Should you beat your kid with a rod?
- pastor eli
- Jan 26, 2023
- 6 min read
Proverbs 13:24 touches on a subject everyone has an opinion about: parenting.
The thing getting people bent out of shape is the word ‘rod.’ What does it mean to spare the rod? Does it mean not beating your kids? So, is it saying that if I don’t beat my kids with a stick, they will be spoiled?
Yes.
The text of proverbs literally refers to a physical long rod-like object as an instrument of corporal punishment in child rearing. We can tell because the source text references it several times. Here are the verses in the book of Proverbs that use the same Hebrew word: Sheb’et.
10:13 “…but the rod is for the back of him…”
22:15 “…but the rod of discipline drive it…”
23:13, 14 “…strike him with a rod, he will not…”
29:15, 17 “…and a rod for the back of fools…”
Each of these proverbial wisdom tidbits reference child rearing or correction to some extent. Ok, but what did the word mean back then? Let’s look at why it’s not so simple and why confusion has created two sources for debate. First, Should Sheb’et be translated as rod? (a physical object for beating) Or should it be translated like everywhere else in the OT: Tribe. Second, should we take and apply OT proverbial sayings as literal?
Should Sheb’et be translated as rod?
Since שֵׁ֥בֶט (Sheb’et) occurs 190 times in the OT, 28 are translated into English as rod. the rest refer to tribes or local communities or in some instances larger people groups.
The argument might go, “well, maybe the better translation is, if you neglect your community, you neglect your children.” And what a beautiful message that would be. There’s so much more to raising kids than what the parent does for them. When parents invest and integrate into the community, it plays a vital role in childhood development. Amen. Sounds nice. Unfortunately, this is an unlikely translation because the other passages (prov. 19:18; 22:15; 23:13-14 etc.) simply don’t read well with this translation. As in, they just don’t make sense. “Don’t withhold discipline from a child, if you beat him with [the tribe] he will not die.” I mean, it could make sense in a strictly literal sense. “If everyone in the village beats your kid, they won’t die.” (Bit of a weak village if you ask me). I think this is a stretch for a translation. Even by NIV standards. Instead, I think this is an example of a word with multiple non-overlapping meanings.
Like the word ‘rear’ in English, many words have multiple meanings. However, that one word will often only mean one of its meanings at any single time. Does that make sense? ‘Rear’ will either mean ‘to bring up and care for a child’ or it will mean ‘the back of something.’ It will not mean both in the same instance. When an author or speaker deliberately ambiguates the meanings in one instance, it’s considered a pun. The word Sheb’et can mean tribe or rod, but it doesn’t mean both at the same time unless it’s a pun.
Case closed...?
Ok, so it literally refers to corporal punishment. The exegesis makes it clear that we’re not dealing with some mistranslation. Then, that means the Bible advocates or at least permits for beating children. Right? This is where pro-spankers call it a day—content with a “Thus saith the Lord,” and without a second thought. Meanwhile, the anti-discipliners retreat to the question of whether the old writings were just a product of their time. And so, they set off to find some palatable interpretation—often some gentler replacement of the word they don’t like (in this case the icky word is 'rod'), until they can make the text say something seemingly spiritual but that the original audience simply didn’t hear.
So which is it? What should you do with this text? Well, that depends. Do you choose to take the proverbial sayings as laws for life? Guidelines even? How so? Are they one-to-one applications to modern life? How do you determine when something applies, and something doesn’t? Are the Proverbs attempting to speak authoritatively at all? This type of discussion is part of what is known as Hermeneutic: what interaction does our modern world have with an ancient text?
Should we apply the Proverbs literally?
The brass tax is this. I don’t know a single person who takes these verses literally (but I’m sure they’re out there). No on I know beats their kids with a rod. I know some people who belt, or spank their kids, but that’s not what the text says, is it? Most people in favor of corporal punishment will say, “No but, the principle of the verse is to correct a child with deterrent measures.” To which others argue back, “but physical beating isn’t the only way to deter,” “Yeah, but rods are physical!” And so, we end up with two camps divided by the thin line of personal preference cleverly disguised as progressive vs conservative interpretation.
Listen friend, if you wanna spank your kid, you don’t need an ‘ok’ from Jesus. Raise your kids like you want to and move along. But please don’t rush to find justification in the Bible. If I wanted to defend my desire to beat people whom I think are fools, I could say "Thus saith the Lord, in Proverbs 26:3!" *whack*
If you’re starting with a preference and trying to find support in the Word of God. You’re doing it wrong. Please stop.
The bad news is that there is nothing in the text of the OT that clarifies HOW these passages should be understood. however, we can find hints.
Let’s take a look at the verses right before Proverbs 13:24. They say, “The fallow ground of the poor would yield much food, but it is swept away through injustice.” We can probably agree that the described state of the world isn't how it should be, but instead it describes how it was for ancient Palestinian Israelites. The Proverbs don’t read like literal laws or commands or even theology. They read like common sayings—like idioms in the culture of Israel during the unified kingdom era. The book of Proverbs, regardless of your theology, gives a glimpse into the public social lives of a people living long ago. These were their common-sense sayings. Ever wonder why the book is called Proverbs and not Laws. A proverb is a popular expression. Take for example a few verses later, “Where there are no oxen, the manger is clean, but abundant crops come by the strength of the ox.” This reads as an idiom. It’s like saying, “the ranch is clean when there’s no cattle. But no cattle means you’re poor.” The Bible says having ox will give a strong yield. Does that mean that if I own oxen, I’ll be a successful farmer in 21st century America? Does that mean we should use ox and not tractors? The Bible clearly says oxen, not tractors. I checked the Hebrew, it’s not tractors in the original language. So oxen it is, right? Sounds stupid when I say it like that. But that’s the attitude church-going Christians take. We all turn on our critical thinking now and again for some things that challenge us, but so long as some interpretation looks close enough to how we already live, we just turn the page and say amen.
Why this even matters
As far as I can tell, the proverbs should NOT be taken literally at first glance. I hope that upsets you because I’m talking to you. We approach the Bible with a careless indifference to the parallax between when it was written and why it was written. I advise you to not beat your children with the rod. The Bible does say that not using the rod will spoil them. However, the Bible isn’t one thing. Each part of God’s Word has a different function. Yes, all scriptures edify and teach truth, but not all truth is created equal. My socks were knee high and black on July 11th, 2017, and Jesus died and rose again in April AD 33. Both are true, but they teach very different things. One says something about who I was when I got married. The other says something about where I’ll be when Jesus comes back. Ask for wisdom when you read the Bible. Stay blessed.
Comments