PUNISHMENT VERSUS DISCIPLINE

 

Thesis:  There is no Church Age scriptural authorization to employ any form of punishment, including corporal punishment, to bring about a change in a person’s behavior, including children’s behavior.

 

Introduction

 

Four Different Sets of Rules by Which to Live

 

The Holy Bible contains four different sets of rules by which to live.  Each set of rules is prescribed for a different era of human history.  These eras are referred to as dispensations of time.  Theologically, these rules have been titled as follows:

 

 1. Inherent Law:  valid from Adam to Moses (Dispensation of the Gentiles)

 

 2. Mosaic Law:  valid from Moses to Christ’s death on the cross (Dispensation of Israel)

 

 3. Royal Family Honor Code:  valid from the death of Christ until the rapture of the Church (Dispensation of the Church)

 

 4. Kingdom Law:  valid during the last 1,000 years of human history with Christ ruling on earth (Dispensation of Christ, also referred to as the Millennial Kingdom)

 

Each of these four sets of rules is sufficient in and of itself for the dispensation in which it was to be applied.  There never was and there remains absolutely no need to borrow even one rule from one dispensation to make up a single deficiency in the set of rules applicable to any other dispensation.

 

Although there are similarities in the four sets of rules, the danger is to believe that no distinction should be made between them because of their similarities, when in fact, it is their dissimilarities that make them distinct from one another.  The contrasts between law and grace are best studied in Lewis Sperry Chafer’s Systematic Theology, Volume IV, pages 203-233.

 

The following principles should be applied when interpreting the Bible:

 

 1. Do not apply a rule for living during one dispensation of time to a subsequent dispensation if the rule is not restated in the scriptures applicable to the subsequent dispensation.

 

For example, “Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy” is the fourth commandment among the Ten Commandments under the Mosaic Law.  Interestingly, this commandment is the only commandment of the Ten Commandments that is not restated as a rule to be followed by Christians.  (See Lewis Sperry Chafer’s Systematic Theology, Volume IV, pages 209-210.)

 

2.  If a rule from a previous dispensation happens to be restated in a subsequent dispensation, the earlier rule becomes an illustration and is not the rule to be followed.

 

For example, the eighth commandment of the Ten Commandments under the Mosaic Law is “Thou shalt not steal.”  Ephesians 4:28 restates this same truth:  “Steal no more.”  Church Age believers are to refrain from stealing because they are commanded not to steal in Ephesians 2:8, not because Israel was commanded not to steal in Exodus 20:15.  Exodus 20:15 bears no weight with the Christian.

 

In part, this is the meaning of the Apostle Paul’s injunction to the young pastor Timothy when he told him to “rightly divide the Word of truth.”

 

2 Timothy 2:15  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (KJV)

 

 3. Do not apply rules for living associated with one dispensation to a previous dispensation.

 

For example, the nine beatitudes found in Matthew 5:3-11 are truths associated with the reign of Jesus Christ on earth during His millennial reign in the last one thousand years of human history.  These beatitudes were to be truths associated with His kingdom rule had Israel accepted Him as their Messiah during His first advent; however, Israel rejected their Messiah during His first advent, and the rules associated with His kingdom have been suspended until His return to establish His kingdom at His second advent.  Any attempt to impose kingdom rules on the church is to erroneously impose rules for a future dispensation on our present dispensation.

 

Failure to adhere to any of these three principles will cause faulty application of scriptural truths to certain life’s situations.  If the wrong rule is applied to a life situation, you can no more expect a satisfactory outcome than the person who applies wrongly prescribed medicine to his particular disease.

 

Let me illustrate:  If corporal punishment is valid in the Age of Israel, a similar rule must be stated again as a rule for the Church Age, and if it is not restated, corporal punishment is not valid during the Church Age simply because it was valid for the Age of Israel.

 

A valid application of this principle is seen in the principle of giving.  Tithing is oftentimes taught as the valid principle for giving to the Church, yet it is commanded in the Mosaic Law only of Israel during the Age of Israel, and never commanded of the Church during the Church Age.

 

Let us use caution that we do not violate any of the three principles just stated above when discussing the issue of discipline versus punishment.

 

Working Definitions

 

Ed Ford, in his book, Discipline for Home and School, Book One, provides working definitions for both discipline and punishment.

 

Discipline defined:  Discipline is teaching children to respect the rights of others through responsible thinking by learning to obey rules. (p. 13)

 

Punishment defined:  Punishment is trying to change what children do by hurting them, either physically or verbally, or by giving them no options or choices. (p. 14)

 

Mr. Ford adds, “With discipline, none of the options may be what a child currently wants, but there are no other options available to the person in charge of the child.” (p. 14)

 

A Place for Corporal Punishment?

 

Is there a place for corporal punishment to alter behavior in the Church Age?  Nowhere in the Church Age rules for living is corporal punishment advocated.  Church Age believers are enjoined to raise their children in the “nurture and admonition of the Lord?”

 

Passages of Scripture in the Book of Proverbs dealing with corporal punishment associated with child rearing are linked to commands from God found in the Mosaic Law and should not be used by the Church Age Christian parent as guidelines for child rearing.  Why?  Because the Mosaic Law has no jurisdiction over the Church Age believer.

 

The following question is offered to stimulate reader thinking, something that will be required throughout this document.  The question is simply this:  Would you, as a parent, prefer to punish your child’s bad behavior and see him change because he is motivated by fear of punishment, or would you prefer to teach your child to think about his bad behavior, then have him draw a conclusion that his behavior is unacceptable, and then as a matter of his own choice change his behavior to that which is acceptable?  The issue in this question is changed behavior motivated by fear of punishment versus changed behavior motivated by right thinking.

 

Comments:  Unger’s and Author’s

 

The following information contains excerpts from Unger’s Bible Dictionary, written by Merrill F. Unger who is still on the staff at Dallas Theological Seminary.  The following information also contains my thoughts and comments regarding my thesis in view of my understanding of the Bible and the information provided by Unger in his Bible dictionary.

 

On page 901, Unger discusses “punishment” and makes the following comments:

 

“Biblical View. (1) In the Old Testament

 

“In the Old Testament the punishments most frequently mentioned, and upon which chief stress is laid are temporal.  They were inflicted directly by God, or divinely prescribed to be inflicted by persons duly authorized.”

 

Author’s Comment:  Note that Unger uses the word temporal.  This means that the punishment being discussed is punishment while people are alive in their physical bodies rather than punishment dealt by God in the after life, that is, in eternity future.  Unger also recognizes that God delegated authority to certain human beings for the purpose of carrying out punishment; however, remember that right now we are discussing the biblical view of punishment in the Old Testament, that is, punishment during the Age of the Gentiles and punishment during the Age of Israel.  The Church Age is not in view.

 

Unger says, “The severity of the Old Testament dispensation in this respect has often been made a subject of unfavorable criticism.”

 

Author’s Comment:  This unfavorable criticism comes from people whose perception of God does not permit a God of wrath.  These people picture God as a God of love whose characteristic love excludes any form of divine punishment.  They see an “Old Testament God of punishment” vs. a “New Testament God of love.”

 

Unger says, “But the character of the people, and the condition of the times, and the necessity for impressing the importance of morality and religion, and of developing the right national life furnish the sufficient explanation.”

 

Author’s Comment:  The “character of the people”—and who are these people?  These are the Old Testament Israelites functioning under the Mosaic Law.  Unger is saying that God dealt severely with the people of Israel because of their character.  The implication is that these people after 400 years of bondage in Egypt had developed a national character, the nature of which was such that it required the type of punishment described in the Mosaic Law.

 

“Biblical View. (2) In the New Testament.”

 

Unger says, “In the New Testament we find a relaxing of the severity of the Old Testament with respect to temporal penalties; but in connection with this the bringing into prominence of the motives and the influences of the Gospel revelation. (Matthew 5:19-48; Luke 7:37-50; John 8:3-11)

 

Author’s Comment:  Again, Unger makes reference to temporal penalties.  This is just another way of saying divine punishment for wrongdoing in the lives of those still alive and functioning under the Mosaic Law.

 

Unger says, “. . . The retribution, however, upon which the New Testament lays chief stress is that of the future.  Of the fact of future punishment and of the eternal duration in some form the teachings of Christ and the apostles leave no room for doubt. (Matthew 12:32; Mark 3:29; 9:43; Revelation 14:11; 20:10)”

 

Author’s Comment:  Retribution, here—this is a reference to divine punishment for wrongdoing, but note that we are now talking about punishment related to failure to abide by New Testament policies.  The focus has shifted from temporal punishment to future punishment of eternal duration.  This brings into focus punishment associated with hell and the lake of fire, not what happens while someone is alive in a physical body.  It should also be made clear that the five biblical references just cited refer to eternal consequences, not temporal consequences.  These passages, though New Testament in nature, have nothing to do with temporal punishment of Christians for bad behavior.

 

“Theological and Ethical”

 

Unger says, “The primary ground for the infliction of punishment is NOT the reformation of offenders.  In the divine administration a distinction is clearly made between chastisement and punishments properly so called.  And in the administration of human government the object of reformation often has a proper recognition, though the reason and warrant for the penal sanctions of the law are deeper than that.  The chief end is not the discouragement or prevention of crime or wrongdoing.  This is often an important effect, and a proper though still subordinate object.  The underlying idea—that most deeply fundamental—is justice.”

 

Author’s Comment:  (We are now looking at punishment theologically and ethically without specific reference to life under the Mosaic Law or life under grace in the Church Age.  Unger might well have said by way of introduction, “Hey, this is the way it is, now and in the past.”)

 

Author’s Comment:  Look at Unger’s first statement, and learn from it—“The primary ground for the infliction of punishment is NOT the reformation of offenders,” and yet, that seems to be the primary reason why parents and others to whom authority over children is delegated administer punishment, namely, to modify bad behavior.  Unger makes it clear what punishment was never primarily intended to do, namely, reform bad behavior; and it should be made clear that if reformed behavior actually occurs in conjunction with punishment, this does not justify Church Age punishment associated with child rearing—just in case it might result in modified behavior.  That’s unjustified rationalization, and there is no place for such rationalization in the spiritual life associated with the Christian life.

 

Author’s Comment:  Unger uses the word chastisement.  This comes from the Greek word “paideuo” meaning “to instruct, train, correct.”  Note that punishment is not mentioned.

 

Author’s Comment:  Unger continues, “And in the administration of human government the object of reformation often has a proper recognition, . . .”  This means that when punishment is rendered by duly authorized individuals, it is recognized that reformed behavior may result, but he adds, “though the reason and warrant for the penal sanctions of the law are deeper than that.”  This means that while modified behavior may result from penal sanctions of the law (which means punishment for wrongdoing), the reason and justification for punishment run deeper than changed behavior.  Again, this implies that punishment used to modify behavior is a rationalization based upon a false notion of its primary purpose, namely, justice.

 

Author’s Comment:  Unger continues, “The chief end [ of punishment ] is not the discouragement or prevention of crime or wrongdoing.”  If not, then what is the chief end [ objective ] of punishment?  Here it is!  JUSTICE.  Unger says it this way, “The underlying idea—that most deeply fundamental—is justice.”  In other words, “He is getting what’s coming to him.”

 

Author’s Comment:  Justice has nothing to do with modified behavior.  Modified behavior is not a guaranteed spin-off from justice, and to deem it so is both rationalization and unrealistic expectation.  If it occurs, it occurs, but there is no cause and effect relationship between justice and modified behavior.

 

Author’s Comment:  I’d be remiss if I did not mention Unger’s statement, “This [ reformed behavior ] is often an important effect [ result from punishment ], and a proper [ meaning “it’s good if it occurs” ] though still subordinate [ to justice ] object [ objective, goal ].”

 

Author’s Comment:  Unger is saying that modified behavior is a worthy goal in any person’s life, and if modified behavior occurs in conjunction with punishment for wrongdoing, modified behavior is an important result, but punishment was not administered with the intention of modifying the behavior of the one being punished.  Here’s an illustration:  If someone commits a crime, the nature of which demands imprisonment, justice is the motivation behind sending the criminal to prison.  If, however, the prisoner chooses to become a believer in Jesus Christ while in prison and chooses to modify his behavior, it must be understood that there is not now, nor has there ever been, a cause and effect relationship between punishment as justice and modified behavior.

 

Punishment.  Mosaic Law.

 

Important to our thesis is Unger’s comments that follow:

 

“The law of retribution seems to underlie punishment in all ages.”

 

Author’s Comment:  Do we understand what he is saying?  Retribution means deserved punishment for wrongdoing, and Unger says that from ages past right up to today, man on this planet has viewed punishment as deserved for wrongdoing.  Note that it’s the law of retribution, not the law of changed behavior.

 

Unger says that punishment is found in the form of blood revenge among many ancient peoples as primitive (Genesis 27:45) custom, going back for its final basis in Genesis 9:5.

 

Genesis 27:45  until your brother's anger against you subsides, and he forgets what you did to him. Then I shall send and get you from there. Why should I be bereaved of you both in one day?" (NAS)

 

Genesis 9:5  "And surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from {every} man, from every man's brother I will require the life of man. (NAS)

 

Unger says, “Very naturally, in acting as redeemer the person would be tempted to inflict greater injury than that which he avenged.”

 

Author’s Comment:  “Very naturally” means “while acting under the influence of the human sinful nature (sometimes referred to as the old-sin-nature or the Adamic nature), and the context of this statement refers to people of Genesis 27:45 and Genesis 9:5 who historically lived prior to the Mosaic Law.

 

Author’s Comment:  Here, the “redeemer” is the duly authorized person responsible for executing justice.

 

Author’s Comment:  “tempted to inflict greater injury than that which he avenged” means that the punishment is greater than the crime.  Does this sound familiar?

 

Author’s Comment:  Now, Unger is going to take us from pre-Mosaic Law to the Mosaic Law under which a correction is to be made.  The punishment should now equal the level of the crime.  Remember, prior to the Mosaic Law, the redeemer is said to be tempted to inflict greater injury than that which he avenged.”

 

Unger states:  “According to the Mosaic code, punishment was made to correspond to the heinousness of the offense, that there should fall upon the culprit what he had done to his neighbor, no more, thus giving no authority for personal revenge.”

 

Author’s Comment:  This means that under the Mosaic Law it was intended that punishment for wrongdoing would equal the level of wrongdoing, and the person rendering the punishment was given no room to abuse the wrongdoer by over-punishment.

 

Unger says, “What is said in Deuteronomy 19:19 in regard to the false witness holds good of all the penal enactments of the Mosaic Law:

 

Deuteronomy 19:19  then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. (NAS)

 

Deuteronomy 19:19  his penalty shall be the punishment he thought the other man would get. In this way you will purge out evil from among you. (TLB)

 

Unger says, “This we see, at the root of all the enactments of the Mosaic penal code there lies the principle of strict but righteous retribution, and its intention is to extirpate [ to pull up by the roots; root out; to destroy completely; exterminate; abolish ] evil and produce reverence for the righteousness of the holy God in the heart of the people.

 

My comments:  Righteous retribution (punishment)—this is at the root of the Mosaic Law.  The Mosaic Law’s goal was not to over-punish people for wrongdoing.  In fact, the Mosaic Law when applied properly would have negated that possibility.

 

Author’s Comment:  “to extirpate evil” occurred when the wrongdoer was excommunicated from the community.  This is not a reference to the modified behavior of the wrongdoer.  When the cancerous cells are removed, the remainder of the body becomes healthy.

 

Author’s Comment:  Reverence was produced in the heart of the people for the righteousness of the holy God when they saw evil extirpated from the community by excommunicating the evildoer.  When the rest of the community saw the evildoer excommunicated, they would reason that it is better to do right than to be excommunicated from the community.  Once again, punishment did not alter the behavior of the evildoer.

 

Capital Punishment

 

Unger writes (page 902) with my comments in brackets, “The wide range of crimes punishable by death according to the Mosaic Law may be accounted for by the peculiar conditions of the Israelites.  A nation of newly emancipated slaves, they were probably intractable [ hard to manage; unruly or stubborn ]; and their wanderings and isolation did not permit of penal settlements [ plea bargaining ] or remedial punishments [ something less than the death penalty ].  They [ the Israelites as they wandered in the wilderness ] were placed under immediate divine government and surveillance [ God was watching ].  Willful offenders [ people violating God’s law and knowing that they were doing so ], under such circumstances [ willful disobedience ], evinced [ manifested ] an incorrigibleness [ cannot be corrected, improved, or reformed ] which rendered death [ capital punishment ] the only means of ridding the community of such transgressions [ those punishable by death ], and this was ultimately resorted to in regard to all individuals above a certain age, in order that a better class might enter into Canaan (Numbers 14:29, 32, 35).”

 

Numbers 14:29  your corpses shall fall in this wilderness, even all your numbered men, according to your complete number from twenty years old and upward, who have grumbled against Me. (NAS)

Numbers 14:32  `But as for you, your corpses shall fall in this wilderness. (NAS)

Numbers 14:35  `I, the LORD, have spoken, surely this I will do to all this evil congregation who are gathered together against Me. In this wilderness they shall be destroyed, and there they shall die.'" (NAS)

 

Author’s Comment:  This was punishment in accordance with the Mosaic Law.  This has no application to Church Age believers (people living between the dates of Pentecost AD 30 and the Lord’s return for His church (the rapture—yet future).

 

Corporal Punishment

 

Author’s Comment:  If we read further on pages 902-904, we read about the following things associated with the Mosaic Law:  Capital Crimes; Capital Penalties; Secondary Punishments:  Retaliation, Compensation, Corporal Punishment, and Imprisonment.  It is my purpose here to set forth information about corporal punishment under the Mosaic Law.  Unger writes:

 

“Stripes, consisting of forty blows with the rod (Deuteronomy 25:1-3)

 

Deuteronomy 25:1-35

1   "If there is a dispute between men and they go to court, and the judges decide their case, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked,

2   then it shall be if the wicked man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall then make him lie down and be beaten in his presence with the number of stripes according to his guilt.

3   "He may beat him forty times {but} no more, lest he beat him with many more stripes than these, and your brother be degraded in your eyes. (NAS)

 

Author’s Comment:  We can see that corporal punishment was permitted under the Mosaic Law.  The rod was used to administer this punishment, and that’s why we read the following passages in Proverbs:

 

Proverbs 10:13 In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding.  (KJV)

 

Proverbs 13:24  He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.  (KJV)

 

Proverbs 22:15  Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him. (KJV)

 

Proverbs 23:13  Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.  (KJV)

 

Proverbs 23:14  Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.  (KJV)

 

Proverbs 26:3  A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back.  (KJV)

 

Proverbs 29:15  The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.  (KJV)

 

Author’s Comment:  One of the biblical meanings of the word “rod” is a stick used for punishment.

 

Author’s Comment:  The Mosaic Law authorized the use of the rod for corporal punishment during the Age of Israel—from the time of Moses until the death of Christ on the cross.  This is why we read about the rod in these Proverbs passages.  It was a biblically valid tool used for punishing evildoers; however, make certain you realize these passages were authorized during the Age of Israel, not the Church Age.

 

Question:  Are we as Christians under the Mosaic Law?  The answer is, no.  Read the following passage of Scripture [ my comments added in brackets ]:

 

Galatians 3:19-25

19 Why the [ Mosaic ] Law then? It was added [ added to Inherent Law that preceded it ] because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed [ Jesus Christ ] should come to whom the promise had been made.

20 Now a mediator is not for one {party only} whereas God is {only} one.

21 Is the [ Mosaic ] Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if [ and there has been none ] a law [ that is, any law ] had been given which was able to impart [ spiritual ] life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on [ that form of ] law.

22 But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise [ of spiritual salvation ] by faith [ alone ] in Jesus Christ [ alone ] might be given to those who believe [ in Christ ].

23 But before faith [ alone in Christ alone ] came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the [ type of ] faith [ alone in Christ alone ] which was [ much ] later [ after the giving of the Mosaic Law ] to be revealed.

24     Therefore the [ Mosaic ] Law [ by providing a list of rules that the Israelites were unable to keep, and thereby pointing out their personal sins ] has become our tutor [ schoolbus ] {to lead us} [ to transport us ] to Christ [ for spiritual salvation ], that we may be justified [ made righteous ] by faith [ alone in Christ alone ].

25 But now [ with the physical birth of Jesus Christ ] that faith [ faith alone in Christ alone ] has come, we are no longer under a tutor [ the Mosaic Law ]. (NAS)

 

The Living Bible puts it this way:

 

Galatians 3:19-25

19 Well then, why were the laws given? They were added after the promise was given, to show men how guilty they are of breaking God's laws. But this system of law was to last only until the coming of Christ, the Child to whom God's promise was made. (And there is this further difference. God gave his laws to angels to give to Moses, who then gave them to the people;

20 but when God gave his promise to Abraham, he did it by himself alone, without angels or Moses as go-betweens.)

21 Well then, are God's laws and God's promises against each other? Of course not! If we could be saved by his laws, then God would not have had to give us a different way to get out of the grip of sin-- for the Scriptures insist we are all its prisoners. The only way out is through faith in Jesus Christ; the way of escape is open to all who believe him.

23 Until Christ came we were guarded by the law, kept in protective custody, so to speak, until we could believe in the coming Savior.

24 Let me put it another way. The Jewish laws were our teacher and guide until Christ came to give us right standing with God through our faith.

25 But now that Christ has come, we don't need those laws any longer to guard us and lead us to him. (TLB)

 

Author’s Comment:  This passage, when properly understood, makes it clear that the Mosaic Law ceased to function with the coming of Christ, namely, with the coming of His death on Calvary’s cross.  Therefore, if Christians are no longer under the Mosaic Law, then by what authority do we as Christians use corporal punishment on our children?

 

Author’s Comment:  We cannot disassociate the use of the rod in Proverbs from the Mosaic Law, and since we as Christians are not under the Mosaic Law, we are not authorized to make application of the rod passages to Christian parenting.  The basis for the rod was the Mosaic Law, and if someone argues for punishment without the rod, Unger says on page 931 that the word “rod” in Proverbs 13:24 and Proverbs 29:15 is used as a figure for punishment, therefore, we are once again pressed to understand that all forms of punishment in the Old Testament are associated with the Mosaic Law—and we as Christians are not subject to the Mosaic Law.

 

Further Comments by This Author

 

It is my considered opinion that Unger’s comments on punishment as taught in Scripture are an accurate portrayal of what the Bible teaches on the subject in both the Old and New Testaments.  I find his comments quite interesting for the following reasons:

 

1.  Many of my friends vindicate themselves for punishing their children’s “bad behavior” by appealing to the Old Testament, primarily, the book of Proverbs.

 

2.  While my friends appeal to the Old Testament for vindication, I find this conflict:  parents punish with the primary thought that such punishment will eventuate in a reformed child, and if not, at least they will have absolved themselves of guilt if and when the child grievously fails in life.  Let us be reminded that the primary purposes of Old Testament punishment was retribution and justice, not reformation.  (I don’t know even one parent who punishes a child with retribution or justice in mind.  Reformed behavior seems to be their elusive goal. -- Perhaps my “swans are still all white” because I haven’t yet seen any black swans.)

 

3.  Regarding the Old Testament, Unger states categorically that “The primary ground for the infliction of punishment is NOT the reformation of offenders.”  This seems very clear, and it would seem to me that any appeal to Scripture would only be valid if a parent was attempting to justify punishing his child for the sake of retribution or justice—and that makes absolutely no sense to me.  Parents don’t seek retribution or justice from their child.  They seek reform, a purpose for which biblical punishment was not designed.

 

4.  If punishment angers a child, and it eventually does, it seems as though the parent who seeks behavioral change through punishment, and then self-vindicates by an appeal to Old Testament Scripture, has overlooked an important New Testament (Church Age) principle taught by the Apostle Paul:

 

Ephesians 6:4  And, fathers, do not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. (New American Standard Version)

 

Colossians 3:21  Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged. (King James Version)

 

In the Ephesians 6:4 passage above, the Greek word for “discipline” is paideia (pahee-di'-ah) meaning “tutorage, i.e. education or training; by implication, disciplinary correction” (this is teaching the child to do right, and then he follows through and does it; this does not connote punishment).

 

5.  Ephesians 6:4 is translated from the Greek to English in the following manner in each of the following versions of the New Testament:

 

Ephesians 6:4  And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord. (New King James)

 

Ephesians 6:4  Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. (New International Version)

 

Ephesians 6:4  And now a word to you parents. Don't keep on scolding and nagging your children, making them angry and resentful. Rather, bring them up with the loving discipline the Lord himself approves, with suggestions and godly advice. (The Living Bible)

 

 6. THERE IS NO HINT OF PUNISHMENT IN EITHER THE EPHESIANS OR COLOSSIANS PASSAGE.

 

Concerning Moses vs. Jesus

 

John 1:17  For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. (KJV)

John 1:17  For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. (NAS)

John 1:17  For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. (NIV)

John 1:17  For Moses gave us only the Law with its rigid demands and merciless justice, while Jesus Christ brought us loving forgiveness as well. (TLB)

 

This passage teaches us that Moses is associated with the Mosaic Law, but Jesus is associated with grace and truth.  Christians are not subject to the Law of Moses.  (To argue differently is to fly in the face of Scriptural truth.)  We are subject to the grace and truth of Jesus Christ.  Remember, the rod passages of Proverbs are associated with Moses and the Mosaic Law, not Jesus Christ and grace.

 

The “My Commandments” of Jesus

 

John 14:15  "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. (NAS)

John 14:21  "He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him." (NAS)

John 15:10  "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love. (NAS)

 

Jesus is not asking that we keep the commandments of Moses.  He says that we are to keep His commandments, and there is a vast difference between the commandments of Moses and the commandments of Jesus Christ.  It is the difference between law and grace.  Christians, we are not under the Mosaic Law.

 

For behavioral change, we, as Christians, need to get out of Proverbs and get into Ephesians and Colossians:

 

Ephesians 6:4  And, fathers, do not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. (New American Standard Version)

 

Colossians 3:21  Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged. (King James Version)

 

Punishment and the Word “paideuo”

 

The following underlined words translate some form of the English verb “chastise” by the Greek word “paideuo.”  I am providing four different versions of the Bible to show how the same Greek word has been translated in these versions.

 

It should be noted that where there is more than one possible meaning of a specific Greek word, the translation of that Greek word demands that the context first be interpreted by the translator, followed by a translation consistent with the translator’s contextual interpretation of the verse or passage.  This explains why one Greek word can be translated “chasten,” “discipline,” and “punish” in the same verse in three different versions, and “chastened,” “disciplined,” and “trained” in another verse in three different versions.  Translators are often required to interpret before translating, and when one translator interprets differently from another, different translations may result.  That’s why you and I may have differing opinions regarding what God thinks about a subject, especially if we are reading from different versions of the Bible.

 

My purpose in the following discussion is to show that the scriptural use of the Greek word “paideuo” grants no basis for punishing a child to alter his behavior.

 

chasten (KJV)

 

Revelation 3:19  As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. (KJV)

 

Revelation 3:19  'Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; be zealous therefore, and repent. (NAS)

 

Revelation 3:19  Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. (NIV)

 

Revelation 3:19  I continually discipline and punish everyone I love; so I must punish you unless you turn from your indifference and become enthusiastic about the things of God. (TLB)

 

Conclusion:  Here, it is the Lord Jesus who will do the chastening, not human beings.

 

chastened (KJV)

 

1 Corinthians 11:32  But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. (KJV)

 

1 Corinthians 11:32  But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord in order that we may not be condemned along with the world. (NAS)

 

1 Corinthians 11:32  When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. (NIV)