An Old Topic But New Discussion, Please

[Pastor Scott Markle]

2 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

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!

Are you SURE that you want my answers to these questions.  My commitment to precision in Bible study is likely to cause me to be a bit "hard-nosed" in my answers.

[HappyChristian]

Yes, I do. 

 

[HappyChristian]

But here are some additional thoughts to throw into the mix...

As I mentioned, one teaching is that, even after the child is grown up, it is the parents' fault if the adult child does not live right. But how do we answer, then, that the perfect Adam and Eve disobeyed God? No, He didn't "rear" them, but He did create them perfect. And yet they chose to disobey Him, which brought sin and death into the world. And then they reared their first two boys. Was it Adam's fault that Cain made the wrong sacrifice and Adam's credit that Abel made the right one? Was it Adam's fault that Cain killed Abel?

Another question, or thought...if one who is called to preach has an adult child who decides not to live right, is that one then disqualified? If so, why, then, did God not remove Samuel from his position? We see that Eli was rebuked and judged because he did not reprove his adult sons. But Samuel wasn't rebuked, even though later his sons were referred to as sons of Belial.

Thanks for your time. =D

[Pastor Scott Markle]

For those who may be interested concerning Proverbs 22:6,

The Hebrew construction that is translated by the phrase, "in the way he should go," in Proverbs 22:6 is a little bit difficult for understanding and translation.  This English phrase is translated from a construction of three Hebrew words.  The third of these three Hebrew words is not at all difficult; for it is the Hebrew noun "derek" with a possessive, singular, masculine suffix.  This Hebrew noun means "a journey, a pathway, a way or mode of life;" and thus this word with the possessive suffix in Proverbs 22:6 would mean "his way."

However, the construction of the first two Hebrews words that is translated by the phrase, "in the way he should go," is wherein we find the difficulty.  These two Hebrew words form a prepositional phrase with the Hebrew preposition " 'al," which basically means "upon, over, above," and the Hebrew noun "peh," which means "mouth."  Thus a very literal rendering for the construction of these three Hebrew words in Proverbs 22:6 would be "upon the mouth of his way." 

Yet throughout the Old Testament the prepositional phrase constructed by " 'al" and "peh" carries some interesting nuances in meaning.  Indeed, throughout the Old Testament we find this prepositional construction 59 times (if my count is correct).  36 of those times it is translated as "according to, at, by the commandment, word, appointment of" someone (such as Pharaoh, Moses, the Lord, witnesses, etc.).  Literally, these cases would carry the meaning of "upon the mouth of" someone, wherein the word "mouth" represents the word or command of authority.  Twice it is translated as "according to or after the tenor of" someone's words, wherein again the idea of authority is represented.  Four times it is translated simply with the preposition "according to," wherein again the idea of a standard of authority is represented.  Once it is translated with the phrase, "the mind of" (the LORD), wherein the idea of authority is again represented.  Once it is translated with the phrase, "according to the sentence of" (the law), wherein the idea of authority is again represented.  So then, 44 times this Hebrew prepositional phrase communicates the idea of authority, wherein the authority is presented by the noun that follows the prepositional phrase.

On the other hand, this Hebrew prepositional phrase is used in the Old Testament concerning a more physical application of putting something upon the mouth of something.  Once it is used to indicate that something should not be head "out of thy mouth."  Three times it is used of laying the hand "upon the mouth."  Once it is used of engravings being "upon the mouth of" something.  Once it is used of a prophet putting his mouth "upon the mouth" of another.  Once it is used of taking up the Lord's covenant "in thy mouth."  Once it is used of ointment going "down to [upon] the skirts [the mouth] of" the high priest's garment.  Once it is used of not being hasty "with your mouth."  Once it is used of a live coal being laid "upon the mouth" of the prophet.  Once it is used of reeds being "by the mouth of" the brooks.  Once it is used of the Lord putting forth His hand and touching the prophet "on his mouth."  Once it is used of the Lord not putting a message "into the mouths" of false prophets.  Once it is used of falling "into the mouth" of the eater.

So then, in Proverbs 22:6 there are two possible intentions for the Hebrew phrase, which could be literally translated as "upon the mouth of his way."  On the one hand, this phrase could refer more literally the mouth or beginning of a child's way, wherein the years of upbringing are viewed as the mouth or beginning of a child's way through adulthood.  On the other hand, this phrase could refer more to the authority for a child's way, wherein the child's way carries a type of authority and the parents are required to train up that child in accord with that authority.  (Apparently, the King James translators chose this second option when they delivered the translation, "in the way that he should go.")  Now, if we take the child's way itself as the standard of authority for this upbringing, then parents would be training up their children in accord with the self-interest and spiritual foolishness of the child, since that is the natural way of all children.  As such, Proverbs 22:6 would NOT present a principle of positive consequence at all, but a principle of negative consequence.  However, if we take the Lord's authority for the child's way as the standard of authority for his upbringing, then parents would be training up their children in accord with the Biblically revealed precepts, principles, and pattern for godly parenting.

As for myself, I believe that we should take this phrase of Proverbs 22:6 as referring to the Lord's authority for the child's way, that is -- "according to the Lord's authority for his way."  I chose this position for the following reasons:

1.  It appears to be the intention of the King James translators, and they had a better grasp of Hebrew than I will ever have.

2.  Taking the phrase "in the mouth of his way" as a reference unto beginning years or upbringing years seems redundant in the verse, since this idea is already recognized by the opening phrase, "Train up a child."

3.  Having chosen to accept the phrase as referring unto the authority or standard of the child's way, it appears to fit better the context of Proverbs concerning parenting for us to take this as the Lord's authority for the child's way, rather than the child's natural interest for his way.

As such, I have no dispute whatsoever with the manner in which Proverbs 22:6 is worded in the King James translation, wherein the translated phrase, "in the way he should go," communicates the idea of "in the way of the Lord's authority and will for his life."

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Previously in this thread I have presented three postings concerning the meaning of the opening portion in Proverbs 22:6, as follows:

On ‎9‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 7:41 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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.

On ‎9‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 2:09 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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.

On ‎9‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 4:39 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

For those who may be interested concerning Proverbs 22:6,

The Hebrew construction that is translated by the phrase, "in the way he should go," in Proverbs 22:6 is a little bit difficult for understanding and translation.  This English phrase is translated from a construction of three Hebrew words.  The third of these three Hebrew words is not at all difficult; for it is the Hebrew noun "derek" with a possessive, singular, masculine suffix.  This Hebrew noun means "a journey, a pathway, a way or mode of life;" and thus this word with the possessive suffix in Proverbs 22:6 would mean "his way."

However, the construction of the first two Hebrews words that is translated by the phrase, "in the way he should go," is wherein we find the difficulty.  These two Hebrew words form a prepositional phrase with the Hebrew preposition " 'al," which basically means "upon, over, above," and the Hebrew noun "peh," which means "mouth."  Thus a very literal rendering for the construction of these three Hebrew words in Proverbs 22:6 would be "upon the mouth of his way." 

Yet throughout the Old Testament the prepositional phrase constructed by " 'al" and "peh" carries some interesting nuances in meaning.  Indeed, throughout the Old Testament we find this prepositional construction 59 times (if my count is correct).  36 of those times it is translated as "according to, at, by the commandment, word, appointment of" someone (such as Pharaoh, Moses, the Lord, witnesses, etc.).  Literally, these cases would carry the meaning of "upon the mouth of" someone, wherein the word "mouth" represents the word or command of authority.  Twice it is translated as "according to or after the tenor of" someone's words, wherein again the idea of authority is represented.  Four times it is translated simply with the preposition "according to," wherein again the idea of a standard of authority is represented.  Once it is translated with the phrase, "the mind of" (the LORD), wherein the idea of authority is again represented.  Once it is translated with the phrase, "according to the sentence of" (the law), wherein the idea of authority is again represented.  So then, 44 times this Hebrew prepositional phrase communicates the idea of authority, wherein the authority is presented by the noun that follows the prepositional phrase.

On the other hand, this Hebrew prepositional phrase is used in the Old Testament concerning a more physical application of putting something upon the mouth of something.  Once it is used to indicate that something should not be head "out of thy mouth."  Three times it is used of laying the hand "upon the mouth."  Once it is used of engravings being "upon the mouth of" something.  Once it is used of a prophet putting his mouth "upon the mouth" of another.  Once it is used of taking up the Lord's covenant "in thy mouth."  Once it is used of ointment going "down to [upon] the skirts [the mouth] of" the high priest's garment.  Once it is used of not being hasty "with your mouth."  Once it is used of a live coal being laid "upon the mouth" of the prophet.  Once it is used of reeds being "by the mouth of" the brooks.  Once it is used of the Lord putting forth His hand and touching the prophet "on his mouth."  Once it is used of the Lord not putting a message "into the mouths" of false prophets.  Once it is used of falling "into the mouth" of the eater.

So then, in Proverbs 22:6 there are two possible intentions for the Hebrew phrase, which could be literally translated as "upon the mouth of his way."  On the one hand, this phrase could refer more literally the mouth or beginning of a child's way, wherein the years of upbringing are viewed as the mouth or beginning of a child's way through adulthood.  On the other hand, this phrase could refer more to the authority for a child's way, wherein the child's way carries a type of authority and the parents are required to train up that child in accord with that authority.  (Apparently, the King James translators chose this second option when they delivered the translation, "in the way that he should go.")  Now, if we take the child's way itself as the standard of authority for this upbringing, then parents would be training up their children in accord with the self-interest and spiritual foolishness of the child, since that is the natural way of all children.  As such, Proverbs 22:6 would NOT present a principle of positive consequence at all, but a principle of negative consequence.  However, if we take the Lord's authority for the child's way as the standard of authority for his upbringing, then parents would be training up their children in accord with the Biblically revealed precepts, principles, and pattern for godly parenting.

As for myself, I believe that we should take this phrase of Proverbs 22:6 as referring to the Lord's authority for the child's way, that is -- "according to the Lord's authority for his way."  I chose this position for the following reasons:

1.  It appears to be the intention of the King James translators, and they had a better grasp of Hebrew than I will ever have.

2.  Taking the phrase "in the mouth of his way" as a reference unto beginning years or upbringing years seems redundant in the verse, since this idea is already recognized by the opening phrase, "Train up a child."

3.  Having chosen to accept the phrase as referring unto the authority or standard of the child's way, it appears to fit better the context of Proverbs concerning parenting for us to take this as the Lord's authority for the child's way, rather than the child's natural interest for his way.

As such, I have no dispute whatsoever with the manner in which Proverbs 22:6 is worded in the King James translation, wherein the translated phrase, "in the way he should go," communicates the idea of "in the way of the Lord's authority and will for his life."

From these things then, we can come to understanding concerning the responsibility that the Lord our God has given unto us parents.  Indeed, we parents are commanded by the Lord our God, and thus are responsible before the Lord our God, to train up our children throughout the years of their upbringing in their comprehension, character, and conduct in accord with the authoritative standard of God's will and Word for the entire adult course of their way.

From this we are able to discern a number of points:

1.  The Precept of Godly Parenting -- In that the Lord our God has commanded it.

2.  The Process of Godly Parenting -- In that we are to train them up throughout their upbringing in their comprehension, character, and conduct.

3.  The Principle of Godly Parenting -- In that we are to train them up in accord with the standard of God's will and Word.

4.  The Product of Godly Parenting -- In that we are to train the up with the purpose and objective that they walk according to God's will and Word throughout the course of their adult lives.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

To those who may be interested,

In the previous posting, I completed my study concerning the first half of Proverbs 22:6.  In that half of the verse, we encounter the responsibility of godly parenting.  Now I move in my study to the second half of the verse, wherein we encounter the result for godly parenting.  Yet it is with this half of the verse that controversy is found.  Some contend that the result portion of the verse is only intended to communicate a general principle, whereas others contend that the result portion of the verse is intended to communicate an absolute promise.  For those who contend that the second half of the verse communicates an absolute promise, no exception to the promise would be acknowledged; however, for those who contend that the second half of the verse communicates a general principle, some amount of exceptions to the principle would be permitted.  Arguments that are given in order to support the "general principle with some exceptions" position, in contradiction to the "absolute promise with no exceptions" position are as follows:

1.  The argument of personal experience - that the individual himself or herself did indeed train up a child in the right way according to the pattern of God's Word, yet that child did depart from the way in which he or she was trained up.

2.  The argument of personal observation - that the individual himself or herself has observed others who did indeed train up a child in the right way according to the pattern of God's Word, yet that child did depart from the way in which he or she was trained up.

3.  The argument of free will - that no amount of godly training on the part of parents can completely overcome the free will of a child, wherein that child may yet freely choose to depart from the way in which he or she was trained up.

4.  The argument of God's children - that God our heavenly Father Himself, although a completely perfect parent in training up His unto godliness, yet has some children who depart from the way in which the Lord God has trained them up.

5.  The argument of proverbial nature - that a proverb by nature, even those included with God's Holy Word, are only principles that should be expected to hold true in a general manner, but not necessarily in an absolute manner.

Certainly, each of these arguments requires some attention.  However, before we focus upon these arguments, it would be wise to consider the result statement of Proverbs 22:6 as it is actually presented.  Even so --

_________________________________________

The Hebrew word from which the English conjunction "and" is translated in Proverbs 22:6 is "gam."  This Hebrew word is NOT the common coordinating conjunction of the Hebrew language.  Rather, it is a Hebrew adverb that is used as a form of coordinating conjunction.  In addition, this Hebrew word carries a great level of intensity or emphasis in relation to those statements which it coordinates and connects.  As such, the usage of this Hebrew word as a conjunction to connect the two statements of Proverbs 22:6 seems to indicate, not simply a connected progression, but also an intensified certainty.  In Proverbs 22:6 this Hebrew conjunction would seem, not simply to communicate "and also," but to communicate "and even."  Thus we could understand the verse as follows - "Train up a child in the way he should go: and [even] when he is old, he will not depart from it."  Even so, the character and certainty of the result statement in Proverbs 22:6 would be intensified.  As such, even if the result statement of Proverbs 22:6 is viewed as a general principle with some exceptions, I would contend that it should be viewed as an intensified statement of result that grants significantly few exceptions.  (Note: I myself lean toward the position of taking the result statement in Proverbs 22:6 as an absolute promise; therefore, my statements concerning taking proverbs 22:6 as a general principle with some exceptions are delivered "for the sake of the argument.")

[Pastor Scott Markle]

To those who may be interested,

The Hebrew word from which the English phrase “is old” is translated in Proverbs 22:6 is “zaqen.”  This word is a Hebrew verb which, in the foundational picture of its origin, means “to have the chin hanging down from old age.”  As such, this Hebrew verb means “to be or become significantly old.”  Within the Old Testament, this Hebrew verb is employed a total of 27 times; and in every case it refers unto an individual who is significantly old in age.  (See Genesis 18:12-13; 19:31; 24:1; 27:1-2; Joshua 13:1; 23:1-2; Ruth 1:12; Job 14:8; 1 Samuel 2:22; 4:18; 8:1, 5; 12:2; 17:12; 2 Samuel 19:32; 1 Kings 1:1, 14; 2 Kings 4:14; 1 Chronicles 23:1; 24:15; Psalm 37:25; Proverbs 23:22)  Even so, in Proverbs 22:6 the phrase, “and when he is old,” would indicate that the result statement of the verse (as it is written) extends even unto the time when the child has become a significantly old person.