Responding to Christians Who Object to Spanking
April 3rd, 2007
(By Robert Achilles)
* Bob Achilles is an alumnus of The Master’s Seminary. After serving as a pastor for many years, Bob now teaches biblical exposition at The Cornerstone Seminary in Vallejo, California.
(Editor’s note: Clay Clarkson has personally responded to this article at the end of the comments section. To read his perspective on this review, scroll down after clicking here.)
Intro: In this article, Bob reviews the book Heartfelt Discipline by Clay Clarkson (Waterbrook Press, 2003). Clarkson is well-known in Christian parenting circles, and is perhaps the most popular evangelical author to oppose spanking. This review is a helpful response, not only to Clarkson, but to anyone who would argue against spanking on seemingly biblical grounds.
*****
This book (Heartfelt Discipline) is about disciplining and raising children in a godly way, and there is much in this book to praise. Since there are many disciplinary and relational abuses that are foisted upon children stemming from an immature or incomplete study of Scripture, the author seems to be responding to the need for a corrective—and indeed, a true understanding of Scripture on the subject of raising children is definitely needed.
However, the author fails to bring this needed corrective, because his biblical exegesis is faulty and misleading. The result is that he has drawn some seriously wrong conclusions. To the extent that he encourages parents to set a godly example for their children while building strong relationships with them he is correct, and the portions of his book that offer suggestions for alternate forms of discipline (i.e., alternatives to spanking) are very helpful.
But his strong and frequently asserted premise that Scripture does not advocate corporal punishment when necessary casts a shadow over the good things in his book. Whenever someone is either careless or intentionally deceptive in his use of Scripture to support his position, the red flags go up. Case in point: the author has concluded that corporal punishment is not appropriate for children. From this conclusion he appears to have sought to justify his ideas by finding ways to interpret Scripture to support his views.
It’s not possible in this short review to cover every issue he raises. Since he bases much of his argumentation on his own view of Proverbs 22:6, correcting his misinterpretation here will tend to correct many of his other misinterpretations as well. Central to his thesis is the Hebrew word naar, translated “child” in the Proverb (and also in Proverbs 20:11; 22:15; 23:13, 24; 29:15 and 21). The author claims that this word refers only to “young men” and therefore rules out physical discipline of young children.
Further, where the “rod” is used in Prov. 22:15; 23:13; and 29:15 he claims that the use of a “rod” in biblical times was for disciplining slaves and/or older children. Since the Old Testament Law called for the death of rebellious young men (Dt. 21:18-21), the age of severe discipline belongs to the Old Testament era. Therefore, using the rod on slaves or rebellious young men is inconsistent with the New Testament teaching about forgiveness, grace and the character of God.
The author reasons that if young children were not to be disciplined physically (according to his understanding of naar), and older children were not to be disciplined physically due to the cultural and Old Testament applications which no longer apply, then the Bible cannot be said to teach corporal punishment of any children.
So, what’s wrong with his reasoning?
First, the word naar, translated “child” in all the above Proverbs, is much broader than the author allows. It occurs over 200 times in the Old Testament and is used to refer to every age of a young person from within the womb to marriageable adulthood. In Exodus 2:6, it refers to the infant Moses; in 2 Samuel 12:16 it refers to Bathsheba’s baby; and in 2 Samuel 14:21 it refers to Absalom. In Judges 13:5, 7, 8, and 12 naar refers to a child not yet born; in 1 Samuel 1:22 it refers to a child not yet weaned; in Isaiah 7:16 and 8:4 it refers to a child not yet having reached the age of accountability; and in other places the word refers to Ishmael, Isaac, Joseph, and Benjamin, to name a few more of the older ones. These are just a few of the many uses that encompass all of childhood. For the author to insist that the word only refers to “young men” in Proverbs is certainly a case of reading into Scripture what fits a certain philosophy.
As to the argument that the rod only was to be applied to young men and only in the Old Testament times, see Hebrews 12:1-11, especially verses 5, 6, 7,and 10. The author alludes to this passage but only briefly and without any attempt to deal with the text. The passage deals with God’s discipline of His children and uses, with approval, an earthly father’s discipline of his children as an illustration of love in action. The passage employs strong words and teaches that discipline can sometimes be very harsh and painful, whether from God or from an earthly father.
The Greek words (used in Hebrews 12) are very instructive. Three are used to refer to children and discipline: paideia, a noun variously translated as chastisement or discipline; paideuo, the verb form meaning to train up a child, educate, chasten or instruct; and paidion, a noun referring to a childling, an infant or a half-grown boy or girl. Judging from these words, young children are clearly in view, not just young men. While the passage in Hebrews does not mandate corporal punishment, it does strongly teach that whatever is necessary to change or correct bad or unrighteous behavior is not only permitted but sometimes necessary. The author (Clarkson) is right in his desire to reach the child’s heart, but the Bible seems to be saying that sometimes the way to a child’s heart is through the seat of his pants.
Further, the author’s claim that the “rod” passages are tied to Old Testament concepts and therefore cannot be used to justify physical discipline today opens another whole can of worms. Such a claim, if tied to the rest of Proverbs, would virtually eliminate any value to the book for today—a conclusion contradicted by the New Testament quotes taken from Proverbs (like the one mentioned above in Heb. 12:5 and 6, for example).
Therefore, we must conclude that the principles given in the book of Proverbs are intended for all ages and generations, not just for the Old Testament times—including the principle of the necessary discipline of children when needed, even to the point of spanking if necessary to bring about proper behavior. In other words, the disciplinary principle being taught by the rod passages which concern children (13:24; 22:15; 23:13-14; and 29:15) is just as applicable today as the other parts of Proverbs.
Another word that is presented in a misleading way is parakaleo, a Greek word meaning to comfort, encourage, and exhort. The author tries to eliminate making the child feel guilty about anything, so he emphasizes the truth that parents need only to comfort and encourage their children. But paralakeo also means to exhort. The Holy Spirit is the paraklete, the comforter and encourager and also the exhorter—which means He not only comforts but He brings conviction and guilt as well (see John 16:7-11). If, as the author suggests, we take the Holy Spirit as our model, then we must take the full sense of the word, not just the part of the meaning that fits the author’s thesis. Encouragement is very important. But sometimes guilt is important also, when the child needs to learn about repentance, confession, and forgiveness.
The misapplication of one other word needs attention: the Hebrew word chanak, translated “train up” in Proverbs 22:6. The author is partly correct in his description of the word’s roots, but he misses the idea that the common element in all of its uses is that of setting something apart for specific use. The concept of dedication (which Clarkson emphasizes) is present but does not exhaust the meaning of the word. The original term meant “to touch the palate” of an infant as a nurse might do with pre-chewed food in order to train the child to desire and accept solid food. This involves changing the child in some way so that he not only desires solid food but becomes capable of receiving it. The child must be trained, not just dedicated, to that task.
The central idea of the word chanak as it is used in Proverbs 22:6, then, refers to actually training children, not simply guiding them. Whatever is necessary to shape the behavior of the child is to be used, including corporal punishment when necessary and when wisely applied. The author misses this point by suggesting that chanak in the Proverb refers mainly to giving guidance, not to specifically and particularly training the child in order to shape his behavior. The first part of Proverbs 22:6 is correctly translated in the Bible (NAS) as, “Train up a child in the way he should go.” But, the author’s own paraphrase of Proverbs 22:6 reveals his philosophy, to wit: “Dedicate a young man to following God’s way of wisdom” (p. 50—note also his substitution of “young man” in place of the more accurate “child”). This is not the meaning of the verse. The author’s desire to get rid of corporal punishment has clouded his objectivety.
When read with caution and in view of the author’s propensity for misusing the Scriptures, the book has much to offer. Especially helpful is the section entitled “Discipline that Works on a Child’s Won’t” (pp. 178-180 [except for the last paragraph]). I have not addressed all of the problem areas, but perhaps enough has been said to cause the reader to be discerning as he reads.
It is the conclusion of this reviewer that the Bible does indeed teach that corporal punishment is not only permitted, it is sometimes necessary—especially during the highly formative younger years of a child. The biblical text, when objectively studied, is clear.
Note: Resources used in defining the Hebrew terms in this review are A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Brown, Driver, Briggs) and, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Harris, Archer, Waltke).
[…] Pulpit Magazine is discussing spanking this week. Here is a review of Clay Clarckson’s Heartfelt Discipline by Robert Achilles. […]
[…] At Pulpit Magazine, Bob Achilles gives a helpful review and response to Clay Clarkson’s Heartfelt Discipline. […]
WOW, even though i’m only 19 and no kids that was a good article to read. Even if I never have kids seeing that kind of basic exegesis is a great way to start off the day! But I do have one question: At what age is spanking ok? Surely we do not spank a new born-that’s abuse and it seems silly to spank a 16 year old. For the most part between what ages is it the most useful?
Great argument here - thanks….
RN Whybray cites an Egyptian proverb that says that “boys have their ears on their backsides; they listen when they are beaten” (I know this was true of me)
Ref: netbible.org - Proverbs 13:24 notes
[…] John Radcliff wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptAnother word that is presented in a misleading way is parakaleo, a Greek word meaning to comfort, encourage, and exhort. The author tries to eliminate making the child feel guilty about anything, so he emphasizes the truth that parents … […]
Joseph,
Your’s is a great question and one which needs some wisdom and a bit of experience. You can usually get this from a godly couple in your church who have raised some children who have turned out well.
I have three grown children, two married, one 3-year old grandchild and two grandkids on the way. I’m also a Pastor and have taught about proper discipline and have used the techniques described in Scripture, including spanking.
As to the age when spanking is appropriate, you are correct: Babies should not be spanked! They cannot understand why they are being spanked and are not yet capable of “willful” disobedience. But it certainly doesn’t take them long to figure it out! Usually by two they’re experts at it.
Also, spanking teenagers is usually counter-productive and too late to be effective. If you have not yet trained them to be obedient and respectful by their teens, you’re in for some trying times!
The idea of “willful” disobedience is the key as to when to spank. And legitimate spanking may include a swat on the hand for touching something forbidden, to a couple of good smacks on the bare behind with an appropriate, but safe instrument (a small wooden spoon worked in our house).
So, I always advise parents of toddlers to train their children to be obedient and respectful when they are smaller, when the parent actually has considerable control over their child. It’s a lot easier to stand your ground and win the battle of wills when your son is three, then to wait and try to win the battle when he’s thirteen!
By the way, some strong willed children don’t respond to spanking after 5 years or so! One of mine would actually calculate if a violation was worth the pain suffered! She often chose to disobey and pay the price of a spanking. We had to find other, more effective ways of disciplining her. My other two children were much more compliant and anxious to please their parents.
By the way, my strong willed child has turend out to be a great and godly woman (the others have also). She will give birth in a month. I wonder what kind of will her first child will have? I bet we’ll be swaping stories in a few years!
I also believe that spanking, though sometimes necessary, is not the key instrument for raising godly children. You need a whole kit full of tools to do that (including some considerable grace from God!). I think one of the key things that helped our kids to grow up into mature, well-adjusted adults was having two parent who visibly loved each other. Also, their mom stayed home with them when they were young, and we spent lots of family time together (dinner time, vacations, etc.).
God bless you for asking this question before you get married! This is a good time to think about both marriage and parenting.
In Christ,
Steve Lamm
I appreciate this stand. Unfortunately, it is actually a strong stand today to support spanking children. It amazes me that professing Christians are joining the world system in putting pressure on parents in this way. It smacks of the feminist and homosexual “theologians?”
I have another question. What if the state outlawed spanking? Is this an “obey God rather than men?” I believe it is. Would we be better off going to jail than to disobey the injunction to spank our children?
Bob,
Thank you for your book review and exegesis. I especially appreciate your carefulness with the texts. I told my husband last night, “He didn’t say God literally spanks us!”
“Whatever is necessary to shape the behavior of the child is to be used, including corporal punishment when necessary and when wisely applied.”
This is extremely well stated. I am burdened that our lack of discernment between what God actually says on the matter, and what we believe is wise application of God’s word, has contributed to a willingness to reject all “negative” discipline.
Moreover, I believe a lack of emphasis on wisdom when discussing discipline of any sort contributes to the discouragement of a godly mother with young children. We say, “God says spanking is a part of His plan for discipline” and then neglect to counsel her that she needs a fresh supply of God’s wisdom and mercy each day to figure out when and where and why. I hope those reading your review will not skip over your reference to wisdom.
Michelle Brock
It simply baffles me that folks will deny the clear teaching of Scripture on the subject of corporal discipline.
Nevertheless, this response is timely, systematic, and thorough.
Thanks!
May God’s blessing rest on you,
-Turretinfan
Bob -
Thank you for rightly dividing the word of God and also being gracious in your criticisms against the author.
Look forward to many more posts here on sfpulpit. Also nice to see the plug for The Cornerstone Seminary in Vallejo, CA!
It is interesting how Christians who advocate war and violence always fall back to the Old Testament, as if Jesus never taught anything. It is convenient to follow the world and think that hitting and violence are fine (after all, what are you teaching your child by hitting her/him?). Jesus, however, calls us to be different. Spanking is not okay — it is merely a knee-jerk act that teaches nothing other than “it is okay to hit people if they disagree with you.”
All of the above comments are very encouraging to me. I am a teen myself, and I have always heard this before my discipline: “He that spares the rod, hates his son.” I was (and still am) very strong willed. It’s an everyday struggle, but we can either get bitter or get better. With Christ’s help, I have gotten much better - Praise God!
Thank you for this fair and Biblically based review. Just recently I have seen a push for grace-based parenting among some Christian friends (which seems to assume that grace and corporal punishment are mutually exclusive).
I wholeheartedly believe in grace and love in parenting, and using other forms of discipline when necessary; but, sometimes spanking is necessary and very effective in bringing about a changed heart, especially at the crucial ages of 2-5, when they are testing the will.
Your review is very timely and appreciated. I look forward to reading some of your other articles.
I can’t believe that parents are so willing to embrace hitting someone smaller than them as a loving way to discipline! If I am not supposed to spank when I am upset or angry, and only when my child is small, then what is the point? It takes a LOT more love, patience, and energy to discipline young children using non-corporal methods than it does to take them in the other room and give them a couple of whacks! When God disciplines us, it is not with a few whacks on the butt, it is with painful, but natural and logical consequences to our own acts of disobedience. Hitting someone is NEVER a good way to get a message across. When God hits me on the butt for my disobedience, only THEN will I begin to use it on His precious little ones!
Mr. Achilles,
Let me be blunt: you have egregiously and apparently purposefully misrepresented the arguments of my book, my intent in writing, my integrity as a Bible student and teacher, and my reputation as a believer. It is clear to me, as the author, by your misleading arguments and misstatements of easily-verified facts that you have not even read the entire book carefully.
You willfully impugn my spiritual integrity, accusing me of purposefully misinterpreting Scripture in order to make my case, and even of being deceitful and a false teacher. Are you aware that bringing false accusations against a brother is a sin against God? You abandoned all pretense of fair and loving discourse, and chose not even to contact me to discuss the matters which you criticize. It’s one thing to disagree about interpretations of Scripture. It’s quite another to accuse a brother of being a false teacher. Your very public, personal accusations and judgments against a brother in Christ are not only completely unbecoming of a teacher of the word of God, they are unbiblical.
I will not dignify your false accusations with some kind of detailed defense or response to all of your specious arguments about interpretation. I only encourage your readers to simply read my book (all of it, with footnotes) and form their own conclusions, about my views, and about you.
For those who have not read my book, let me clarify that I am NOT anti-spanking. I simply wanted to understand what God really says about childhood discipline in his word, and my personal study led me to conclusions quite different than what I had always thought Scripture taught. I spent one chapter on the rod and child of Proverbs; the other 15 chapters are about childhood discipline. My conclusion was simply that there is no divine mandate in Scripture to rod young children (for the record, the idea of punitive “spanking” is not a biblical concept). If my exegesis is correct, which I believe it is, then God expects us to approach childhood discipline as we do all of life as Spirit-led belivers, not by laws and rules of man, but by the leading and power of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit leads a parent to spank, or use physical discipline, then that is between them and God. They are free in Christ to follow his leading! And if the Holy Spirit leads a parent NOT to spank, they are free in Christ to do his will for them. It is clear to me that Scripture neither commands nor prohibits a believer from using physical discipline. It is a matter of conscience and conviction (ref: Romans 14:22).
Paul asked the Corinthian believers, “Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love and a spirit of gentleness?” The question is rhetorical, but the answer is clear. I believe it is the same for parents.
Dear Christian Parent:
I address this to you, and not to Mr. Achilles, because I am asking you to read my responses below, only to the most offensive and inaccurate statements in his “review,” so you will have a fuller, fairer, and more accurate view both of me, as a Christian and a Bible teacher, and of what I write about in my book, Heartfelt Discipline. Mr. Achilles’ review is neither fair nor accurate. Since 1994, my wife Sally and I have labored in full-time ministry with one desire—to encourage and equip Christian parents to raise wholehearted Christian children. I wrote Heartfelt Discipline for one reason—to help you, as a parent, understand better God’s heart for your children, the heart he wants you to have for them, and his biblical principles for reaching and shaping your children’s hearts. I stand by my book, and though it is now out of print, I encourage you to find a copy and make your own judgments about my views. Thank you.
OFFENSIVE STATEMENTS
“…to anyone who would argue against spanking on seemingly biblical grounds.”
Whether an editorial comment or by Mr. Achilles, this statement prejudices the reader and clearly charges that my views are “unbiblical.”
“…because his biblical exegesis is faulty and misleading.”
Mr. Achilles suggestion, which is expanded on in following statements, is that I would knowingly mislead my readers with faulty exegesis.
“Whenever someone is either careless or intentionally deceptive in his use of Scripture to support his position, the red flags go up.”
The obvious claim is that Mr. Achilles believes, and wants his readers to believe, that I have been intentionally deceptive by knowingly misusing the Scripture in my book.
“From this conclusion he appears to have sought to justify his ideas by finding ways to interpret Scripture to support his views.”
Again, Mr Achilles accuses me of being a false teacher who would willfully misuse and twist the Scripture to support my views.
“The author’s desire to get rid of corporal punishment has clouded his objectivity.”
Mr. Achilles asserts that my “desire to get rid of corporal punishment” has led me to misuse Scripture. He has falsely projected a “desire” into my heart that does not exist.
INACCURATE STATEMENTS
1. “…the author has concluded that corporal punishment is not appropriate for children.”
Response: This statement simply is not true. My book makes the argument only that young children are not associated with the rod (shebet) of Proverbs. I never use the language “corporal punishment,” and I never declare or argue that physical discipline “is not appropriate for children.” In fact, chapter 12 is all about physical discipline, how to think about it, and how to use it if that is how God leads a parent. I am not and never have been “anti-spanking.” Rather, my book argues only that Scripture neither mandates nor prohibits the use of physical discipline for young children—it is a matter of discernment in the Holy Spirit, and an issue of conscience and freedom for a parent, whatever they choose to do regarding “spanking.” In other words, I believe physical discipline of young children is an extrabiblical issue governed by wisdom and principle, not by biblical imperatives or Christian law.
2. “The author claims that this word refers only to “young men” and therefore rules out physical discipline of young children.”
Response: This statement is not true. Concerning the term na’ar, I never claim, as Mr. Achilles wrongly asserts, that the term refers “only to young men.” On page 50 I make very clear that the term is used for a wide variety of ages, but that it is predominantly used in reference to a “young man” in the Old Testament, and that biblical context determines the age of the na’ar in any given use. My argument is simply that the na’ar of Proverbs is a young man, not a young child. This is certainly not a new or original view. Although he does not address the issue of the rod, Dr. Ted Hildebrandt (Professor, Biblical and Theological Studies, Gordon College) provides a scholarly and convincing defense of the case for na’ar in Proverbs as an adolescent in “Proverbs 22:6a: Train Up a Child?” in the Grace Theological Journal (9.1, 1988, 3-19).
3. “Further, where the “rod” is used in Prov. 22:15; 23:13; and 29:15 he claims that the use of a “rod” in biblical times was for disciplining slaves and/or older children.”
Response: I make the point only that the use of the rod in the Bible is associated only with young men, adults, and nations, and never with young children. This is based on my view that the na’ar of Proverbs is a young man, not a young child, which I believe is a very defensible view theologically, etymologically, and historically. And the rod was, indeed, used primarily on slaves, young men, and foolish adults. In my study, the rod (shebet) is never associated in Scripture with young children.
4. “The author reasons that if young children were not to be disciplined physically (according to his understanding of naar), and older children were not to be disciplined physically due to the cultural and Old Testament applications which no longer apply, then the Bible cannot be said to teach corporal punishment of any children.”
Response: I never made this argument this way. Mr. Achilles has drawn completely erroneous and misleading inferences about what my book says. It is obvious from Proverbs that the rod was used on rebellious young men in ancient Israel. My book argues only that the four primary Proverbs passages which reference the “rod” and the “child” are about young men, not about young children. However, that said, I never once suggest that young children in OT times “were not to be disciplined physically.” I observe only that Scripture, in my understanding, did not then, and does not now, mandate or even illustrate physical discipline of young children. However, I also make clear that neither does it anywhere prohibit it, either then or now. My view is that physical discipline is a matter of freedom, a point which Mr. Achilles omits.
5. “Hebrews 12:1-11, especially verses 5, 6, 7, and 10. The author alludes to this passage but only briefly and without any attempt to deal with the text.”
Response: Mr. Achilles obviously did not read the entire book. I deal with the Hebrews passage for an entire page in chapter 12, for another entire page in the footnotes for chapter 3, and again in the footnotes for chapter 5. It is simply irresponsible and misleading to say that I only “allude” to the passage “briefly” without attempting to deal with the text. And for the record, the editors of WaterBrook moved that material to the footnotes; it was originally in the text.
6. “Further, the author’s claim that the “rod” passages are tied to Old Testament concepts and therefore cannot be used to justify physical discipline today opens another whole can of worms.”
Response: I do not claim in the book that the rod passages are rendered useless only because they are in the Old Testament. My argument is simply that the rod passages do not apply to young children. However, I also suggest that the rod passages of Proverbs, though not to be taken as commands, nonetheless tell us that God believes the discipline of young men is serious business. That is the biblical principle of those passages, not the use of physical discipline on young children. If Mr. Achilles intends to take the passages literally and as applicable for today, then parents would be biblically justified in beating their children on their backs with a real rod (there are no “backsides” in Proverbs, and a rod, or shebet, was a branch-sized staff, not a twig).
7. “Therefore, we must conclude that the principles given in the book of Proverbs are intended for all ages and generations, not just for the Old Testament times—including the principle of the necessary discipline of children when needed, even to the point of spanking if necessary to bring about proper behavior.”
Response: I also espouse that the principles given in the book of Proverbs are intended for all generations, although I would strongly argue that applicability to age is a matter of context. Proverbs require moral culpability for making the choice between wisdom and foolishness, which a young child does not have according to Scripture (as I discussed in chapter 2), and according to Hebraic understanding and rabbinical teaching. I used Proverbs chapter 4 extensively in chapter 1 of my book, and referenced many other Proverbs throughout the rest of the book, so Mr. Achilles’ implication that I somehow discount the Old Testament is patently false and misleading. In no way do I ever suggest that Proverbs are useless because they are in the OT. On the other hand, what we call “spanking” is an entirely modern disciplinary concept with absolutely no scriptural basis, in Proverbs or anywhere else. Mr. Achilles sees spanking in Scripture; I do not. Even though I recognized spanking as a form of physical discipline that is certainly a tool in the parent’s disciplinary toolbox, it is entirely an extrabiblical concept.
8. “The author tries to eliminate making the child feel guilty about anything, so he emphasizes the truth that parents need only to comfort and encourage their children. But paralakeo also means to exhort…If, as the author suggests, we take the Holy Spirit as our model, then we must take the full sense of the word, not just the part of the meaning that fits the author’s thesis.”
Response: Mr. Achilles completely distorts and misrepresents my words from chapter 6. I spend one short paragraph talking about the idea of parakaleo as a biblical model for parents coming alongside their children to guide them, in the same way that the Holy Spirit is our paraklete. I make absolutely no claims about the word relative to childhood discipline. Never, not once, do I claim that guilt needs to be “eliminated,” or that parents “need only to comfort and encourage their children.” These are indefensible distortions. Rather, directly following the paragraph that Mr. Achilles misuses, claiming I fail to understand that the word also means “exhort,” I spend the next SIX pages addressing the absolute necessity of using the word of God in encouraging children. Then, chapter 8 is entirely about biblical instruction as a form of directive discipline (15 pages), and in chapter 10 I address the word of God as a means of grace in a child’s life. In addition, I address the use of the word of God in nearly every chapter dealing with discipline. Mr. Achilles makes an irresponsible comment about one short paragraph, taking one word entirely out of context to make an argument against my book that has no basis in fact. It is an example of irresponsible “proof-texting” at its worst.
9. “The author misses this point by suggesting that chanak in the Proverb refers mainly to giving guidance, not to specifically and particularly training the child in order to shape his behavior.”
Response: I never suggest that chanak is mainly, or only, about “giving guidance.” In chapter 3 (pages 48-51) I review without comment the most common interpretations of the term “train up,” including Mr. Achilles’ apparently preferred version of “to touch the palate” (which I personally consider the least defensible interpretation etymologically). I simply believe that the biblical and historical context of the book of Proverbs strongly favors the idea of “dedication” of a young man to the way of righteousness. I believe this understanding of the term is much more consistent with the use of the Hebrew terms in both the book of Proverbs and in the rest of the Old Testament. Again, though, this is not just a novel view of chanak. Among others, including Dr. Ted Hildebrandt (above), Dr. Lawrence Richards, a highly respected evangelical teacher and theologian, in the Expository Dictionary of Bible Words (Zondervan, 1985, page 601), suggests that the term is best understood with the idea of “to start” or “to begin” rather than “to train.”
10. “This is not the meaning of the verse.”
Response: Herein lies the problem. Mr. Achilles disagrees with my translation and interpretation of the relevant passages. That’s fine, and I would happily engage in a full and rigorous debate about this topic. But rather than simply saying he does not agree with my view and then defending his own views, he instead resorts to defaming my character and integrity by suggesting that I am “intentionally deceptive in [my] use of Scripture to support [my] position.” In other words, he asserts I am willing to twist Scripture to intentionally deceive my readers to make my point. Mr. Achilles apparently is so desperate to make his case (that physical discipline of young children is a divinely-approved method of discipline), that he is willing to offend a brother in Christ to do so. I obviously feel that Mr. Achilles is wrong about his interpretation of Scripture, but I will not accuse a brother of intentionally bending Scripture to fit his exegetical argument. I have more confidence in my own exegesis than to resort to that kind of spiritual mudslinging. More than that, though, I believe it would be an offense to God if I did. On that point, we also apparently disagree.