Untitled Sermon
a Roman father had absolute power over his family. He could sell them as slaves; he could make them work in his fields even in chains; he could punish as he liked and could even inflict the death penalty.
penalty. Further, the power of the Roman father extended over a child’s whole life, as long as the father lived. A Roman son never came of age
age. Even when he was a grown man, even if he were a magistrate of the city, even if the state had crowned him with well-deserved honours, he remained within his father’s absolute power.
There was the custom of child exposure. When a child was born, it was placed at its father’s feet; and, if the father stooped and lifted the child, that meant that he acknowledged it and wanted to keep it. If he turned and walked away, it meant that he refused to acknowledge it, and the child could quite literally be thrown out.
We have seen how the marriage bond had collapsed and how men and women changed their partners with bewildering rapidity. Under such circumstances, a child was a misfortune. So few children were born that the Roman government actually passed legislation that the amount of any legacy that a childless couple could receive was limited. It was the custom that unwanted children were left in the Roman forum. There they became the property of anyone who cared to pick them up. They were collected at night by people who looked after them in order to sell them as slaves or to stock the brothels of Rome.
(3) Ancient civilization was merciless to the sickly or deformed child. Seneca writes: ‘We slaughter a fierce ox; we strangle a mad dog; we plunge the knife into sickly cattle lest they taint the herd; children who are born weakly and deformed we drown.’ Children who were weak or imperfectly formed had little hope of survival.
It was against this situation that Paul wrote his advice to children and parents. If ever we are asked what good Christianity has done to the world, we need only point to the change brought about in the status of women and of children.
The eighteenth-century German commentator Johann Bengel, considering why this command is so definitely addressed to fathers, says that mothers have a kind of divine patience but ‘fathers are more liable to be carried away by wrath’.
Bengel says that the plague of youth is a ‘broken spirit’, discouraged by continuous criticism and rebuke and discipline that is too strict.
Luther used to say: ‘Spare the rod and spoil the child—that is true; but beside the rod keep an apple to give him when he has done well.’ The eighteenth-century artist Benjamin West tells how he became a painter. One day, his mother went out leaving him in charge of his little sister Sally. In his mother’s absence, he discovered some bottles of coloured ink and began to paint Sally’s portrait. In doing so, he made a considerable mess of things with ink blots everywhere. His mother came back. She saw the mess but said nothing. She picked up the piece of paper and saw the drawing. ‘Why,’ she said, ‘it’s Sally!’ and she stooped and kissed him. Afterwards, Benjamin West always used to say: ‘My mother’s kiss made me a painter.’ Encouragement did more than rebuke could ever do. The novelist Anna Buchan tells how her grandmother had a favourite phrase even when she was very old: ‘Never daunton [discourage] youth.’
At verse 4 Paul addresses “fathers” in relation to their children. Although it is true that the same word is used sometimes in the sense of parents (e.g., Heb. 11:23), it is not likely that it is so used here, inasmuch as father was used in its usual sense just two verses earlier. The mention of fathers does not relieve mothers from acting as supervisors of their children also, but it does indicate that fathers, as heads of their households, are those on whom the ultimate responsibility for supervision rests.
Discipline implies training in proper conduct and chastening in times of failure. Instruction involves teaching, whether by praise, warning, censure, or explanation of principles.
Effectively, the apostle is ruling out ‘excessively severe discipline, unreasonably harsh demands, abuse of authority, arbitrariness, unfairness, constant nagging and condemnation, subjecting a child to humiliation, and all forms of gross insensitivity to a child’s needs and sensibilities’
Ultimately, the concern of parents is not simply that their sons and daughters will be obedient to their authority, but that through this godly training and admonition their children will come to know and obey the Lord himself.
Paul wants Christian fathers to be gentle, patient educators of their children, whose chief ‘weapon’ is Christian instruction focussed on loyalty to Christ as Lord.
The father is singled out since he is the head of the home. The man is responsible for the spiritual direction and training in the home.
In a society where the father’s authority (patria potestas) was absolute, this represented a revolutionary concept.
The verb translated “bring up” (ektrephete) has to do in the first place with bodily nourishment (Eph 5:29) and then with education in its entirety.
“Training” (paideia in the Greco-Roman world meant strict discipline. “Nurture” (KJV) is too weak a word. The cognate verb signifies “to chasten” but can also be used in the wider context of “instruction.” What Paul is referring to here is training in righteousness.
“Instruction” (nouthesia) is correction by word of mouth
The Bible records the sad results of parents neglecting their children, either by being bad examples to them or failing to discipline them properly. David pampered Absalom and set him a bad example, and the results were tragic. Eli failed to discipline his sons and they brought disgrace to his name and defeat to the nation of Israel. In his latter years, even Isaac pampered Esau, while his wife showed favoritism to Jacob; and the result was a divided home. Jacob was showing favoritism to Joseph when God providentially rescued the lad and made a man out of him in Egypt.
So, the opposite of “provoke” is “encourage.”
The verb translated “bring them up” is the same word that is translated “nourisheth” in Ephesians 5:29.
The development of the Boy Jesus is our example: “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:52). Here is balanced growth: intellectual, physical, spiritual, and social.
The word “nurture” carries with it the idea of learning through discipline. It is translated “chastening” in Hebrews 12.
In the Book of Proverbs, for example, we have an inspired record of a father sharing wise counsel with his son.
The Greek writer Menander, for instance, says, “A father who is always threatening does not receive much reverence,” and “One should correct a child by not hurting him but persuading him.” Another writer cautions, “Do not be harsh with your children but be gentle.”
The only other occurrence of the word “training” in the Pauline corpus is in 2 Tim. 3:16, where inspired scripture is said to be “profitable” (among other things) “for training in righteousness.”12 In Heb. 12:5–11 it appears four times in the sense of “discipline” or even “chastisement.”
It carries with it the sense of admonition and sometimes of warning, as in Tit. 3:10, where a factious man is to have no more time wasted over him “after a first and second warning.”
when the word Fathers is used, both parents are in mind, as apparently is the case in Hebrews 11:23.
It is right for parents to demand obedience, but there must not be a ‘capricious exercise of authority’ (Robinson).
As NEB puts it, ‘You … must not goad your children to resentment’.
The two nouns repay closer study. The noun paideia, and its corresponding verb, may have the force of ‘correcting’ or ‘chastening’, as in 1 Corinthians 11:32, 2 Corinthians 6:9 and 2 Timothy 2:25, but may also have the positive meaning of ‘instruction’ (e.g. Titus 2:12).
Although it is true that the word “fathers” at times includes “mothers” (Heb. 11:23), just as “brothers” may include “sisters,” and that the directive here given certainly applies also to mothers, nevertheless it would hardly be correct in the present passage to substitute the word “parents” for “fathers.” The fact that in verse 1 Paul employs the more usual word for parents seems to indicate that here in verse 4 fathers means just that. The reasons why the apostle addresses himself especially to them could well be a. because upon them as heads of their respective families the chief responsibility for the education of the children rests;
1. By over-protection. The fathers—and mothers too—are so fearful that harm may befall their darlings that they fence them in from every direction: “Do not do this and do not do that. Do not go here and do not go there,” until this process of pampering arrives at a point where we can almost imagine them to advise their offspring, “Do not venture into the water until you have learned to swim.” Yet swim they must! To be sure, children should be warned against great dangers. On the other hand, a modicum of risk-taking is necessary for their physical, moral, and spiritual development. If the little bird remains in the safety of its nest it will never learn to fly. Besides, the over-protective attitude has the tendency of depriving the children of confidence and of instilling in them the angry mood, especially when they compare themselves with other children who are not receiving this special treatment.
2. By favoritism. Isaac favored Esau above Jacob. Rebekah preferred Jacob (Gen. 25:28). The sad results of such partiality are well known.
3. By discouragement. Example taken from life: “Dad, I am going to study hard and become a doctor,” or perhaps a lawyer, teacher, mechanic, minister, or whatever it was the boy had in mind. Dad’s answer: “You might as well forget about that. That will never happen anyway.”
4. By failure to make allowance for the fact that the child is growing up, has a right to have ideas of his own, and need not be an exact copy of his father to be a success.
5. By neglect. In the quarrel between David and his son Absalom was the fault entirely on Absalom’s side? Was not David also partly to blame because he neglected his son? (2 Sam. 14:13, 28).
6. By bitter words and outright physical cruelty. Here is a father who loves to throw his weight around and to make use of his superior strength. Scolding his children and inflicting severe physical punishment has become a habit with him. Court records are filled with cases of unbelievable cruelty to boys and girls, including babes.
In Heb. 12:11 this word “discipline” refers to “chastening,” which, though at the time when it is administered may not be pleasant, is appreciated afterward and produces excellent fruit. Cf. 1 Cor. 11:32; 2 Cor. 6:9; 2 Tim. 2:25. In 2 Tim. 3:16 this “discipline” is the “training in righteousness.” “Discipline,” accordingly, may be described as training by means of rules and regulations, rewards, and when necessary, punishments. It refers primarily to what is done to the child.
“Admonition” is therefore prevailingly training by means of the spoken word, whether that word be teaching, warning, or encouragement. It refers primarily to what is said to the child. “Admonition” would seem to be somewhat milder than “discipline.” Nevertheless, it must be earnest, not just a feeble observation such as, “No, my sons; it is not a good report that I hear” (1 Sam. 2:24). In fact, it is distinctly reported that Eli “did not admonish them [his sons]” (1 Sam. 3:13).
The picture he paints of fathers as self-controlled, gentle, patient educators of their children is in stark contrast to the norm of his own day. ‘At the head of the Roman family … was the pater familias, who exercised a sovereign authority over all members of the family … The autocratic character of the patria potestas manifested itself not only in the father’s right to punish, but also in his iuo vitae necisque2 (killing the newborn; exposure of children) … The pater familias has a full right of disposal over his children, as over slaves and things …’3 William Barclay adds: ‘A Roman father had absolute power over his family. He could sell them as slaves, he could make them work in his fields even in chains, he could take the law into his own hands, for the law was in his own hands, and punish as he liked, he could even inflict the death penalty on his child.’4
How many ‘angry young men’, hostile to society at large, have learned their hostility as children in an unsympathetic home?
Calvin’s translation is, ‘Let them be fondly cherished …, deal gently with them,’8 and William Hendriksen’s, ‘Rear them tenderly.’9 Here is an understanding, centuries before modern psychology emphasized the vital importance of the earliest years of life, that children are fragile creatures needing the tenderness and security of love.
As Dr Lloyd-Jones pertinently observes, ‘If parents but gave as much thought to the rearing of their children as they do to the rearing of animals and flowers, the situation would be very different.’1