By Robert Achilles @ http://www.sfpulpit.com* 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.
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).
No comments:
Post a Comment