I support the use of corporal punishment in parenting, but one of my acquaintances said, “How can you teach a child against what is wrong by doing what is wrong?” Others have said that violence against children is never justified. But can we say that using corporal punishment in parenting is violence? I would appreciate your thoughts on these concerns.

Let us first make clear what we are talking about. “Corporal punishment” (or corporeal) sounds more pleasant than what it means. It means to punish the body, the “corporeal” part of the person, so that he experiences physical discomfort, strain, pain, injury, or even death. Of course, when it comes to parenting, we are not interested in injuring or killing the child, but depending on the severity of the misconduct, we are interested in causing discomfort, strain, and pain. The heat of the debate surrounds the practice of hitting the child. Make no mistake about it — hitting the child is exactly what we are talking about. If we use the word “violence” in a general sense, as in to physically strike or attack someone without a moral connotation already attached to the word or the act, then we can freely admit that hitting a child comes under this category. The word is general enough so that there is no need to reject it from the start. The question is whether this kind of violence is morally wrong.

A complete treatment of the corporal punishment of children would consider the relevant biblical verses and the practical aspects of implementing the biblical teaching. The latter would deal with questions such as the parts of the child’s body to strike, the proper tools with which to strike, and so on. Since we cannot address any of this in detail here, we will summarize the biblical teaching as follows: (1) Corporal punishment is a moral and practical requirement in parenting; (2) This kind of punishment is called for on occasions when the child defies or deviates from biblical or parental authority; (3) The tool for implementing corporal punishment is the “rod” or an equivalent object; and (4) The “rod” is applied by striking the back side of the child. These four points can be derived from Proverbs 10:13, 13:24, 14:3, 22:15, 23:13-14, 26:3, and 29:15. The objections against this biblical teaching do not get into the details, but they have to do with the very principle of the practice — that is, they arise from the position that corporal punishment is morally wrong. So we will address the topic on this level.

The problem with our opponents is that their thinking is man-centered, or otherwise centered on the wrong reference point. If violence itself is wrong no matter what, then of course corporal punishment is wrong. However, they cannot justify the assumption that violence is wrong in itself. All non-Christian arguments are easily defeated using our regular approach of biblical apologetics. But once we have established that Scripture is to be the first and final authority, we have also established that corporal punishment is a moral and practical necessity, since this is what Scripture teaches. On the other hand, a man-centered ethic produces implications that even our opponents might find unacceptable. We are speaking of violence, but what about abducting and incarcerating a person without his consent (e.g. kidnapping)? If this is wrong in itself, then our opponents must also oppose the prison system, that is, except for those criminals who desire to be imprisoned. In fact, from this perspective, our opponents must not even “ground” their children, but for some this is a preferred method of punishment in parenting. 

If violence is wrong in itself, then one cannot apply all kinds of exceptions, qualifications, and contexts to limit the application of this premise. It would be wrong to hit a wall, kick a rock, or cut vegetables into hundreds of pieces. Unless our opponents avoid doing all these things, then their own premise implies that they are mass murderers, even constantly killing large amounts of germs and bacteria with every breath that they take. Every limitation that they place on the principle that violence itself is wrong must be justified. Why does it apply only to humans? Some believe that we must do no violence against animals. But then, how about insects, vegetables, and germs? Why the arbitrary standard? When a virus wrecks havoc in a body, why kill it? Why must we counteract violence with mass murder? If these questions appear ridiculous, it is because our opponents hold a ridiculous position, and these are just some of the absurd implications of the assumption that violence itself is wrong. Thus our opponents are not only unbiblical, irrational, and impractical, but it is also hypocritical for them to insist on the general principle that violence itself is wrong but arbitrarily limit the application of this principle, so that they do not appear to transgress it.

On the other hand, the biblical ethic is God-centered, with divine revelation as the reference point for thinking about moral questions, and for defining right and wrong. Our opponents assert that it is hypocritical to punish a misbehaving child by hitting the child, since hitting people is wrong, and it is something that we tell the child not to do. Again, this would be true only if violence itself is wrong. However, from a biblical perspective, a child has done wrong not because he has done a certain act that is wrong in itself, but because by performing the act he has in some way violated biblical precepts. He has done wrong because he has deviated from God’s instructions and defied his authority, whether expressed directly in Scripture or through the parents. The non-Christian standard exists on a much lower level, almost on the level of the act itself. And there it stands in mid-air — there is no justifiable principle behind it.

It is exactly right that we must not teach against what is wrong by doing what is wrong. But what is wrong? It is a violation of God’s precepts. It is not wrong in itself to hit someone, even to hit a child, but it is wrong to hit someone in contexts, for reasons, and with motives that are not approved by Scripture. According to Scripture, it is permissible and sometimes even morally necessary to hit or to kill someone. I would have no moral hesitation against killing someone with my own bare hands provided Scripture approves or demands it in that situation (self-defense, execution of a criminal, and so on). I will not give it a second thought afterward, and certainly will not feel guilty about doing it. This is because my conscience submits to God’s precepts rather than stands as judge over them. To hesitate on moral grounds when Scripture clearly approves or demands it exposes a person’s rebellion against the Lord, and against that which is right. It is to think that our private and unbiblical moral standard is superior to God’s own holiness and revealed precepts. Although very few of us will actually face situations in which our commitment to a God-center ethic is tested in this manner, it is indeed an excellent way to discover where our true allegiance rests. Do we honor God with our lips, but then draw a line in our hearts and forbid him to cross our moral sentiments? If so, may our moral sentiments burn in hell, for if our moral sentiments are in fact different from God’s moral precepts, and if we follow the former rather than the latter, then we are hypocrites when we call him Lord. Any obedience that we demonstrate is rendered only because God’s demands so far agree with our own private standards.

Therefore, it is the refusal to exercise corporal punishment — the refusal to hit a child in the right contexts, for the right reasons, and in the right places — that is immoral and hypocritical. We can apply our opponents’ objection against them: “How can we teach against what is wrong by doing what is wrong?” The child has done wrong in violating God’s precepts. Are we now to teach this child by also violating God’s precepts — that is, by withholding the rod of discipline? Moreover, since “he who spares his rod hates his son” (Proverbs 13:24), and it is the rod that could “save his soul from death” (23:14), it is much more appropriate to charge our opponents with child abuse than those who practice corporal punishment. Of course, not every situation requires the rod, but if you withhold this kind of punishment even when the situation calls for it, then you are a wicked and abusive parent, and you have a deep hatred for your child, so much so that you would rather let him perish, body and soul, than to violate your own false sense of morality or to burden your own feelings. Oh, what a despicable piece of human garbage you are! Why do you hate your child with such passion? Why do you wish destruction upon him? Why do you want him to burn in hell? 

Some acts are always forbidden. For example, no context or reason can justify blasphemy. Likewise, murder is never justified. But killing is a more general term, and it is often justified. Violence is even more general. When teaching our children about violence, we must make the proper distinctions and avoid communicating the idea that violence is wrong in itself. It is not always wrong even for a child to strike someone. For example, in the confusion of a kidnapping attempt, or when cornered by a child molester, if a child could strike his assailant hard enough to stun him for even a split second, he might be able to break free and call for help. Whether it is always wise or possible to do this is a separate question, one that parents should seriously consider and then discuss with their children — a child probably should not try anything if the attacker has a knife to his throat. It is true that when we teach a child that violence is sometimes morally acceptable, we must also discuss all the details surrounding the proper use of violence, such as when it is necessary, how to carry it out, what to do afterward, and so on. But right now we are focusing on the morality of the issue, and the point is that in these situations, there is nothing morally wrong for the child to strike or even kill the attacker.

On the other hand, to teach a child that violence itself is wrong is to narrow his options and to doom him in these situations, possibly even to his death. It is to rob him of the tools that he might need to survive. At the crucial moment, he will hesitate, and then the opportunity might be gone forever, or the situation might cross a point of no return. When that happens, the parents have in effect become the attacker’s accomplices to destroy the child. And do not forget that one who withholds the rod also refuses to save his child’s soul from death (Proverbs 23:14). This is how much our opponents hate their children, and they demand that you treat yours the same way. This unbiblical position against corporal punishment is nothing but man’s pride and depravity dressed up as progress and compassion. The price for their self-satisfaction is their children’s lives, and to them it is well worth it.