a. Orientation⤒🔗

This proverb is a rather strange one, even in a linguistic sense. There is no verb in this sentence. What does one do with it? To me, the proverb only says something if you see a hidden comparison in it, along this line: Like a whip fits a horse, and a bridle fits a donkey, so a rod is meant for someone foolish.

This proverb also seems strange in its content. A person, even if foolish, is parallelled with two animals. I can already hear the reaction of that person: Can you please treat me as a human? Incidentally, what does it mean that he is foolish? Is he a stupid person without much brain? Or is he more like a person who follows his own mind and does not want to know obedience, and so repeatedly encounters himself in life? Is it an adult, or should we rather think of an older child?

Another preliminary question asks precisely what is being compared here. You use a whip to get a horse to move, and especially to brisk it up. A donkey’s bridle is also intended to urge it on, and at the same time to keep it in check. In these cases, you think of guiding rather than of punishment. It seems to be different from a fool getting beaten with a rod. That treatment comes across as punishment. That man should not walk faster, but rather realize that he misbehaved, and the rod makes him feel that on his body. Or should punishment and control be combined?

You may have thought of something else first when you read this proverb: Is beating still allowed these days? You may perhaps still give a child a light spank, but you may not become physical with an adult employee, even when he is being difficult. Clearly, there remain some questions about this text that we need to look at.

b. Text and Translations←⤒🔗

The Hebrew text poses no challenges. Most translations are rather literal and do not add a verb. Only the LXX ventures into making the text an actual comparison. Sadly, it misinterprets the word for “back” as the term for “people” (with a one-letter difference). In that way, the LXX rendition ends strangely when the whole text is read as “As there is a whip for a horse and a prod for a donkey, so there is a rod for a people of the lawless.” In history, God certainly punishes pagan peoples, but that is not what this proverb means. Another more interpretive translation has, “A whip is used to guide a horse, and a harness is used for a donkey. In the same way, a paddle is used on a foolish person to guide him.” (ICB)

I think the ICB captured the intent well here. In some translations the words for “whip” and “harness” or “bridle” are swapped, which may well have been the case also for the poet of Proverbs. Generally, it is noteworthy that most translations have “fool” or “foolish person” (only the TLB has “rebel”). We will still need to have a look at who really is a fool.

c. The Meaning in the Situation of that time (with Biblical or extra-biblical parallels and examples.)←⤒🔗

Let us first more sharply define again what makes someone a fool in the Bible. It certainly is not a person with a low IQ. Foolishness has nothing to do with intelligence. It is rather about someone who is stubborn and goes against the grain, someone unruly and unmanageable. Proverbs 26 has about ten more verses that display a fool. When you read those verses (1-12), you get an impression of the behaviour, or rather, misbehaviour, of that kind of person. It is one who is difficult to work with, one who eventually walks towards his own downfall unless he radically changes his life.

In our text it might be an adult, but we usually think of a younger person when Proverbs speaks of beating and whipping. Think of an unruly child, or an adolescent who shames his parents. In Proverbs we do not find another literal comparison with a horse or a donkey, but the second part of the proverb does come back almost literally in 19:29: “Condemnation is ready for the scoffers, and beating for the backs of fools” (see Proverbs 10:13), “but a rod is for the back of him who lacks sense.” That conveys the meaning clearly at the same time. That rod is intended, as it were, for that kind of backs. The backs of such people just beg for a beating.

What was the intention of such a beating? Was it to punish a son or a servant for stubbornness or underperformance? Or was it to roughly urge the person to greater performance? I think primarily of the first, for punishment, but we do not need to separate that from an intent to urge a person to try harder. If, for instance, you were punished for laziness, you would have also understood to take your tasks more seriously. Punishment was encouragement at the same time. Sometimes it is necessary to control a person with a hard hand, especially for people who cannot be controlled with words. In such cases a kick in the pants may be necessary, for he who will not listen to the message must feel it.

In Israel, upbringing was strict and heavy-handed. Many proverbs witness to that, like Proverbs 13:24, 20:30, 23:13-14, and 29:15. Each of these fits in the framework of bringing up children. Young people should not be pampered, but be handled firmly. You will not die from a beating, says the author (Proverbs 23:13-14). A good punishment can purify one of evil. It does not make you worse, but wiser.

I want to point to the parallel thought in Psalm 32:9, where the content of the proverb has become a concrete warning with the same or similar terms. David offers this urgent advice, “Be not like a horse or mule without understanding, which must be curbed with bit and bridle, or it will not stay near you.” In other words, take care that no whip or other means of force needs to be used for you. To say it with the Psalter, “Be not perverse, but willing to heed my wise command.” [As in Reformed Heritage Books Printings, edition 2014, which approaches the Dutch sentiment: ks].

If we look at the literature that parallels the Bible, or that is totally separate from the Bible, we often notice the same attitude towards physical punishment. With such upbringing, the rod was a standard means of penalty and force. In chapter 30 of the Wisdom of Jesus Sirach we find a complete paragraph about bringing up children. I cite two meaningful verses: first verse 1, “A man who loves his son will beat him frequently so that in after years the son may be his comfort”; then verse 9, which warns against the opposite attitude — “Pamper your child, and he will give you a fright, play with him, and he will bring you sorrow” (TJB).

This severity is not specific to Israel, but a feature of instruction throughout the earlier Middle East. In the Aramaic proverbs of Ahiqar we read, for instance, “Do not withhold the rod from your son, or else you cannot keep him from evil. If I beat you, my son, you will not die, but if I leave you to your own devices, you shall not live.” The same signals can be heard from Egypt at that time. A heavy-handed upbringing was the most normal thing in the world. We struggle with that today, but I will get back to that.

In this section I must add one comment. The Lord is the great and perfect educator of his people. He himself can also deal blows, including using enemies of his people for that. When Assyria cornered the people of Judah, it was a punishment of the Lord. That is also why, in Isaiah 10:5, God says of Assyria: “the rod of my anger, the staff in their hands is my fury!” When discipline through the words of prophets no longer sufficed, God had to use a harsher method: discipline by foreign powers, eventually even exile. He who no longer wanted to hear the accusations of Isaiah and others had to feel the beatings of God’s rod itself. God wanted to put his people back on the good way, by fair means, or, if necessary, by forceful means. At the same time, God also tackled Asshur, for its excess in its cruelty.

d. Message and Application for today (also in the New Testament)←⤒🔗

In New Testament times, punishment saw some humanization under Roman influences. Roman citizens could no longer be beaten with rods. Paul claimed that privilege when he and Silas were imprisoned and beaten in Philippi (Acts 16:37). Later, in Acts 22, he had to appeal to this privilege again to escape beating. This was a privilege for Roman citizens only, and not for citizens of subjected peoples. Jesus had to suffer beating when he was arrested, because he was a Jew and not a Roman.

How is the situation today? Humanization of society has gradually infused the whole world. All kinds of cruel punishments have been abolished, and many societies have become more humanitarian and humane. We may appreciate that positively. At the same time, that development has not yet been implemented everywhere. In countries where Islam determines the law, punishments remain as harsh as they used to be. Where Shariah is in force, or is introduced, we can expect little softening.

On the other hand, we need to realize where this humanization comes from. It has to do with the present phenomenon of human rights. In the previous century, we, as people, have “discovered” and agreed to a range of human rights that must guarantee that each person can lead a worthy existence. It is not wrong if people make such agreements as humans and peoples, at a horizontal level. However, we should not forget that there is also a vertical line. The great disease of today’s humanity is that the vertical line gets wiped out. In the mind of millions, God no longer exists, leaving only horizontal relationships. But the Bible and reality teach otherwise. From God’s view, it is audacious that people who themselves all deserve death speak about human rights. The word “punishment” has been scrubbed from the vocabulary of most people and replaced with the word “right.” That is a dangerous example of self-deception, and it will come back to haunt the world.

In practice, this humanization is accompanied by de-divination, where God is left out. Where human dignity dominates, God is dethroned. What God says, also in the book of Proverbs, is no longer taken as important. That is noticeable even in the chambers of government. Several years ago, “pedagogical slaps” were outlawed in the Netherlands, as they could be the prelude to child abuse. Of course, a slap like that may never degenerate into abuse, but it is excessive to just connect the two. Some level-headed sense would be useful here. We certainly should not ban all punishments at school or at home along with that slap.

In this connection I still want to refer to Hebrews 12:1-13. It draws a parallel between the strict but loving upbringing by a father (and mother) and the way in which God deals with us. God treats us as his children (verse 7), and that includes admonishment and punishment (see Proverbs 3:11-12). So, if we push aside the punishing element of upbringing, God could no longer admonish, reprimand, or punish us, either. Then we have made a powerless God out of the Lord. It is of great importance to keep connecting the image of God as Father with the ongoing line in the book of Proverbs.

e. Discussion Questions←⤒🔗

1. What would Paul mean with that “rod” in 1 Corinthians 4:21? Did he give these readers a choice of beatings with the rod or love with a gentle pat on the back? Should we interpret the beating literally here?
    
2. Do a Google search for “corporal punishment” to explore historical (and sometimes still current) practices. Find out whether your government still allows for heavy-handed punishments.
    
3. According to Hebrews 12:10, what is the great difference between our earthly fathers and our heavenly Father?
    
4. It is a tremendous favour to be accepted as a child of God. Which rights does that status provide?
    
5. If you do not give slaps at school, which punishments can be applied instead? Punishing tasks perhaps, or staying after school? Should a punishment also be useful?