Spreading hate: Part 5

This is a continuation from Part 4, discussing the following article:

Spare the Rod: The Heart of the Matter

We last left off with the woman who authored this article trying to make some contrasts about behaviors before and after Jesus Christ, attempting to try and show that because things are now different after Christ's death and resurrection, parents don't have to discipline their children as they did prior to Jesus Christ having died on the cross, because in paying the price for sin, children are naturally less sinful than they were before. Or something like that.

I'll try to let her explain it.

My point is summed up in this verse:
“For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.” (James 2:10)
In other words, if you feel bound by those five verses, then you must be bound by all.

If you recognize the wisdom in the good advice given in five verses, then you are bound to The Law, which is completely distinct from the passages in Proverbs.

Get that?

If you're "bound" to the advice given by Solomon in Proverbs, you're bound to all of The Law that God gave to Moses and the descendants of Israel.

Stupid stupid stupid.

People who aren't smart can't tell the difference between things. They literally cannot perceive a distinction in the patterns, they just see more of the same.

To say that this woman is stupid because she can't tell the difference between The Law and wisdom is being kind.

If you truly believe that those five verses have been interpreted correctly and that “spare the rod, spoil the child” (Note: There is no verse in the Bible that says ”spare the rod, spoil the child.” That phrase is actually from a satirical poem called Hudibras by Samuel Butler first published in 1662.) refers to an actual physical rod (instead of a symbol of guidance and loving correction…i.e. discipleship) and that the word used for ‘child’ refers to a toddler or small child instead of the actual linguistic translation meaning ‘young man,’ then so be it.

She hopes that nobody can tell the difference between "believing" and "knowing".

We can know what the verses literally say, there isn't any belief involved at all.

It's the folks who don't like what is said that must put their faith in twisting meaning in order to make themselves feel better.

Further, why wait till the end of the article to admit defeat? If her goal isn't to convince of truth, then she's just wanting to express how she feels.

How one woman feels is irrelevant to what the Bible teaches as good parenting.

But do you really believe that Jesus’ New Covenant is for everyone except children? That grace, mercy, unconditional love, and forgiveness are for adults only?
The disciples made that mistake, and Jesus said to them,

“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” (Luke 18:16)

Five verses with questionable interpretations versus following Jesus’ example…no contest. [end excerpt]

Jesus' New Covenant doesn't apply to anyone that has rejected it, and we're not "born Holy", accepting it by default.

We're born in rebellion, spiritually dead.

And so the terms of the new covenant, the grace and mercy afforded by it, don't matter until faith has been placed in Jesus Christ.

Until the terms of the New Covenant has been accepted, they don't apply.

God's love may be unconditional, but salvation is not.

All have sinned, but not all will accept the gift of salvation.

God's love for those who have rejected God's love doesn't matter. What God did on their behalf is nullified by their rebellion, and so all that will be left is God's justice and wrath.

If folks don't understand that, adult or child, they will not grasp the weight and importance of salvation.

That is the point of the Gospel, that is the "good news", that we have hope.

Her last contributions are that of a footnote:

*Note: Hebrew is a very descriptive, picturesque (i.e. visual) language. In describing something that is out of the ordinary, words were often used to convey a deeper meaning using word pictures. That is the case with the word na’ar which means, literally, ‘independent male’ and refers to a young man, but is also used as a word picture in rare circumstances to convey an unnatural independence when referring to an infant or young child who has been ‘ripped away’ or become unnaturally ‘independent’ from the nurturing presence of a parent. This is the case with Moses as he was placed in a basket and sent away from his mother as an infant (yeled in Hebrew throughout the text of the Exodus account except for one word picture, na’ar, indicating the baby’s separation from his mother) and with Samuel who was left at the temple by his mother at a young age. In those unique instances, the word picture of a male made independent by unnatural circumstances is conveyed by the use of the word na’ar. In every other instance, na’ar literally means a male of independent age, a young man.

This woman is a worker of evil, seeking to spread hatred among parents, teaching them that in Jesus' name "what was good is now evil, and what was evil is now good". Her message is not the first of its kind, it won't be the last, and we're already seeing the terrible fruits that such a spirit brings forth in due time.

It is hatred of your children to not guide and direct them in an effective manner, whatever that ultimately requires of the parent. It is hatred of your children to leave them unskilled, undisciplined, unprepared to deal with life, and with a terrible ignorance as to the full nature of the God that will one day judge their eternal fate.

It is not love to look at sinful behavior and call it "acceptable", to make no effort to refine and teach as circumstances require. God was never passive.

Boys and girls respond to correction and rebuke differently, and I can speak to that with personal experience. Even what works with one boy won't work with another either, so even within the same gender, there are significant differences in how a child reacts to a parent providing rebuke.

To eliminate a viable means of correction is to spread hate. It is to pretend that the children which require more correction do not deserve the perseverance and commitment of their parents to the instruction that is required of that child. It is to play favorites with personalities, which were uniquely crafted by God, under the pretense that because of Jesus' sacrifice, children are now born Holy, with natural desires to remain Holy, and parents need only get out of their way for that process to work out.

When parents, together, correctly demonstrate all the attributes of God, then a child can have opportunity to grow in understanding as time goes on, being able to see how man and woman, together, embody the fullness of God in all things, both the attributes we find attractive and the ones which we don't because they require change of us from our sinful state.

For a final anecdote of the historical extremes that the author is clearly ignorant of, it wasn't until after Rome prohibited fathers from being able to execute significantly unruly children that Rome fell. It was a consistent departure from discipline, not an oppressive application of it, that signaled the end of that empire.

The truth is that children are born in rebellion, against their parents and against God, and parents need to fight hard to overcome such rebellion because both the temporal and eternal fate of their children is directly affected by the parent's choices in such matters.

Keep struggling parents, keep trying to the extent you are able. Jesus Christ has already died, so calibrate your sacrifices accordingly, but also know that the power of the Holy Spirit inside of you can give strength to do that which you could not do on your own. Like discipline a child because you love them and care for their future more than how you feel.

Spreading hate: Part 4

My apologies for the huge delay, this blog is not in my top priorities right now, but that will change in the near future.

To continue from Part 3, discussing the following article:

Spare the Rod: The Heart of the Matter

We last left off with the author of the article insisting that, even if one is not convinced by the butchering of the translations, we can just do away with all of it because we're now under a "new covenant" anyway. What this does is undermine the entire article up to this point, because if she's willing to dismiss anything that was in the old testament under the "old covenants", then it doesn't matter how they get translated at all in the first place.

Such contradictory behavior does not bode well. Let's continue.

We accept that Jesus brought a new and better way, a way of the heart, “Not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.” (2 Corinthians 3:3b), but don’t seem to want to acknowledge that better way with our children. We accept God’s grace and forgiveness for ourselves, but often don’t share those gifts with, and model them for, our children. But we are our children’s first taste of God. Is it any wonder people have such a hard time understanding grace and mercy and unconditional love when they may not have been taught those things by their earthly parents and don’t exercise them with their own children?

God's love might be unconditional, but God's wrath is not.

Failing to demonstrate this is why people's understanding of God now is so screwed up, why people think that God's attribute of love is so powerful that it overrides every other attribute permanently.

At no point is there an understanding that none of God's attributes overrides another, that none will singly define God, that you can't add or subtract from those attributes and end up with a being that even remotely approximates God.

Parents wanted to pick and choose which attributes of God to model, and in so doing, created a false image of what or who God really is. By pretending that there is no anger, no hatred, no animosity in God, people have created their own god to worship and adore, while the God of the Bible, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is ignored.

The God that commanded the extermination of sinful peoples simply does not exist anymore, and that's because Jesus Christ died on the cross so that instead of eternal damnation, we could have eternal life. The disconnect between the temporal and the eternal is significant and jarring to those who are paying attention.

Through Jesus’ sacrifice, he tore open the veil dividing man from God and brought a new kingdom, a kingdom of inner governance through the Holy Spirit whose fruit is “peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.” Nowhere does Jesus say to follow him except when it comes to our children. He doesn’t say to offer grace and mercy and forgiveness to everyone except our children. The Bible doesn’t tell us to show the fruit of the Spirit to everyone except our children.

There is no "inner governance", there are just fewer barriers between God and man.

Further, we are not the Holy Spirit, it's a separate entity that resides within us to help us, but it is not an overriding force, it is an assistant.

This kind of subtle twisting of scripture is how female emotions were ever treated as an equivalent to the Holy Spirit.

Realize that if there is an "inner governance", then obviously truth is found "inside" and not "outside", so if "inside" you feel like something is wrong, that must obviously be the Holy Spirit really trying to tell you something, right?

Nope.

That's not how the Holy Spirit works, because the Spirit is often busy fighting the desires of the flesh, which do not disappear with the arrival of the Spirit as a new tenant.

The strength of convictions tells us almost nothing about whether such convictions are from God or not. How strongly we feel tells us nothing about the source of such feelings. We are still broken, at war, on the inside, and we won't find lasting peace until the next life when sin has finally been conquered.

Such misunderstandings are not the foundation upon which any parenting advice should be based.

If we truly believe that, based on five verses in the Old Testament with disputable translations and debatable interpretations, we are being disobedient to God’s commands if we don’t spank our children, then we must take that belief and walk it out fully.

It's just her disputes and her debates, based mostly on her feelings and not any truth, but we're not supposed to notice that she's trying to pretend that her convictions are really important in the grand scheme of things.

How well would a police officer respond to "but there is dispute and debate on how fast I am really supposed to drive!"

As stated in previous my entries, understanding is not prerequisite for obedience.

Further, it should be noted that what the Bible says about parenting won't align with God's message on salvation, because they are two very different circumstances. The two topics are connected in that they're discussed in the Bible, but because what's literally happening is different, what the Bible says about what a person is to do is going to be very different as well.

A user's manual for a car may list information on headlights and the stereo, and they both even may use electricity from the same battery in the car, but how you turn on or off headlights won't tell you anything about how to find a particular radio station.

What worked for one set of circumstances might work in another, but that should never be assumed to be the case. Different sets of instructions for different circumstances we'll encounter, and we can know the author of the article doesn't understand this because of how she continues.

In other words, if we must obey that supposed command, then we must obey all the other commands such as...

- an “eye for an eye” (Exodus 21:24) and stoning adulterers (Leviticus 20:10) …but didn’t Jesus bring forgiveness?
- we shouldn’t feed the homeless because “if a man doesn’t work, neither shall he eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10) …but aren’t we supposed to be the heart and hands of Jesus?
- we shouldn’t give Christmas shoeboxes to prisoners’ children because “the sins of the father are visited on the children” (Exodus 20:5) …but isn’t the “kingdom of heaven made up of such as these?” (Matthew 19:14)

This is retarded.

She's arguing that if God made any command on any topic in the old testament, then we can't just follow some of them, we have to follow all of them.

I'll say that again.

If God made ANY command on ANY topic, we have to follow ALL of it or NONE of it.

There is, according to this woman, no other option.

Which is why she chose to re-write scripture to her own liking by rejecting everything she didn't like and keeping only what "felt good", and that's before we even excoriate the detailed points she is trying to bring up.

The punishment for sins as detailed to the Hebrews were part of regulating their monarchy/theocracy. That was part of their legal system. As Gentiles who are not a part of that legal system, there is no need for us to enforce the Mosaic laws as were used to dictate the rituals and practices of the historical Israel.

But notice that the parenting advice references don't come from the Mosaic law, but instead come many many generations later, as wise advice from men who were described by God as being wise. These weren't commands for Israel to put into law, these were guidelines for behavior that would need to be adapted to the circumstances of the parent. If a child reacted merely to words, great, but refusing to do anything else would be a failure on the part of the parent to not actually provide effective correction and rebuke.

As to feeding the homeless, there is no command for Christians to take care of non-Christians. Every reference to charity and giving is within the scope of the Church. Those who are outside, still in rebellion with God, are not to be given access to the storehouses of the King when they plot his demise.

Even in the final days, when Jesus Christ judges the nations (races) of "goats" and "sheep", the "sheep" are not condemned by how poorly the "goats" treated their own. Read Matthew 25:31-46, and notice how the "sheep" and "goats" lived among each other until the end when they were finally separated. There will be nations of "goats" intermixed with nations of "sheep", but Jesus knows which are his, and the sheep are judged based on how they took care of Jesus' people.

So if a homeless person is a Christian, that is one thing. It's another if the homeless person is homeless because they are suffering the consequences of sinful rebellion and refuse to repent and turn to God. Job suffered greatly, but never stopped giving glory and honor to God. If people declare Jesus as Lord, then they are part of the family, and we are called to care for our family.

Except in cases of unrepentant sin. So even there, if someone declares Jesus as Lord, but is bringing sin with them into the fellowship because they will not repent, then they are not entitled to be cared for as the natural consequences play out.

Finally, anyone stupid enough to think that "not encouraging materialism" is somehow "visiting the sins of the father on the children" is simply not worth listening to. Buying gifts for someone who is struggling is a nice idea, but children whose parents are incarcerated don't need "stuff". It is not loving to them to buy things for them and then pretend like anything of value was done on their behalf. Such shallow and vapid gestures are why most churches, and most 'Christians', are a complete waste of time.

And it gets worse, as things continue on into Part 5.

Spreading hate: Part 3

This is a continuation of Part 2, discussing the following article:

Spare the Rod: The Heart of the Matter

So far, we've had the author of the article, a self-confessed feminist and social justice advocate, provide definitions to Hebrew words which do not align with how an actual concordance of Hebrew words says those are defined. We've then been going through the "problematic" verses and replacing what was literally there with her incorrect definitions, and we're not supposed to notice how magically this all works out to support her narrative regarding her opinions on parenting.

We continue with that.

And, the last two ‘rod’ verses, found in Proverbs 23:12-26 read:
“Apply your heart to instruction and your ears to words of knowledge.
Do not withhold discipline verbal instruction and teaching, reasoning together from a child young man; if you punish guide, trigger his conscience, favorably impress, entice/entrance them with the rod wisdom, leadership, protection, they will not die follow a path of destruction.
Punish Guide, trigger his conscience, favorably impress, entice/entrance them with the rod wisdom, leadership, protection and save them from death following a path of destruction.
My son, if your heart is wise, then my heart will be glad indeed; my inmost being will rejoice when your lips speak what is right.
Do not let your heart envy sinners, but always be zealous for the fear of the Lord. There is surely a future hope for you, and your hope will not be cut off.
Listen, my son, and be wise, and set your heart on the right path: Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags.
Listen to your father, who gave you life, and do not despise your mother when she is old.
Buy the truth and do not sell it—wisdom, instruction and insight as well. The father of a righteous child young man has great joy; a man who fathers a wise son rejoices in him. May your father and mother rejoice; may she who gave you birth be joyful!
My son, give me your heart and let your eyes delight in my ways.”

Get the drift? Do you see the deception and lies at play here, where she re-writes scripture as she sees fit, ignoring what God has actually said in favor of what suits her own convictions?

Eve did the same thing in the garden, and look where that got us.

Such a beautiful image of a father tenderly and diligently sharing his wisdom with his son, isn’t it? Clearly, applying these scriptures to small children is not in line with a literal interpretation. It actually makes more sense to apply them to the disciples, which is exactly what Jesus does with his twelve ‘sons.’

Words are a part of it, but they aren't all of it, or the end of it. When words fail, actions matter, and ultimately, just like with Israel, it doesn't matter of a child understands why so long as they comply in a timely fashion. Understanding requires time, and we don't always have that on our side.

Applying these scriptures "from the age of infancy to adolescence" is completely "in line with a literal interpretation", unless we just throw out what words actually mean in favor of what we want them to mean, and then scriptures will tell us anything we want them to tell us because we're just making it up as we go anyway.

Beyond translations and interpretations, though, and of far greater import, what seems to get lost in the spanking debate is that Jesus brought grace and mercy as his methods and message for a reason. The purpose of the law in the Old Testament was to highlight the need for a Savior because humans simply cannot live perfectly.

Yes, let's not dwell on perverting scripture and talk empty platitudes that don't really apply at all, because The Law was also how mankind reconciled with God, not just how the need for reconciliation was demonstrated in the first place.

Jesus' death was not just to bring God's love, but also to provide us a path out of God's wrath, God's final judgment and punishment of, sin.

Neglecting to bring up that God will judge all sin, and that those who "died in their trespasses" without reconciliation, will suffer judgment for their rebellion, is a nice way to keep the tone light and jovial.

No need to worry about eternal damnation because God loves me, right? WRONG.

God's love does not excuse our sins, but provides a means by which a debt we could not repay is lifted. The debt still exists, we are just no longer responsible for paying it, Jesus Christ is and did on the cross already.

Humans who go to hell rejected a free gift, and deserve the judgment and punishment God deems appropriate for them.

Jesus came to fulfill the outward requirements of the law that highlighted man’s sins and replace them with an inner heart change. He demonstrated in many ways that the law (outer governance and control through fear of punishment) was no longer to be a rigid yoke with its heavy burden of cleansing and rituals and sacrifices and punishments, but instead was to be a kingdom of the heart, of mercy not sacrifice, because the sacrifice was Himself.

Jesus cut out the "middle men" of the temple, and all the rituals and traditions related to temple worship, and that's pretty much it. He replaced an existing arrangement with one that was more personal, but the ultimate goal, the expected result of this, wasn't new.

God always wanted "inner heart change", when Israel demanded a King, God stated that it was not a rejection of the earthly, but a rejection of God ruling over their hearts.

Jesus did not offer anything that hadn't already been offered before, he just lowered the "barrier to entry".

Jesus stopped the people from stoning the prostitute (John 8:2-11) which was a requirement in the Old Testament. (Deuteronomy 22:21-22)

Jesus Christ was in a position to forgive the sins which would have prompted The Law to exact punishment in the first place. Nobody else is in this position. Everybody goes through, or rejects, Jesus Christ.

If she continued to live in sin, her eternal fate would have been unchanged.

Jesus healed people and traveled on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-14) which was punishable by death in the Old Testament. (Exodus 31:14-17 and Numbers 15:32-36)

Jesus was the one the Sabbath was to be kept in honor of, so again, being above The Law, he could choose how it would ultimately be applied.

Jesus consorted with ‘sinners’ and ate with them (Luke 15:1-2) despite the admonitions in Proverbs 13:20. (the same book in the Bible with the ‘rod’ scriptures)

He who walks with wise men will be wise,
But the companion of fools will be destroyed. - Proverbs 13:20 (NKJV)

All sinners are fools, but not all fools are sinners.

Jesus showed again and again that if we accept him as our Savior, we are called to be “ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” (2 Corinthians 3:6)

This works great for those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Nobody is borne accepting that, but instead, we are all born rejecting God from the start, due to arrogance and ignorance.

As such, children are at even greater risk of sin, and greater efforts should be put forth to constrain and guide their behavior so that they do not continue in sin, whether they can comprehend the temporal consequences, let alone eternal, or not.

We'll break here and continue in Part 4.

Spreading hate: Part 2

This is a continuation of Part 1, discussing the following article:

Spare the Rod: The Heart of the Matter

Let's begin where we left off, in a section of failed translation attempts in order to set up the later twisting of scripture to suit a demonic agenda where parents are told that acting in hatred for their children is actually loving.

We live in disturbing times where good is called evil, and evil called good.

The word nakah is translated ‘punish’ in most English translations of the Bible, though its literal translation is ‘beat’ as in “The sun beat down on his head,” implying a constant presence; or ‘hit’ as when beating back an enemy or punishing a slave or criminal; or ‘smite or smitten’ which can mean ‘hit or trigger the conscience’ or ‘be favorably impressed, enticed, or entranced’ as in, “He was smitten with the idea of a new bicycle.”

Overexposure to the sun can kill you, but even so, she's still very wrong, and this is the kind of wrong that would be funny if it weren't so terribly wrong.

nakah - to smite

The expanded definition:

A primitive root; to strike (lightly or severely, literally or figuratively) -- beat, cast forth, clap, give (wounds), X go forward, X indeed, kill, make (slaughter), murderer, punish, slaughter, slay(-er, -ing), smite(-r, -ing), strike, be stricken, (give) stripes, X surely, wound.

The author of the article used synonyms for "smitten" in her description, not realizing that she'd latched onto the wrong connotation, because the kind of smitten referred to in this term's definitions is often associated with death. She can't even handle the subtleties of English correctly, but we're supposed to trust her with Hebrew?

The word shebet is translated ‘rod’ and means, literally, ‘shepherd’s crook’ and, in Hebrew culture, was a means not only of guiding and protecting sheep, but also a symbol of leadership. The markings on the head of the shebet often identified the head of a family or tribe, letting everyone know who to go to for guidance and protection. The shebet, then, denotes wisdom, leadership, and protection.

shebet - rod, staff, club, scepter, tribe

Surprise, she got this one wrong too, and then made it worse. So much worse.

You see, she talks about what shebet means, and then shifts to what shebet denotes.

What a thing actually is tells us nothing about what that thing means to people. A crown is not the King, and even though Kings often have crowns, a King without his crown is still the King.

The crown is just an indicator, not an actual authority, by itself it's literally just a head garment, with no meaning beyond what we supply.

And it's the same with shebet. It's a literal thing that exists, not what significance that thing holds because it exists. The two concepts are completely different and not interchangeable at all.

But the author wants to use the definition for what shebet meant to people instead of what shebet literally is, because that's how she weaves her deception and lies while trying to appear intellectual and pious.

If you're still struggling with this, don't worry, it will get clearer later on.

The word muwth is translated ‘die’ and has several meanings related to death including ‘to follow a path of destruction.’
The word ‘ivveleth is translated ‘foolishness’ but also means ‘inexperience, naivety, silliness.’

muth - to die
ivveleth - folly

"To follow a path of destruction" does not show up in the concordance entry for muth.

Ivveleth is actually pretty close to spot on, so good on her for finally getting something right.

And, finally, the Hebrew word sane is translated ‘hate’ and yet means ‘does not love’ or ‘does not choose or show a preference for.’

And then right back to the deceptive re-interpretations.

sane - to hate

Expanded:

A primitive root; to hate (personally) -- enemy, foe, (be) hate(-ful, -r), odious, X utterly.

There is nothing in there about "does not love" or "show preference for", and it is a strong term meant to carry a lot of weight. Look at one of the synonyms in that list:

odious - Arousing or meriting strong dislike, aversion, or intense displeasure. See Synonyms at hateful.

This is not just some passive overlooking, an apathetic state, it's an active and strong connotation.

So, why is all this nitpicking necessary? Because of what she does next in butchering scripture:

When we read the five ‘rod’ verses with the literal translations of the words above, the meanings become more clear.
So Proverbs 13:24 reads:
“He who spares his rod wisdom, leadership, protection hates does not love, does not choose or show a preference for his son, but he who loves him disciplines offers verbal instruction and teaching to him promptly.”

She takes all her incorrect definitions and swaps them into the text to get it to say what she wants it to say.

Remember, shebat isn't "wisdom, leadership, protection", but literally rod, staff, club, scepter, tribe.

Hate is to hate, not simply "not loving".

Even "He who spares his" is translated from chasak, meaning "to withhold, refrain".

We're supposed to believe that "to withhold, refrain" the "rod, staff, club, scepter, tribe" means to withhold "wisdom, leadership, protection", despite those things not actually being a part of even the broad definition of the word?

I mean, there's already a different word just for wisdom:

chokmah - From chakam; wisdom (in a good sense) -- skilful, wisdom, wisely, wit.

If the intent was to not withhold wisdom, instead of a literal beating, why would the original authors have referenced an instrument of physical punishment instead of their own word for wisdom?

Why has it taken centuries for the "true meaning" to now become correctly known?

This is twisting scripture, violating and abusing it until the point one wants to make can be made. Like torturing a prisoner until the relent and just confess to whatever they're being told to confess. This is not exegesis, this is demonic.

"Did God really say...?" was the nature of the deception the serpent posed to Eve in the garden.

Proverbs 22:15 reads:
“Foolishness Naivety, silliness, inexperience is bound up in the heart of a child young man; the rod of correction wisdom, leadership, protection will drive it far from him.”

Here it's even worse, because she ignores that "the rod" and "of correction" are two different words, one of which she completely neglected to provide a definition for.

"The rod" we already know, shebet, but "of correction" is translated from musar - discipline, chastening, correction. She and those like her rely on the ignorance and laziness of others to never look at the text and see if they're really representing it accurately, let alone interpreting it correctly.

If we have a "rod, staff, club, scepter, tribe" of "discipline, chastening, correction", that apparently just means "wisdom, leadership, protection", and instead of trying communicate this clearly and succinctly by using words which actually mean those things, we are meant to believe that Solomon, easily among the wisest who have ever walked the earth, decided to use a play on words that would immediately be interpreted as physical disciplining for thousands of years until a feminist social justice advocate decided to clear everything up for all of humanity.

This is the part where one should roll their eyes with incredulity at the arrogance and ignorance on display by folks like the author of this article.

It continues.

Proverbs 29:15 reads:
“The rod Wisdom, leadership, protection and rebuke reasoning with, convincing, proving, persuading give wisdom, but a child young man left to himself brings shame to his mother.”

Remember, this is her re-interpreting scripture based on the definitions that don't exist in a concordance.

The whole "child isn't a child, but a young man" thing was shown to be wrong, because the term can be used "from the age of infancy to adolescence".

The word "rebuke" here is towkechah - rebuke, correction.

So, yet again, she is taking her clearly incorrect definitions to force the text to say what she wants, instead of properly seeking to explain what the text actually states.

We'll make another break here, continuing in Part 3.

Spreading Hate: Part 1

Things have been busy and I've been reticent to post anything, but upon having an article shared with me, I was prompted to write down my response so that it would be easier to capture a detailed response.

Spare the Rod: The Heart of the Matter

That is a link to the full article which will be copy/pasted here as well, but at least this way you can know I am not making this stuff up.

One of the hot-button issues when it comes to discipline and children is, of course, spanking, and the more Christian and conservative the audience, the more hot the debate becomes. And yet there are no verses in the New Testament that support spanking, smacking, whipping, or otherwise hitting children.

There are New Testament verses that discourage women ever teaching outside a very narrow scope, but we'll save that for later.

There are no verses in the New Testament forbidding women from attention whoring themselves out through social media. That surely must mean that it's acceptable by God if there's no verses dealing with that explicit topic, right?

No, because the Bible isn't trying to address specific behaviors in every possible manifestation, but to deal with, as the article tries to imply, the "heart of the matter", the motivations behind behaviors which are considerably simpler and fewer in number than how those motivations can be acted out.

There won't be a verse for every action someone could take, but there is a verse for why someone would act at all.

In the Old Testament there are a total of five verses that have been interpreted to encourage, or even command, the use of physical punishment on children. All five of those verses are in the book of Proverbs. The word ‘proverb’ in the original Hebrew text is mashal and defined as a parable, prophetic and figurative discourse, symbolic poem, pithy maxim (i.e.a collection of wise metaphors and adages).

Jesus often spoke in parables, and that hasn't stopped anyone from taking what he taught seriously, let alone literally, for good or ill. The number of times I have seen the parable of "the good Samaritan" used to justify everything from foreign aide to welfare, whether such charities are what Jesus was commanding or not, is sufficient evidence that people have no problems with such abstract teachings, so long as they like what those teachings teach.

We don't get to choose what the Bible means to us, because it's not "our" text. It's God's text, and so there are going to be controversial things in it that we disagree with, but realize that we're then disagreeing with God.

That's all well and fine if you do not then turn around and try to declare that you are obedient to God when you are ignoring what God actually states. Such disloyalty is not endearing to God, or to those who can see the disparity.

Of interest is that ancient Hebrew had many words for children, each denoting a specific stage of childhood and many a specific gender:
yeled or yaldah – newborn boy or girl
yonek or yanak – nursling baby
olel – nursling baby who also eats food (translated ‘young child’ in Lamentations 4:4 KJV)
gamal – weaned child (around 3-4 years old)
taph – young child, one who still clings to their mother
elem or almah – firm and strong, older child
na’ar (masc.) or na’arah (fem.) – independent child, young adult child (includes older adolescents and young adults).

Let's see how well she did by cross-referencing with an actual concordance:

yeled - child, son, boy, youth
yaldah - girl, maiden
yonek - no concordance entry
yanaq - to suck
olel or olal - a child
gamal - to deal fully or adequately with, deal out to, wean, ripen
taph - children
elem - a young man
almah - a young woman, a virgin
naar - a boy, lad, youth, retainer
naarah - a girl, maiden

Now, I would recommend that you read the full entries because some of what she says is true, because she's ignoring the nature of the Hebrew language where they have a significantly smaller vocabulary so, while in English, words don't tend to have a variety of nuanced meanings, in Hebrew this is almost always the case, and you don't get a sense of that as an English reader or speaker unless you look at the concordance.

Further, the concordance entries are of the root word, not necessarily the rendering used in a particular verse, and this is how a smaller vocabulary makes up for itself, by being able to communicate connotation through how the root word is changed for the context. The root word will be modified, sometimes significantly, but it's not technically a new word, it's that same root word, but now with the added meaning from context that then attempts to deliver the full message.

Her claims about the definitions are at best incomplete and worst entirely misleading, especially because she did not actually identify which ones they were in a way that folks could easily verify her claims for themselves.

The word translated ‘child’ and ‘children’ in those Old Testament rod verses is na’ar, which when literally translated, means ‘young man.’

Not only is she literally wrong, to quote a more detailed part of the entry for naar:

From na'ar; (concretely) a boy (as active), from the age of infancy to adolescence; by implication, a servant; also (by interch. Of sex), a girl (of similar latitude in age) -- babe, boy, child, damsel (from the margin), lad, servant, young (man).

Can you see how that is not very specific definition at all, and how we'd need a lot more information than just the word by itself to really understand what is being said?

Let’s look, also, at the words translated ‘discipline’ and ‘punish’ and ‘rod’ and others:
The word muwcar is translated ‘discipline’ and means, literally, ‘verbal instruction and teaching.’ In Hebrew culture muwcar was vernacular for ‘let us reason with one another’ implying a mutual discussion for learning purposes. And towkechah is translated ‘reprove’ or ‘rebuke’ but also means ‘reason with, convince, prove, persuade.’ Neither of these words means to physically punish in any way, shape, or form.

"Your search - muwcar - did not match any documents."
towkechah - rebuke, correction

It's not good to reference a Hebrew word that doesn't show up in a concordance.

For the other one, again, look at how it is used and remember that there may not be another root word which carries this category of meaning. If you have one word for this type of correction relationship, then regardless of how that correction is supplied, this word is likely going to show up.

If you look at the verses outside Proverbs where this root word shows up, you'll see that what is common among them all is not the manner of correction, or why rebuke is occurring, but that it is occurring at all in some fashion.

As an example of how the root word can be used differently, I'll bold and recolor where it shows up in the following passage:

Let the saints be joyful in glory;
Let them sing aloud on their beds.
Let the high praises of God be in their mouth,
And a two-edged sword in their hand,
To execute vengeance on the nations,
And punishments on the peoples;
To bind their kings with chains,
And their nobles with fetters of iron;
To execute on them the written judgment—
This honor have all His saints.

Praise the Lord! - Proverbs 149:5-9 (NKJV)

You can see it for yourself with an interlinear translation. Now, this doesn't mean that this is the same exact meaning as used anywhere else in scripture, but to demonstrate the flexibility of meaning that exists with the Hebrew language's root words.

That said, how many entirely verbal debates involve a two-edged sword in one's hand to execute vengeance?

Given how the article continues, we'll break here for Part 2.

Daily Bible Study: Proverbs 4:1-4

Hear, my children, the instruction of a father,
And give attention to know understanding;
For I give you good doctrine:
Do not forsake my law.
When I was my father’s son,
Tender and the only one in the sight of my mother,
He also taught me, and said to me:
“Let your heart retain my words;
Keep my commands, and live.

Proverbs 4:1-4 (NKJV).

Fathers are important.

This seems simple, yet in our current era of rebellion, where good is called evil, and evil called good, it is a controversial thing to say. The implications it carries, the weight of the realization that things are very wrong and that, in some ways, cannot ever be made right.

Some may immediately, in an egalitarian spirit, try to quip, even if only to themselves, that "mothers are important too." While that is true, this instinctual response is not a healthy one. It's the same response that gave us a generation with "participation trophies", because for the same reason that men and women must be equalized, so too must the winners and losers of an activity, lest the loss of self-esteem and the bursting of the solipsism bubble prove to be too painful for those involved.

Comparisons, distinctions, anything that creates a disparity is inherently evil.

And so even the truth that Fathers are important was sacrificed to these false gods.

We can see the impact of fatherlessness all around us, from broken relationships to drug use to addictions, all of these being unrefined expressions of what could have been healthy. Each is instead an untamed overgrowth of emotion, of volatility, of uncouth behavior which has never been properly disciplined.

An analogy I've used to contrast the role of the father and mother is this:

Mothers nurture, Fathers prune.

You see, it's not just enough to plant a garden and then just sit back and see what happens. Despite what your best attempts are, the different seeds you chose and the arrangement you placed them in, there is always competition in fertile soil and only that which sets down roots first or deepest can survive. Weeds can soon crowd, and even if not, when a plant does grow, the growth is not based on who planted, but the nature of the circumstance the plant experiences.

This is why the importance of a mother or a father can be discussed separately without needing to bolster the other at the same time, in large part because they're not doing the same thing, so when discussing only a particular set of behaviors or attributes, you will often only end up talking about one or the other anyway.

Another way of saying the same thing is that mothers set a course, determine a direction, and fathers ensure it's being followed and make necessary corrections. The skills required to do both are different, the awareness, the actions taken, they are different, and it's extremely difficult to do both at the same time, impossible if you deny that there even are a "both" that need to occur in the first place.

Specifically, in my youth there was a "theme" in parenting where the reduction of restriction was supposed to usher in a new era of enlightened children who were not hindered by limitations, who would explore and not be held back by any struggles. The lofty idea was that struggles prevented growth, so in order to really be expressed, growth could not be hindered in any way.

The reality is that the struggles refine us to who we really are, they provide the motivation and opportunity to grow, and they give us constructive feedback.

A plant can grow wild, but when pruned or trimmed correctly, the plant will change its behavior. Think about wine grapes on the hills of Italy. Some of those plants are very very old, yet in order to get them to produce the best fruit, you must counter-intuitively stress them. When on the border between life and death, when pruned of new growth, the plants will invest heavily in producing fruit that would be desirable to the wild animals who would eat the grapes and then spread the seed of the plant, helping ensure its survival, even if the specific plant itself dies.

Placed in fertile soil without any trimming, provided all the nutrients the plant could ever want?

The resulting fruit is bland, sparse, as instead of producing fruit the plant will instead just keep focusing on new growth, new vines, expansion of the plant.

This is the model of a child who grows up without a father. It's not that the mother does not try to direct, to correct, to put forth a law for their child to follow, but they are not equipped with the necessary skills to enforce that law, and the father is.

For the same reason that men are better suited to physically demanding work, that the mental resilience of man that allows them to face both the mundane and the terrifying and still retain their sanity to provide for their families, men are simply better suited to provide the corrective action in the lives of their children, and can make the sacrifices in the relationship between them and their children as are necessary for the better of the child's growth, maturity, and future outlook.

Solomon understands this, and will emphasize time and again in Proverbs that the lessons taught by a father are to be kept and cherished even when fathers are no longer around, that it's not just enough to heed the advice, but that actually living it out will show honor to your father and also lead toward life instead of destruction as well.

Bad fathers are not going to change overnight, nor can the damage they cause be fixed easily, but even worse then that is when good fathers are prevented from ever being good fathers at all. When our culture seeks "equality", it does not push bad fathers towards being good, but instead only seeks to make bad fathers out of them all, so as not to give any child the advantage of stability, of health. All are to be equally broken, miserable, and dependent.

Encourage fathers to be good ones, to embrace the difficulty in their task of guiding growth, of correcting the path that their children walk, of the value in them investing into the lives of their children. Because fathers are important, and those investments can pay dividends on into eternity.

Daily Bible Study: Proverbs 3:11-12

My son, do not despise the chastening of the Lord,
Nor detest His correction;
For whom the Lord loves He corrects,
Just as a father the son in whom he delights.

Proverbs 3:11-12 (NKJV).

Love in the modern world carries largely an emotional connotation. Love is a feeling, an experience, something that you can find or lose just as easily. Love always carries a sexual undertone as well, and there is no real platonic dimension to it.

This can be quickly seen in how sexual orientations which are contrary to biological norms are rationalized because "they love each other". The platonic dimension doesn't exist.

Even within families, siblings, people say "love" but they can quickly grow uncomfortable using the term because of how frequently it is used in the sexual sense and not platonic.

What we call "love" today was previously called "lust", and that is an emotional experience, connected to sexual arousal, but lacking any of the higher concepts and ideals that were attached to "love".

"I love my kids/siblings" gets connected to incest.
"I love my buddies" gets connected with closet homosexuality.
"I love my mom" gets Oedipal.

Instead people default to "I love my family" in order to try and detach individual association and instead connect to an ideal, in effort to allude to the platonic dimension.

And sure, in certain social circles these are understood in the platonic sense, but those social circles are not what is on advertisements, lauded in movies and television shows, or written about in novels. Those social circles are not the popular ones, the ones which hold a place in the current media narratives.

If you do not understand that "love", as defined in the Bible and subsequently by God, is entirely platonic, and is devoid of sexual connotation, then passages like this one will be hard to understand. If you grew up in a family where "love" held the platonic understanding of commitment, of concern for welfare, of sacrificial intent to the betterment of another, then you won't have this struggle, but it's necessary to understand the culture you're witnessing to when you seek to spread the Gospel.

You don't change what "love" is or try to find some new term, but you're probably going to have to explain what I've just explained to someone who does not grasp the platonic understanding and instead defaults to the sensual.

Now, when you understand the platonic definition of love, that makes the remainder of the verse much easier to understand, and this one isn't all that complicated either. When God loves, he cares about our future, what we're growing into, and in seeking to guide and shape what we are becoming, God offers correction, discipline, direction to us that may be different than what we were already pursuing.

This is difficult to do for humans because we're so wrapped up in our own desires and ideals on what we should be doing that God's correction often feels counter-productive. God puts limits on us, restricts our freedom, and seeks to prune growth that we've had in our life that we were trying to nurture.

Our problem is that God already knows what is best for us, and does not always explain why something is to be done in a certain manner, or how it will benefit us in the long run. While helpful, explanations do not change or improve the direction that God provides, it only softens our hearts and makes obedience easier. Sometimes that ease becomes a crutch, where lacking an explanation, we feel justified in defying God's correction in our life.

Solomon is instructing us to not resist the correction and guidance of God, similar to how he had already extolled the discipline of one's father and the law of one's mother. The parents who care for their child will be concerned for the child's future, and will be seeking to prepare them for leaving the home and bearing the burdens of life on their own.

The parent who is invested in the life of their child will see areas of growth that are not beneficial, like a cancer on their child's life, and will seek to eliminate that before it destroys their child.

"You can't wear..."
"You can't watch or listen to..."
"You can't hang out with..."
"You can't marry..."

All of these are the parent's attempts to guide the life of their child towards greater success, and God does that for us on everything, not just becoming an adult, but being a complete human.

For this reason, when God puts a restriction on us, changes our direction, corrects our thoughts or actions, we should be thankful, not resentful, that we are so loved that God would care for our futures and try to guide us instead of just abandoning us, leaving us to stumble and fall alone our own wicked paths, convinced in our ignorance that we know what's best for ourselves.