proverbs | “shields-up”

does the Bible mandate corporal punishment in child-rearing?

The book of Proverbs is often used, it would seem, to justify the claim that a true Christian approach to raising children must invariably include the use of corporal punishment (see, for example, Prov 13:24; 22:15; 23:13–14; 29:15). Partly because I keep running into this argument, I thought I’d post a few comments and observations relating to it.

First, perhaps the most extreme proponent of corporal punishment I’ve encountered is Sirach who, in chapter 30, writes:

¹He who loves his son will whip him often,
so that he may rejoice at the way he turns out.
²He who disciplines his son will profit by him,
and will boast of him among acquaintances.
…
⁷Whoever spoils his son will bind up his wounds,
and will suffer heartache at every cry.
⁸An unbroken horse turns out stubborn,
and an unchecked son turns out headstrong.
⁹Pamper a child, and he will terrorize you;
play with him, and he will grieve you.
¹⁰Do not laugh with him, or you will have sorrow with him,
and in the end you will gnash your teeth.
¹¹Give him no freedom in his youth,
and do not ignore his errors.
¹²Bow down his neck in his youth,
and beat his sides while he is young,
or else he will become stubborn and disobey you,
and you will have sorrow of soul from him.
¹³Discipline your son and make his yoke heavy,
so that you may not be offended by his shamelessness.

Ouch!

Fortunately few today go quite so far as Sirach. Nonetheless, my concern is with the derivation from Proverbs of the idea that corporal punishment is required by the Bible, or that “a parent that doesn’t use corporal punishment hates their child” (as I was once told). I know there are quite a few Christian parenting books which endorse forms of corporal punishment almost from birth, and substantiation is almost entirely founded on a few verses from Proverbs. I want to say that this is a gross misunderstanding of Proverbs virtually akin to the mistake made by Job’s friends who assumed that Job must be suffering because of some personal sin since that’s what wisdom taught.

My problems with this application of Proverbs are as follows:

Proverbs should not be interpreted as rules in this way. I know people pay lip-service to this very fundamental hermeneutical strategy for Proverbs, but then subsequently jetison it when trying to draw lessons from the material. Proverbs attempts to teach profound truths in brief aphorisms which become guides to the wise to know how to act. It is clear from Proverbs itself that you need wisdom to apply its wisdom, for in the hands of fools the material in Proverbs is open to abuse (cf. Prov 26:7, 9)!
The only form of discipline for children (or “youths” cf. 22:15; 23:13) explicitly identified in Proverbs is “the rod,” yet I know of no-one who suggests that corporal punishment should be the only form of discipline parents mete out to their children, despite the fact that a literalistic reading of Proverbs would lead one to conclude that this is the recommended course of action.
“The rod” is clearly metaphorical in a number of passages (e.g. Prov 14:3). This is also reflective of the poetic nature of aphoristic wisdom literature, which employs all manner of poetic devices to convey its messages.
This understanding is reinforced by the observation that Proverbs never contrasts methods of discipline: the antithesis to discipline is always lack of discipline, not another supposedly inferior form of discipline. Were corporal punishment being exclusively endorsed, I would expect some such contrast to appear.
The use of “the rod” is influenced by the terse nature of the aphorisms, not because it is the be-all and end-all for biblical discipline. Once “the rod” is established in the aphorism as a reference to discipline, it is appropriate to use the symbol to develop the instruction countained in the aphorism.

The upshot of this is that while Proverbs teaches the importance of disciplining children, it should not be taken as endorsing particular forms of discipline. It clearly doesn’t eschew corporal punishment, but neither should it be understood as requiring it or even making it normative. Wisdom requires wisdom, and so one ought to recognise that individual circumstances need to be evaluated and dealt with individually. To my mind, to entirely exclude corporal punishment as a legitimate tool in discipline is as legalistic and blinkered as suggesting that it ought to be normative. Every child is different: what works for one will not work for another. Every circumstance is different: sometimes an urgent response is needed, sometimes not.

Finally, I’d also like to highlight Eph 6:4 as another passage which instructs us in how to apply discipline. I like Andrew Lincoln’s comment on the passage in his commentary on Ephesians:

Fathers are made responsible for ensuring that they do not provoke anger in their children. This involves avoiding attitudes, words, and actions which would drive a child to angry exasperation or resentment and thus rules out excessively severe discipline, unreasonably harsh demands, abuse of authority, arbitrariness, unfairness, constant nagging and condemnation, subjecting a child to humiliation, and all forms of gross insensitivity to a child’s needs and sensibilities.

disciplining children

Everyone has something to say about the best way to discipline children, even people without children! In Christian circles it is common to emphasize the “biblical” approach to discipline, an approach which inevitably (and not inappropriately) turns to advice from the book of Proverbs. Here are a few of the verses in Proverbs to which people turn when considering how the Bible advises we discipline our children:

A wise son accepts his fatherʼs discipline,
But a scoffer does not listen to rebuke. (13:1)

He who spares his rod hates his son,
But he who loves him disciplines him diligently. (13:24)

Discipline your son while there is hope,
And do not desire his death. (19:18)

Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child;
The rod of discipline will remove it far from him. (22:15)

Do not hold back discipline from the child,
Although you beat him with the rod, he will not die.
You shall beat him with the rod,
And deliver his soul from Sheol. (23:13–14)

The rod of reproof gives wisdom,
But a child who gets his own way brings shame to his mother. (29:15)

On the basis of these proverbs it is common to assert that the biblical teaching not only endorses some form of corporal punishment in pedagogy, but actually mandates it. Certainly that would seem to be the way Sirach understands the advice, because he clearly felt that Proverbs didn’t go anywhere near far enough! Just listen to the advice Sirach offers in chapter 30:

He who loves his son will whip him often,
so that he may rejoice at the way he turns out.
He who disciplines his son will profit by him,
and will boast of him among acquaintances.
He who teaches his son will make his enemies envious,
and will glory in him among his friends.
When the father dies he will not seem to be dead,
for he has left behind him one like himself,
whom in his life he looked upon with joy
and at death, without grief.
He has left behind him an avenger against his enemies,
and one to repay the kindness of his friends.
Whoever spoils his son will bind up his wounds,
and will suffer heartache at every cry.
An unbroken horse turns out stubborn,
and an unchecked son turns out headstrong.
Pamper a child, and he will terrorize you;
play with him, and he will grieve you.
Do not laugh with him, or you will have sorrow with him,
and in the end you will gnash your teeth.
Give him no freedom in his youth,
and do not ignore his errors.
Bow down his neck in his youth,
and beat his sides while he is young,
or else he will become stubborn and disobey you,
and you will have sorrow of soul from him.
Discipline your son and make his yoke heavy,
so that you may not be offended by his shamelessness.

Did you ever wonder why Sirach’s wisdom was translated by his grandson and not his son? I think the answer lies in the words above! I also think the above passage is sufficient to prove the error of canonising the apocryphal books!

But seriously, what are we to make of the advice in Proverbs? For many, it would seem, these aphorisms form the basis for promoting corporal punishment (you could even by a “rod” for a while in the US). But let me outline the reasons I think that such a conclusion is premature.

Proverbs is not a book of rules. Now although just about everyone agrees on this point, for many it ultimately has little impact on the reading of Proverbs!
Proverbs require wisdom to be correctly understood and applied. They are brief snippets of advice not comprehensive tomes encompassing all there is to say on a particular topic. They rely on the wisdom of the person using them to be able to use them correctly and they can be misused by fools (see Prov 26:7, 9). So we should not understand a single proverb on the topic of disciplining children to provide us with all there is to know on the topic!
If you look at the proverbs relating to disciplining children you’ll note that just about the only method of discipline mentioned is the use of “the rod.” Very few people today would suggest that the rod or even corporal punishment should be the only means of discipline we use on our children. So are they inconsistent and unbiblical?
When Proverbs does talk about the rod, look closely at what the proverbs actually say. For example, in Prov 29:15:

The rod of reproof gives wisdom,
But a child who gets his own way brings shame to his mother.

As is typical, the proverb has two opposing parts—the first tells us that “the rod of reproof gives wisdom.” What does the opposing half of the proverb say? Does it say “but a child who is only sent to his room brings shame to his mother”? “But a child who is grounded brings shame to his mother”? “But a child who’s pocket money is taken away brings shame to his mother”? Does it contrast “the rod” with any other form of discipline in order to tell us that the rod is the only means of discipline that works? No it doesn’t! It contrasts “the rod” with not disciplining at all! It contrasts “the rod” with allowing the child to get away with anything without any consequences.

Here, then, is the hermeneutical crux of the matter. Proverbs uses “the rod” as a convenient way to refer to discipline in general, in contrast to not disciplining. Now there’s no doubt that, in the ancient world, corporal punishment was pretty widely employed. But correctly understood, I do not think Proverbs can be interpreted as mandating corporal punishment as normative. On the other hand, Proverbs can’t be used to argue that corporal punishment is never appropriate. Proverbs affirms discipline over against not disciplining, it should not be interpreted as providing rules about the appropriate means of discipline, and to treat it as such is to make foolish use of biblical wisdom!