God’s Word on Spanking (Part 2 of 3)
April 5th, 2007
(By Ralph Drollinger)
C. THE CAUTIONS IN SPANKING
Parents (and only the parents of a child) are to spank when there is clear-cut rebellion to authority. Again, it is a measured, careful, timely and controlled act of love toward the child who has distanced himself or herself by insubordinate actions.
The best way to think of this is as a rescue mission. As a parent, you are on a mission to redeem your child from foolishness. Since God has commanded your children to obey you (Eph. 6:1), it is not an act of kindness to allow them to get away with rebellion. To do so is a severe disservice to your kids and undercuts your parental headship in the institution of the family.
As was stated previously, it is akin (in the institution of government) to the police force becoming passive on crime, or the elders in the church turning their eyes away from evil. There is no difference in principle. Your God-given authority (in any institution) will deteriorate if you fail to act as a loving, authoritative, disciplinarian.
Having said that, there are at least four ways in which spanking can be performed incorrectly. They are:
1. SPANKING WITH ANGER
James 1:20 says, “For the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.” The biblical injunction to spank does not mean that God gives parents the right to become angry in the process. Spanking should be done in love in order to restore. Ephesians 6:4 echoes this principle, “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”
2. SPANKING WITH PHYSICAL VIOLENCE
When Proverbs speaks of violence it is the Hebrew word betsa, meaning “unjust or dishonest gain, illicit gain, plunder.” The rod is specifically for the particular purpose of correction and discipline; meaning that Scripture does not grant parents the uncontrolled use of physical force. Such license is found nowhere in the scriptural concept. Parents who bully their children will crush their children’s spirit and lose their loyalty—grossly failing to achieve the biblical purpose of corporal punishment. The following Proverbs underscore the negative fruits of violent behavior, be it a parent who disciplines abusively or any other violent activity:
1:19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence; it takes away the life of its possessors.
3:31 Do not envy a man of violence and do not choose any of his ways.
16:29 A man of violence entices his neighbor and leads him in a way that is not good.
The root word for entice can also be translated “persuade or lure.” A man of violence persuades his child to follow in his own violent patterns.
Many of today’s prison inmates suffered at the hands of violent, abusive parents or guardians. Perhaps this motivates anti-spanking legislation. Wisdom suggests, however, that society will grow far worse if spanking is banned. If spanking is outlawed in the home today, the police force will have to absorb that affect tomorrow. Familial discipline is much more effective than state discipline. For the government to prohibit families from performing their God-ordained responsibilities (in the area of parental discipline) is to incur a workload without infrastructure. The prison overcrowding crisis of today is nothing compared to what will be, if parents are prohibited from properly correcting the errant behavior of their children. A careful, wise lawmaker allows the family to discipline citizens at a young age rather than taking on the family’s assignment.
3. SPANKING WITH FRUSTRATION
Spanking is not the venue for venting one’s frustrations.
4:17 For they eat the bread of wickedness and drink the wine of violence.
In the Legislators’ Bible Study several weeks ago we learned that “strong drink is a brawler” (20:1). Alcoholism and violence usually go hand in hand. The abuse of alcohol and the abuse of children are kindred folk. Again, the rod requires careful, timely, measured and controlled use—all opposites to intoxication.
21:7 The violence of the wicked will drag them away, because they refuse to act with justice.
Spanking for reasons other than a child’s rebellion will have a highly injurious and destructive effect. Keep in mind that if a child is spanked unjustly—out of the parent’s frustration rather than as a result of his or her sin—it will cause further separation, versus rescuing, bonding, and restoration.
4. SPANKING WITH RETRIBUTION
13:2 From the fruit of a man’s mouth he enjoys good, but the desire of the treacherous is violence.
Treachery carries the idea of an insecure footing, the idea of a lack of trust. Whether on the part of the parent or the child, biblical corporal punishment does not carry the idea of getting even. An overly authoritarian parent who attempts to extract a “pound of flesh” will not endear a child’s heart. A vengeful spirit in spanking will only drive children further away, fostering a spirit of distrust, suspicion, and provocation.
(To be concluded tomorrow)
SPANKING WITH ANGER
James 1:20 says, “For the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.” The biblical injunction to spank does not mean that God gives parents the right to become angry in the process. Spanking should be done in love in order to restore. Ephesians 6:4 echoes this principle, “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”
Wow, then who would ever punish sin? You need to be more balanced in you presentation for the word of God commands us to be angry, Ehesians 4.26. In fact without anger there is no motivation to discipline, no reason to punish. Love requires anger as when Jesus, humble (knowing who he was, being soberminded) made a whip of cords and drove the corruption from the temple to fulfill what was written, “My jealousy has consumed me.” It is writen, “My name is Jealous.” The term jealous or zealous, used in both the new and the old means a passionate love in defense of the “virginity” of innocence, Ephesians 5.27 ref 2 Cor 11.2-3. Ephesians 4 gives us a commandment to carry out our anger in love without letting it go, rendering judgement befor the opportunity for justice passes (do not let the sun go down on your wrath). Wrath is proper when it is “soberminded.” A parent who is not angry with their child and their sin considers them a “bastard,” and will not treat them as “sons,” Hebrews 12. But, Ephesians 6.4 will not be carried out if the child is frustrated by the parents refusal to carry out the “wrath of God being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men,” Rom 1.18. Anger against the perpetrator in wrathful love as a true Father, against the sin of the perpetrator if not expressed and truly felt, and communicated will result in the “fathers exasperating children.”
Let them know the anger and learn fear so that they will learn also to return, and call upon the Father for mercy. It is an interesting phenomenon, that when child learns fear from a parent’s wrathful, angry punishment, that they learn the first bit of wisdom that leads to a knowledge of God. For fear proceeds all things good, wisdom, knowledge, understanding and the first of these is the wisdom of the rightful fear of the Authority, that is God. The first thing that we do not learn is love, we learn love only when we first have learned to fear.
So, do give us the compromised “humanistic pap,” about discipline without anger. Just the truth of Scripture, please.
Does anyone know of source material I can read on discipline issues for a 0-24 month old? There is great material out there for children as defined as those who can understand and speak english, but I don’t find much of anything for non-speaking babies, infants, and toddlers. For example, when we say don’t spank babies because they are too young, it seems to me that although the corporeal act of spanking might be unintelligible, other forms of correcting might not be, depending on each parent’s assessments of the babies’ level of comprehension. Any thoughts?
Thomas,
Ralph’s point is that parents must not spank out of sinful anger. This was clear from the verses he used to support his point.
Sinful anger is characterized by rash actions, harsh emotions, a vengeful spirit, excessive force, and hurt pride (in which the parent responds not because God was offended but because he or she was offended or embarrassed). That kind of anger is utterly inappropriate in parental discipline.
The fundamental motivation for parental discipline is love — in the same way that God’s motivation for disciplining His children is love (Heb. 12:5-6). The parent who disciplines without love is doing so in contradiction both to the teaching of Scripture and the example of God Himself.
Thanks for your comment.
- NB
I appreciate the not-out-of-sinful-anger idea. With that being said, isn’t it taking James 1:20 out of context here. James 1:20 is in the context of the one listening to the Word of God. When the Word of God is preached or proclaimed to him, his anger with the Word—being quick to speak, quick to wrath, slow to hear—will not work the righteousness of God. Does it do us well to take passages out of context to make our point? If the Bible is the authority, we should use the passage that speaks to the actual point to make the point, don’t you think?
Kent,
Good question.
As you correctly noted, we must be careful not to take verses out-of-context. The context here is in regards to those who are angered by the convicting power of the Word (specifically the epistle James is writing). In light of the convicting nature of the message, James is encouraging his readers to be quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger (cf. v. 19).
He then underscores his point with a general principle: The anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God. While that principle is especially true in regards to hostility against Scripture, it is also a principle that can be applied to many areas of life.
James, then, seems to be taking a broad principle and applying it to one specific situation (using the broad principle of verse 20 to undergird the specific command of verse 19). In this article, Ralph is taking the same broad biblical principle, but giving it a different specific application.
Perhaps it would have been helpful if Ralph’s article would have explained more of the context in which James was writing. At the same time, I don’t think it was inappropriate for him to apply the general principle of James 1:20 (that sinful anger cannot achieve righteous ends) to the specific instance of parental discipline.
But your point is definitely well-taken. Thanks for your comment.
- NB
Thanks Nate for your answer. To help me clarify, you are saying then that James 1:20 is axiomatic, that is, the wrath of man never works the righteousness of God. I don’t know how that could be the case when we are commanded in Eph. 4, “Be angry, and sin not.” It would seem that anger sometimes actually does work towards the righteousness of God, when it is expressed toward sin.
Seeing this is the case, in the realm of parenting, it would seem also appropriate to be angry when our children sin. It seems inappropriate certainly to be happy or joyful, at least. Since God is angry at sin, our anger at sin, would also seem appropriate, as long as we also obey, “Let not the sun go down upon our wrath.” I have found that directed wrath, not impulsive, at the sin of a child, helps the child, as long as the anger ends with correction.
Thanks again.
Avoiding Millstones is a thoughtful article on the very topic of this post. We all do well to be mindful as we discipline our children.
http://www.fix.net/~rprewett/millstones.html
My late-wife and I successfully raised two daughters regarding Biblical beliefs and principles in particular with 2nd Timothy 3:16 as well as proverbs.
A spanking might not always be the first resort however there are times when it is not necessarily the last resort as the consequences were well defined for the 3 D’s which were Direct Disobedience, Disrespect or Dishonesty whereby after discussing the matter a spanking was administered with love, care and concern.
I really enjoy reading the Pulpit Magazine and too bad not a reading must within more Family Units in today’s world.
Lonny