An Old Topic But New Discussion, Please

[HappyChristian]

We've discussed, in the past, what Proverbs 22:6 means, whether it is a guarantee for child rearing or not.

I've been in churches where this verse has been used as a cudgel against parents whose child hasn't measured up to certain ideals when said child became an adult. I've also heard people - Christians - deride other Christians as being bad Christians because their children didn't become "godly' (as per the individual's definition) adults.

I've been doing some research and was surprised at some things that I came across.

The biggest surprise was that the teaching of Prov. 22:6,rather than being a guarantee of good parentage, is a warning to parents who are NOT training their children, promising that allowing a child to go his/her own way would set their future on a bleak course.

Then there is the look at the Hebrew word that we see as child - the usage of the word is correct, but rather than meaning toddler or little one, it has the connotation of adolescent. The Hebrew idea behind "the way he should go" gives the idea of mouth of a river, or, in other words, the beginning.  Not the beginning of life, but the beginning of the child's entrance into adulthood.

 So, I am interested in what folks think about it. Thanks.

[No Nicolaitans]

Well, I've been taught that it's a promise. I've also been taught that no, it's not a promise, it's a principle.

My personal thoughts are that it's a principle with a promised outcome. How's that for riding the fence? 

I see it in the same vein as you reap what you sow. If parents sow the wrong training or right training, both they and their children will reap the rewards.

I'm almost 50 now, and I can look back and see how my raising has influenced many areas of my life...both good and bad. I'm the last of three children, and we were all raised together...yet we've taken different paths in life. In some ways we're all similar, yet in other ways, we're vastly different. Though our "theology" differs, we all share a common endpoint that was instilled into us by our Dad, and though our paths are different, I can see them merging in some ways.

 

[heartstrings]

I been taught that way too, many times. But I've also been told that the "he will not depart from it" part means he may go prodigal/astray/ungodly and may stay that way, but he will never be able to shake that training from his conscience; or something to that effect. That was from a preacher/pastor whose son did go astray.. Considering things I've seen, I'm not really sure myself. I have three kids and I continue to pray for them, no matter what their spiritual condition is.

Edited August 22, 2016 by heartstrings

[No Nicolaitans]

3 hours ago, heartstrings said:

I been taught that way too, many times. But I've also been told that the "he will not depart from it" part means he may go prodigal/astray/ungodly and may stay that way, but he will never be able to shake that training from his conscience; or something to that effect.

Yeah, I've also heard people say that it means to train them up the way they should go, and they'll come back to it one day.

I think one of the main keys to this verse is "in the way that he should go". What does that mean exactly? I could be wrong, but I think it means different things to different people in some aspects. Such as, some people may interpret it to mean an outward righteousness. Teach them to "do this, do that, don't do this, and don't do that". Certainly, how one should act and present themselves is of great importance; however, neglecting to instill morals without an understanding of why leaves too much room for rebellion (in my opinion).

Some may interpret it to mean how to carry on one's daily affairs. Such as, work hard, pay your bills, treat others the way you want to be treated, be honest, etc.

There are others, but I hope my meaning is coming across.

What is "the way that he should go"?

Certainly, this has to do with how one will lead their life and their end result. I think back to what I mentioned about my Dad and how he trained all of us. To be honest, it wasn't really that much of a spiritual training. Dad was saved a little later in his life (mid to late 30's), and he took us kids to church every Sunday morning. We prayed at meals, and he taught us to pray before we went to bed. He would read the Bible a lot...not to us...I just remember him reading his a lot. Still, that little bit of "training" had a large influence on me. He led by example as far as how to conduct one's self. So...we really didn't have any personalized training in any particular area. All that I remember is Dad loved the Lord, church was important to him, he worked hard to take care of us, and he seemed to be a happy man.

If we take into account the Hebrew meaning (as HC referenced), it has to do with a mouth. A man's, animal's, or river's mouth...or an extremity or end. So, it has to do with what comes out of a man...I think. How we train our children will greatly determine their outcome in life...when they are old. Remember the Lord said that it's not what goes in that defiles a man...but what comes out.

I know that all men are sinners, and despite the best training, they can go astray. Despite the best training, they can still be lost and go to hell.

What is "the way that he should go"?

Is it how he should act, how he should speak, how he should look, and how he should conduct business? I think so, but I think those should be side benefits from the actual "way that he should go".

I don't claim to be right, but this is how I interpret and apply (in my own life) "the way that he should go"...

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

I've tried (and am trying) to train my children (though one is now 18) to love the Lord. If they get their heart right, the side-benefits will hopefully follow. For example, before I pray with them, I get them to think of something that happened that day that we can thank him for. Then when we pray, we thank him not only for "it", but we thank him for loving us and providing/allowing "it". That's just one example. Do I ever "train" for outward appearances, conduct, morals, etc.? Yes, but it's less emphasized. I want them to love the Lord.

Again...I'm not saying what I'm doing is right, the right way, or the only way...just sharing how I see it and how I apply it.

[HappyChristian]

Interesting thoughts, guys. Thanks for the responses. 

As to "mouth", what I read about it was that it indicates the idea of the mouth of a river, or a beginning. And so the conclusion was, with the other Hebrew taken into account, the "child" is about to step into adulthood - hence beginning, or mouth - and needs to be trained in the way he is to go. Some say that means take into account the temperament and personality of the child (we all know siblings who react quite differently to different forms of discipline...a look is all one needs, while swats are needed for another, etc) and to train accordingly.

I've always thought it was a principle inside a promise. But is it a guarantee of godly children? If the verse indicates a hard and fast guarantee that if children are trained right they'll never leave it, then what do we do with verses like "evil communications corrupt good manners"? Even as adults who know to put God first and who strive to do so, we can be affected adversely by people/media/other communications. If WE go into sin, is that the fault of faulty rearing? Or is it because we make our choices? Where is the line drawn between faulting parents with rearing and acknowledging that, just as the perfect Adam and Eve did, that adult child has chosen of his/her own free will to engage in sin?

The Bible tells us that we each will give account of ourselves to God. And we do most definitely reap what we sow. The reaping/sowing idea is clear in the verse, but parents are human and make mistakes. Does that mean they failed if the child becomes poor adult? 

[No Nicolaitans]

By mere implication of the wording of the verse, it's addressed to parents...so I do think the brunt of responsibility lies on the parents...to provide the training.

Still...what is "the way that he should go"? Is it even in reference to a spiritual "way"...ensuring godly children, or is it just in regard to their manner of life in general? I personally think it encompasses it all. I know with my raising, even when I ventured off the way, I still "kept my raising"...I knew how to act in appropriate moments and did so.

As I mull the verse over, all that I see mentioned are two age groups...training them (youth) and when the are old. The middle part is missing...say from their 20s until they reach their older years? 

I take it those are the years; in which, they will journey down the path (the way he should go) that we trained them for? Perhaps they may venture off the path at some point(s)...responsible for the decisions they make. Yet, if we have trained them properly by instilling in them a love for the Lord, proper values, proper etiquette, proper responsibility, etc., that will in turn become part of who they are and their decision making. They receive the training, but they are still responsible for what they do with it. Unfortunately, some decisions are made despite the best training. That doesn't mean the training or trainers were wrong. Sin and pride can make a person do some terrible things. Still, I don't personally know an old person who has rejected and left good, solid, loving, godly training.

That's why when they reach the age where they can begin their life of making decisions and choices, we should train them properly IN the way that he should go...not just ABOUT the way that he should go. It implies (to me) effort and work on my part in explaining things, showing the benefits of this, the consequences of that, explaining why is something wrong instead of "it's wrong because I said so". It involves effort, love, and concern on the parents' part to do it right.

...and I believe it becomes who they are if we've trained them correctly...starting with putting the Lord first. 

Okay...I'll be quiet now...feel like I'm just rambling.

As always, I reserve the right to be wrong.

[DaveW]

I am actually reading through this section right now, and it occurred to me that this verse, whilst a verse in isolation as far as it's precise subject, is not in total isolation in its passage.

Pro 22:1-13
(1)  A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches, and loving favour rather than silver and gold.
(2)  The rich and poor meet together: the LORD is the maker of them all.
(3)  A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.
(4)  By humility and the fear of the LORD are riches, and honour, and life.
(5)  Thorns and snares are in the way of the froward: he that doth keep his soul shall be far from them.
(6)  Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
(7)  The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.
(8)  He that soweth iniquity shall reap vanity: and the rod of his anger shall fail.
(9)  He that hath a bountiful eye shall be blessed; for he giveth of his bread to the poor.
(10)  Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease.
(11)  He that loveth pureness of heart, for the grace of his lips the king shall be his friend.
(12)  The eyes of the LORD preserve knowledge, and he overthroweth the words of the transgressor.
(13)  The slothful man saith, There is a lion without, I shall be slain in the streets.

 

If we look at the verses surrounding the subject verse, we find that some of these at least are not solid, hard and fast promises, but principles.

For instance, not every slothful man complains about a lion in the streets - but the principle is that a lazy man will find an excuse not to do what he should.

Not every man who loves pureness of heart will ever be a friend of a king (an earthly king). I am sure there have been men who loved pureness of heart who never ever ever even met a king, let alone became the friend of a king.

Does a prudent man always avoid evil? Well, the Lord Himself told us that we would indeed suffer tribulations (John 16:33), so no, this is not a promise, but a general principle that if followed gives a good chance of avoiding evil.

The point I am making (I think!) is that vs 6 is amongst verses that are not solid promises, but rather principles that have a result if they are followed.

I will also add to this that the Lord holds every single individual responsible for their own soul. No father can save his child, no mother can save her child - the child must be saved individually by trusting in the shed blood of Christ. Theoretically a set of parents could do everything perfectly biblical in their child rearing, and the child could still choose to walk the wide path to destruction. (It is highly unlikely I think that this would happen, but it is biblically possible.)

Therefore it is not biblically possible for the actions of a parent to ensure that an individually responsible child will follow the path that he is taught.

I come to the conclusion then that this is a principle that should be followed by the parents, and if followed by the parents, the child has the best foundation and basis to not stray too far from the way.

This verse is instruction to parents, not a promise imposed onto the child.

 

 

 

[DaveW]

I was looking at this a little further, and I have come up with two further points:

1. This verse is not talking specifically about training a child in godly ways. It nowhere mentions nor even intimates godly ways specifically. This is a general principle about training a child to grow up. 
2. The "Mouth" reference as mentioned previously made me think of a gate, when I looked up the term "train up". You see that term means "to narrow", and it occurred to me that this is like a sheep run, which starts off wide and narrows to a single sheep width, and is used to direct the sheep into a specific gate for whatever reason.

The Principle of the narrowing fences leading to the gate in respect to training is that the fences are needed to get the sheep to go through the gate initially, but at some point, once the sheep know that is the gate they need to go through, the narrowing fencing can be removed and the sheep will still go through that gate - because the fencing has trained them which gate to go to.

This therefore is applicable to any and all areas of parental training, from toilet training to training in the ways of God.

 

The interesting thing with this illustration is that, whilst most sheep will come to the gate every time, every now and then a sheep will refuse to come to the gate, and must be brought personally by the shepherd.

So, in whatever a parent trains his child, if he has done the training properly and has shown the path clearly, when he is old and no longer has the "fence either side" he will still find the proper end of his task (the gate), because he has been trained to do so. But he is now free without the restriction of the fences, and so he may very well choose to ignore his training and not go to the fence.

I therefore propose that the "Way" in itself is not so important in this verse, as it is any "way" that the parent trains the child, and not specifically in godliness, and that it is indeed a principle will hold true most of the time, but not an absolute guarantee.

Just some more thoughts.

[No Nicolaitans]

25 minutes ago, DaveW said:

This verse is not talking specifically about training a child in godly ways. It nowhere mentions nor even intimates godly ways specifically. This is a general principle about training a child to grow up. 

That's what I was trying to say in my mega posts. You said it better and more concise.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

For those who may be interested,

The Hebrew word from which the English verb "train up" is translated in Proverbs 22:6 is "chanak."  The primary meaning of the Hebrew word is "to make narrow, or to be narrow."  The Hebrew word is a denominative verb from the Hebrew word for "the palate with the corresponding lower part of the mouth, the inner parts of the mouth, the jaws."  As such, the Hebrew verb "chanak" carries the picture of "putting something into the mouth for the purpose of tasting."  On the one hand, when used in relation to an individual, the Hebrew verb then carries the idea -- "to imbue with understanding, to instruct, to train up."  On the other hand, when used in relation to an inanimate object, the Hebrew verb then carries the idea -- "to initiate unto some purpose, to dedicate, to commence using."

Within the Old Testament Scriptures, the Hebrew verb "chanak" is employed a total of five times -- Twice in Deuteronomy 20:5, once in 1 Kings 8:63, 2 Chronicles 7:5, and Proverbs 22:6.  In four of these uses, the verb is used in relation to an inanimate object (that is -- a house and the temple) -- Deuteronomy 20:5; 1 Kings 8:63; 2 Chronicles 7:5.  Thus in all of these cases, the Hebrew verb is translated with a form of the English word "dedicate."  Even so, the only case wherein the Hebrew verb is employed within the Old Testament Scriptures for an individual is Proverbs 22:6, wherein it would carry the idea of filling a child with understanding, of training up that child through instruction unto understanding.

Furthermore, it should be recognized that the Hebrew verb "chanak" (to "train up") in Proverbs 22:6 is delivered in the imperative mood.  Therefore, the opening line of Proverbs 22:6 is not simply a grammatical condition for the closing line of the sentence, that is -- "If perchance you might train up a child, then . . ."  Nor is the opening line of Proverbs 22:6 simply suggestive of a worthy practice in our parenting.  Rather, the opening line of Proverbs 22:6 is imperative concerning what we parents are required before the Lord our God to do.  Even so, I myself would contend that this imperative should be joined in union with all of the other imperatives of God's Holy Word concerning our responsibility as parents in relation to our children's upbringing -- which indeed ARE focused upon bringing them up "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."  Indeed, I would contend that separating this Biblical imperative concerning godly parenting from the other Biblical imperatives concerning godly parenting would be a doctrinal mistake in relation to the Biblical doctrine of parenting.

[No Nicolaitans]

9 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Even so, I myself would contend that this imperative should be joined in union with all of the other imperatives of God's Holy Word concerning our responsibility as parents in relation to our children's upbringing -- which indeed ARE focused upon bringing them up "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." 

That's also what I was trying to say in my mega posts. That we are to train them in all facets of life...in both spiritual and secular matters.

I need to train myself on how to better communicate a thought. LOL!

[Pastor Scott Markle]

49 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

That's also what I was trying to say in my mega posts. That we are to train them in all facets of life...in both spiritual and secular matters.

I myself would probably communicate this a little differently -- that we are to train up our children in all facets of life, both in all spiritual matters and in how spiritual matters are to influence and govern all secular matters.  Thus the emphasis would remain upon the spiritual priority of godliness for all of life.

Edited September 4, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle
added the second sentence

[Pastor Scott Markle]

For those who many be interested,

The Hebrew word from which the English word "child" is translated in Proverbs 22:6 is "na'ar."  It is employed in the Old Testament Scriptures over 200 times.  Its primary meaning is "young man" or "young person;" however, its applicational usage is quite broad.  On the one hand, it is used in the Old Testament Scriptures for a very young child, including a new-born (see for example Exodus 2:6; Judges 13:5, 7; 1 Samuel 4:21).  On the other hand, it is used in the Old Testament Scriptures for a young adult (see for example Genesis 34:19; Exodus 33:11; 1 Kings 3:7).  As such, the Hebrew word can encompass any age from new-born unto young adulthood.

Specifically, the Hebrew word "na'ar" is employed seven times in the book of the Proverbs (Proverbs 1:4; 7:7; 20:11; 22:6; 22:15; 23:13-14; 29:15).  Of these seven times, the first two times seem to speak concerning a young adult man.  However, the latter five times seem to speak concerning a child who is still under parental authority, including the verse under question -- Proverbs 22:6.  Four of these speak concerning the responsibility of parents in relation to the upbringing of their children.  As such, all four of these passages (Proverbs 22:6; 22:15; 23:13-14; 29:15) should be studied as a unit (along with the other passages on parenting in the book of the Proverbs) in relation to our understanding of Proverbs 22:6.

[HappyChristian]

What if the child isn't left to himself and yet, when grown, brings shame? (29:15) And what if the child is disciplined and yet doesn't get saved? (23:13,14)

Are those verses guarantees that the child will become an adult in lock-step with his/her training and won't ever shame his/her mother? Or a guarantee that the spanked child will definitely get saved? 

I believe the Bible. I truly do. But I'm grappling with the idea that if a child becomes an adult who doesn't "serve the Lord", but decides to go his/her own way, then the parents are abject failures and probably phonies who act one way at church and live another way at home.  At least, according to much preaching I've heard in my almost 60 years...

Does the adult child who WAS reared according to biblical principle who then chooses to go his/her own way and NOT serve the Lord (and by that, I mean not go to church, etc) then disqualify the father from pastoring because he hasn't ruled his house well? No matter that mayhap that father worked hard at rearing said child(ren) in the nurture and admonition of the Lord?

I am not in any way asking for the responsibility of the parent to be negated. Believe me! That is one responsibility that my hubby and I took very seriously as we were rearing our son. I just have issue with the idea that whatever choice an adult makes in his/her life is all because of the way the parents did or did not rear them. SWIM?

And thank you so much for all of the comments. Good stuff here!

[DaveW]

To make this an absolute promise means that a parent CAN save their child.

The plain fact is that each and every person is individually responsible for their acceptance of the gift of salvation - there is nothing that a parent can do to ensure that a child will do so.

However, if you properly teach and lead them, they should see the love of the Lord and should accept that gift.

But a guarantee? How can anyone guarantee the choice of another person, particularly in spiritual matters.