From last time . . .
The next response I received from Peace2You follows (you’ll notice that he addresses some items published in Part 1/S.T.S. 2.5 of this series).
The next response I received from Peace2You follows (you’ll notice that he addresses some items published in Part 1/S.T.S. 2.5 of this series).
I'm familiar with all the scriptures on the rod. Sorry if I interpret scripture a bit less literally than you and don't take an actual rod to be necessary. In at least two of those passages, I think this is entirely justified. "Rod of discipline" and "rod of correction" seem to invite metaphorical interpretation like "breastplate of righteousness" does. I think discipline and correction will save your child's life. But I don't think it is necessary that the rod be a part of that. As I said, I don't look down on anyone who does think that way, though. It is entirely justified by scripture. I just don't think it is required. Proving this is quite easy. All we need do is observe that many people raise their children with strong discipline but without corporal punishment, and if their children turn out to be God-following, God-fearing adults, then the method succeeded. I know several such people. Their children are not foolish or dead, and they
never felt prompting from the Spirit that they were not following God's ways by not spanking their children, though they honestly sought God's wisdom on the matter. –Peace2You
Now we will pick up where we left off last time . . .
I'm familiar with all the scriptures on the rod. Sorry if I
interpret scripture a bit less literally than you and don't take an actual rod to be necessary. –Peace2You
Some scriptures are to be interpreted less literally than others - no doubt about that at all Peace. A good hermeneutic readily recognizes the possibility of the use of language in a figurative or non-literal sense (i.e., similes, metaphors, etc.) to teach a literal truth. The question remains, however, as to whether one is hermeneutically justified in viewing the rod passages of Proverbs in the manner that you have suggested; that is, metaphorically (based on these 2 qualifiers: "of discipline," & "of correction"). -Scott
In at least two of those passages, I think this is entirely justified. "Rod of discipline" and "rod of correction" seem to invite metaphorical interpretation like "breastplate of righteousness" does. –Peace2You
This is not warranted at all, especially upon closer examination of the cited passages. Let me state here that I do understand that you don't have a problem with a parent who spanks or with one who interprets the rod passages in the manner that I have suggested. I understand that. However, let me offer a working definition of "metaphor" that I think we can agree upon:
Metaphor: a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity.
Let's now revisit the rod passages of Proverbs, along with viewing the passage on the armor that you referred to (I'll also throw in one for free from 1 Thessalonians 5 as well).
Proverbs 10:13 - On the lips of him who has understanding, wisdom is found, but a rod is for the back of him who lacks sense.
Proverbs 13:24 - Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.
Proverbs 14:3 - By the mouth of a fool comes a rod for his back, but the lips of the wise will preserve them.
Proverbs 22:8 - Whoever sows injustice will reap calamity, and the rod of his fury will fail.
Proverbs 22:15 - Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him.
Proverbs 23:13 - Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. [take a close look here]
Proverbs 23:14 - If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol. [take a close look here]
Proverbs 26:3 - A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the back of fools. [take a close look here]
Proverbs 29:15 - The rod *and* reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother. [some translations do use "rod of correction" here, leaving out "and reproof"; again, take a close look here]
-//-
Ephesians 6:10-18a - Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, *which is the word of God *[here is an in-text explanation], praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. *[sword of the Spirit is, in the text itself, defined as the word of God]
-//-
1 Thessalonians 5:8 - But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation.
-//-
Now - while the context of the Ephesians 6 and the 1 Thessalonians 5 passages naturally lend themselves to metaphorical interpretation (i.e. denoting similarities between belt/truth, breastplate/righteousness, shoes/gospel, shield/faith, helmet/salvation, & sword/Spirit), the qualifiers “of _________” in 3 out of 9 Proverbs' "rod" passages don't look to parallel in the same way at all. In other words, sword of the Spirit is to the Word of God as belt is to truth (these are clear metaphors), but sword of the Spirit is not to the Word of God as rod is to discipline; that is to say, the sword of the Spirit IS the word of God . . . it does not BRING ABOUT the Word of God . . . at the same time, the rod IS NOT discipline . . . rather, it serves the purpose of bring about discipline. Context (at least of the usage of rod throughout Proverbs) should suffice to make the point.While the Ephesians 6 and 1 Thessalonians 5 passages are clearly metaphorical in that they are denoting similarities or comparisons between 2 unlike things, the passages in Proverbs take on more of a cause/effect relationship. I don't see how it is justified here to draw a similarity between rod and correction and/or discipline.
Added to this, as a matter of cultural manners and customs, the audience would have understood the shebet (or, rod) to mean a scion or stick utilized in writing, fighting, punishing, ruling, walking, etc. Usage of shebet could hypothetically be used in a figurative manner at times, but relative to child-discipline, it is not warranted. This paragraph and the one preceding it are very important, so I encourage you to read through them a few more times before moving on.
Proverbs 22:15 - Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him. [The tool (rod) utilized to bring about a certain objective (discipline) . . . ]
Proverbs 29:15 - The rod *and* reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother. [some translations do use "rod of correction" here, leaving out "and reproof"] [The instrument (rod) used for the purpose of bringing about correction] . . . -Scott
I think discipline and correction will save your child's life. –Peace2You
Agreed. –Scott
But I don't think it is necessary that the rod be a part of that. –Peace2You
The Bible says that corporal punishment is to be a major component of a parent's disciplinary toolbox; created man is who says otherwise. Note that I did not say that nothing else should be utilized in discipline save the rod; not at all, for we have additional instruction such as the following:
Proverbs 29:15 - The rod *and reproof* give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother. -Scott
As I said, I don't look down on anyone who does think that way, though. –Peace2You
True. –Scott
The 1st sentence above is odd to me, especially when taken together with the 2nd one that follows it. If the "rod" is to be understood in a metaphorical sense (as a non-literal way to refer to discipline and correction in general), then I don't see how it is entirely justified by Scripture. Is one justified in using the breastplate of righteousness in a wooden literal manner? –ScottIt is entirely justified by scripture. I just don't think it is required. –Peace2You
Proving this is quite easy. All we need do is observe that many people raise their children with strong discipline but without corporal punishment, and if their children turn out to be God-following, God-fearing adults, then the method succeeded. –Peace2You
Not at all! Have you observed ALL the children of people that failed to exercise corporal punishment, yet were otherwise strong in their disciplinary approach (even the ones that are dead and those who are yet to be born)? Even if you did (which you didn’t), how can you be so sure that you correctly interpreted that which you observed? What you have observed doesn't prove anything at the end of the day.
This is where induction, or seeking to reason from a part to the whole, fails us (though it, admittedly, has much appeal for pragmatically-minded Americans). In any event, it isn't quite as easy as you say it is. What you just did perfectly takes the form of a fallacious argument, known as asserting the consequent. Allow me to explain:
Asserting/Affirming the Consequent:
Premise 1: If A, then B;
Premise 2: B;
Conclusion: Therefore, A . . .
-//-
Can you spot the problem above before moving on? Try to see for yourself before reading on!!
-//-
Okay! The problem is that *A* was never established as a true premise in its own right whatsoever (look again); it was merely asserted or posited (“IF” A) in an attempt to make sense out of the situation. It was presupposed or assumed before-hand. In fact, *B* could be the case for many reasons other than *A*.
If we fill the construct with the meat of your argument for the success of variant methodologies of discipline other than corporal punishment, it would look like this:
Premise 1: *If* [A] non-physical forms of discipline can be successful, then [B] I will observe God-following/God-fearing grown-ups who were disciplined consistently and actively, yet without the use of corporal punishment.
Premise 2: It is the case that [B] I observe God-following/God-fearing grown-ups who were not literally spanked, yet who were disciplined consistently and actively.
Conclusion: Therefore, [A] non-physical forms of discipline can be successful.
-//-
Therefore what? Therefore nothing! Do you see the problem??
This suffers from the same problems as expounded upon above. *B* (. . . then I will observe God-following/God-fearing grown-ups who were disciplined consistently and actively, yet without the use of corporal punishment . . .) can be the case for any number of reasons other than A.
Watch . . .
Premise 1: *If* [A] God can graciously produce a faithful servant in spite of the failure of his parents to spank, then [B] I will observe God-following/God-fearing grown-ups who were disciplined consistently and actively, yet without the use of corporal punishment.
Premise 2: It is the case that [B] I observe God-following/God-fearing grown-ups who were not literally spanked, yet who were disciplined consistently and actively.
Conclusion: Therefore, [A] God can graciously produce a faithful servant in spite of the failure of his parents to spank.
-//-
NOTE – Notice, however, that the disobedience of the parents remains just that . . . disobedience. It is not validated based on the Godly life of their offspring. You can find children who were raised correctly and who turned out bad; also, you can find children who were raised in horrendous conditions but who are present testimonies to the grace and mercy of the Lord. Regardless, we as Christian parents still have a standard to abide by; failing to adhere to Biblical precepts (in this case relative to the upbringing of offspring) is sin and nothing less.
-//-
I'll note some things here in closing:
1. We serve a gracious God who can certainly bring about what He desires in spite of our many failings as parents. Like you, I know many grown-ups that were not spanked and that turned out fine - granted. Thank God for that! However, this doesn't presuppose a successful method of discipline. The parents of those now grown-ups were still disobedient to revealed Biblical precepts. God is so gracious and we are so undeserving of it. Soli Deo Gloria!!
2. Let's alter things a bit for the sake of better understanding this issue. I know a child-hood acquaintance of mine that was spanked and is currently awaiting execution in Florida. I know many who were spanked that aren't beacons of integrity. If your argument about the success of non-corporal methods of discipline is valid, then is spanking non-successful in light of the failures? This would be irrational.
3. There are upstanding citizens that were spanked as children, and then there are problem-citizens that were spanked. Additionally, there are upstanding citizens who were not spanked, and then there are problem-citizens who were. If what we "observe" in a limited capacity (a particular) can be expanded to a universal truth (a general), then we now have a bona fide tangled web of unintelligible non-sense.
4. Spanking can be abused . . . sorely abused. Non-physical disciplinary measures can be abused also. This pretty much goes without saying; I know you would agree.
5. As I understand it, Proverbs is a book of principles . . . not necessarily promises. Sometimes we do all we know how to do in seeking to raise Godly offspring . . . and then it all hits the fan (although I would say that this is more the exception than the rule). Ultimately, the destiny of every child is in the hands of our Sovereign God, to do with them what He sees fit to do for His Glory. We must get into the Word though, finding out what God has said about raising kids - then we must implement those things in practical ways, praying that God would bring about awesome things through the means of good parental instruction. God can surely bring about what He has decreed to the exclusion of means; however, it doesn’t seem that He chooses to do so for the most part.
6. No matter what "seems" to work in our day of pragmatism, what has God said/revealed to us in the Bible? If sin is any lack of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God, we would do well to familiarize ourselves with His revelation (that law). -Scott
Okay. –ScottI know several such people. Their children are not foolish or dead . . . –Peace2You
. . . and they never felt prompting from the spirit that they were not following God's ways by not spanking their children, though they honestly sought God's wisdom on the matter. –Peace2You
To read that thread (very short, but very helpful), simply click on the following link:
-//-
I didn’t receive anymore responses from Peace2You.
-End of Series-
[Scratching the Surface 2.6]
