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)