Love and Discipline
Many Christians believe that a wife is supposed to submit to her husband.
If you talk to most evangelicals they will tell you that the husband has authority over his wife and household.
But if you say that a man has the right to spank his wife if needed to maintain that authority in the home, very often you've got a fight on your hands.
A man is supposed to love his wife as himself! How could he discipline her if he loves her? That is degrading to his wife! The arguments are seemingly endless.
However, up until the middle of last century, it was generally thought that a man did have the right of enforcement in his home. Could it perhaps be our culture rather than anything to do with the scripture that causes such an outcry against CDD? I think so.
Of course a man IS supposed to love his wife as himself, but that does not rule out discipline. In fact, the Bible has only good things to say about discipline.
Discipline is associated with love:
As many as I love I rebuke and chasten...Revelation 3:19
He that spareth his rod hateth his son, but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes…Proverbs13:24
It is associated with wisdom and understanding:
The rod and reproof give wisdom… Proverbs 29:15
...but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding... Proverbs 10:13
And it is associatd with peace and righteousness:
Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous; nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby… Hebrew12:11
Since there is no scripture whatsoever that speaks poorly of discipline, and seeing what good things the Bible tells us come from discipline begs the question:
How can a man say he loves his wife and not discipline her when needed?
If you talk to most evangelicals they will tell you that the husband has authority over his wife and household.
But if you say that a man has the right to spank his wife if needed to maintain that authority in the home, very often you've got a fight on your hands.
A man is supposed to love his wife as himself! How could he discipline her if he loves her? That is degrading to his wife! The arguments are seemingly endless.
However, up until the middle of last century, it was generally thought that a man did have the right of enforcement in his home. Could it perhaps be our culture rather than anything to do with the scripture that causes such an outcry against CDD? I think so.
Of course a man IS supposed to love his wife as himself, but that does not rule out discipline. In fact, the Bible has only good things to say about discipline.
Discipline is associated with love:
As many as I love I rebuke and chasten...Revelation 3:19
He that spareth his rod hateth his son, but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes…Proverbs
It is associated with wisdom and understanding:
The rod and reproof give wisdom… Proverbs 29:15
...but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding... Proverbs 10:13
And it is associatd with peace and righteousness:
Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous; nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby… Hebrew
Since there is no scripture whatsoever that speaks poorly of discipline, and seeing what good things the Bible tells us come from discipline begs the question:
How can a man say he loves his wife and not discipline her when needed?
Very well done Leah, I like that article very much. May I have permission to reprint?
Dave
Reply to this
Thanks Dave. Of course you can reprint as you wish. Leah
Reply to this
Erm... which definition of chasten are you using?
Why apply the modern usage of punishment, when there is the older usage that has everything to do with purity and removing excess, pretense, or falsity?
Just a bit ironic that the physicality of a beating is being justified by a word that meant avoiding lewdness and salaciousness.
Reply to this
According to Strong's Greek and Hebrew Dictionary...
In Hebrews 12:11:
Chastening was interpreted from the Greek word "paideia", meaning "education, or training; by implication discipline, correction; chastening, chastisement, instruction, nurture."
(Added by Leah: since it is described as "grievous", one has to assume the meaning here is discipline.)
In Revelation 3:19:
Chasten was translated from the Greek word "paideuo", meaning to "educate, or (by implication) discipline (by punishment); -chasten (-ise), instruct, learn, teach."
Reply to this
May God continue to bless your role of teaching the young women (and even older ones who need same) today. You are fulfilling Titus 2:3-5: Tit 2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; 4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
Have you ever thought of matchmaking or am I missing something you have already undertaken.
Additional note: I just searched YouTube for Christian Domestic Discipline and found only TWO Channels that even referenced it. My channel 'apostledbm' & another one that only covered the subject but in no way supports it. I hope to put up a short video on the subject pointing souls to this website of course.
Keep up the great work!!
Reply to this
I once heard this verse as justification;
" In the mouth of the foolish is a rod of pride: but the lips of the wise shall preserve them. " (KJV)
See? There is "punishment" for the crime of not watching what you say. If you wish to twist the verse and interpret it that way.
However question- does it say FOOLISH WOMEN? Or does it just say the FOOLISH? I think what we have here, must be physical punishment for both MEN AND WOMEN.
Of course what is amazing is that OT vereses are quoted. EVEN IF there was a commandment to thrash your wives with belts and what not even while she's kicking and screaming for it to stop in the OT, if there is a contridictory verse in the NT the OT is wiped clean, because that was a law that changed when Christ came.
Now we DO find a contridictory verse. It is here Ephesians 5:25-26 (KJV)
25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Now we do see a commandment PERHAPS for submission. And for chastising. But how is it done? It is done LOVELY by REMINDING the wife about SCRIPTURE (i.e. the word) so that she can remember what GOD wants so she will remain pure for GOD.
NOR does this verse and any others limit this to the man telling the wife what God wants only.
" The rod and reproof give wisdom… Proverbs 29:15 "
APPLIES TO MEN AND WOMEN.
" ...but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding... Proverbs 10:13 " What would you now- the back of HIM.. NOT her. Where are the spankings for the male?
" He that spareth his rod hateth his son, but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes…Proverbs 13:24 "
SON.
You seem to use these to apply to women- but they are certainly implied to be used for MEN. At the very least it is men AND women.
Both should tell each other what they're doing wrong.
However thank goodness that capital punishment is off the agenda. Yes the Bible says to rebuke and chasten- but you do so AS OUTLINED IN EPHESIANS- you do what CHRIST did. He gave no one a "spanking" (the word spanking is very light in proportion to the actual smacking that goes on) he used SCRIPTURE to point out to the person their wrong- let them ON THEIR OWN decide to follow him, and at any time stop following them- no "loving spanking" involved! Lets see if you let this get
This verse was likely included to PROTECT women from being "spanked lovingly". I've seen the books- the romantic love stories for Christian discipline or something- how the many forces the women into the bedroom, locks the door and ties her hands together to stop her from escaping being thrashed with his hand, his belt, his paddle or whatever else.
If you're going to punish people then the Bible makes it clear that MEN should be punished just as much too. Of course he deserves as much pain as the women, so you should probably get another stronger male to thrash him since the women can't do him justice.
Reply to this
The problem with the analysis is quite simple. Nowhere in the Bible are women put in charge of men. Despite differences in interpretation, it is an ancient patriarchal text that has withstood the test of time.
Moreover, as a matter of tradition - whether in a religious or secular society - *domestic discipline* has been the province of men. Attempting to rewrite this history with a few selected Bible verses bubblegummed together with sophomoric logic will not change that fact.
Reply to this
OK. So you claim the issue is over two things- history and women not being the head of the household.
As we can see, any biblical justification for corporate punishment (not captical punishment sorry) doesn't stand up at all. Any instance where it mentions actual hitting is either applying to men only or both men AND women.
Therefore the only verses you have to stand on are the ones that say the husband is the head of the household therefore if he likes to spank then by golly let him go at it.
You also claim that because HISTORICALLY this was done by some groups and SOME groups considered it OK then lets go at it.
Yet I challenge you to find evidence of this as the norm in Christian circles. Less so much medieval times where the Bible was rarely used and only the Priests were allowed access. What about history concerning the early Christian times?
Yet you will find none. Because the very idea is a disgrace concerning scripture.
I didn't just post a string of verses- I posted YOUR verses and refuted them. Lets look at verses which contradict your idea.
Ephesians 5:23- husbands are supposed to lead like CHRIST. And how dies he treat the church? With love, patience, COMPASSION and forgiveness.
Christ does not lead in FEAR. We are to "fear" as in RESPECT, but we aren't to be afraid that when we do something wrong, God will punish us. Jesus is compassionate, and lets us come to him, and then he accepts us, no punishment required BECAUSE of the cross.
Not only this but look at the greek word for subjection- "hupotasso". The first part means under, the next to arrange. The word subjection is completely different to the greek word for obedience which is only ever commanded for servants and children.
Subjection means yielding ones preferences to another. When no principal is involved. The principal of having your body loved as much as the husband would love his own body- well. The husband is to do unto others as he would have them do unto himself. How would he feel if YOU spanked HIM?
Not only this but the Bible says we are to SUBMIT to each other anyway. So if possible, the husband should look to accommodate his wifes needs and desires too.
While there is nothing specifically against spanking, therefore if you so desire it then OK as long as it is MUTUAL, the idea of teaching children they SHOULD do it is unbiblical. Nor does it even make logical sense. It creates fear in the household and power trips I'm sure by many. Never should the husband be given the authority to spank the wife when she hasn't agreed to it. Many of you only go by the "must be mutual" thing simply because of the laws of the land but scripturally to beat the wife would be wrong according to Ephesians 5 if she disapproves. She AND he should be given free thought as to whether they want it or not, and taught it is FAR from necessary.
Reply to this
May you find someone who believes exactly as you do, interprets the Bible in exactly the same way, and may you have a very happy life together.
At the same time, as I read your posts, I am reminded of my mother-in-law. Once an outspoken critic of spanking - especially of girls after a *certain age* - she finally came to realize that the only surviving first marriages among her children were those in which the wife either was or knew that they could be spanked by her husband.
Spanking is - and was - much more widespread than its opponents realize. By no means is it confined to a few Christian sects. In fact, my wife and I are products of a mainline denomination.
Many years ago, one wife summarized the situation by observing that a happily married woman is not going to get up in the morning and announce to the whole world that her husband found it necessary to spank her last night.
Likewise, a well-educated trophy wife pointed out that it was not how to spend the money or how often to have sex that determined the outcome of a marriage. Rather it was what to do when the wife needed to be spanked.
Even if they do not like it, honest anthropologists will privately admit that spanking is almost universal. Where it began, I do not know. Nevertheless, the origins are so ancient as to be encapsulated in God's admonition to Eve in Genesis 3:16.
Opponents of spanking always seem mystified by the fact that they have never been able to eradicate it. In fact their fascination with it seems to suggest that they are fighting their own attraction to it. The reason may be that men spanking women has been going on for so long that the practice is encoded in the interaction of the genes.
Moreover, the biological explanation may serve as a guide as to why those women truly opposed to it often either do not reproduce wind up raising dysfunctional children - who, in turn, eventually weed themselves out of the human gene pool.
Reply to this
Your article makes sense. There can never be real love without discipline. Would we not look like fools if as men we only gave love till we couldn't issue a command or rebuke a wrong (as the bible has instructed us) or have a constructive anger that can bring out a positive change in people? When we get to this point, we only spoil the relationship we think we are building. Remember that the bible says that man is the head of the home & GOd is the head of man. Leave the issue of wife for a moment and talk of children. If parents cannot spank a child, that child is as good as useless. All spanking should be done in and with love, not the exception of love. When we spank in the exception of love, we do it in voilence and lead to maybe injuring or killing the person. God Himself spanks us but in love. You must also understand that men will only obey two things. That is fear & love. In managing people, we may sometimes have to mix the two to lead effectively. This is my opinion. I hope it makes sence. Please reply me. Thank you & God bless.
Reply to this
Lost in the typical debate over *domestic discipline* is that it exists for a purpose. That purpose is *nest-building* in order to produce a stable environment in which to raise children.
*Domestic discipline* really is about the children. The further couples stray from that intended purpose, the more likely they are to run into difficulties. That is why BDSM is such a flop when it comes to longevity in relationships.
In application, *domestic discipline* is quite practical. That is why there really are no secrets to:
* What is done.
* How it is done.
* Why it is done.
The only secret is when it is done. That is a matter or privacy.
Despite feminist accusations to the contrary, it is not that women are treated as children. That argument exists as red herring to avoid the reality that threatens to destroy their rather silly notions of absolute gender equality.
*Domestic discipline* is possible because there is no *magic age* beyond which the attitude or the conduct of a badly behaved female cannot be improved by paddling her bare buttocks. Women know it. Whether they will let a man in on the secret is another matter.
It was all rather hush-hush until feminists and their apologists decided to make it a matter of public debate.
Nevertheless, the above reality explains the *war on spanking* - as well as why the paddle disappeared from the schoolhouse. While more boys were paddled in elementary school, girls tended to get paddled more frequently in high school precisely because it was so effective in curbing bad behavior.
That reality threatened the feminist agenda.
It mattered little that discipline fell apart in schools after the paddle disappeared. Nor did it matter that families came unglued because spanking became intentionally confused with *abuse* and *domestic violence*.
Only political correctness mattered to the radical social engineers.
It is quite likely that God remained silent on the issue of *domestic discipline* because to command it would be to invite abuse. Conversely, to forbid it would insure the domestic chaos that confronts Western civilization today.
There was a time when spanking was accepted as a legitimate form of discipline within the context of the family. It was recognized as *an imperfect solution in an imperfect world*.
The problem is that, despite massive attempts at political reeducation in a rather idiotic *war on spanking*, opponents of spanking have not been able to replicate its effectiveness while avoiding the practice altogether.
From time to time in *domestic discipline* newsgroups, posters will make attempts to provide alternatives to spanking. Their difficulty is in convincing even women that their proposals produce equally desirable results.
The reason the *alternatives* fail stems from the fact that the present more of an inconvenience than a remedy. Spanking gets to *the root of the problem* because it promotes an expulsion of tear and frustration - even anger - that *alternatives* fail to touch.
If a man truly loves a woman, he does not let her stew in the juices of her guilt and emotional turmoil. Rather, he delivers her from them.
Reply to this
I think that we have to have the right interpretations to the verse Leah quoted about discipline. The key phrase here is SON, (He that spareth his rod hateth his son, but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes…Proverbs 13:24) The verse is not talking about the wife or the husband at all. It talks about the CHILD. If a parent does discipline a child that is misbehaving, he shows he does not love his SON, meaning child. Let's use these verses right if we are going to use them.
If one couple has agreed that this is the type of lifestyle they want and it works to bring them both closer to Christ and each other, then great. But let's make sure that we are not turning the word of God in to our version instead of his.
Reply to this
There are at least contrary points of view.
One was summarized by a mother many years ago. She observed that if she held her children accountable for their behavior - especially when, considering their age, they did not always know how to behave - then she had no problem with her husband holding her accountable when she was supposed to know, much better than her children, how to behave!
The other is an anthropological analysis premised on the fact that the universality of spanking is a good indication that the practice is older than any major religion now practiced or civilization currently in existence. Moreover, there is some evidence that it was part of coming of age rituals for girls as well as fertility rituals for women.
Given the above, the writer of Proverbs may have been pointing out that - for purposes of discipline and punishment - spanking should not be confined to girls. Moreover, to be effective, it had to be more severely administered than the pagan rituals practiced by the ancient Hebrews neighbors.
Moreover, the Bible is a patriarchal book. Women only play a supporting role. It is only recently that politically correct *gender neutrality* has been introduced into translations.
Demographically, the cluster of spanking opponents centers on college-educated white females. This, of course precisely defines the current crop of public educators in the United States. The results of this lunacy speak for itself in the colossal failure of that institution to accomplish its stated mission.
One way or the other, college-educated white females are also the ones that are most likely to diminish their contribution to the human gene pool. Over time, of course, this tendency explains why spanking has survived attempts to eradicate it.
Reply to this