What do you think?
Rate this book
Thy Rod and Thy Staff They Comfort Me: Christians and the Spanking Controversy
A new book opening the doors of understanding about the Bible and what it actually teaches about spanking children.
149 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
13 people are currently reading
105 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
August 25, 2010
You can definitely tell this is self published and some further editing needs to be done, but I thought it was excellent. This is the only book on spanking & Christianity that I have found that actually looks at original languages of the verses that spanking advocates use to draw the interpretation. I feel like I learned so much about the Bible, Hebrew, shepherding, and parenting.
I thought it was very interesting to learn that some of our faith's greats like D.L. Moody and St. Augustine were against spanking, too.
I think the most important point made is that all of the "rod verses" refer to a specific period in the life of a young man and have been incorrectly translated instead to "child". The Hebrew word in these verses is actually, "na'ar." It is masculine and refers to the time just after and including the teenage years.
I think another important point the book makes is with regards to grace versus the law. I've heard over and over again from a wide variety of Christians that as Christian parents we are "called" or "commanded" or "obligated" to spank our children. Not only is this not true for the reason listed above, but is also not true because all of these so-called commands occur in the Old Testament or The Law part of our Bible. Dear Christians, we are no longer under the law, but under grace!
"The Bible shows, however, that 'you (who are Christians) are not under the law,' any law except that of the Spirit. What is the fruit of the Spirit? Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulnes, gentleness, self-control. What part of a smacking brings forth the principle of love? of joy? of peace? of longsuffering? of kindness? of goodness? of faithfulness? of gentleness? or of self control? The truth is there is no part of a smacking that brings forth any of these things... Against these fruits of the Spirit there is no law and in an environment where they are taught and practiced there is no need for a smacking."
There are many other common beliefs that come mainly from the translations of the KJV of the Bible that he addresses, but these were what I felt were the most important.
I personally remember being spanked as a child and it being done in situations where there was a lot of fear involved and seemingly complete loss of self control. This is not something I wanted to perpetuate in our home, but admittedly, the times that I have resorted to spanking I've felt angry, at the end of my ropes and fairly close to losing control. I became interested in this topic not only because of this, but also after several discussion with friends about parenting, Christianity, and common beliefs with regard to these verses. I personally had never researched it out and wanted to know more and not just go off of common assumption. It also led me to several bits of research about spanking and child abuse. I found things I did not like, such as:
* In study after study, spanking has been found to increase deceitfulness, noncompliance, oppositional/defiant behaviors and violence in children.
* Research consistently demonstrates that corporal punishment creates and maintains “willful defiance” and other unmanageable behavioral problems. (Thus, the notion “willful defiance” deserves corporal punishment is exactly counterproductive.)
* Children who are spanked have lower average intelligence scores and demonstrate poorer school performance. This is not because they are less intelligent, but because they are more reluctant to demonstrate their intelligence for fear of being “wrong” and, as a result, harshly judged.
* Spanked children show less creativity and are less inclined to take healthy and appropriate risks; yet are more likely to take inappropriate risks.
* Children who are spanked demonstrate a diminished ability to say ‘no’ in personally demeaning or dangerous situations (including drug use and sexual situations) – especially when encouraged by peers.
* Spanking has been shown to significantly increase violent/bullying behavior (especially in boys) and shyness (in girls).
* Children who are spanked have higher rates of constipation of bowels, depression, substance abuse, suicidality, anxiety, and irrational fears/phobias.
* Long-term studies indicate that girls who are spanked show a greater risk of ending up in abusive marriages; boys who are spanked have a higher than average chance of becoming abusive spouses.
* Adults who were spanked as children tend to be less happy in their marriages.
* Adults who were spanked as children tend to reject the religion of their parents.
So, I think after all this research I am definitely going to be looking for other alternatives in my parental toolkit.
I thought it was very interesting to learn that some of our faith's greats like D.L. Moody and St. Augustine were against spanking, too.
I think the most important point made is that all of the "rod verses" refer to a specific period in the life of a young man and have been incorrectly translated instead to "child". The Hebrew word in these verses is actually, "na'ar." It is masculine and refers to the time just after and including the teenage years.
I think another important point the book makes is with regards to grace versus the law. I've heard over and over again from a wide variety of Christians that as Christian parents we are "called" or "commanded" or "obligated" to spank our children. Not only is this not true for the reason listed above, but is also not true because all of these so-called commands occur in the Old Testament or The Law part of our Bible. Dear Christians, we are no longer under the law, but under grace!
"The Bible shows, however, that 'you (who are Christians) are not under the law,' any law except that of the Spirit. What is the fruit of the Spirit? Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulnes, gentleness, self-control. What part of a smacking brings forth the principle of love? of joy? of peace? of longsuffering? of kindness? of goodness? of faithfulness? of gentleness? or of self control? The truth is there is no part of a smacking that brings forth any of these things... Against these fruits of the Spirit there is no law and in an environment where they are taught and practiced there is no need for a smacking."
There are many other common beliefs that come mainly from the translations of the KJV of the Bible that he addresses, but these were what I felt were the most important.
I personally remember being spanked as a child and it being done in situations where there was a lot of fear involved and seemingly complete loss of self control. This is not something I wanted to perpetuate in our home, but admittedly, the times that I have resorted to spanking I've felt angry, at the end of my ropes and fairly close to losing control. I became interested in this topic not only because of this, but also after several discussion with friends about parenting, Christianity, and common beliefs with regard to these verses. I personally had never researched it out and wanted to know more and not just go off of common assumption. It also led me to several bits of research about spanking and child abuse. I found things I did not like, such as:
* In study after study, spanking has been found to increase deceitfulness, noncompliance, oppositional/defiant behaviors and violence in children.
* Research consistently demonstrates that corporal punishment creates and maintains “willful defiance” and other unmanageable behavioral problems. (Thus, the notion “willful defiance” deserves corporal punishment is exactly counterproductive.)
* Children who are spanked have lower average intelligence scores and demonstrate poorer school performance. This is not because they are less intelligent, but because they are more reluctant to demonstrate their intelligence for fear of being “wrong” and, as a result, harshly judged.
* Spanked children show less creativity and are less inclined to take healthy and appropriate risks; yet are more likely to take inappropriate risks.
* Children who are spanked demonstrate a diminished ability to say ‘no’ in personally demeaning or dangerous situations (including drug use and sexual situations) – especially when encouraged by peers.
* Spanking has been shown to significantly increase violent/bullying behavior (especially in boys) and shyness (in girls).
* Children who are spanked have higher rates of constipation of bowels, depression, substance abuse, suicidality, anxiety, and irrational fears/phobias.
* Long-term studies indicate that girls who are spanked show a greater risk of ending up in abusive marriages; boys who are spanked have a higher than average chance of becoming abusive spouses.
* Adults who were spanked as children tend to be less happy in their marriages.
* Adults who were spanked as children tend to reject the religion of their parents.
So, I think after all this research I am definitely going to be looking for other alternatives in my parental toolkit.
June 9, 2022
Check out this link for a PDF provided by the author:
https://www.biblechild.com/assets/thy...
https://www.biblechild.com/assets/thy...
June 6, 2022
We in my parenting book group had had some encounters with advocates of "gentle parenting" and decided to give this book a try as a "controversy piece." However, Martin's atrocious style and command of grammar, coupled with his fast-and-loose, dishonest handling of Scripture, drove us to shelve the book after just four chapters.
To summarize these four chapters: The book of Proverbs doesn't permit parents to spank their children because (1) a handful of unbelieving Jews (apparently) don't read the text that way; (2) Proverbs is all about policing people's external behavior, not pointing them to Christ or converting their heart to God, and thus is not written for Christians; and (3) even if Proverbs were written for Christians, it's only addressed to males between the ages of 12 and 18.
As regards point 1: Martin has a fine way of pointing to just a handful of Jewish scholars, many of them still living, and asserting that their (purported) opinions are the "definitive Jewish position" on the matter of corporal punishment. But drawing a conclusion about an entire group from a smattering of opinions by 0.0000000001% of that group is not a mark of careful scholarship, it's a mark of lazy thinking and hasty generalization.
What's more, Martin just seems to assume that we as Christians should automatically care about the opinions of an unbelieving Jew on Scripture; indeed, Martin asserts as much when he cites Matt. 23:1-2, in which Jesus apparently defers to the Jewish authorities of his day on all matters of religion. (Of course, this interpretation pays no attention either to the context of the rest of this chapter, which constitutes Jesus' longest invective against the Jewish authorities in the Gospels, or to other Gospel passages in which Jesus unmistakably defies the Jewish authorities and their misapplication of sabbatical, dietary, and tithing laws. Not only that, but this interpretation takes as seemingly unproblematic the relationship between the Jewish authorities of Jesus' day and modern-day rabbis, whereas this relationship is extremely convoluted and controversial, as evidenced by the teachings of and divisions within modern--let alone ancient--Judaism.) But Martin's assumption about the authority of Jewish scriptural teachings, which he takes as obvious, has not been at all obvious to the church throughout the majority of her two-millennia existence, since, as Paul asserts, the meaning of Scripture is "spiritually discerned" (i.e., interpreted by the Holy Spirit).
I should also mention that virtually none of the Jewish sources Martin adduces actually agree with his conclusion that parents shouldn't spank children, at least in principle; on the contrary, virtually all of them seem comfortable with corporal punishment at least occasionally, even if some of them object to a literal rod as an appropriate instrument of the punishment.
As regards point 2: I don't know how a Bible-believing Christian could seriously subscribe to Martin's views here. Even if one were to adopt a strict law-Gospel distinction within Scripture as Luther did, I don't know of any self-professed conservative who's construed this distinction as simply "Old Testament = law, New Testament = Gospel." Indeed, the New Testament itself doesn't allow for such a facile interpretation at all, as it constantly finds its grounding and justification in the Old Testament (including the book of Proverbs; see, for example, Rom. 12:20). I don't know how any Christian could seriously contend that "Proverbs, as a doctrinal statement of belief has nothing to do with repentance, a changed heart or conversion," and then call Proverbs "extremely interesting" and his "favorite book of the Bible." This is the sign of a merely nominal Christian fostering a heart of unbelief and irreverence toward the word of God; anyone who follows Martin on this point needs to repent and return to the grace from which he's fallen.
As regards point 3: First, Martin contends (actually!) that Proverbs is written to an exclusively male audience. Now, while I agree that Proverbs, as King Solomon's wisdom to his son, is best suited to males in their early/later childhood, to conclude from this that the book is written JUST for males is utterly absurd, not to mention insensitive to the book's historical context (in which EVERY book assumed a primarily male readership, though female readers were by no means unheard of), as well as its application in the New Testament (see, for example, Heb. 12:5-6, which cites Prov. 3:11-12--clearly addressed to Solomon's "son"--but which Paul just as clearly applies to the entire Hebrew church). One might just as well conclude that Proverbs is only to be read by princes, since that was clearly its original audience! As with the previous point, Martin's big flaw here is his assumption that Scripture, at least in part, applies only to a segment of the church, and not to the church as a whole. But this is a fundamentally un-Christian assumption, as God's people have always confessed that Scripture is for all the church for all time--not just males, not just teenagers, not just Jews, and certainly not just "experts" (Martin: "Biblical interpretation should be left into the hands of those who are trained to do so").
Finally, and what is perhaps his greatest contribution in the eyes of "gentle parenting" advocates, Martin contends that the Hebrew word "na'ar" (the word traditionally translated as the general "child" in Prov. 22:15, 23:13-14, and 29:15) properly signifies a youth between the ages of 12 and 18, and thus these passages do not permit parents to spank their younger children. While there are many passages of Scripture which use this word clearly to refer to older children (e.g., Gen. 21 uses it in reference to teenaged Esau), there are many, MANY passages which use the same word to refer to younger children, including newborns. Exo. 2:6 is a good example, which couples this word with "yeled," the Hebrew word denoting "newborn," according to Martin, in talking about baby Moses. (Conveniently, Martin writes this passage off--along with 1 Sam. 1-2, which uses "na'ar" in speaking of baby Samuel--in a footnote as a "poetic" use of "na'ar." However, Martin gives no compelling reason to view these uses of this word as poetic; in fact, their placement within narrative, not poetic, passages suggests that they are to be taken literally, not poetically.) Besides this passage, there are many others which Martin neglects (refuses?) to address, such as Judg. 13, which uses "na'ar" five times to speak of baby Sampson; 2 Sam. 12:16, which uses it to speak of David's stillborn child; 1 Kings 3:7, which uses it to speak of the very young, inexperienced Solomon; as well as numerous passages which use this word in the clearly general phrase "young and old" (Exo. 10:9; Deut. 28:50; Josh. 6:21).
Now, isn't it striking that I, utterly untrained in Hebrew, could find so many examples that contradict Martin's thesis (and that he conveniently omits from his discussion) in just five minutes of scrolling through Strong's Concordance? Why is no one else taking the time to fact-check Martin and prove his thesis false? Surely not because they agree with his insulting claim that biblical interpretation is best left to the "experts"--from which category Martin has roundly disqualified himself? Could it be that Martin's readers are willing to overlook this blatant gap--and all the other gaps addressed here--in Martin's reasoning because they've decided to believe him from the very beginning, because they're not actually interested in being persuaded from the word of God?
To summarize these four chapters: The book of Proverbs doesn't permit parents to spank their children because (1) a handful of unbelieving Jews (apparently) don't read the text that way; (2) Proverbs is all about policing people's external behavior, not pointing them to Christ or converting their heart to God, and thus is not written for Christians; and (3) even if Proverbs were written for Christians, it's only addressed to males between the ages of 12 and 18.
As regards point 1: Martin has a fine way of pointing to just a handful of Jewish scholars, many of them still living, and asserting that their (purported) opinions are the "definitive Jewish position" on the matter of corporal punishment. But drawing a conclusion about an entire group from a smattering of opinions by 0.0000000001% of that group is not a mark of careful scholarship, it's a mark of lazy thinking and hasty generalization.
What's more, Martin just seems to assume that we as Christians should automatically care about the opinions of an unbelieving Jew on Scripture; indeed, Martin asserts as much when he cites Matt. 23:1-2, in which Jesus apparently defers to the Jewish authorities of his day on all matters of religion. (Of course, this interpretation pays no attention either to the context of the rest of this chapter, which constitutes Jesus' longest invective against the Jewish authorities in the Gospels, or to other Gospel passages in which Jesus unmistakably defies the Jewish authorities and their misapplication of sabbatical, dietary, and tithing laws. Not only that, but this interpretation takes as seemingly unproblematic the relationship between the Jewish authorities of Jesus' day and modern-day rabbis, whereas this relationship is extremely convoluted and controversial, as evidenced by the teachings of and divisions within modern--let alone ancient--Judaism.) But Martin's assumption about the authority of Jewish scriptural teachings, which he takes as obvious, has not been at all obvious to the church throughout the majority of her two-millennia existence, since, as Paul asserts, the meaning of Scripture is "spiritually discerned" (i.e., interpreted by the Holy Spirit).
I should also mention that virtually none of the Jewish sources Martin adduces actually agree with his conclusion that parents shouldn't spank children, at least in principle; on the contrary, virtually all of them seem comfortable with corporal punishment at least occasionally, even if some of them object to a literal rod as an appropriate instrument of the punishment.
As regards point 2: I don't know how a Bible-believing Christian could seriously subscribe to Martin's views here. Even if one were to adopt a strict law-Gospel distinction within Scripture as Luther did, I don't know of any self-professed conservative who's construed this distinction as simply "Old Testament = law, New Testament = Gospel." Indeed, the New Testament itself doesn't allow for such a facile interpretation at all, as it constantly finds its grounding and justification in the Old Testament (including the book of Proverbs; see, for example, Rom. 12:20). I don't know how any Christian could seriously contend that "Proverbs, as a doctrinal statement of belief has nothing to do with repentance, a changed heart or conversion," and then call Proverbs "extremely interesting" and his "favorite book of the Bible." This is the sign of a merely nominal Christian fostering a heart of unbelief and irreverence toward the word of God; anyone who follows Martin on this point needs to repent and return to the grace from which he's fallen.
As regards point 3: First, Martin contends (actually!) that Proverbs is written to an exclusively male audience. Now, while I agree that Proverbs, as King Solomon's wisdom to his son, is best suited to males in their early/later childhood, to conclude from this that the book is written JUST for males is utterly absurd, not to mention insensitive to the book's historical context (in which EVERY book assumed a primarily male readership, though female readers were by no means unheard of), as well as its application in the New Testament (see, for example, Heb. 12:5-6, which cites Prov. 3:11-12--clearly addressed to Solomon's "son"--but which Paul just as clearly applies to the entire Hebrew church). One might just as well conclude that Proverbs is only to be read by princes, since that was clearly its original audience! As with the previous point, Martin's big flaw here is his assumption that Scripture, at least in part, applies only to a segment of the church, and not to the church as a whole. But this is a fundamentally un-Christian assumption, as God's people have always confessed that Scripture is for all the church for all time--not just males, not just teenagers, not just Jews, and certainly not just "experts" (Martin: "Biblical interpretation should be left into the hands of those who are trained to do so").
Finally, and what is perhaps his greatest contribution in the eyes of "gentle parenting" advocates, Martin contends that the Hebrew word "na'ar" (the word traditionally translated as the general "child" in Prov. 22:15, 23:13-14, and 29:15) properly signifies a youth between the ages of 12 and 18, and thus these passages do not permit parents to spank their younger children. While there are many passages of Scripture which use this word clearly to refer to older children (e.g., Gen. 21 uses it in reference to teenaged Esau), there are many, MANY passages which use the same word to refer to younger children, including newborns. Exo. 2:6 is a good example, which couples this word with "yeled," the Hebrew word denoting "newborn," according to Martin, in talking about baby Moses. (Conveniently, Martin writes this passage off--along with 1 Sam. 1-2, which uses "na'ar" in speaking of baby Samuel--in a footnote as a "poetic" use of "na'ar." However, Martin gives no compelling reason to view these uses of this word as poetic; in fact, their placement within narrative, not poetic, passages suggests that they are to be taken literally, not poetically.) Besides this passage, there are many others which Martin neglects (refuses?) to address, such as Judg. 13, which uses "na'ar" five times to speak of baby Sampson; 2 Sam. 12:16, which uses it to speak of David's stillborn child; 1 Kings 3:7, which uses it to speak of the very young, inexperienced Solomon; as well as numerous passages which use this word in the clearly general phrase "young and old" (Exo. 10:9; Deut. 28:50; Josh. 6:21).
Now, isn't it striking that I, utterly untrained in Hebrew, could find so many examples that contradict Martin's thesis (and that he conveniently omits from his discussion) in just five minutes of scrolling through Strong's Concordance? Why is no one else taking the time to fact-check Martin and prove his thesis false? Surely not because they agree with his insulting claim that biblical interpretation is best left to the "experts"--from which category Martin has roundly disqualified himself? Could it be that Martin's readers are willing to overlook this blatant gap--and all the other gaps addressed here--in Martin's reasoning because they've decided to believe him from the very beginning, because they're not actually interested in being persuaded from the word of God?
December 10, 2013
Content wise this book should receive a 5. It is a self-published book that is scholarly in nature - not reader friendly for those of us that just want the author to get to the point. Wonderful background of Jewish culture, about corporeal punishment (spanking) and what the Bible really has to say.
September 26, 2012
A free PDF book analyzing various Scriptures related to parenting. Valuable in helping me begin to think through some issues related to discipline and how I want to raise my children.
November 13, 2024
This book merely helped to solidify our (contrary to this book) beliefs on discipline.
August 11, 2018
I give it 5 stars, because the information is so deep, insightful, and well-researched. I know no other book like it and do recommend it - especially if you have any hang ups about Proverbs and how they fit in with Christian parenting. It helped me understand Proverbs better, especially with insights into the Hebrew words & culture.
My only "but" is that it is not an easy read. I'm a "let's get down to the brass tax" kinda girl. This is a bit too wordy.
Still, it's a must-read for any parent who is looking to scripture for wisdom in raising their kids.
My only "but" is that it is not an easy read. I'm a "let's get down to the brass tax" kinda girl. This is a bit too wordy.
Still, it's a must-read for any parent who is looking to scripture for wisdom in raising their kids.
May 11, 2016
I think it was a very thorough examination of the meanings of the text itself, back to the origins of the language and culture of which it was written. It gives great perspective on the topic at hand. I recommend it to anyone needing to understand this topic from a truly biblical perspective, that isn't mere speculation or interpretation of one individual.
January 16, 2020
This book contains excellent analysis of the Scriptures used to defend spanking in the modern church. This should be mandatory reading for clergy. There is a lot of benefit for parents, but it does read like a research report. I give 5 stars due to the quality and novelty of the information. I recommend.
July 12, 2021
Every single parent that lives for Christ should read this in-depth, meticulously-researched work. It dispels many “truths” held by the church for centuries and challenges parents to find a better way to guide their children towards a life path for Jesus. I could list dozens of quotes from this work that are profound. It’s worth your time to dig into this one in its entirety.
March 31, 2025
Although the book was not reader-friendly (as in it some parts were difficult to read), it was still a very important piece of information on the topic of spanking. I already knew I never wanted to spank my children, and this book just helped me understand further why it is so wrong. I hope other Christian parents can come across this book as well!
April 7, 2013
I did not read the entire book but end up skimming it because the author took too long to get to the point. There was a lot of explanation of the Hebrew and cultural context which I found interesting but after awhile redundant. Over all the book was helpful to me in my search for truth in the "spanking" controversy.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews