The main purpose of this thread was to examine the theological arguments for and against spanking, to determine whether or not they are biblical. Someone posted this theological argument against spanking which looks similar to others of its kind. I don't know who Jessica Wigley is, but it will be good to examine her arguments closely. I'm about to ramble a little but I hope this response is beneficial.
....Discipline means to correct and teach. Positive discipline does just that. Parents correct inappropriate behavior and teach appropriate behavior.
I noticed first that she defined discipline as
correcting and teaching. Where she got this definition she doesn't share, she just throws it out there and then begins to build on it.
We are also given a little more information about the rod -- it is the rod of correction. Again, this supports the idea that the rod is actually discipline, which is correcting and teaching.
Again, no support for her definition. But then she comes to some verses that categorically support corporal punishment and look closely how she handles it.
The second verse tells us that the rod and rebuke give wisdom. Wisdom is gained through teaching, which is an essential part of discipline.
"Do not withhold correction from a child: For if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. You will beat him with a rod, And deliver his soul from hell." Proverbs 23:13-14 Surely you see the truth here... if the rod as used in this verse means an actual rod that you are to beat your child with, this verse would be lying. And if this verse were lying, then the Word of God would contain lies. That's certainly not the case, for the Word of God is the Truth! Therefore, this verse cannot be referencing a literal rod intended to hit or beat a child, because a rod used in that manner can and does lead to death.
The basic argument is this: Proverbs say the rod will hurt but not kill your child and actually save him by changing his behavior and attitude. The problem? She claims that there have been cases of children dying from rod beatings. Therefore, this verse isn't literally true, therefore must not be meant literally. Therefore, other interpretations are warranted. She continues...
We are saddened often of stories on the news of children being beaten to death by their parents...many times in the name of the Lord. These cases, as sad as they are, stand to testify that a child can die from a parent's use of a literal rod. Many parents who believe in spanking say that these parents who have beaten their child to death with the rod didn't use the rod correctly. But if you reply to my above comments with that comment, you have not heard what I'm saying. Let me repeat it again: Proverbs 23:13 says "...if you beat him with a rod, he will not die." This verse cannot be referring to beating a child with a literal rod because beating a child with a rod can lead to death. Furthermore, let's look at Proverbs 23:14, "You will beat him with a rod, And deliver his soul from hell." A parent can not beat a child with a literal rod and save their soul from hell. So certainly this verse is not speaking of a literal rod either.
I think that's pretty clear. The problem is she's exposing a profound misunderstanding of hebrew proverbs. When I see this, I can't help but say, this person really has no business exegeting scripture. She may be nice and not purposely being deceitful, but she simply isn't a good source for commentary. The trouble one could get into with this formula is truly without limit. In fact it would render the entire book of proverbs meaningless and open to any interpretation under the sun. Here's a few examples.
Prov. 10:1 The Proverbs of Solomon: A wise son makes a glad father, But a foolish son is the grief of his mother.
If we apply her formula we cannot take this proverb to mean that one should strive to be wise. After all, there are some fathers that aren't glad when their sons are wise. Let's face it, some fathers get jealous or may want their sons to follow their own wicked life style. So, it must be open to countless other non-literal interpretations, right? Here's another:
Prov. 10:4 He who has a slack hand becomes poor, But the hand of the diligent makes rich.
Ah well, we know that not all lazy people are poor, so therefore, this verse cannot literally mean we should strive not to be lazy.
Starting to see the problem? The truth is, Jessica Wigley doesn't understand how the proverbs historically and frankly, logically, have always been understood. The writers nearly always make use of hyperbole and generalities. Solomon is not saying that all lazy people will become poor, nor that all diligent people will become rich. But the general principal that laziness leads to poverty is true and therefore it is wise to be diligent. Not only is this the correct interpretation, it's the natural one. It's only when agendas come into play that interpretations become complicated. So back to the verse about the rod. How then shall we understand it?
Prov. 23:13 Do not withhold correction from a child, For if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. 14 You shall beat him with a rod, And deliver his soul from hell.
Now that we understand how hebrew proverbs work, is it even necessary explain this passage? The meaning simply rolls of the passage. As a general principle, a beating from a loving parent, will not kill a child, but rather deliver him from the wicked harmful path of death he's already on. Jessica's method of discerning literal vs. non-literal meanings literally falls apart.
Now back to Jessica's assertion that discipline simply means teaching and correction, and that the rod simply means discipline. We can then logically deduct that the rod merely means correcting and teaching. A valid argument, but unfortunately an unproven and very false premise. As I said, she never supported the argument (premise) that discipline is merely correcting and teaching.
So what is the rod of discipline? Is it a metaphor? Here's the key. If it is, it really makes no difference. Let's assume it is for the sake of argument. All one has to do is look closely at the metaphor God provides and interpretations becomes instantly clear. IOW, even if something is metaphorical, one must look at the literal to understand the metaphorical. God describes in many places the metaphor of the rod. And He even describes its use. Is it for pointing or guiding? No, it's for striking and causing pain. Now why would God use such a metaphor if causing pain by striking is against His will? Whether it's literal or just a symbol, it can only mean one thing—pain! If God was looking for non-painful interventions, don't you think He would have used a different symbol? Therefore we must conclude from this passage and many others that pain for children, in certain specific contexts, is considered loving and essential by God. Sorry that's what the Bible says. You're free to reject the Bible, but please don't try to confuse what it clearly says.
Heb. 12:11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.
Sure hope this was helpful to at least someone out there.
