Disobedient children

Anyone knows what the early christians did?

Hi Erik, it's a good question. I've also wondered about how the early Christians approached raising children and family relationships.

(Pro 23:13-14).

Dear all, I'm sorry, I haven't introduced myself yet and here I am, jumping into the conversations straight away. I shall introduce myself shortly... I just joined today! :)

But I wanted to comment on this. I too have searched an answer to this myself, not because I would want to practice corporal punishment but out of desire to know more how Christians lived in the past regarding child rearing.

And I do think the early Christians perhaps, based on what I've read, could have practiced corporal punishment to varying degrees. At least some letters by believers of those times I have read seems to suggest that. That is when they talk about child rearing.

But they were not perfect, like we're not. They lived among a very violent culture too. It's sickening to read about the persecutions, for example, what was done to people, how they were tortured.

(still are today in different places, I know) I can't but wonder, what kind of a person can even imagine of such torture, or inflict it on another human being? This is of course the unbelievers and we don't live in a non-violent culture today either. But what we witness and live among does have an impact on us, whether we wanted or not.

Should we follow all and everything the early Christians did, even when there's no obvious and clear Biblical instruction on it? I don't think we should.

I myself think that hurting anybody physically is wrong, even more so hurting a child. They are smaller than we are, they are vulnerable and defenseless and still immature and developing. They are completely dependent on us. And we are to show them Christian love, we are to be safe to them. Of course that doesn't mean that we're always "nice". But how can we ever justify physically hurting their little bodies, even for "their good", when disciplining them? What can they learn from it?

To fear us, bigger, stronger people? And if violence is not ok or justified between adults, what makes us think it's ok to practice violence towards a child? Should husbands then also be allowed to physically discipline the wife? I don't think any of us agrees on that... And if we can't patiently and lovingly talk to our children and instruct them verbally, or by other non-violent means, what makes us think hurting them physically would work better?

Of course the threat of physical harm and pain seems to work, sometimes. But has it enforced a heart's attitude to do what's right, or rather to obey out of fear of enduring the pain again? Do we obey God out of fear for what He can do to us? Or do we obey Him because we love Him?

And then the next point I'm thinking, how can we justify hurting a child, say under 12, but most people almost uniformly decide to stop this method once they are over that age.

Why the children above that age no longer "need" physical pain for correction? Who made that rule and what is it based on? It goes like, "little children need physical pain to learn, but older children don't". I don't understand that. Why do we do it to the most vulnerable and defenseless only? Because we think they are dumb and don't learn unless we hurt them? Or because they are physically too little to fight back so we can? And what about the older child;

do we stop physical punishment because they are big enough to retaliate which could get pretty ugly? Imagine a 13 year old, or 15 or 16, often the size of an adult, not agreeing with our discipline...

And then the always so useful: What Would Jesus Do? Would He spank children for disobedience? I find it hard to imagine Him doing so.

I have never put my hand on my child, now 9 who's lone parent I am, and he is a Jesus loving, cheerful, delightful little boy who respects other people and has never put his hand on another person or an animal. By my example. No, he's not perfectly obedient always, it can be tough, parenting generally is. He can be defiant and stubborn and go his own way, but I don't think violence or hurting him ever solves the problem.

And I say this with all my love and respect for all of you, even those that do practice corporal punishment. We need to live by our convictions that we draw from the Bible, we are personally responsible to God for our actions, not our group think. I know it's more common in certain locations in the world to use corporal punishment. It's illegal where I live, so that too has an impact on what I practice and how I think.

But I do know Christians that even here defend corporal punishment and perhaps even practice it. But it just does not sit right with me to be non-violent in every other area of life yet act violently towards my child for "discipline". I see such a huge contradiction in Jesus' teachings on non-violence, but then hurting children to teach them obedience. Please correct me if I'm wrong! Help me understand!

I wasn't spared corporal punishment as a child and I still today can't connect any of those deeply frightening and painful experiences with anything I would have learned from it. I do know some people say, "I definitely deserved it and it was good for me". That's fine. But that wasn't my experience. All I remember is the fear and terror and not understanding how my parents could one moment be kind but terrifying and inflict pain the next.

And I find the advice concerning where parents are instructed to practice corporal punishment "without anger, lovingly". I think it's more disturbing if a parents says they love the child yet hurt them, than if they'd be openly angry and lash out. That would make sense. But it makes no sense to mix love and pain.

Ruut 🤗

Hello Ruut, thank you for the large contribution to this discussion!

Ok so to jump in right away here, for the most part, I would have to disagree with you. I see that most of the reason that you would shrink from corporal punishment is childhood experiences, which I think is a justifiable reason, but I still would have to object to most of your logic here. To your point there where you said that Jesus would never spank a child- I reply that I think He would.

A loving spanking can do wonders in the heart of a guilty child- especially if he knows what is expected when rules are disobeyed and he disobeys. From what I have known, a spanking delivered with love and correction, not anger, will "drive away foolishness" (Prov. somewhere). Even the Bible, in various places, endorses the use of "the rod" to correct naughty or foolish children.

To your thing of thinking physically punishing abusing, to that I agree- it can be abusing. When anger is in the equation, I think I can safely say that it is abusing to spank a child. But not when it is used the way it should be.

Corporal punishment, when used correctly, leads to respect for the parent/ parents who administer the punishment. If used the wrong way, it can lead to rebellion and anger on the part of the child, who will learn more and more to use that to rebel against the parent.

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

I think this states my position. Hopefully, I didn't get too rambling and you can understand this a bit :).

If the child understands that the parent is not intent on hurting the child but rather on teaching him with love and understanding. If the child knows beforehand that the parent loves him and is not just out to get him, he will understand.

One more question for you; how do you safely rationalize away the verses mentioned by Simon and me? Or did the Bible just not really mean that?

Dear Ruut,

In your post, you said, "Should we follow all and everything the early Christians did, even when there's no obvious and clear Biblical instruction on it? I don't think we should." And you are right; we should not.

But if there is clear Biblical teaching on it, I think we should do what they did, and there is Biblical teaching on child discipline.

Prov. 13:1 A wise son accepts his fathers discipline, but a scoffer does not listen to rebuke.

Prov. 13:18 Poverty and shame will come to him who neglects discipline, but he who regards reproof will be honored.

Prov. 13:24 He who withholds his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently.

Prov. 23:13-14 Do not hold back discipline from the child, though you strike him with the rod, he shall not die. You shall strike him with the rod and rescue his soul from Sheol.

But I do not advocate abuse; it is wrong to vent anger on a child. Child discipline should always be done with love for the child. Discipline is done to free the conscience of a guilty child, which is why people stop discipline after the age of accountability, when a spanking cannot account for guiltiness before God. Only the blood of Jesus can account for that.

You got my position right there, very succinctly;).

Are there any references to the early christians about this?

My thought after reading here this is: First give instruction and then, secondly correction if instruction is not followed according to Proverbs 22:15 . Without correction the instruction has no value or is meaningless. Without correction we lose boundaries and then lose trust, as there is no security to bring about trust without boundaries. I think of the cow getting it's nose shocked when trying to go outside of the electric fence.

The fence keeps the cow safe in their boundary--safe from roaming and getting eaten by a predator or hit by a car perhaps. If the cow didn't get that shock when pushing the boundaries it wouldn't stop and stay within the boundary. Correction with the rod, done in love, is the loving thing to do to teach a child to stay in the boundaries set by the parent.

Letting the child decide when they will or will not obey is training them up to be an anarchist, and not a follower of Christ from what I can discern from God's Word.