Back to Online Material

48

The Responsibilities Of Parents

Eph. 6:4

And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

 

In our study of the Christian home we have thus far seen three pictures: the wife is a picture of the Church, the husband is a picture of Christ, and the child is a picture of the obedient Christian. May we now emphasize that these are individual pictures, but in verse 4 we see these three brought together to form a “family portrait,” with the members of the family in the picture. Specifically, Paul deals with the responsibilities of parents, things parents should and should not do. (While the mother is not mentioned by name, we’ll see that she is present as a support to the father.)

 

The story is told of a young student of child behavior who frequently delivered a lecture called “Ten Commandments for Parents.” He married and became a father. The title of the lecture was altered to “Ten Hints for Parents.” Another child arrived. The lecture became “Some Suggestions for Parents.” A third child was born. The lecturer—so the story goes—stopped lecturing.[1]

 

Indeed, children change everything: our attitudes, goals, finances, even our outlook on life. The most important thing it changes, however, is responsibility. The parent is now responsible for everything concerning that child: food, clothing, shelter, protection, and education.

 

Later in the chapter we’ll deal with the four elements of child training, but first, to introduce our study, every person must be trained to do right and to live right. But this does not come naturally. Certainly, we all love babies, and they are, indeed, sweet and cuddly. But are they as “sweet” by nature as we think? As I hear one pastor say some years ago, “It’s a good thing that babies are cute, because there’s nothing redeeming about them.” I once read something that was written not by some “ranting and raving preacher,” as some would accuse many preachers of being, but by The Minnesota Crime Commission. It has been quoted often, but I do so again:

 

Every baby starts life as a little savage. He is completely selfish and self-centered. He wants what he wants when he wants it: his bottle, his mother’s attention, his play mate’s toys, his uncle’s watch, or whatever. Deny him these and he seethes with rage and aggressiveness which would be murderous were he not so helpless. He’s dirty, he has no morals, no knowledge, no developed skills. This means that all children, not just certain children but all children, are born delinquent. If permitted to continue in their self-centered world of infancy, given free reign to their impulsive actions to satisfy each want, every child would grow up to be a criminal, a thief, a killer, a rapist.

 

Why is that observation true? Because, as Ephesians 2:1-3 tells us, all human beings, regardless of age, are depraved. We agree that until a child reaches the age of accountability he is “innocent,” but that does not alter the fact that even a baby is depraved in nature. No one has to teach a child to lie, steal, disobey, be selfish, be mean to a sibling, or any other such behavior. Their sin nature makes it all their natural inclination.

 

Is it not interesting to notice that in the midst of all the countless books, seminars, counseling services, crisis centers, and the like, that family problems steadily increase, even among Christians? Even elementary-age children feel pressured to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, use illicit drugs, and “huff” inhalants. According to a recent report by the Center For Substance Abuse Prevention, approximately forty percent of 4th, 5th, and 6th graders admit that they would drink alcohol or use crack/cocaine just to fit in or feel older. A 2004 University of Michigan survey reported that a whopping 45.7 percent of high school seniors have tried marijuana, and other surveys add that seventeen percent have tried cocaine. It’s also significant that the suicide rate among teenagers tripled between the 1950s and the 1980s. Today, according to The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an estimate 500,000 teenagers attempt suicide each year and almost 5,000 succeed.

 

Is there any doubt that the family is in trouble? The problem is not simply society in general, not the lack of education, or other similar symptom. The problem is the home; it is disintegrating, even among Christians. But God has the answer. He sums-up all of what His Word says on the subject of child-training right here in verse 4. Before dealing with the four elements of child-training, let us look at one other principle, one which forms our first major point.

 

I. The Father Is Responsible for Training His Children (v. 4a)

And, ye fathers,

 

Every time we see the word ye is our AV translation, it’s plural. Such second person pronouns are, in fact, one of the strengths of the AV, while all modern translations have removed those pronouns (that is, the “thees and the thous”). Paul is, therefore, address all fathers and telling them that they are responsible for training their children.

 

One historical fact tells us much about where the family is today. As mentioned in our study of children, one of the results of the Reformation was a return to family worship and fatherly responsibility. This changed, however, in the 19th Century. As many cottage industries were exchanged for moving to the cities, men began to leave the home for many hours a day. No longer were they at home so their sons could work along side them. With that trend, the responsibilities for training the children were transferred to the mother. In fact, it’s interesting that if you examine a book on child training written in the 17th or 18th Century, it’s addressed to fathers, but when you examine books, pamphlets, and articles written in the 19th Century, they are addressed to mothers.[2]

 

That trend flies in the face of Scripture, which declares that it is the father who is responsible to train the children. Some expositors teach that the Greek behind fathers (paterēs) should be translated “parents” here, but that is quite clearly incorrect. In Greek philosophy patēr referred to the patriarchal head of the family, and that meaning is unchanged in the New Testament. Virtually all Greek authorities observe this fact. We should also note that Paul deliberately uses patēr here instead of goneus (“parents”), which he used in verse 1. Is the mother involved? Certainly. She is there to reinforce the father’s discipline and to balance the father’s discipline, which can at times be too harsh without the mother. But there is no escaping the fact that the father is ultimately responsibility for child training.

 

This fact was true even among the Greeks and Romans. As one commentator rightly observes:

 

It was typical in ancient education for the mother to teach young children but when they reached what we would call “school age,” or a little older, for the father to continue their education. The word paideia, translated [nurture] in the [AV], had a distinguished significance in the Greco-Roman world. More than teaching and learning facts, it was the formation of the person, which involved discipline. Together [with “admonition”] these terms convey the sober responsibility of a father to see to the development of his children into personal and spiritual (note the words “of the Lord”) maturity.[3]

 

How society has warped this basic principle of human development ordained by God! Even many Christians have been lured into the trap. Many men today say, “I’ll bring home the money, you raise the kids; I don’t have the time.” No, it is the father’s responsibility! He better make time! Welshman Martyn Lloyd-Jones made a sad observation in the mid 20th Century. Commenting on feminism and how it has influenced the undermining of the father in the minds of his children, he said:

 

We are seeing this increasingly in this country [England], but to nothing like the extent to which they are seeing it in the United Sates of America. There, you have what may more or less be called a matriarchal society, and the man is becoming increasingly regarded merely as the one to provide the dollars, the wage-earner, the man who brings in the necessary money. The woman, the mother, is the cultured person, and the head of the home; and the children look to her.[4]

 

And all this has spilled over into the Church. May we add, however, that a half-century later, the situation is far worse, with many mothers also leaving the home for career purposes, leaving the children in day care, which is one of the most graphic examples of the disintegration of the family in American culture. Why is it that Christians just don’t see what’s going on? Why is it that preachers refuse to proclaim what is happening? Is it that they really don’t know or that they are afraid to point it out for fear of upsetting people?

 

A direct corollary to the issue of training our children is the fact that God wants us to have children in the first place. There are two issues that are directly related to this.

 

First, there is the issue of abortion. Much has been written on this issue, so we will be brief. The main point should me made, however, is that abortion, no matter what the reason, is premeditated murder. There is no greater scourge upon America and no greater violation of freedom and liberty. There is no greater example of the depravity of man than this practice. Open any history book and you will see this practice among the pagans.

 

Now, while that is the view of some evangelicals, believe it or not, it is not the view of many others. Yes, while those “many others” view abortion as wrong in most cases, they say that it is allowed in some cases. I was shocked to read one book, published by a usually unimpeachable Reformed publisher, in which the author tragically uses the word “fetus,” which is the typical word used by pro-abortionists to escape the reality that we are talking about human being. He goes on to write: “If, through physical circumstances, [the fetus] is threatening the antecedent life of its mother, it has, in this way, forfeited its own right to be allowed to continue to live.” Now, he doesn’t use any Scripture to support that mind you; in fact, he uses not a single Scripture verse in his entire discussion of abortion. He does, however, give an incredulous illustration. He likens that baby to be the same as “a crazed madman threatening someone else with a revolver.”[5] Did you get that? He actually equates that innocent life to a criminal with a gun! Such a humanistic view is reprehensible!

 

Another noted evangelical first correctly writes that a baby should not be aborted if it is known that it will have a birth defect, as that “may be a direct gift from God to a family as an instrument for the greater glory of God.” But he then turns right around and says—also using the word “fetus” and again with no Scriptural support—that “one might justifiably abort a fetus if at any stage there is material aggression against the mother.”[6] Any stage? Does that also mean partial birth abortion? That is not only human reasoning but illogical human reasoning. If one can be a gift from God, why can’t the other? Is God sovereign or is He not? What mother would not willingly give her life for that child after it was born, so why wouldn’t she willingly give her life for that child to be born?

 

Several years ago, this was illustrated to me as I was watching the evening news. Melissa Smart, a mother in Denver, Colorado, had breast cancer that ultimately spread to her lymph system. Her doctors told her that if they aborted the baby they would be able to “treat the cancer more aggressively and possibly save her life.”[7] Melissa refused, however, and gave her life for her child. That is what a mother does. That is the primal drive of a mother, but we are seeing that primal drive disappearing right before our eyes.

 

Still another lauded evangelical, in spite of his high-sounding words on the family, writes (once again with no Scriptural support whatsoever): “Only in rare instances when the life of the mother is literally at stake do I feel we have the moral authority to destroy a developing fetus.”[8]

 

It is truly appalling when noted Bible teachers ignore the revealed Truth of God. As I studied this issue, in fact, I could find few Christian writers who would stand for the Truth. We have become so tainted by the world, that we can’t even think straight anymore. Thankfully, I finally did find this statement by R. C. Sproul:

 

Abortion is a monstrous evil, and if I know anything about the character of God, I am totally convinced that this is an outrage to Him. From the beginning to the end of sacred Scripture, there is a premium on the sanctity of human life. . . . Many scholars and theologians who are rigorously opposed to abortion-on-demand believe abortion in certain mitigating circumstances and situations to be ethically viable, as in the case of incest, rape, or when the life of the mother is threatened. I would say only a very small minority of theologians would argue that abortion is always wrong and is always sin. I would have to count myself in that very small minority. . . . It [is] still a human life.[9]

 

Indeed, may I repeat, abortion, no matter what the reason, is premeditated murder. There is no greater scourge upon America and no greater violation of freedom and liberty. People speak of “the mother’s rights,” but may we ask, “What of the rights of the person she carries?” Ah, but the Supreme Court answered that question back in 1973. In the landmark Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, the Supreme Court (in the first of many examples of that court “legislating from the bench”) ruled that unborn human beings are not legal persons according to the constitution. Can we imagine for a moment that Thomas Jefferson or the godly George Washington would have agreed with that? But the court further ruled that an unborn baby is the property of the owner (mother) and she can have the child killed at her request, even up to the time of birth if her doctor agrees. Since then, as most Christians are well aware, approximately one and a half million people per year have been murdered in this country.

In a November 13, 2005 article by the Associated Press, a spokesman for the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit group that researches reproductive health issues, said that at the current abortion rates one-third of U.S. women will have had an abortion by age 45. The institute’s director went on to say, “Abortion, for better or worse, is more common in this country than many people realize or wish were true.”[10]

 

To illustrate further just how far America has sunk into this abysmal evil, when asked in 2004 at what point in gestation the right to life accrued to an individual, ultra-liberal California senator Barbara Boxer answered from the floor of the US Senate, “When the mother decides to take it home from the hospital.” Such depravity comes because of sin, sin that has caused the “conscience [to be] seared with a hot iron” (1 tim. 4:2).

 

It is total insanity that if someone killed a baby a day after it was born, that would be called “murder,” but to kill that baby a trimester, a month, or even day before it was born would be called “abortion.” May we say quite frankly, the Supreme Court “justices” who voted for it, the physicians who perform it, and the women who request it are murderers, plain and simple. Every Christian should be challenged not to go to a physician who either does abortions or who even advocates them. Think of this way. How many of us would even associate with the likes of serial killers such as Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer, much less pay them for their crimes? We submit that abortion doctors are the ultimate serial killers, killing those whose only profile is that they are a “fetus.”

 

How do we answer the objections, however? The argument of childbirth being a danger to the mother’s life is today almost nonexistent; in most cases where there is a danger, there are medical techniques to deal with it. In the case of rape, statistics actually prove that rape seldom results in pregnancy. On the other hand, even if this does happen, is that the baby’s fault? Should he be the one who is killed for the crime? Even the rapist is innocent until proven guilty. Further, the rapist isn’t even put to death if proven guilty, but the baby is killed outright. Is that justice? And what about the child who has a defect? Once again, the facts are that the frustrations of handicapped children are no greater than those of normal children. They adapt and channel their energies into areas in which they can excel. In spite of the hardships, countless parents have expressed the blessing handicapped children have been.

Arguments aside, then, what saith the Scriptures? It is again appalling how many evangelicals hedge on this issue. Right across the page from the article quoted earlier was another in which one seminary professor, who called himself evangelical, said, “I can’t take you to the text that says, ‘Don’t commit abortion.’ It just doesn’t exist.”[11] But we ask, what other argument do you need other than the fact that the Word of God declares beyond question that life begins at conception? If that is a life, then abortion is wrong. Before Jacob and Esau were even born, God said to Rebekah, “Two nations are in thy womb” (Gen. 25:23). Of Jeremiah God declared, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations” (Jer. 1:5). In Luke 1:41 and 44, when Elisabeth heard her cousin Mary’s voice, the unborn John the Baptist “leaped in [her] womb for joy.” Numerous other Scriptures make this Truth clear (Jud. 13:7; Job 10:10-12; Ps. 127:3; 139:13-16; Is. 44:24). We say again, abortion is, indeed, “a monstrous evil.” Any complicity with it is equally appalling. Shame on any Christian who advocates it for any reason.

 

Second, the other corollary to having children so that we can train them is one that is rarely addressed in books, sermons, or seminars on the home. The question is: What does God’s Word say about birth control? Birth control is one of the ways many people, including countless Christians, deal with the “problem” of children. Why bring up such a controversial issue? Because Christians today need to understand just how much they are influenced and even controlled by the godless philosophies of the world.

 

Historically, and this is extremely significant, birth control was unheard of prior to the 19th Century. In 1798 Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) published his Essay on the Principle of Population as It Effects the Future Improvement of Society. While he did not advocate contraception, he believed in the postponement of marriage as an answer to overpopulation. All this did was increase promiscuity. He argued, like many do today, that population increases faster than the supply of goods necessary for subsistence. But this philosophy is based on an unbiblical premise. God has provided everything man needs to live. He promises that He will supply all our physical needs if we seek Him (Matt. 6:33; Phil. 4:19). If we reject God, He will not provide our needs.

 

We find a vivid example of this principle in the starvation in India. Indira Ghandi herself said that there is enough food available in her country not only to feed the entire population, but to export two-thirds of all it produces. Why then are so many people starving? Because they reject God’s Word. Hinduism worships some 330 million deities, which are personified in cows. Everything, even their excrement, is sacred. They can’t be considered part of the food supply, for to kill one is worse than cannibalism. Worse yet, the cattle in-turn eat twenty percent of the existing food supply. So, God has not deprived India of food, rather paganism has deprived it. “Christian” leaders beg Christians over radio and television to give to those in poverty, but God says He has already given plenty if men only believe.

It was in 1822 that Francis Place, a political radical, published the first work in English to recommend contraception, Illustration and Proofs of the Principle of Population. Further, it is quite significant that Robert Dale Owen (1801-1877) was one of the founders of the birth control movement in America. This is significant because Owen was a political socialist and a spiritualist. This demonstrates that the basic root of the birth control attitude is humanistic.

 

Naturally, there was opposition to this new movement, so much, in fact, that repressive state legislation was passed against such information even being published. There was even a federal statute in 1873, The Comstock Law (named after Anthony Comstock), that classed contraceptive information as obscenity and banned its distribution by mail.

But the birth control movement was really galvanized by Margaret Sanger (1883-1966). Her life reminds us of today’s Gloria Steinem. As a nurse, she was appalled by the deaths from self-induced abortions in the New York city slums. She printed many articles favoring birth control in her magazine The Woman Rebel. She was finally arrested when she opened a birth control clinic in Brooklyn in 1916. The case was eventually dismissed, and her efforts ultimately won doctors the right to dispense birth control information to their patients. She continued to lecture, founded many birth control clinics, carried the message of birth control to Japan, China, and India, and became the first president of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (1953).

 

A thread that runs all through this history is that advocates of birth control have usually been “free-thinkers” who had nothing to do with God. Historically, birth control has always been rooted in Humanism and Socialism. May we just stop and think for a moment: is this what Christians should advocate; is this what they’re defending? But, indeed, there are many Christians, many preachers, many Christian leaders who do defend this.

 

But what saith the Scriptures? We are all familiar with God’s command to Adam and Eve, “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28). The Hebrew for “multiply” is rabah, which means “to become great, be or become many, much, numerous,” so in this context means “to become many, become numerous, multiply (of people, animals, things)” (Strong). The Hebrew clearly pictures God’s desire that a couple have many children, or to put it another way, don’t do anything to prevent having many children. And God has never rescinded this command.

 

Further, like abortion, the doctrine that is usually totally ignored on this issue is the sovereignty God. Many Christians (and preachers) simply deny, either in word or action, that God is sovereign over childbirth. I’ve heard people say, “Well, if we don’t use birth control, we’ll end up with a dozen child­ren.” But is that necessarily so? Of course not. First, they no more know that they will have a dozen children than they know that they will live another day. For example, my wife’s grandmother never practiced birth control and, indeed, had twelve children, but neither did my wife’s parents practice birth control and they had only two children. Second, if you do end up with a dozen children, don’t you trust God to give you what he wants you to have, both in the number of children and the resources to take care of them? The point is: it’s not up to us, it’s up to God. If we truly believe in the sovereignty God, then we will realize that God will give as many children as He wills.

 

Consider two other passages:

Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate. (Ps. 127:3-5)

Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table. Behold, that thus shall the man be blessed that feareth the LORD. (128:3-4)

 

Oh, may we meditate on those words! As one commentator writes:

As fathers bequeath inheritance to their children, so God gives to His beloved sons children as their “heritage.” First, He gives a house, security, and competent means (vv. 1-2), then children to enjoy them with and after their parents.[12]

 

And as the beloved Matthew Henry puts it:

Children are a heritage and a reward, and are so to be accounted blessings and not bur­dens; for he that sends mouths will send meat if we trust in him.

 

By using all their contraceptive devices and efforts, many couples are forfeiting the blessing God wants to give them. I have yet to read a single Christian author advocating birth control who can cite one verse to support it. I’ve read a lot of human reasoning of why to prevent pregnancy, such as, temporary postponement to finish college, poverty, small income, birth defects, and so forth, but I haven’t read any Scripture.

 

There is, however, ample support against birth control. Consider Genesis 38:7-10:

And Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

 

Upon his brother’s death, Onan was required to marry his brother’s wife and have children by her. This custom is known as “levirate marriage” (Latin levir, brother-in-law), and eventually became part of the Mosaic Law (Deut. 25:5-10). Out of selfishness, however, Onan didn’t want to do this, because it would perpetuate his brother’s seed instead of his own, so he practiced birth control (what we today call coitus interruptus), so God killed him. It is argued that God killed Onan because of his rebellion, not because of the act of birth control itself. This, however, overlooks the fact that even though Onan refused the responsibilities of marriage, he still took advantage of its pleasures. Like many today, he wanted the gratifications of marriage but not the obligations.

 

The underlying motive for birth control is usually selfishness. Almost without exception, I’ve heard Christians say, “We don’t want anymore,” or “We think we’ve had enough.” Again, may we just stop and think, what makes us think we have the right to violate what God created by allowing a doctor (who probably believes in abortion) to take a knife and sterilize us? Or what right do we have to use chemicals or devices to prevent the most beautiful of God’s creations? Artificial birth control is humanistic, plain and simple, and is a violation of the will of God and a denial of the sovereignty of God.

 

Again, I submit these things for one reason—to be Biblical in all that we do and not to conform to the godless values and philosophies of the world.

 

II. The Four Major Elements Of Child-Training (v. 4b-e)

provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

 

 

As stated earlier, it is our firm belief that God sums-up all He has to say about child-training right here in verse 4. Indeed, there is much about this all through His Word, but we find here the summary. Let us take each of these elements in-turn.

 

Do Not Provoke Children To Anger (v. 4b)

 

provoke not your children to wrath:

 

This is the only negative principle of the four, but it is also one that is seldom understood and often violated. This principle actually forms the foundation to the other three. Some preachers dwell too much on the negative aspects of Christianity. This is wrong because Christianity is more positive than negative. But, indeed, there are negatives, and we find one of them right here.

 

This principle is so important, in fact, that without it the other three are useless, pointless, and a waste of time.

We should also add that, like husbands loving their wives, the concept of Provoke not your children to wrath was revolutionary in Paul’s day. As serious as child-abuse is today, it is not new. In pagan society, of which Ephesus was a part, children were seldom cherished. Weak or deformed children were often drowned. Children were often sold into slavery or even prostitution. Some were even sacrificed to pagan deities. So, Paul’s statement came as quite a shock to his readers!

 

The words provoke . . . to wrath are actually one word in the Greek, parorgizō. The root orgizō means to anger or irritate. The prefix para adds the concept of “unto” or “movement toward a certain point.” The full idea, then, is “to provoke, move toward anger and exasperation.” In other words, with certain kinds of treatment, parents can drive a child to deep-seated anger, frustration, exasperation, resentment, and rebellion. How important it is that parents understand this!

 

One expositor offers this practical illustration:

During much of my college years, I worked for a store which had a large part of the trade of the rodeo cowboys in southern California. I learned there are at least two ways to break a horse. One is with the progressive use of a halter, bit, blanket, and saddle. Done correctly, this can produce a full-spirited, obedient horse. Another way is sometimes used with especially difficult horses. The method is simple. The wrangler simply takes a 2 x 4 and knocks the recalcitrant [unruly] horse to its knees. A horse, it is said, can be tamed this way, but with great cost. You will have a spiritless animal, an animal that though “obedient” will never be what it could have been. There are children who are like this. Their spirits have been broken, they are “obedient,” but something is missing. They have, to use Paul’s words in verse 21, “[lost] heart” (nasb). They withdraw and keep it all inside. Or they rebel when they get big enough. The results are painful either way.[13]

 

Can Christians be quilt of this? Absolutely! There are a several ways parents can produce anger, frustration, exasperation, resentment, and rebellion in their children. Let’s look at each of them, drawing principles from Proverbs to aid us.

 

Inconsistency

 

One of the most important principles, if not the most important, is to be consistent. Proverbs 13:24 is the key here: “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.” The Old English “betimes” means speedily. The Hebrew is sāhar, which means to diligently seek. The full idea, then, is that discipline comes quickly and consistently. If you promise discipline for a certain thing, then carry it out. On the other hand, don’t discipline something one time but then fail to do so another time. Children need a consistent framework of discipline; they need to know that the boundaries never change. Uncertainty produces frustration.

 

Harsh Punishment or Punishment Given Out Of Anger

 

There are, of course, those who say that any kind of punishment is wrong and abusive, or at least physical punishment is cruel. But Proverbs couldn’t be clearer here:

He that spareth his rod hateth his son. (13:34)

The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame. (29:15)

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. (33:13)

 

So, physical punishment most certainly is no abuse. But there is something here that at one time or the other every parent violates. Instead of demanding immediate obedience, many parents tell a child to do something over and over. Finally, the exasperated parent explodes and disciplines the child in anger. Proverbs again speaks: “An angry man stirreth up strife, and a furious man aboundeth in transgression” (29:22). If the parent gets made, it makes the situation far worse. The parent must also beware of being too severe in all discipline. Any punishment must meet, not exceed, the severity of the disobedience.

 

Verbal Abuse

 

Many people mistakenly think that the only kind of child-abuse is physical. Not so! Verbal abuse can do as much, sometime even more, damage than physical abuse. Some parents, particularly mothers, are “hollerers” who yell and scream at their children. This practice not only fails to accomplish anything positive, it destroys a parent’s credibility in the child’s eyes. Proverbs 16:24 declares, “Pleasant words are as an honeycomb, sweet to the soul, and health to the bones.”

 

Further, sarcasm, name-calling, and other such things that are also common today, can scar a child for the rest of his life. Proverbs 12:18 pictures this, “There is that speaketh like the piercings of a sword,” as does 15:1, “”grievous words stir up anger.” A sword will certainly leave a scare, and words can do the same. Is it not strange that parents will say things to their children that they would never say to anyone else out of fear of ruining their reputation (not to mention getting punched in the nose)?

 

No Praise or Encouragement

 

Most parents are quick to tell a child when he does something wrong but seldom (or never) praise him when he does something right. This is like the boss who never praises his employees. This practice will produce resentment and a feeling that one can’t do anything right, and will eventually cause that person to stop trying altogether. Solomon spoke to his son thusly: “My son, if thine heart be wise, my heart shall rejoice, even mine. Yea, my reins shall rejoice, when thy lips speak right things.” Indeed, a father rejoices when his child does right, and says so. He helps when even when a parent tells a child that he did something wrong, he should also look for something for which to praise the child. Granted, this may be difficult at times, and one may have to look very hard, but we parents need to try nonetheless.

 

Simple Neglect

 

The father is usually the culprit in this area; he is often so busy that he has little or no time for his children. This, then, is justified with statements such as this, “Well, I do it all for them; I’m busy so I can give them all the things I didn’t have.” But may we say, children need the parent’s time a lot more than they need their money. David neglected Absalom, which drove that son to rebellion, treason, and even attempted patricide (2 Samuel 14, 15). As we’ve examined, it is the father who is to “Train up a child in the way he should go” (Prov. 22:6), and he can’t do that if he’s not home. Tragically, there are many preachers who are guilty of this, those who think their church comes first. This is false, and such men are not pleasing the Lord no matter how successful their ministry may be.

 

Favoritism or Comparison With Other Children

 

One of the biggest mistakes parents make is saying, “Why can’t you be more like your brother (or sister)?” Moreover, there are parents who openly show favoritism to one child. Proverbs 28:21, however, counsels, “To have respect of persons [i.e., show partiality] is not good.”

 

One illustration of showing favoritism is Jacob’s favoritism of Joseph over his brothers. We all remember that story of how the embittered brothers sold Joseph into slavery. Even more graphic, however, was how Isaac openly favored Esau over Jacob, while Rebekah favored Jacob over Esau (about 1900 B.C.). Not only did this cause rivalry, friction, and disunity within that family, but those conflicts continued for centuries. While Jacob’s sons became the tribes of Israel, Esau’s descendents became the Edomites, the bitter enemies of the Jews. They refused to allow Moses to pass through their land (Num. 20:14-21) and were always ready to aid anyone who wished to attack Israel. Between 848-841 B.C., the Prophet Obadiah predicted the destruction of the Edomites, which occurred in 582 B.C. by the very same people, the Babylonians, the Edomites had helped sack Jerusalem four years before. One thing a parent must never do is pit one child against another; to do so can cause problems that will never be fixed. Every child is different; each will have his or her own interests, motivations, and so forth, and each must be dealt with on his own ground.

 

Over-Protection

 

A certain amount of protection is normal and quite necessary. A parent who isn’t protective of his children is a terrible parent, indeed! However, some parents are so protective that they do not allow their children to go out of the house, go anywhere on their own (assuming it is safe to do so), make some of their own decisions, and so forth. Certainly, there must be controls upon children, but such over-protection is actually a statement to the child that mom and dad don’t trust him. The idea of “train[ing] up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it” (Prov. 22:6) illustrates that when we do the training, they know right from wrong and eventually have to trust them to it.

 

By the same token, this gives a challenge to children to give their parents reason to trust them. You see, the whole purpose of child-training is to train them to do right on their own, not with mom or dad looking over their shoulder. Even early in life children should be allowed to make simple decisions (under careful guidance, of course). This teaches them responsibility for their actions. As they get older, the decisions get tougher. Parents will find that when they do this their children will then be more appreciative of the parent’s counsel.

 

Pressuring for Achievement

 

Parents often push their children too hard to achieve. The motive for this is often substitutionary; the parent wants the child to achieve in an area in which he did not achieve, or he wants the child to equal his achievement. Athletics are, of course, a major area among fathers, as if athletics are really important. I do not say this out of a non-athletic background; on the contrary, I was in athletics (playing and coaching) from an early age. But this whole concept of competition is humanistic. God never told us to strive to be “number one.” He tells us in His Word to work hard, be faithful, and do our best for His glory. The underlying attitude in athletics is self-glory, to get a “Super Bowl” ring, to get a gold medal, to get a trophy, to get prize money. It seems that no one can play a sport today just for the enjoyment. Many say they do, but if this is true, why do they insist on keeping score? Some professional athletes act like little babies as fights break out on the playing field. Some professional athletes are Christians, but we must wonder how they can agree to play on Sundays when there is no chance of their being in church where they belong. Additionally, an increasing number of athletes take steroids and amphetamines so they can excel in their sport.

 

Moreover, I have personally witnessed some disgracefully unchristian and unsportsman-like conduct in church athletic leagues. How refreshing it would be to see athletics played simply for the enjoyment of physical exercise and without the encumbrances of competition. Would that Christian dads today would teach their sons that “to search their own glory is not glory” (Prov. 25:27) and that “He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord” (I Cor. 1:31).

Mothers also can be guilty of this tendency. Among those mothers who have been brainwashed by the world we find the tendency to push their daughters into a career. According to this mentality being a godly wife and mother in the home is not enough of an “achievement,” and Proverbs 31:10-31 is viewed as “old fashioned.”

 

One Christian pastor tells the story of seeing a certain young woman sitting in a catatonic state in a padded cell in a mental institution. While she was a Christian, even having been raised in a Christian home, her mother had relentlessly pushed her to be the most popular, beautiful, and successful girl in school and became head cheerleader, homecoming queen, and later a model. But the pressure to excel became too great and she had a complete mental collapse. After she was eventually released from the hospital, she went back into the same environment, where she ultimately committed suicide because she could no longer cope with the pressures of the life she lived. Before she left the institution, she had summed up her frustration when she said to that pastor, “I don’t care what it is I do, it never satisfies my mother.”[14]

 

Well, whatever area it may involve, a child must not be pressured. The greatest damage that can be done is that a child feels that no matter how much he achieves, it’s never enough. Each child must be allowed his own interests. The parents should do all they can to train and motivate, but they must never push.

 

Failure to Allow a Child to be a Child

 

Some parents scold a child for doing silly things. They say, “I want you to act grown up.” But the child isn’t grown up; he’s a “child,” as the Hebrew word na‘ar indicates. Children live in an exciting world. They are energetic and incredibly inquisitive. Yes, we should teach them responsibility and progressively grow up, but we must also allow them to be children. They only get that luxury once in life, so may we not deprive them of it. We also must not laugh or make fun of our children when they ask dumb questions. Remember, we adults also ask dumb questions about things we know nothing about!

 

Legalism and Unreasonable Rules

 

Here is something of which many Christians parents are guilty. Nothing will turn a child or young person off to God quicker than legalism and rules that have no reason or rationality to them. Many parents live by the motto, “You do something just because I say so.” That is the wrong motive and the wrong approach. We should teach out children that they do something, not because we say so, but because God says so. If we have a rule, it must have Biblical authority behind it, not our personal opinion. Proverbs 4:1-4 are the model:

Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend to know understanding. For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my law. For I was my father's son, tender and only beloved in the sight of my mother. He taught me also, and said unto me, Let thine heart retain my words: keep my commandments, and live.

 

The “law,” “commandments,” and “doctrine” here are not just the father’s ideas and opinions, rather God’s Truth.

 

Failure to Express That You Love Your Children and Want Them

 

How many parents there are who express to their children, by word and action, that they are unwanted and are an intrusion upon their lives. This is expressed even by a seeming harmless statement like, “Oh, we can’t do that because of the kids.” After hearing this a few times, a child will begin to feel that he is just a hindrance to his parent’s plans and happiness. It cannot be overemphasized that the parents’ time is everything! Parents who do not invest their time in their children will produce resentment in those children.

 

Oh, how important it is that families do things as a family. Proverbs 17:1 declares, “Better is a dry morsel, and quietness therewith, than an house full of sacrifices [i.e., feasting] with strife.” In other words, a piece of dry toast in a relaxed setting is better than a feast in an unhappy house. The typical family goes out of the house as if a bomb just exploded. As the fragments of the bomb go in every direction, so each member of the family goes his or her own way. Once in awhile, if everyone’s schedule allows, the whole family is together for an entire evening, but this is rare. This is not God’s design. God has designed the family to be together in the home, in the church, in the children’s schooling, and in every other area. God desires each family member to be a part of all other family members.

 

Using Love and Attention as Either a Reward or a Punishment

 

Proverbs 3:12 and 13:24 both tell us that a father who loves and cherishes his children corrects, and even chastens, them. True love is an absolute and is unconditional. It is a grave error to ignore your children when they are bad and paying attention to them only when they are good. This practice tells them that love is a transitory thing, not an absolute. Are we not glad that God does not do this? If He did this there would be absolutely no way for us to be saved because since we were bad (totally depraved), God wouldn’t have loved us. Indeed, we must discipline wrong actions, but as we’ll see, this is actually positive.

 

To conclude, no matter what we do in teaching and discipline (those things which are involved in the other three elements of child-training), we can destroy it all by provoking our children to anger, frustration, and resentment. We must constantly guard against it.

 

Nurture Children (v. 4c)

but bring them up

 

We often read this verse and mistakenly think that there are only two things involved in raising children: nurturing (discipline) and admonishing (instruction). But there are actually three things spoken of here. The foundational principle, in fact, is found in the words bring them up. Those three words translate a single Greek word, ektrephō, which means “to nourish, promote health and strength, and educate.” This nourishing, then, is the general term that tells parents that they are responsible for raising and training their children. In light of the present day, we need to take the time to deal with this thought in some depth.

 

The Danger of Public (State) Education

 

Oh, how Christians need to be made aware of just how dangerous public (state) education really is! If you, the reader, don’t believe this, just go back and trace the fall of the Roman Empire. Greek philosophy began to infiltrate Roman society, and when Greek teachers began teaching the children, the Empire slowly began to crumble. You see, the foundation of Greek philosophy is totally humanistic. The well-known and now famous definition of humanism, “Man is the measure of all things,” was first proposed by the Greek Sophist philosopher Protagoras in 5th Century B.C. Athens. Even though subsequent philosophers. Such as Socrates and Plato, differed with Protagoras in some areas, this one precept was still interwoven into Greek thought. Protagoras, for example, had atheistic tendencies while these other philosophers did not, but those other philosophers still believed in “the gods,” not the one true God. Therefore, the result was that man was still left to himself for thought and action.

 

This humanism lives on today! Protagoras’ belief has been used by the U.S. Supreme Court to define humanism as a religion. It is fascinating, indeed, to discover that from the time the Pilgrims landed in 1620 until late in the 19th Century there was no such thing as “public education.” Education of children was solely in the hands of parents and the church. The chief molder of education in America was John Dewey (1859-1952). 

 

Dewey was an atheist, a humanist, and an evolutionist, and he totally rejected traditional views of education. He advocated “free expression” (that is, “do your own thing”), “learning through experience” (that is, instead of being taught absolutes, a child should learn by a relativistic approach), and other “revolutionary” concepts. Ever since federal aid to education began in 1957, humanistic domination of education has become increasingly overwhelming. How naive many Christians are who think the PTA runs the school! No, the state runs the school, and as far as the state is concerned, it owns your children. We say “state education,” by the way, because it better describes the real situation than does “public education.”

 

If one examines state education he finds that it has done away with traditional (Biblical) morals and values, parental authority, godly influence, and even nationalism and patriotism. I once read of a mother who went to her son’s school to speak with his teacher about their new social studies textbook. The teacher refused to let her see the textbook, something shocking in itself! The determined mother, however, snuck into the room during recess, opened the book, and was appalled by what she read. The book was filled with profanity and obscenities. It endorsed pre-marital and illicit sex, homosexuality, and abortion. It blasphemed God and the Church, recommended draft-dodging, and was unpatriotic in general. She thought to herself, “No wonder teachers don’t want parents to look at the textbooks.”

 

Now then, there are, indeed, some Christian teachers in the public school system as well as parents and Christian leaders who are fighting to put prayer back in the schools and screen textbooks. But may we submit, this is like a soldier with a B-B gun trying to go against a tank division or a doctor putting a Band-Aid on a terminally ill cancer patient. Why fight state education when it is neither Biblical nor even American? Too many Christians are under the delusion that they can win the war when there is absolutely no possibility of victory. God says our society will only get worse and that humanism is here to stay. Besides, as we will see, God never meant education to be “public” to start with.

 

May we conclude here, under no circumstances whatsoever should Christian parents put their children in the public school! By putting children in the state school, parents expose them to philosophies with which they cannot possibly cope. Countless adults collapse under the pressure of the world; how can we expect our children to stand? At this point, some parents object, “But we tell our children at home what’s wrong with the public school.” The obvious problem with doing that, of course, is that it produces a dualism within the child; they have two authorities and begin to wonder which one to believe. They can also begin to wonder why their parents send them to a place that is so incorrect. Ponder something else about this practice: Parents who do this are actually teaching their children at home, which is what God wants them to do in the first place. The tragedy, however, is that most of the parents’ teaching will be ineffective, because the humanists have the children at least six hours a day and they are very good at what they do. (Please see the latter part of Chapter 32 for additional comments on public education.)

 

The Weakness of the “Christian School”

 

There are many today who will disagree with what is said here, but to those I say, Please prayfully consider my presentation. Many Christian parents send their children to the church-sponsored Christian school. Now, this is certainly to be favored over the public school. Public school officials often attack Christian schools and accuse them of being educationally deficient. This is absurd and has been proven over and over again to be absurd. There are kids coming out of the public school who can’t even read! Plus, scholastic test scores are proving that the quality of the education in Christian schools is far superior to that in the public school.

But may we humbly submit that the Christian school still has some limitations and is not God’s best for his little children.

 

First, the main limitation of the Christian school is that it, like the public school, thrusts children into a social environment for which they may or may not be ready. Raymond Moore, author of the book Home Grown Kids, tells us “by nature most children are not carriers of sound social values. Peer dependency is a social cancer of our times.”[15] In other words, children will be guided much more by their peers than by their parents or teachers. Every honest parent knows that to be true! But it has been proven that children who spend the majority of their time with their parents get into less trouble, have a better view of their parents, and are even more optimistic about life in general and their own future.

 

Second, another limitation of the Christian school is that children are often forced into competition for their teacher’s approval and competition with other children in the form of achievement. You see, it’s the approval of the parents that children need, and as we have mentioned already, competition is not healthy; it fosters the wrong attitudes and motives.

 

Third, some Christian schools are almost as worldly as public schools. Trendy appearance and even immodest dress and are sometimes allowed, and true spiritual behavior is often not emphasized. There is also quite often a over-emphasis on sports, which in-turn further emphasizes pride.

What, then, does God’s Word say about this area of education?

 

The Mandate for Education by Parents

 

Let’s take a moment to consider Deuteronomy 6:6-9:

And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

 

The context of this passage was Moses’ reminder to the Israelites of the Ten Commandments and other laws. So important was the Law to the Jewish mind that the tradition of the Mezuzah grew out of this command. The words of Deuteronomy 6:4-9 and 11:13-20 were written on a piece of parchment, placed in a small wooden box, which was then displayed on the top of the doorway of houses and rooms. They would then touch the box with their finger and then kiss the finger on going either into out.[16] While that was a custom and not a mandate, would that Christians revered God’s Word like that.

 

As for the mandate of teaching children, however, Fred Wight, author of Manners and Customs of Bible Lands, cites this passage as demonstrating that principle:

. . .the duty of the educating of the youth was delegated by the Mosaic Law especially to the Hebrew parents. The home was to be a school and the parents were to be teachers.[17]

 

At this point some folks might say, “Well, we don’t live under the Mosaic Law.” That is quite true, but Ephesians 6:4 shows that God didn’t change His law concerning the parents teaching their children. But further, it is also interesting that after the Babylonian captivity the “Synagogue School” developed. You see, every Jewish community had a synagogue, and this synagogue became, if we may use the term, the “public school.” Only boys attended and they were taught to read and write and were taught the Law. But may we submit, quite frankly, this seems to have been more of a departure from God’s design than an enhancement of it. We find no record of God saying to teach the children in the synagogue! Home education is indisputably God’s design. Please take the time to read Proverbs 1:8; 2:1-2; 3:1; 4:1-4, 10; 5:1-2; 7:1-2, 24, and other verses that speak of this fact.

 

One of the main reasons for the lack of understanding about education is that Christians do not understand the purpose of education. The purpose of education is not books, tests, and so forth. Rather, the purpose of education is training for meaningful living in the sight of God. It is for this reason that public education is less than worthless. Things such as math, history, English, and the like will be by-products of proper education, but they are not the goal. To a certain extent public education gives the by-products, but it destroys the purpose, which is to train children for meaningful living in the sight of God.  What better place then can there be for children to be educated than in the home?

 

There are, of course, many objections sounded against home education. Let us answer four of the major ones.

 

First, one objection which is voiced is, “Parents aren’t qualified to teach their children.” This is true of some parents but not in the way humanistic educators say it is. The humanists mean that parents are unqualified academically, but there are many home school curriculums today that are making fools of such “experts.” The only parents who are not qualified to home school are those who don’t care about their children’s education. But still there are parents who are afraid of and are intimidated by educators (not to mention grandparents) who say their children need “certified” teachers. So-called “certification” is absolutely meaningless. In fact, many teachers today fight to avoid competency tests, and, as we’ve mentioned already, the quality of public education continues to deteriorate. Formal education is no guarantee of competency.

 

May we also ask every parent, don’t you care infinitely more for your children than could any teacher, even a Christian teacher? Your children do not belong to the state. God hasn’t entrusted them to the state, nor has He entrusted them to some Christian school. Your children actually belong to God Who has entrusted them to you. Your primary duty is to train those children.

 

Ponder one other question, a question that truly finalized this issue in my own mind and heart. Christian parent, don’t you think that since God has ordained you to be responsible for educating your children, He will also give you the ability and the grace to do so? To say “No” to that question is to deny the grace, provision, and sovereignty of God.

 

Second, there is the objection that goes, “It isn’t legal to teach your children at home.” As Michael Smith, president of the “Home School Legal Defense Association” writes, while in the early days of home schooling

most states declared it illegal unless conducted by a certified teacher, that is no longer the case. Many parents, who were religiously motivated, argued that mandatory public school attendance for their children would violate their free exercise of religion. Others argued courageously that mandatory public school attendance interfered with their fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children. As a result of these families’ courage and perseverance, and God's blessing, currently, all states recognize the legality of home-schooling.[18]

 

Specific requirements vary from state to state, but again, we must decide to whom our children belong.

 

Third, is the objection, “Your child will be deprived of social interaction with other children and won’t learn to fit in!” But as we’ve mentioned, a child will learn to identify with whomever he spends the most time. May we reiterate what we have said before, we are not trying to “raise children;” we are trying to raise future adults, future citizens, future Christians. God designed the family to train children in socialization.

 

Fourth, one other objection says, “Well, as a Christian parent who is responsible for my child’s education, I can delegate that responsibility to a Christian school.” Some years ago I was preaching on home education in one church and the pastor, a dear fellow who also taught at a Christian school, offered this comment to me after the service. I merely responded, “Just show me in God’s Word where He says we can delegate that responsibility to others.” A short time later that dear pastor was teaching his children at home.

 

To conclude, we say again, it is the parents’ responsibility to train their children. Ponder one last thought. Most Christians agree that gambling is wrong, whether it’s betting on the horses, playing roulette, shooting craps, playing poker, or even playing the state lottery. But we submit that putting your child in the state school is the biggest gamble you’ll ever take. And what makes it worse is that you can’t win no matter what!

 

Discipline Children (v. 4d)

 

in the nurture . . . of the Lord.

 

At this point some will say, “Oh, now we get to the negative part of child-training.” On the contrary, discipline is designed to be positive; it is designed to produce positive results in the lives of our children.

 

The Greek word translated nurture is paideia and is used to show the stronger side of child-training. It shows that there must be discipline and at times even punishment. A well-known verse reads: “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes [i.e., diligently].” As mentioned in a previous chapter, by nature a child will not listen and obey; by nature a child is depraved and self-centered. So then, a child must be made to obey.

There are, of course, two extremes we must avoid in our discipline. We can read about the first extreme. In the Victorian Era, we read of the tyranny of the father. Children were not allowed to express their opinions or to even ask questions. Punishment was often brutal and sometimes even inhumane. But modern society gives us the other extreme. Many people, often under the advice of child-psychologists, have done away with discipline altogether. We see children today who are allowed to interrupt adults when they are talking, dominate a conversation, and even say “No!” to their parents. Many children are coddled and given no responsibility in the home, not corrected (much less spanked if needed), allowed to argue with their parents and be rowdy in God’s house. Moreover, most children today have to be told something more than once instead of the parent’s words be obeyed immediately. Now, are the children to blame for all this? Of course not! They are just doing what comes naturally. The parents are the ones to blame as well as preachers who do not tell parents their Biblical responsibilities.

 

Let us n