Two Non-Spanking Interpretations...??

[chelsea]

Ok, I definitely do not agree with spanking...but I need to understand all the nitty gritty details why not in order to defend myself when sharing with "the spankers". ;) Correct me if I'm wrong: Interpretation one says that the "rod" is figurative rather than literal and means that you are simply to be in leadership of your home. Interpretation two says that the "rod" is literal but means using it on a full-grown man (your grown child) and that it was in context of that time in history but not today. I want to know WHICH ONE IS CORRECT? Because if I tell my spanking friends and family that I don't know what it means but there are two possibilities that both mean non-spanking, they are going to think I'm just grasping at straws in order not to have to spank. Which one do you believe is correct, and why? I respect both beliefs and are relieved they both mean NO spanking but if they are only one of many interpretations, I don't think they are going to hold much weight when I'm sharing my beliefs with others. :shrug

[Tulip_Plus_3]

Maybe because I'm "older" and don't give a rip what others think, or maybe because most folks know me well enough to not question me... In any case, I have never felt the need to explain myself to anyone regarding how I parent my children. I don't see how what I do with my kids could possibly be up for debate or discussion. I'm not a Biblical scholar, I'm not going to get into a ridiculous verbal battle over chapter & verse interpretations.

I believe actions/results speak louder than words. My thought process is: Look at my children, observe them, and then make your own conclusion if I'm doing a good job. Then keep your opinion to yourself. Unless, of course, you want to tell me I'm doing a good job, in which case please speak up! Otherwise, I'm not interested in anything you have to say.

[SansSouci]

Or Option 3 - those rod verses were used in Proverbs, and Proverbs is a book to be taken like fortune cookies - it's nice to keep those things in mind, and they may be helpful in some situations, but they are certainly not commandments from God.

The book Heartfelt Discipline REALLY does a GREAT job of "arguing" those rod verses!!! TOTALLY opened up my mind to a new world of thinking when it comes to talking to people about spanking being Biblical.

BTW, I don't feel a need to defend myself to everyone. But I do feel a need to have knowledge in order to be confident enough in my opinion. And if I do have a friend that I feel that I should defend myself to, I do like to have reasons to back up my beliefs. I think Heartfelt Discipline did a good job of helping me with that!

-Elizabeth

[greenemama]

clarkson's "heartfelt discipline" argues for the literal view. i think most conservatives would lean towards a literal interpretation of the verses.

i believe that you can take the verses both literally and figuratively. some verses are talking about a literal *beating* and it's tricky to make those fit into a figurative only point of view. figuratively, the verses have a lot of rich meaning, such as the rod as a symbol of authority, that can be totally missed if the verses are only taken literally.

i don't believe that it is a *sin* for people to spank. it is a sin for *me* to spank, but others are not convicted in that way. i don't believe the scriptures mandate that we spank or that we not spank. i think that realizing this, for me, anyway, has helped me in discussing the issue with others. perhaps it's social engineering on my part :giggle but when presented in such a way, those who spank are not immediately put on the defensive and they are not there, readily judging me for not spanking since i am not judging them for spanking, kwim?

:hug it's difficult when those we know and love think we're nuts-o. :shrug

[Titus2:5Catholic]

I would say the "rod" is figurative- something I've actually always believed, even when spanking. It fits more in the context w/ Psalms/Proverbs then a literal "rod". Those books have a lot of symbolism, like Revelation.

I am a firm believer in literalism whenever possible, but Psalms and Proverbs are books of poetry.

.

[chelsea]

BTW, I don't feel a need to defend myself to everyone. But I do feel a need to have knowledge in order to be confident enough in my opinion. And if I do have a friend that I feel that I should defend myself to, I do like to have reasons to back up my beliefs.
That's a big thing for me too. I have grown up with a father who believes in "research research research". (Except unfortunately he didn't research enough about spanking!) ;) I inherited this "nice little trait" from him. :rolleyes If someone told a "cute little story" and told it as though it was absolute truth (like the internet forwards you get every day) my Dad would say "Do they have documentation of this actually happening?" I am not satisfied with not doing something simply because I don't feel right about it. (Although it is my feelings about spanking being something I simply could not do that led me to GBD.) :smile By doing my "research" now I will not be tossed around if someone writes a book two years from now arguing the figurative interpretations, etc. Even if someone finds a way to argue my viewpoint I will be able to remember that I prayed and asked God to reveal the truth...and then did my research...and this is what He showed me. I believe that God uses our feelings/intuitions to guide us, but I have to know what the Bible says about an issue for me to feel confidence about it.
i don't believe that it is a *sin* for people to spank. it is a sin for *me* to spank, but others are not convicted in that way.
I think that way too. I can't remember what verse it is (I am going to go look for it) but it says that if you do something while doubting it, "to him it is a sin" or something. Umm, now here I am quoting something that I obviously have not done my research on. :rolleyes :O But I have always wondered if that makes me one of those people who just "does what is right in their own eyes...".
*SIGH*, this is so complicated! :shrug

[ShowersofBlessings]

Chelsea, I think lot like you, I guess. ;) I remember reading that we didn't have to spank. I *wanted* to believe that so much, but I had been convinced earlier that we did have to spank. So, even though I wanted to believe that we don't have to spank. I had to do the research myself. So when I read Crystal's study and Joanne's study and other's I looked up all the verses and Hebrew words for myself. I prayed and asked God to change my heart to be open to what he wanted me to do (even if that meant spanking....). I do feel at peace that God has showed me that we do not have to spank.

As for the figurative vs. literal meaning. Study it for yourself so that you are convinced of what God wants to tell you. And also remember that there are several different "rod" verses plus the verses in Hebrews 12 that many people think means we need to spank our children. :( So one could be figurative, one could just be a suggestion, one could be literal talking about a grown man, etc. Study it yourself and ask God to speak to you what he wants to tell you. That will be more convincing to anyone that "so and so says such and such...." When you say that you prayed about the Scripture and God spoke to you and said, "______________" :) HTH

[shilohmm]

I would say study it for yourself and come to your own conclusions so you can discuss it from a specific point of view. I tend to think that Solomon meant the verses literally and God meant them to be understood figuratively. ;) Since Solomon apparently ended his life an unbeliever, I figure God may have worked through him in a rather odd way. :P At any rate, literally the verses describe beatings (the word for beating in some of the Proverbs verses can also be translated "slay"), applied to a person's back (not buttocks - there is a Hebrew term for buttocks that's used elsewhere in the OT), and the word translated child is most commonly used of teenagers, while the word for small child or toddler is never used in the "rod" verses cited as supporting spanking.

Whatever the rod verses are discussing, it's not spanking as it's commonly practiced in the modern Christian church.

Here's a site where you can check out the original Hebrew (or Greek) for any Bible passage;

http://www.blueletterbible.org/

Choose your passage (or do a search), then click on the 'c' (for "concordance) beside the verse to see the verse in the original language, then you can get the definition of each individual word and phrase, along with how it's translated elsewhere in the Bible. I love this site. :)

Sheryl

[Tulip_Plus_3]

I respect that you ladies do your research. May I simply remind you of this excellent pinned thread at the Gentle Discipline forum?

http://www.gentlechristianmothers.com/mb/index.php?topic=1988.0

Just remember that NOT debating or defending your parenting choices is an acceptable course of action.

[TulipMama]

I tend to think that Solomon meant the verses literally and God meant them to be understood figuratively. . . .

Whatever the rod verses are discussing, it's not spanking as it's commonly practiced in the modern Christian church.

Well put, Sheryl!

One of my pet peeves is mamas who chide me for not "taking the Bible literally" when they find out I don't spank. As if I don't trust and believe the Bible. Through my study of these verses, it's pretty clear to me that modern Christian spankers aren't taking them literally, either--though they think they are.

[Joanne]

As if I don't trust and believe the Bible. Through my study of these verses, it's pretty clear to me that modern Christian spankers aren't taking them literally, either--though they think they are.

Exactly.

I don't defend my non spanking choice to anyone. But, here' s the truth about the rod verses. You *can't* take them literally. If you did, you would have to beat your older child. It's tragically ironic that those who defend the verses as meaning a literal rod have to modify them in order for it to mean "spank". There is no real Biblical justification for all the spanking nonsense we Christians offer.

The verses either mean beat an older child or apply the real, but non physical rod of authority.

[ArmsOfLove]

And I do believe the rod is a literal rod--a shebet *which is a symbol of authority*. When speaking of the shebet, it would be known to a reader in Solomon's day that this represented their authority. And for Solomon it meant the scepter--the King's scepter which held the power of life (when extended) and death (when spared or set aside).

[TulipMama]

And for Solomon it meant the scepter--the King's scepter which held the power of life (when extended) and death (when spared or set aside).

When I was looking more in depth at the rod verses, we visited a museum that had Napolean's sceptre. It struck me so strongly then that no on would be *beaten* physically with that rod--but it definitely conveyed authority.

[chelsea]

Now as if I haven't asked enough questions...
Even if it is figurative, doesn't "child" still refer to an older teen? That definition (of "child") is not in question, is it? So does this verse apply to a symbol of authority with ALL of our children, or only our older ones? :think
(I'm not trying to be difficult...just ironing EVERYTHING out in my VERY human mind!) :rolleyes :doh