The King James Version of Proverbs 13:24 states, “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.” This is a very popular verse many Christian parents quote to “prove” that the Bible commands parents to spank or beat their children. But does this verse really support such a view?
Let’s look at Proverbs 13:24
He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes (KJV).
He who withholds his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently (NASB)
Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them (NIV).
Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him (ESV).
This is the popular verse from which we get the phrase, “Spare the rod, spoil the child.” Kyle Blevins tells us in Crosswalk.com,
There is often confusion between this phrase and a biblical Proverb regarding “sparing the rod.” This phrase was actually coined by a 17th-century poet and satirist by the name of Samuel Butler in his poem “Hudibras.” The poem’s main characters, Hudibras and the widow he longs for are planning to start a love affair, but before the widow commits to it, she asks Hudibras to prove his love for her by committing to twisted acts. The widow then states:
If matrimony and hanging go
By dest’ny, why not whipping too?
What med’cine else can cure the fits
Of lovers when they lose their wits?
Love is a boy by poets stil’d;
Then spare the rod, and spoil the child.
1. What’s the context?
a. The context of Proverbs 13:4 is comparing fathers of wise sons with foolish sons (13:1).
b. Proverbs does a lot of comparing and contrasting. This is a common Hebrew technique.
c. This is descriptive. The verse is not an imperative. It is not a command. The verse describes family life and training in the Old Testament era under the Law and is a commentary on the character of the teacher-father as reflected in the student-son.
2. Who is the father?
a. In the Old Testament, most often the father is the immediate progenitor. But father could also refer to grandfather, clan patriarch, tribal leader or elder, or a wise teacher (sage) of the Law.
b. These fathers were responsible for drilling the Law into the trainees. The Law-Word brought tangible blessings and life to the son, father, family, clan, tribe, and nation.
c. In Proverbs, the father is the teacher and the son (ben or na’ar) is the student-learner.
(1) The Hebrew term, ben, doesn’t tell us the age but the context of the passage with the word ben in Proverbs does. Proverbs is talking about na’ar/son who is 12 to 24 years old. Again, see this article.
(2) The specific and limited interpretation would see this as the na’ar/son in training.
(3) The broad interpretation would interpret this as any offspring.
(a) The rod might have been applied to the back of a young boy (5 or older), though some scholars make a point that in ancient Jewish culture, the son was not accountable to the Law until he was a na’ar/son, about twelve years old.
(b) Samuel Martin and Clay Clarkson bring out that there is a lack of evidence to show this kind of beating happened with younger children.
(c) William Webb says it is possible the ancient Jews followed the 40 lashes limit for adults and possibly worked backward to 1-2 smacks on the back for a child. But there is no hard evidence for this.
(d) In his commentary, Tremper Longman says it is probable that the father or sage did beat a child on the back, though not severely or with as many hits. He brings out that the Egyptian symbol for training was a man beating the student.
(e) The extra-biblical ancient text, The Wisdom of Sirach makes it clear that children were also beaten on their backs with rods.
Note: I have no problem accepting the possibility that beating on the back with a rod was a practice in ancient Israel, even possibly on young children. Most of the scholars who wrote, The Child in the Bible refute this. Further, that was under the Law in Old Covenant times. Like Dr. Webb argues, to remain consistent with these concrete Old Testament statements we would also need to apply the whip, the hatchet, and stoning. We would need to live by the ancient O.T. Law in full, which was the constitution of God’s ancient people. That would require us to apply all of the Old Testament Law to our day.
Yet, in his active obedience, Jesus completely fulfilled the Law on our behalf (Matthew 5:17, Romans 8:2; Romans 10:4; Ephesians 2:15). As the High Priest, Christ fulfilled the law of expiation. As the Prophet, he fulfilled the moral law, and as King, he fulfilled the civil Law. In our current New Covenant era, we live according to the love of Christ, for love fulfills the Law (Matt. 22:36-40; Rom. 13:8). Acts 15, Romans 14-15, and Galatians put to rest the argument that we are required to live under the Old Testament Law. Those passages and others show we are not under the civil law (Rom. 6:14; 7; Gal. 2:9; and Eph. 2:15), under which the use of corporal punishment was required.
Agreeing with many others, I contend that believers in Christ in this New Covenant era derive our understanding of how to live from the New Testament. This would include parenting. For more on this, see What About Proverbs as a Context for Child Discipline and How to Study Proverbs.
3. To understand this Proverb, it is necessary to compare and contrast hate and love.
a. Biblically, wise ones live in the realm of love; God’s love. Fools live in the realm of hate. A great depiction of the foolish life can be seen in Ephesians 4:17-19.
b. The father who does not bring discipline to the rebel son essentially condones a hate-filled lifestyle. We have an example of this with Eli’s sons in 1 Samuel 2:12. Eli’s sons, like David’s son Absalom (2 Samuel 13) were members of the Old Covenant but they were not true believers in God. They are excellent examples of the fool in Proverbs. If the rebel teen’s behaviors and speech consistently show serious anti-God characteristics, then the rod was applied. If the rebel son did not accept the consequence of his wayward ways or refused discipline he proved himself to be a fool.
Naturally, fathers do not want to see their sons in pain or inflict pain on them, so this is urging the Jewish father to use the rod for rebellion. Again, the Law defines rebellion. It is not talking about every little infraction, mistake, or sin we can cover with love (Proverbs 10:12; 1 Peter 4:8).
4. Love seeks discipline.
a. Discipline in this verse could mean chastisement, chastening, correction, rebuke, or reproof. Discipline does not always mean hitting or spanking. The central meaning of discipline is to disciple, which is to teach or train. Therefore, there are various aspects to discipline and once again, context informs us what that aspect is. Applying the rod in this situation tells us this is talking about physical chastisement.
b. An obvious means of discipline in this passage is using the rod on the teenage son, not on little children. That was the custom of the day. In fact, it was a common understanding in certain Ancient Near East cultures that beating a person was the mental and spiritual equivalent of beating a dirty rug to remove the dust and dirt.
NOTE: This post is taken from the original, 7 Verses in Proverbs Command Parents to Spank - or do they?