or proverbs of sages in other cultures that are in agreement with Old Testament truth. This verse is similar to Proverbs 13:24 (see above).
b. This passage is another observation of a general truth and not a command.
c. As already mentioned, in the Ancient Near East, including Israel, it was common belief that teaching and wisdom had to be drummed into students and evil beaten out of them. Students could be seven to twelve-years-old but most were twelve to eighteen. Comparatively, Israel was much more lenient and gracious than other cultures and nations.
d. This was the practice found under God’s Law in the Old Testament.
2. Important terms to understand.
a. The word ben, which we have already seen is a generic term for progeny, is commonly translated as child. Just as a parent can refer to her grown daughter as her child or a father could refer to his infant boy as his child, so too child in and of itself does not tell us about the person. I’ve argued already that the purpose for Proverbs is to train older sons (na’ar) in God’s way, hence the most reasonable understanding for child has to do with older sons and not little children.
However, the English term, child in this verse is na’ar in Hebrew. This could be translated child but as Strong’s Concordance points out, the term is used in the Old Testament in various ways:
“young man 76, servant 54, child 44, lad 33, young 15, children 7, youth 6, babe 1, boys 1, young 1”
Context always matters. For further explanation, see this article.
b. We also seen that discipline means chastisement, correction, chasten, or correction and rarely does it mean punishment. For further discussion of what the Old Testament says about discipline, go here.
c. The word strike means to beat, hit, or give wounds. Remember, beating a student, son, slave, or criminal on the back until they were bruised was supposed to be a good thing.
d. Rod (shebet) could be a club, rod, staff, or symbolic scepter of authority. This verse obviously requires a literal instrument and is not something metaphorical.
e. Save is to deliver, rescue, recover, or snatch out of peril.
f. Sheol is the Hebrew word for “the place of the dead.” It could mean:
* A place of no return (literally or metaphorically). Hence the reference here could mean the grave.
* A place without the praise of God.
* Where the wicked are sent for punishment, similar to other ancient cultural views about the place of the dead. But the righteous are not sent or abandoned there.
* A place of exile. It could be the literal sense but most often used figuratively.
* Or the condition of a person “in the extreme degradation into sin.”
* The various uses in the Old Testament are not equated with what we know about Hell from the New Testament. The contexts sometimes inform us which definition of Sheol is meant but in its very basic sense, it means “the place of the dead.”
3. What is this saying?
As we have already seen, in the Ancient Near Eastern cultures, including ancient Israel, the father-teacher had to beat the truth into youth in order to force them to learn their lessons. This was even a practice used up until the 1950s in Western societies and is still used in a variety of third world cultures. The idea is that it was better to beat wisdom into the youth than for the youth to die. In the Old Testament, when the son is rebellious to the extent that he ought to receive corporal punishment, then it is incumbent on the father to administer that beating.
William Webb points out this Proverb is saying, “Spare the son from a premature death, the ultimate penalty: Stoning severely rebellious teens (Deut 21:18-21) who violated God’s Law.” So, it is far better to beat persistently rebellious youth than for them to violate a law that would require capital punishment.
This verse cannot mean it is imperative a father spank a child in order to to save a child from going to Hell. No other biblical verse or doctrine supports this idea. Further, as believers in Christ know, there is only one way to be rescued from Hell and that is through Christ’s sacrificial death on the Cross, paying the full price for one’s guilt and sins. Saving faith in Jesus’s life, work, death, burial, resurrection and ascension (1 Corinthians 15) is what rescues people, not spanking or even a beating with a rod.
doesn’t PROVERBS 26:3 tell parents to spank?
A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back (KJV).
A whip is for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the back of fools (NASB).
A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the backs of fools! (NIV)
A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the back of fools (ESV).
1. What is the Context?
a. This verse is consistent with the other verses we’ve discussed. It is another observational statement and a commonly accepted grasp of the obvious, like “does a bear poop in the woods?” This passage is an example of a Hebrew way of paring obvious things together.
b. The fool is one who deliberately makes immoral choices (rejecting God and his Ten Commandments, going after prostitutes, worshipping false gods, bringing dishonor to his father or serious shame to his mother, virtually disowning God and God’s covenant people, etc.) The fool never refers to or describes a little child, for a little one is not capable of making those kinds of serious moral choices.
2. The Application is Similar to the other Rod Verses we’ve seen above.
We can’t dismiss Proverbs 29:15, right?
The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame (KJV).
The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child who gets his own way brings shame to his mother (NASB).
A rod and a reprimand impart wisdom, but a child left undisciplined disgraces its mother (NIV).
The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother (ESV).
1. What is the Context?
a. Just like all of the other verses, this is an observation and not an imperative.
b. This verse is in Solomon’s collection of sayings. Solomon is among other sages of the day who believed that people who are left to their own sinful proclivities will get worse. Youth can be inclined toward foolishness so they need direction and correction.
2. What is the lesson?
The lesson is that if parents do not do the hard work of proper discipline in their son’s life, they could become wayward. That would bring dishonor to the parents, and horrible shame to the mother.
Do these seven verses prove parents have to spank their children?
No.
That’s the simple answer.
When we practice good interpretive methods, we look at the grand context of the whole Bible. That is how to study Proverbs. The Bible is God’s redemptive message and is about Jesus. Jesus is the God who became sinless, perfect Man in order to save God’s people. He is the perfect Son of the perfect Father, the epitome of wisdom, and the fulfillment of the Old Testament, including Proverbs. This means we also must consider that God has moved history up to and through Jesus. The Old Testament points us to Christ and Christ fulfills the Old Testament. We no longer live in the ancient nation of Israel, abide by their civil and religious laws, or practice their customs. And we are not expected to. We live in Christ as a new nation in God’s new covenant.
After looking at the context of Proverbs in this redemptive history, we must learn to read the individual passages in their own contexts. The terms must be examined and the particular proverb needs to be understood as it fits the companion verses or the chapter. The original message and principles of those proverbs can be applied to us today, but only through the filter of Jesus and the New Covenant.
Let’s do a recap of what we’ve learned:
Proverbs is an application of the Old Testament Law. In Christ, we are no longer under that Law.
The contexts of these seven “proof” texts have to do with observations but not commands. None of the verses require parents of today to spank their little children.
All of the verses are talking about older children or youth (na’ar - sons), not little children.
Discipline in Proverbs does not mean punishment.
The rod was used to punish teens who were persistent law-breakers that shamed their parents and rejected God and his covenant people.
The rod was only one of several instruments used for punishment. Sometimes, the term was a metaphor for authority.
When the rod was used, it was applied to the back of the youth, not the buttocks, legs, or anywhere else.
The general principles of the ancient ways that are taught in these proverbs can be applied but through Jesus and his New Covenant era.
It is wrong to impose our cultural traditions and expectations onto the Bible and read into the scriptures what we want them to say. There are seven verses people claim prove we must spank our little ones, but they are seven warnings out of 915 total verses in Proverbs. To be dogmatic and declare these seven Proverbs command or expect parents to spank little children, is twisting scripture. It does an injustice to the biblical text and to our children.
What is a much better approach is to study and apply the positive concepts we find in Proverbs, of course always in keeping with their applications through Christ, the New Testament, and our life in him.
Resources
Carolyn Leeb, Away from the Father’s House: The Social Location of na’ar and na’arah in Ancient Israel in Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 301 (Sheffield Academic, 2000).
Daniel Treier, Proverbs & Ecclesiastes in Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Brazos, 2011).
Lindsay Wilson, Proverbs in Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (IVP Academic, 2018).
Richard Clifford, Proverbs in The Old Testament Library (Westminster John Knox, 1999).
Journal Articles
Randall Heskett, “Proverbs 23:13-14,” Interpretation (April 2001): 181-184.
Ted Hildebrandt, “Proverbs 22:6a: Train Up a Child?” Grace Theological Journal 9 (1988): 3-19.
Lawrence Stager, “The Archeology of the Family in Ancient Israel,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 260 (1985): 1-35.
Douglas Stuart, “The Cool of the Day (Gen. 3:8) and The Way He Should Go (Prov. 22:6),” Bibliotecha Sacra 171 (2014): 259-273.