https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1255
Children and the Rod of Correction
American civilization has undergone tremendous social shifting in the
last fifty years in virtually every facet of its culture. This
transformation is evident, for example, in the area of the family and
parental discipline. From the beginning of this nation, most Americans
have believed in the value of corporal punishment. This discipline has
included spanking the child using a variety of instruments, including a
“switch,” paddle, razor strap, yardstick, belt, or hand. The last
generation to have experienced this approach to parenting on a wide
scale was the World War II generation. Due to the adverse influence of
social liberals and alleged “specialists” in human behavior and child
psychology, the thinking of many Americans has now been transformed to
the extent that corporal punishment has come to be viewed as “child
abuse”—even by the judiciary.
Make no mistake: genuine child abuse is taking place every day in
America. Some parents are burning, torturing, and even killing their
children. However, the
abuse of a good thing is no argument against its
legitimate
and judicious use. Extreme behavior often elicits an extreme reaction.
We must not “throw out the baby with the bathwater.” Regardless of the
superficial appeal of the arguments that are marshaled against spanking,
those who recognize that the Bible is the inspired Word of God are more
concerned with biblical insight regarding the matter. Does the Bible
advocate or sanction the spanking of children?
THE BIBLE’S VIEWPOINT
Several verses refer explicitly to the use of corporal punishment in
the rearing of children. The longstanding quip, “Spare the rod and spoil
the child,” is undoubtedly a paraphrase of Solomon’s words: “He who
spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him
promptly” (Proverbs 13:24). This motif is repeated throughout Proverbs.
For example, Solomon asserted “foolishness is bound up in the heart of a
child, but the rod of correction will drive it far from him” (22:15).
This one statement is packed with meaning that merits deep and prolonged
meditation and analysis. Most modern adolescent psychologists have not
even begun to plumb its depths, let alone agree with it.
Lest someone get the idea that Solomon used the term “rod”
figuratively, without intending to leave the impression that parents
should actually strike their children with a rod, he clarified the
target: “Do not withhold correction from a child, for if you beat him
with a rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with a rod, and deliver
his soul from hell” (23:13-14). A proper balance is obviously needed
between verbal reproof/encouragement on the one hand, and the
application of corporal punishment on the other, as seen in the
following words: “The
rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child
left to himself brings shame to his mother. Correct your son, and he
will give you rest; yes, he will give delight to your soul” (29:15,17,
emp. added). The immense importance of the interplay between positive
instruction, encouragement, and nurturing, in conjunction with
appropriate physical punishment, cannot be overestimated nor
successfully discounted.
MEANING OF “ROD”
But what did Solomon mean by “rod”? The Old Testament uses primarily three Hebrew words to refer to a wooden stick:
Maqqel refers to a tree branch that has been transformed into a
riding crop (Numbers 22:27), a shepherd’s staff (1 Samuel 17:40—which
Goliath called a “stave” or “stick”—vs. 43), or a weapon of war (Ezekiel
39:9—“javelin” in the
NKJV). It is also used as a symbol of dominion (e.g., Jeremiah 48:17—where it occurs in synonymous parallelism with
matteh),
and in its natural state as a branch of a poplar, chestnut, or almond
tree (Genesis 30:37; Jeremiah 1:11) [see Harris, et al., 1980, 1:524;
Botterweck, et al., 1997, 8:548-550].
Matteh occurs 252 times and is used to refer to a branch, stick,
stem, rod, shaft, staff, and most often a tribe (some 180 times). It
can refer to a stick used to beat out cumin/grain (Isaiah 28:27), a
soldier’s spear (1 Samuel 14:27), as well as the shaft of an arrow
(Habakkuk 3:9,14) [Botterweck, et al., 8:241; Gesenius, 1847, pp.
466-467].
Shevet, the word used in Proverbs, refers to a staff, stick,
rod, scepter, and tribe. Gesenius defined it as “a staff, stick, rod”
and then showed how it is translated differently in accordance with the
use to which it was put, whether for beating, striking, chastening
(Isaiah 10:5,15), a shepherd’s crook (Leviticus 27:32; Psalm 34:4), a
king’s scepter (Genesis 49:10; Amos 1:5,8), a tribe (Judges 20:2), a
measuring rod, or a spear (2 Samuel 18:14) [p. 801; cf. Harris, et al.,
2:897].
Matteh and
shevet are used together in Ezekiel 19:10-14
to refer to fresh tree branches. They are used in synonymous parallelism
in Isaiah 28:27 as a stick used to beat out cumin/grain: “But the black
cumin is beaten out with a stick (
matteh), and the cumin with a rod (
shevet).” They are unquestionably synonyms. If any distinction can be made between them, it is that
matteh
is not used to refer to a scepter (see Harris, et al., 2:897; although
Gesenius, pp. 466-467). However, both are used to refer to a stick or
rod. In fact,
shevet is specifically referred to as a rod used
for beating a human being: “And if a man beats his servant or his
maidservant with a rod…” (Exodus 21:20). As Isaacs noted: “The Heb[rew]
shebhet is the ordinary word for rod or club” (1959, 4:2702; cf. McClintock and Strong, 1880, 9:57-58,401).
In addition to the verses in Proverbs that refer specifically to
spanking a child, several additional verses verify that literal striking
of the body with a wooden stick is envisioned. For example, “Wisdom is
found on the lips of him who has understanding, but a rod is for the
back of him who is devoid of understanding” (Proverbs 10:13). “A whip
for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the fool’s back”
(Proverbs 26:3). Obviously, the “rod” is as literal as the “whip” and
“bridle.” The Psalmist declared: “Then I will visit their transgression
with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes” (Psalm 89:32). Though
speaking figuratively, the Psalmist aligned “rod” with “stripes.” In
passages where the term “rod” is used figuratively, the figurative use
presupposes the literal meaning (e.g., Job 9:34; 21:9; Isaiah 10:24;
11:4; 14:29; 30:31; Lamentations 3:1; Micah 5:1).
CONCLUSIONS
In light of the linguistic data, the following conclusions are warranted:
First, the three terms are essentially synonyms with no real
distinction to be discerned between them. They are as generic,
ambiguous, and flexible as their English counterparts. As Orr stated:
“Little distinction can be drawn between the Heb[rew] words used for
‘rod’ and ‘staff ’ ” (1959, 4:2596; also Funderburk, 1976, 5:132). The
commonality that exists between them is the fact that they all refer to a
stick/limb, i.e., a branch from a tree. In antiquity, scepters, spears,
arrows, rods, staffs/staves were all made out of wood, i.e., tree
branches (cf. Ezekiel 19:11). Hence, the distinction between them was
one of purpose/function—not source. It follows that size, i.e.,
thickness and length, would likewise have varied. The Hebrew words
themselves possess no inherent indication regarding size.
Second, the principle of spanking is clearly taught in Proverbs. This
is beyond dispute. Since God would not approve of child abuse (cf.
Colossians 3:21), it follows that whatever instrument is used for
spanking, whether switch, yardstick, paddle, belt, razor strap, etc.,
should get the job done without inflicting inappropriate or unnecessary
damage to the child’s body. The “switch” has much to commend it, and
certainly coincides with the biblical texts on the subject. But good
sense and personal judgment must be exercised in determining its size.
In his comments on the Hebrew word for “rod,” Hebrew scholar and
Professor of Old Testament at Regents College, Bruce Waltke noted: “The
rod was also used as an instrument for either remedial or penal
punishment. …In Prov[erbs] 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” (Harris, et al., 1980, 2:897, emp.
added). The author of the apocryphal book, Ecclesiasticus, observed: “He
who loves his son will whip him often, in order that he may rejoice at
the way he turns out” (May and Metzger, 1965, p. 166).
Writing over one hundred years ago, professor W.F. Adeney offered a
surprisingly current observation that has much to commend it:
The primitive rigour of the Book of Proverbs is repudiated by modern
manners. Not only in domestic training, but even in criminal law, people
reject the old harsh methods, and endeavor to substitute milder means
of correction. No doubt there was much that was more than rough, even
brutal, in the discipline of our forefathers. The relation between
father and child was too often lacking in sympathy through the undue
exercise of parental authority, and society generally was hardened
rather than purged by pitiless forms of punishment. But now the question
is whether we are not erring towards the opposite extreme in showing
more tenderness to the criminal than to his victim, and failing to let
our children feel the need of some painful discipline. We idolize
comfort, and we are in danger of thinking pain to be worse than sin. It
may be well, therefore, to consider some of the disadvantages of
neglecting the old-fashioned methods of chastisement (1950, 9:258-259).
REFERENCES
Adeney, W.F. (1950 reprint),
The Pulpit Commentary—Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, ed. Spence, H.D.M. and J.S. Exell (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, eds. (1997),
Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Funderburk, G.B. (1976), “Rod,”
The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill Tenney (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), 5:132-133.
Gesenius, William (1847),
Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 1979 reprint.
Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer, Jr. and Bruce Waltke, eds. (1980),
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Isaacs, Nathan (1956), “Sceptre,”
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 4:2701-2702.
May, Herbert and Bruce Metzger (1965),
The Oxford Annotated Bible With the Apocrypha (New York, NY: Oxford University Press).
McClintock, John and James Strong (1880),
Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1970 reprint).
Orr, James (1959), “Rod,”
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 4:2596.
It
is true that the Hebrew alphabet originally had no vowels. For many
centuries, Jews wrote the language without any vowels. But that did not
mean that there was any doubt or irresolvable uncertainty about the
meaning of the words. When Jews grew up learning their language, just
like Americans, they grew up learning how to pronounce words and how to
write them. The only reason vowels (which are actually a system of
points [dots] and other diacritical markings) were invented was so that
Jews who did not speak Hebrew (like the Hellenistic Jewish widows of
Acts 6) and non-Jews would be able to pronounce the words. The most
widely used pointing system was developed by the Masoretes between A.D.
600-1000 (“The Masoretes and…,” 2002; “Aaron ben…,” 2010). Working
primarily in the Palestinian cities of Tiberius and Jerusalem, as well
as in Babylonia (modern Iraq), these Jewish scribes/scholars were
meticulous in their efforts to preserve the Hebrew text in their
transcriptions (known as the Masoretic text). We now know they did an
outstanding job, because as the Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered in the
1940s) have gradually been examined, it has become apparent that the
condition of the Hebrew text in the second half of the first millennium
A.D. was virtually the same as reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls that
date back to the first century B.C. Like the New Testament, the text of
the Old Testament has been preserved to the extent that Christians may
be assured that they are in possession of the Word of God as He
intended.
Apologetics
Press in recent years involves the Second Coming of Christ and the
omniscience of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4)
and thus omniscient (Psalm 139), why did Jesus say about His return,
“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven,
nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mark 13:32, emp.
added)? Why would the “Father alone” (Matthew 24:36, NASB) be aware of
the time of Jesus’ Second Coming? Does this awareness exclude the Holy
Spirit?