There is an old English proverb that was once frequently quoted. “Spare the rod and spoil the child.” In fact it derives from the writings of Samuel Butler (1612 – 1680) the English satirical poet, in Hudibras II, canto 2,
Love is a boy, by poets styl’d,
Then spare the rod, and spoil the child.
However, whether by poetry or proverb, the sentiment derives from various Biblical injunctions, some of which we shall have to examine in due course. But first of all let’s have a close look at the story of Cain and Abel. As with many Biblical stories in the OT, one can, by surface reading miss the finer points of teaching that undergird the text. This narrative is a good example of that.
After the sadness resulting from their sin in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve must have reflected carefully on the sayings of the Lord in His judgments. Eve in particular remembered that her seed would reverse the effects of their sin, would deal with the Serpent and his crafty cunning and so, in due course, when she gave birth to her firstborn, she believed her son to be the Coming Seed, and promptly named him Cain. The Hebrew name, more correctly spelled Qayin, means “Acquisition”. She declared to her husband, “I have acquired a manchild, the Lord”. (Gen.4:1) She firmly believed that history would wind itself up in a matter of a few years, once her son had attained his majority. How this would come about she had no idea, but it was a belief that was strongly planted in her mind. And so she called his name Acquisition.
Shortly afterwards she gave birth to a second son, and we are told that she named him Abel. The Hebrew word should be spelled Hevel. This word means transitory, ephemeral, short-lived, “here today, gone tomorrow.” Now why would she do that? The answer lies in her understanding of Cain’s future. She said, “I have acquired a manchild, the Lord.”She expected her firstborn son to be more-than-a-man, superhuman, living forever. Even though her own life would be terminated at some distant date, based on God’s word,“From dust you were taken, and to dust you shall return,” (Gen.3:19) her son was made of better stuff, and would not suffer this indignity. Cain was a singular treasure, a not-to-be-repeated treasure from the Lord, a son who would defeat the Serpent. Abel was not like that at all. He would pass away, as would her husband and herself, hence she gave him a name to signify that very truth and understanding.
We are now left to our imagination as regards the early lives of these brothers. Their very names would create certain attitudes of mind, without any input from their parents. Cain would grow up believing himself to be someone special. Abel on the other hand would be constantly aware of not only his second place in the family, but also a very much reduced personal worth relative to his brother. No doubt his mother would pander to Cain, uplift him in his own eyes, try to prepare him for a “royal” future, and without actually saying anything derogatory to Abel, would have left him to feel a growing sense of inferiority. We are quite at liberty to make these assumptions because of the outcome in their later lives.
Now we come to the special occasion when the two sons were required to present their offerings to the Lord. This presumes a certain amount of instruction being given to the boys, and possibly they gained this education from their parents, who in turn obtained it from the Cherubim stationed at the entrance to the Garden. “And it came about in the process of time that Cain brought an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground.”(Gen.4:3) Now compare his offering with that brought by Abel. “Abel, on his part, brought of the firstlings of the flock and their fat portions.” (4:4) Later writings in the OT show how God required only the best to be brought on such occasions. Abel had complied, but Cain had not. He had only gathered “of the fruit of the ground” and therefore his offering was not accepted. We have to imagine the following scenario. Fire from between the Cherubim would have shot out and consumed Abel’s offering, but left Cain’s untouched.
“Cain became very angry and his face fell”. How come? It seems clear that his anger was directed at God, who had made a fool of him in front of his inferior brother. His own self-opinionated arrogance suddenly flared up, and he probably walked off in a huff. Meanwhile Abel just stared at the scene before him, not fully understanding what was happening to his brother.
The Lord knew all about Cain’s upbringing, and was not angry with him. Indeed He met with Cain, explaining to him the cause of the rejection of his sacrifice. “Why are you angry? Why has your face fallen? If you do well, will there not be acceptance? But if you do not do well, Sin [i.e. Satan] is crouching at the door and his desire is towards you, and you must rule over him.” (4:7) Cain made no response to the Lord’s overtures, but instead walked off to meet with his brother and talk to him. Out in the field the murder took place. Satan had entered into Cain, much in the same way that he entered Judas Iscariot at the last supper.
Why did Cain find it so difficult to do the right thing? Why didn’t he collect the best fruits from his harvest? And why didn’t he listen to the Lord’s entreaty? In the Hebrew text we read of the Lord saying to Cain, “Why have you glowered angrily?” Within this young man there was a fire burning so fiercely that even the Lord’s entreaty could not dowse the flames. He was mad. He felt so humiliated in front of his brother, his inferior brother, the one who occupied little of his attention, and to whom he only had an attitude of despising. Instead of humbling himself, gathering up the un-wanted fruit, and replacing it with a more acceptable collection to the sacrificial site, he tried to adjust the balance by human engineering – get rid of Abel and then all feelings of jealousy would dissipate, and he would be “king of the castle” once again.
But it didn’t turn out that way. The Lord met with him a second time. “Where is your brother Abel?” He now found that his anger hadn’t dissipated. He still felt angry, and so he insulted the Lord with the words, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?” The Lord’s anger now rises. “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s bloods (plural in Hebrew) cries out to me from the ground.” Why bloods? Because Abel had lost his expected heritage of a family, and these un-born were (symbolically) crying out for justice.
So much for the story. What can we learn? First of all, Adam’s name has not appeared. As a father he should have had a tighter rein on his elder son, regardless of the way in which his wife treated Cain. He first of all reneged on his responsibility in the Garden, by watching his wife take the fruit without a word of protest, and now it seems as though he failed again by allowing his wife too much sway in the upbringing of their son.
The spoiled-child syndrome is very clear in this story. As such, Cain doesn’t seem to care whether or not he is obedient to the Lord in respect of the firstfruit offering. It’s all the same to him whether he brings the best or the worst fruit. This act is born of a growing arrogance. He thinks too highly of himself, and this attitude has been engendered by a doting and indulgent mother. The result is that together, Adam and Eve have produced a murderer by neglect of proper parental discipline and instruction. Here then is a Biblical example of the proverb, “Spare the rod and spoil the child”.
It is now time to consider another family situation presented in First Samuel. Eli was the High Priest at the time, and his two sons ministered with him in respect of the sacrifices. But “The sons of Eli were worthless men; they did not know the Lord. . . . The sin of the young men was very great before the Lord, for the men despised the offering of the Lord.” (1 Sam.2:12,17) But why did they behave in this fashion? The answer is found in the Lord’s word to Eli. “You honour your sons above me.” (2:29) There is no mention of the High Priest’s wife in this story. The downfall of his house was due entirely to the father’s lack of correct discipline to his sons. We have seen how Cain became insolentand spoke slightingly to the Lord. In like manner, Eli’s sons were quite prepared to despise the Lord by demanding portions from the sacrifices that were not their rightful due. Lack of parental discipline and instruction resulted in insolence, arrogance, and carelessness in respect of their attitude towards God. Whereas Cain was dismissed from the family scene, driven away, Eli’s sons both died on the same day. It was God’s decreed judgment and punishment. But neither was Eli spared. On hearing of his sons’ deaths, and the capture of the Ark of the Covenant, he fell off his seat and broke his neck.
We have yet another situation to consider, that of Solomon. Now Solomon was the treasured child of Bathsheba, and Bathsheba held a special place in David’s heart. She had lost her first child as a judgment on the act of adultery, but when Solomon arrived, reading between the lines, we gather he was given more than princely treatment. His father David died when he was about 14 years of age, and by royal decree he became King of Israel, even though an elder son of David was expected to ascend the throne. After David’s death, Bathsheba was still very evident in the Palace, and certainly commanded royal respect. Now the young king began his reign with God’s commendation. He asked for wisdom rather than riches. But God gave him riches as well, because he was to be tried and tested as to the use of his wisdom. For some reason he preferred the uxorious life, and began to gather foreign princesses. Why didn’t Bathsheba caution him? Why didn’t she refer him back to the ways of his father, who would never have married foreign women? Why didn’t she point out the idolatry they were beginning to introduce into the land, demanding shrines to their heathen gods on the outskirts of Jerusalem? Although we have little to go on, we are left to ponder the possible cause of Solomon’s defection from true godliness in the later part of his reign. Was it partly his own nature, or was there some lack in parental discipline? Perhaps we shall never know for sure.
Turning now to the NT, we seek to find some answers from the lips of our Lord. “The disciples came to Jesus, saying, ‘Who then is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven?’ And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, saying, ‘Truly I say to you, unless you are converted [from that attitude] and become like children, you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. . . . Whoever causes one of these little ones to stumble, it is better for him that a nether millstone be hung about his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea.'” (Matt.18:1-6) When Luke was recording this event, he added the following words, “Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.”
These two passages, taken together, contain three elements that impact directly on the three stories we have considered from the OT. They are as follows.
- The sin of self-elevation, found amongst the disciples, and evident with Cain, Eli’s sons, and Solomon.
- Our Lord’s great anger directed towards anyone who might cause children to stumble, go astray, take the wrong direction in life.
- The necessity of speaking out against sin within a family setting. Repentance, and hopefully, forgiveness.
Most commentators, when dealing with these two passages, seem to refer to the sins of bad teachers in Israel, the waywardness of Scribes and Pharisees, who were wont to travel great distances to make one proselyte, who then became more a child of hell than they were themselves. However, this is a rather narrow interpretation. Our Lord was confronted by a question, “Who is greatest?” This smacks of the mental attitude of Cain, and his sin was generated by the over-indulgence of his mother, and lack of discipline of his father. Could we say that Adam and Eve had committed a grievous error in their upbringing of Cain? Could we say that our Lord’s words about the child were directed towards all such errors in families? The spoiled child grows up inevitably to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, and thereby develops arrogance and lack of true fear of the Lord. Should the parents be attached to the nether millstone?
There can be no doubt as to the strength of our Lord’s anger when He witnessed any form of abuse directed at children, and in today’s wretched miserable world there is far too much sexual abuse, violence, lack of true love and protection towards young children. But even though this causes anger, not only in the mind of the Lord, but also in all decent responsible adults, it is not the only way in which children may be abused. It is our considered opinion, based particularly on the history of Cain and Abel, that their parents could have been equally as responsible for the manner of life of Cain as those who sexually or physically abuse children. That is not an absolute fact, because we are all possessed of an individual character, which develops as we grow up, and subtle differences may be observed in groups of siblings of the same parents, even though the same discipline be applied to all. However, the point we are trying to make here is that our Lord’s words must apply to the tremendous responsibility that devolves on Christian parents in the upbringing of their children, lest they find themselves producing monsters, murderers, or terrorists. It can happen. It certainly should not happen.
What does the word of God tell us about parental discipline? There is a series of instructions in the Book of Proverbs which is most helpful.
- “He who spares his rod [of discipline] hates his son, but he who loves him diligently disciplines and punishes him early.” (13:24)
- “Discipline your son while there is hope, but do not set yourself to his ruin.” (19:18) This is explained by Paul in Eph.6:4, “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.”
- “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.” (22:6)
- “Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him.” (22:15)
- “Withhold not discipline from the child, for if you strike and punish him with the rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with the rod and deliver his soul from Hades.” (23:13-14)
- “The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left undisciplined brings his mother to shame. . . . Correct your son, and he will give you rest; yes, he will give delight to your heart.” (29:15,17)
The following lessons may be learned from these verses.
- The inability to apply discipline to a child is equivalent to hating him/her. This brings us up with a jolt. An over-indulgent father or mother, who cannot bring themselves to use a correct amount of physical punishment in their disciplinary training, are actuallyhating their child, instead of loving it. I’m glad these are the Lord’s words, and not mine, otherwise I might be charged with sadism!
- It is vitally necessary to begin disciplinary training at the earliest possible age, not to wait until the child begins to talk. Babies can cause parents a lot of unnecessary sleepless nights by lack of bedtime discipline. Toddlers can rule the roost if they are not given directions. The use of the word “No!” is vitally necessary. It is the beginning of law-principle, which immediately causes the old-nature to respond, wanting to do the very action again.
- Fathers must not discipline more than is necessary to create a proper understanding of right and wrong in the home. Provoking children to anger eventually causes them to leave home with bad feelings. On the other hand, a well disciplined teenager will eventually come to realise that he owes much to his father.
- The undisciplined child eventually brings shame on the parents. Their own lack of proper attention to discipline rebounds on their own heads. Without enlightenment, they may even become unbearable with each other, as well as with the child.
- Proper discipline is the source of wisdom to a child, because we are told that there is latent folly in children. But with discipline, they grow up to appreciate their own fallen nature, and are more ready to turn to God for a new nature. That is the reason for discipline. It is not just to have a well-behaved child.
- Attention to these commands brings forth God’s promise, that in old age the child will not abandon what he has learned from his parents, but will honour them, respect them, and follow in their ways.
The mention of “beating a child with a rod” needs a word of explanation. On the surface it sounds cruel. But translate it into reasonable modern terms and it becomes plain. In our own household, my wife always had a wooden spoon in her back pocket. It was visible, and the children knew what it was for. A sharp smack across the bare flesh of the legs would produce the necessary pain, accompanied by the lesson to be learned for the child not to do it again. In my own career as a high-school teacher, I always had an old gym-shoe on the front bench. The impossibly naughty student would be told to bend over in front of the class, and receive two or three whacks on his backside. Just occasionally I had to take a boy down to the senior master’s room to use the cane, which was always done under supervision. In my twelve years at that school, I only had to resort to the cane on a handful of occasions.
Having said all that, what are we up against today? Psychologists are telling us we should never say “No!” to a child because it hampers the development of their self-esteem and worth. School-teachers are now no longer able to use any form of corporate punishment without being expelled. I have found that in recent days even to lay a hand on a student could produce a parental backlash of horrendous proportions. In the home environment we are now told that all forms of corporate punishment is not only undesirable, but should be banned.
See how the Devil has invaded society. He wants to see a race of young people who are arrogant, untamed, violent, abusive, refusing all forms of law-enforcement in the work-place, all because parents are no longer able to apply God-given directives in rearing their children. You may receive voluble praise for training your dog, or breaking in your horse, using all the old fashioned, and well proven techniques of discipline and training, but under no circumstances are you allowed to do so with your own children.
However, I believe Godly parents will still apply proper discipline in their homes, where prying eyes cannot see. They may have to restrain themselves when in the supermarket, or the local cafe, but this will not cause problems as long as the home is the family castle where understanding and love reign. May the Lord help all such to love their children with firm discipline, rather than hating them by over-indulgence.