Spanking in the Law of Moses

[MariJo7]

This very interesting piece of scripture I wished to share. Please forgive me my free translation into English. My Bible is in another language. This is from Deuteronomium 25:1-3

1. When there is a dispute between men and they go to the judge, and the not guilty party is pronounced not guilty, and the guilty party is judged guilty,
2. And if the guilty party is sentenced to be whipped, let the judge order him to lay down and let him be whipped in his presence with as many lashes as the crime he has committed calls for.
3. But in any case, not more than forty lashes may he receive. It is not the purpose humiliate your brother in your presence by giving him more lashes than that.

I don't suggest that we should start to practice this again :no. It is, however interesting to see, how the Law of Moses differs from the "spanking manuals" written by Tripp, Pearl and their kind. In the law of Moses, whipping was a punishment as a part of the criminal law and it was intended for adults. It was administered by the authorities and in the presence of the judge. The punishment was measured beforehand, corresponding to the seriousness of the crime, and there was a maximum: not more than forty lashes.
Tripp, Pearl and their kind have probably not read this scripture. In their manuals, spanking is for children. The "need" to spank the child in a particular circumstance is not based on a legal process but often on irritation of the parent or on an assumption of "a bad attitude". It is "administered" by parents (usually dad) behind closed doors. It is concealed from the authorities by the use of pipe line, glue stick or another implement that does not leave a mark. The punishment is not measured beforehand and does not correspond to the "crime", because it is not considered as a punishment after all, but "correction" or "training" or "shepherding" of the heart, will, spirit or the assumed "bad attitude". There is no maximum of how many "licks" the child will receive. The child is "corrected" untill (s)he is considered "sweet enough" or untill (s)he has "no breath left to complain". How can they call it biblical?

This scripture may help us to defend our point of view in front of people who tell us that spanking is "biblical".

[JoEllen]

Whoa. Mama, you just blew. my. mind! :wow

[ArmsOfLove]

:yes

It is also a violation of Torah to strike an adult male without a court order - and they are an adult at 13. Which is why the verses that use the word na'ar in Proverbs *cannot* mean spank or strike - that would be a crime.

[SewingGreenMama]

This is awesome MariJo7!!
Love it!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hopetobe]

:yes

It is also a violation of Torah to strike an adult male without a court order - and they are an adult at 13. Which is why the verses that use the word na'ar in Proverbs *cannot* mean spank or strike - that would be a crime.

I thought na'ar was the term for youth/young man, not the word for strike?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rjy9343]

Wow! I have never given this any thought, but you are right.

[CelticJourney]

I thought na'ar was the term for youth/young man, not the word for strike?


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkI think she is saying that it can not mean strike because na'ar means youth and that action is illegal, so it negates the idea of spanking - it would be illegal in additional to being proverbial.:shifty

[Hopetobe]

I think she is saying that it can not mean strike because na'ar means youth and that action is illegal, so it negates the idea of spanking - it would be illegal in additional to being proverbial.:shifty

Oh, oops. I reread and see that now. I don't know how I didn't read it correctly the first 5 times :bag


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CelticJourney]

Oh, oops. I reread and see that now. I don't know how I didn't read it correctly the first 5 times :bagJust a human thing, we all do it from time to time :hug2

[Tasmanian Saint]

:yes

It is also a violation of Torah to strike an adult male without a court order - and they are an adult at 13. Which is why the verses that use the word na'ar in Proverbs *cannot* mean spank or strike - that would be a crime.

So was hitting a woman ok? :question

Sent from my GT-S5300 using Tapatalk 2

[CelticJourney]

So was hitting a woman ok? :question

Sent from my GT-S5300 using Tapatalk 2I'm not sure that would be a direct conclusion, but maybe Crystal with give us that side of the story soon.

[MariJo7]

I don't believe hitting a woman was OK in the Old Testament times. There are instructions in the Law of Moses of how adult men should be punished, but there are no verses about women. The onlu passage I have been able to find is the story where Hagar is disciplined by her mistress Sarah. The verse does not say literally that she was beaten, but it is possible. And the Bible does not say it was OK.

I hope nobody thinks I brought up this matter in order to suggest we should start to practise the corporal beating of young adult males again. I can understand there were not many other options in those days when oses wrote the law. A nomadic people, travelling, no prisons to put the criminals...I guess you had to do something. Today, we have other options.

[Hannah Elise]

:yes

It is also a violation of Torah to strike an adult male without a court order - and they are an adult at 13. Which is why the verses that use the word na'ar in Proverbs *cannot* mean spank or strike - that would be a crime.

Okay, the things I've read have implies that these passages were referring to young males, not children... but did not negate the idea that corporal punishment was the meaning (for said young/teenage males). :think So you're implying that even for them, it was not literal, because it would have been against the law?

Sent from my Huawei-U8665 using Tapatalk 2

[CelticJourney]

Okay, the things I've read have implies that these passages were referring to young males, not children... but did not negate the idea that corporal punishment was the meaning (for said young/teenage males). :think So you're implying that even for them, it was not literal, because it would have been against the law?

Sent from my Huawei-U8665 using Tapatalk 2I am reading her as saying that what is mentioned here is not the same as spanking as our culture knows it since spanking is done 1) to children and 2) without the decision, order and supervision of the court.

[ArmsOfLove]

It was illegal to strike an adult Jewish man without a court order. So, yes, if you literally struck a na'ar (male 13-30) you would be violating the Law of Moses/Israel.

I believe that the law applied to adult Jewish people - I have never heard it suggested that it was okay to strike a woman. But since the verses in Proverbs speak of na'ar I thought the fact of not being allowed to legally strike a na'ar relevant.

(Also, if you carefully read the story of Jesus cleansing the marketplace you will find no reference to him striking the people - despite what is often taught.

[MariJo7]

Yep, the Bible tells about Jesus having a whip, but there is no mention of him really striking someone with it. Like most people who ride a horse have a horse crop but do not really hit the horse, just make a noise with it.

There is the story of Nehemiah, who hit the men of Jerusalem and pulled their beards. He was very mad at them because they had sent away their wives and married heathen girls instead. The Bible does not say it was OK, but Nehemiah himself told he did it. OK or not, they were grown up men who did something really bad and should have known better, not children or teenagers.

The Bible uses very gentle language when real children are referred to.