I am reminded of "Thy rod and Thy staff they comfort me."
Here is a page on the rod and staff used by shepherds
Jesus is the Good Shepherd
He Who Spares His Rod Hates His Son
- Thread starter 2ndTimothyGroup
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Here is a page on the rod and staff used by shepherds
Jesus is the Good Shepherd
I hear what you're saying, though I cannot say that I agree at this time.
If a "rod" is used to physically strike children (who do not rob banks, rape, murder, lust as do adults), what does the Bible suggest is used against adults who perform much greater and heinous crimes than children?
Matthew 18:3 NKJV - ". . . and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."
I am reminded of "Thy rod and Thy staff they comfort me."
Here is a page on the rod and staff used by shepherds
Jesus is the Good Shepherd
And your point ought to at least get us to consider that perhaps we are mistaken about the "rod."
I appreciate you so much, M!
There is no record of God giving that instruction, either to Adam, or to Eve. In fact, it seems to be generally assumed that Adam instructed Eve, and either he added that caveat, or perhaps more likely, Eve herself added it while communicating with the serpent.
I liken it to Midrash, story telling, as related to what is known as "putting a hedge around" something for further protection.
No doubt you are a smart one. In this case, could you help me understand what you mean?
Genesis 3:3 KJV - "But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."
The woman answered the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden, but about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You must not eat of it or touch it, or you will die.’” “You will not surely die,” the serpent told her.…
Yes, Eve said that, but there is no record of God to Adam, God to Eve, or Adam to Eve, having said that.
Okie Doke. But this means that I don't understand what the "offense" is.
Romans 5:15 NKJV - "But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many."
The offense? Adam and Eve disobeyed God in/by eating the forbidden fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil...Okie Doke. But this means that I don't understand what the "offense" is.
Romans 5:15 NKJV - "But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many."
I did not really understand your question in light of the discussionLol. I must be the dumbest person here.
I hope I answered it satisfactorily
I did not really understand your question in light of the discussion
I have no idea.
I don't know what in the world is going on anymore.
Ultimately, the sword (and death). Romans 13:3 - 4 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Children do not earn their place in the family. They are born into it. The same as we, through faith in the substitutionary death and resurrection of Christ, by the grace of God.
Except that Gary Ridgway raped and murdered for over twenty years without being punished. No parent Waits 20 years to punish their child with me alleged Rod. Something seems out of balance, right?
Gary Ridgway is not a child of God.
He is a brute animal, lover of pleasure rather than a lover of God.
I wouldn't say that he is "living" as he currently is in solitary confinement. He eats, drinks, sleeps alone all day every day.
God scourges every son He receives
that word 'scourge' literally refers to having one's hands tied to a pole and being flogged across the back with a whip.
usually publically.
a sword.
i.e. a sharpened, metal rod.
Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
(Romans 13:3-4)
"And spare not for his crying....". ....." Oh please dad(sob) it hurts when you measure me like that"!!!!
Well you are going online and speaking with us on a regular basis....So do I
It isn't exactly unpleasant either.
Seems the "rod" is based on who is reading it. If its in the word then from Gen-Rev God said it. That being said I read this coming from a Jewish person.
"You see, the Torah was written to be understood by the audience that received it. It speaks about loading donkeys, oxen treading grain, and women delivering babies on birthing stools – things to which most of us cannot relate. It doesn’t talk about DNA or black holes or flatscreen TVs because these are concepts that would have been incomprehensible to the original recipients. Similarly, if King Solomon (the author of Proverbs) wanted to discuss disciplining children, he was going to use corporal punishment as his illustration because time-outs didn’t exist, and I suspected that neither did grounding or docking allowances.
First of all, striking another person is seriously frowned upon in Judaism. Deuteronomy 25:3 tells us that someone sentenced to the penalty of lashes may not be struck more than the designated amount (a maximum of forty lashes). First the Torah tells us that “the wicked one deserves lashes” (25:2), but then we are told that we may not exceed the court-imposed amount because if we do, “your brother will be degraded.” The Sifre, quoted by Rashi on 25:3, demonstrates that before the punishment is administered, the offender is considered “wicked.” After he has paid his penalty, he is once again called “your brother” and it is forbidden to strike him. If we’re not allowed to strike a convicted criminal more than absolutely necessary, it should go without saying that we may not strike someone who was not so sentenced by the courts – not even if their behavior bothers us!
Striking someone outside of the context of court-ordered whiplashes is actually considered evil. In Exodus 2:13, Moshe asks “the wicked one,” “Why will you strike your friend?’” The Talmud in Sanhedrin (58b) points out that the person is called wicked just for raising his hand, even though he has not yet delivered a blow.
The Talmud in Moed Katan (17a) prohibits a parent spanking an older child, based on the principle that we may not do something that will cause others to sin (lifnei iver). The child might respond by cursing the parent or striking back – both serious sins – and the parent would be responsible for provoking that reaction. The Ritva (13th century) says that “older child” isn’t exhaustive. For sure one may not strike a child above the age of bar or bas mitzvah but, additionally, one may not even strike a younger child who is likely to retaliate in words or deeds. Rav Shlomo Wolbe (20th century) suggested that the cut-off for spanking would be age three........................
.........So, yes. “Spare the rod” literally means that we do our children a disservice if we permit them to run rampant. As King Solomon wrote, one who loves his children is quick to correct their behavior. But the “rod” part is literary license. Even if that meant a literal rod in King Solomon’s day (and I don’t know that it did), it ultimately means an appropriate form of correction in each generation. But whatever the case may be, harsher-than-necessary means are considered cruel and should therefore be avoided. "
Just a different look Sometimes we forget WHEN it was written.
"You see, the Torah was written to be understood by the audience that received it. It speaks about loading donkeys, oxen treading grain, and women delivering babies on birthing stools – things to which most of us cannot relate. It doesn’t talk about DNA or black holes or flatscreen TVs because these are concepts that would have been incomprehensible to the original recipients. Similarly, if King Solomon (the author of Proverbs) wanted to discuss disciplining children, he was going to use corporal punishment as his illustration because time-outs didn’t exist, and I suspected that neither did grounding or docking allowances.
First of all, striking another person is seriously frowned upon in Judaism. Deuteronomy 25:3 tells us that someone sentenced to the penalty of lashes may not be struck more than the designated amount (a maximum of forty lashes). First the Torah tells us that “the wicked one deserves lashes” (25:2), but then we are told that we may not exceed the court-imposed amount because if we do, “your brother will be degraded.” The Sifre, quoted by Rashi on 25:3, demonstrates that before the punishment is administered, the offender is considered “wicked.” After he has paid his penalty, he is once again called “your brother” and it is forbidden to strike him. If we’re not allowed to strike a convicted criminal more than absolutely necessary, it should go without saying that we may not strike someone who was not so sentenced by the courts – not even if their behavior bothers us!
Striking someone outside of the context of court-ordered whiplashes is actually considered evil. In Exodus 2:13, Moshe asks “the wicked one,” “Why will you strike your friend?’” The Talmud in Sanhedrin (58b) points out that the person is called wicked just for raising his hand, even though he has not yet delivered a blow.
The Talmud in Moed Katan (17a) prohibits a parent spanking an older child, based on the principle that we may not do something that will cause others to sin (lifnei iver). The child might respond by cursing the parent or striking back – both serious sins – and the parent would be responsible for provoking that reaction. The Ritva (13th century) says that “older child” isn’t exhaustive. For sure one may not strike a child above the age of bar or bas mitzvah but, additionally, one may not even strike a younger child who is likely to retaliate in words or deeds. Rav Shlomo Wolbe (20th century) suggested that the cut-off for spanking would be age three........................
.........So, yes. “Spare the rod” literally means that we do our children a disservice if we permit them to run rampant. As King Solomon wrote, one who loves his children is quick to correct their behavior. But the “rod” part is literary license. Even if that meant a literal rod in King Solomon’s day (and I don’t know that it did), it ultimately means an appropriate form of correction in each generation. But whatever the case may be, harsher-than-necessary means are considered cruel and should therefore be avoided. "
Just a different look
Sometimes we forget WHEN it was written.