Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Other Sellers on Amazon
+ $3.99 shipping
+ $3.99 shipping
+ $3.99 shipping
Corporal Punishment in the Bible: A Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic for Troubling Texts Paperback – August 21, 2011
|New from||Used from|
The Amazon Book Review
Author interviews, book reviews, editors picks, and more. Read it now
Frequently bought together
Customers who bought this item also bought
"The implications of this book go far beyond disturbing ancient requirements of physical punishment and present-day challenges of child discipline. I wish everyone who is interested in doing grammatical-historical interpretation and application of the Scriptures could read the meticulous way William Webb works to find and unfold the Bible's own ultimate ethic. As many of us look for wisdom in moving forward, the author finds important conservative precedent in some surprising, yet already widely accepted places." (Mart De Haan, president of RBC Ministries)
"What does it mean to be 'biblical'? Bill Webb exposes just how easy it is for people to claim this without paying close attention to what the Bible actually says. He provides a case study in the redemptive-movement method of discerning and applying the ethical challenge of Old Testament texts. Since the corporal punishments of the Old Testament are among its more morally disturbing features, his reflection on this issue is both thorough and courageous. If none of us, one hopes, is doing or advocating 'what the Bible actually says' in exercising parental discipline, then how can we reach a principled theory and practice in that area that can still be defended as 'biblical' with interpretive integrity? This is a book that is both theologically challenging and yet realistically earthed in the mundane and moving experience of the Webb family. It describes a personal hermeneutical journey shared with fellow parents, as well as a hermeneutical conclusion offered to the academy. At both levels it deserves careful listening and response." (Christopher J. H. Wright, Langham Partnership International, author of Old Testament Ethics for the People of God)
"Webb challenges the premises of the traditional spanking position at a hermeneutical level and exposes its failure to come to grips with what the Bible actually says on the subject. He shows how most advocates of spanking have actually softened the Bible's teaching on the subject, and he commends them for doing so. Yet he mounts a convincing case for following that trajectory and going one step further, building his position on a redemptive-movement hermeneutic that most Christians already use when arguing for an antislavery viewpoint. Webb's logic is tight and his insights penetrating. But beyond this, perhaps what is most impressive is the humble, irenic spirit he displays as he explains how he arrived at his position and addresses those who disagree with him. It will be interesting to see how the prospanking position responds to this thoughtful and profound challenge. This reviewer suspects that many will find Webb's book a breath of fresh air." (Robert Chisholm, professor of Old Testament, Dallas Theological Seminary)
"When I read Slaves, Women and Homosexuals, I remember thinking, I wish I could have written a book like this. Now I had the same sense reading Corporal Punishment in the Bible. This book is about exercising parental discipline biblically by, paradoxically, disobeying the concrete specific instructions in the Bible (in seven ways!) that speak to this subject. Contemporary pro-spankers have, indeed, already done this but do not adequately justify how they could abandon an 'on the page' grammatical-historical exegesis of the corporal punishment texts to get there. In collaboration with Marilyn, his eminently qualified wife and mother of their three children, Bill includes chapters on the why and how of alternative discipline methods that I wish I could have applied when our children were in their preteens. I loved reading this book, not only for the details of the topic he addresses, but for the countless parallels, paradigms and ponderings that popped into my head as I considered the implications of being led by the Spirit for so many other aspects of biblical teaching." (William Heth, professor of biblical studies, Taylor University)
"Webb wrestles gallantly with two difficult issues: (a) How should Christians read biblical texts that seem to advocate violent responses to situations calling for discipline? and (b) How should Christian parents handle difficult disciplinary situations involving their children? The author handles the biblical evidence carefully and exhibits great grace toward those who read and apply the evidence differently. Applying his 'redemptive-movement' hermeneutic persuasively to a specific ethical issue, he challenges readers to consider alternatives to corporal punishment in the home. This is a must-read for parents with young children, and for theologians who seek to apply the theology of texts from another time and another world to the contemporary context." (Daniel Block, professor of Old Testament, Wheaton College Graduate School)
"To spank or not to spank is not a question from Shakespeare but one most parents ask. Thinking through what it means to parent well biblically is a key Christian concern. This book takes you through the paces well autobiographically and will cause you to think about what you do and why. It will also cause you to reflect on how the Bible teaches us. Both are great lessons for parents and believers." (Darrell Bock, Research Professor of New Testament, Dallas Theological Seminary)
"How do we apply to our lives biblical texts written to ancient audiences in radically different social and cultural contexts than our own? That is the real question Professor Webb wrestles with in this engaging and thoughtful book. This volume presents a compelling case that contemporary pro-spankers are not adopting a more "biblical" approach to discipline, but are rather going beyond the Bible to recontextualizing biblical texts on the basis of contemporary pediatric, social and psychological concerns. In other words, they are (without realizing it) adopting a redemptive-movement hermeneutic not so different from the one Webb advocates. This book should be read by every Christian interested in child raising and discipline. More importantly, it should be read by every Christian interested in how to read and apply God's Word in our rapidly changing world." (Mark L. Strauss, professor of New Testament, Bethel Seminary--San Diego)
"William Webb is becoming one of evangelicalism's finest teachers of how to 'live the Bible' in our world. What he teaches us is simple: each text in the Bible is embedded in a historical context, and the only way to read the Bible responsibly is to see what the Bible was saying in that historical context. When it comes to living out the Bible in our world, we watch how God teaches his people to redeem those historical contexts. This book applies that method to corporal punishment with stunningly redemptive conclusions. Every parent and every pastor, in that order, needs to read this book before either lifts a hand or teaches others to lift a hand. I pray this book will flourish." (Scot McKnight, professor in religious studies, North Park University)
About the Author
William Webb is an adjunct professor of New Testament/Biblical Studies at Tyndale Seminary in Toronto, Ontario. He has also written Returning Home: New Covenant and Second Exodus as the Context for 2 Corinthians 6:14--7:1 (Sheffield) and Slaves, Women and Homosexuals (InterVarsity Press).
Browse award-winning titles. See more
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
If you're a parent who hates spanking but feels that you need to in order to be a Godly parent who follows the Bible, this book is for you, and it offers freedom to join in God's redemptive movements!
He contrasts his "no spanks" preferred method with the "2 spanks max" method found in gender hierarchicalists like Dobson, Wenger, Mohler, Grudem, and Piper. He used to be a "2 spanks max" parent and so part of the discussion is how he left that paradigm and why. He points out how the current 2-spanks max proponents actually go beyond the Bible text in 7 ways, all of them good in his eyes, but that they do not actually have a good basis to do so without using his method. So this is different than his discussion on woman texts in the Bible that he discussed in his previous book and more like the slavery texts, which he also discusses further.
I found the book very readable and insightful.
In an appendix he discusses non-corporal discipline methods that he now recommends along with 1 book to start with and about 10 to read for more insights.
He does make one interpretation in a side discussion with which I disagree and that is about Proverbs 31:6-7.
Pro 31:6 Give strong drink to the one who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress;
Pro 31:7 let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more.
I was surprised as he takes this out of the immediate context in the Bible (which are the verses that come before), so that it reads as a standalone proverb in his book. But it is not a standalone proverb, so this slightly disappointed me.
"I still remember his vivid answer. He said nothing, nothing at all. Instead, Fanosie bent down his head and showed me a series of welts, scars and ugly disfigurations. He is a tall man and his dark curly hair hid these marks fairly well. He explained to me that he could take off his clothes and show me more marks from beatings he had as a child. He described being raised in a typical Christian home, and how not infrequently, his father beat him with a stick. In fact, Fanosie told me how it was still acceptable for many Christian husbands in Ethiopia to beat their wives as an act of corrective discipline." (18-19)
Fanosie went on to admonish Webb that he simply needed to share this material with pastors in Ethiopia.
Fanosie's story provides a particularly vivid reality check for the extent of "biblical violence" that is sanctioned in some cultures. To be sure, the typical Christian advocate of corporal punishment in North America would be horrified by the abuse that Fanosie suffered. Instead, they would advocate for a more moderate, measured approach to corporal punishment. But such disagreement simply heightens the hermeneutical and ethical tension. When it comes to corporal punishment who are the "biblical" Christians? Does teaching our children well require us to beat them well? And what does it mean to be biblical anyway?
*Coming to terms with Corporal Punishment*
Many North American Christians believe that corporal punishment is not only biblical, but that it is the only biblical way to discipline children. These people, I'll call them "the spankers", typically adhere to what Webb calls the "two smacks max" principle. In fact, the guidelines go much farther than limiting the blows to two. In addition, ths spankers generally commend open hand hitting on the buttocks, the better to distribute and control force to ensure there is no bruising. In addition, they warn that a parent should never spank in anger. There is no doubt that this mode of corporal punishment is far more humane than that widely practiced by the Ethiopian Christian communities. But is it more biblical?
That depends on what we mean by biblical. Ironically enough, it would appear that the Ethiopian Christians are actually following the letter of Scripture more faithfully than the spankers. Webb drives the point home by carefully going through the Old Testament instructions on corporal punishment which he ultimately summarizes in seven principles:
"1. Do not be duped by age restrictions. Teenagers and elementary school children need the rod just as much, if not more, than those in early childhood, and beatings are effective (not `ineffective' for older children as presently claimed).
2. Forget the idea of a two-smacks-max limit. Apply a gradual increase in the number of strokes so that it fuses better with the forty strokes cap for adults.
3. Get the location right. Lashes are made for the `backs of fools' not for their bottoms.
4. Remove the `no bruising' restriction. Bruises, welts and wounds should be viewed as a virtue-the evidence of a sound beating.
5. Pick the right instrument. A good rod (hickory stick) will inflict far more intense pain and bruising than a hand on the bottom.
6. Stop thinking about corporal punishment as a last resort. Use the rod for nonvolitional misdemeanors as well as for major infractions.
7. Drop the notion of `love but no anger.' Mix in a little righteous anger with your use of the rod." (52-53)
This striking summary (please pardon the pun) is the result of a careful survey of the biblical materials on corporal discipline. To put this in concrete terms, according to these guidelines a father could take his six year old who surreptitiously takes a cookie from the cookie jar, and beat the boy across his back with a hickory switch until he is black and blue. What is more, he could take his sixteen year old who fails to top up the gas tank after borrowing the car and do the same, albeit with more lashes given the boy's greater age. (In case you think I'm presenting a strawman, please note principle 6: relatively minor offenses are fitting occasions for beatings.)
This presents a serious dilemma for the spankers. While they've commended emulation of biblical corporal punishment, it turns out that their own two-smacks max teaching is not, in fact, biblical. So they have two choices: either adopt 1-7 or revise what it means to be biblical.
The problem is even worse, for as Webb explains, biblical mandates for corporal punishment by way of the whip and rod apply to adults as well. Consequently, the consistent spanker should endorse beatings of adults. (Incidentally, you may remember the case of eighteen year old American Michael Fay who was sentenced in 1994 by a court in Singapore to receive four strokes with a cane across his, ahem, bare buttocks. The United States government protested that this was excessive. One can only imagine what they would have said if Fay had been sentenced to forty lashes across his bare back.)
Most disturbing of all is the stipulation for the use of the heavy knife for amputation:
"If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity." (Deuteronomy 25:11-12, NIV, cited in 99)
Consequently, the consistent spanker is obliged not only to accept 1-7 for children and adults, but also to accept the amputation of a woman's hand under the conditions described above. Is this really the cost of being biblical?
*Webb's Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic*
Webb doesn't think so. He contrasts the hermeneutic characterized by the spankers as a static (and, as he has illustrated, ultimately inconsistent) appropriation of biblical mandates. In its place he advocates an approach that seeks the underlying principle set against the backdrop of the redemptive flow of scripture. Webb contrasts these two views as follows:
"a redemptive-movement appropriation of Scripture, which at times encourages movement beyond its concrete-specific instructions in order to pursue an ultimate application of Scripture that yields a greater fulfillment of its redemptive spirit"
"a more static or stationary appropriation of Scripture that locks itself into the concrete specificity of, or as close as possible to, exactly what is found on the page...." (58)
Consequently, Webb's redemptive-movement hermeneutic takes into consideration the cultural and historical background of a passage as well as its place within the wider canon of redemption and its underlying spirit.
Webb introduces this hermeneutic in chapter 2 with the case of slavery. He notes that Scripture no where explicitly condemns slavery and consequently many Christians with a static hermeneutic have seen the Bible as justifying slavery. Instead, Webb argues that when we set the biblical passages on slavery against their wider cultural context we find biblical mandates consistently emerging as more humane than those of other legal systems. Moreover, the canonical direction and underlying spirit of discussions of slavery lead naturally to an ethic of human equality (e.g. Galatians 3:28) that undermines the assumptions which make slavery possible. So while a static reading of the Bible could be used to justify slavery, a redemptive-movement reading of the texts leads us naturally beyond slavery.
This example provides the basis for Webb to make a parallel argument in the case of corporal punishment. When set against the cultural and historical backdrop, the biblical mandates come across as more humane. Even the most horrifying case of amputation by way of the heavy knife in Deuteronomy 25:12-13 is more merciful than the legal codes of neighboring cultures of the time which advise women have their eyes gouged out or their breasts amputated for the same crime. Couple this with the noble underlying principles that one seeks to attain in corporal discpline as well as the redemptive stream of compassion and mercy that develops in scripture, and we can conclude that being biblical need not require one to retain a commitment to corporal punishment today.
And this is precisely what Webb advises. As he points out, there are non-corporal ways to discipline which are far superior. In his postscript Webb notes how his own experience with his eldest son and the family dog provided real world discovery. When his son was about twelve the boy was diagnosed with a degenerative cognitive disease.
"Today Jon is twenty-four years old. But due to his cognitive decline, he has functioned for many years in his reasoning capabilities much like a preschooler. He is no longer able to reason as an adult or even as a teenager. When this happened, it shot several holes in the way I had formerly used reasoning capabilities (or lack thereof) to support my use of the two-smacks max method. With Jon I kept asking myself why I did not simply move back to the use of corporal punishment (spanking) now that he could no longer reason as an adult. I have no doubt that spanking Jon for certain actions would get the job done. It would still result in behavior benefits. But there is no way that I could ever bring myself to spank Jon now. Even the thought is revolting to me. He is an adult, and such an action, despite his childlike mental capacity, would degrade him as a human being." (144-45)
This is the best kind of example of personal experience informing one's theological and ethical reflection. And to Webb's credit he recognizes that his unwillingness to spank Jon undermines the standard spankers' justification for spanking children, i.e. compensating for their lack of reasoning capacity.
*The problem of God commanding and commending evil actions*
Webb is consistently irenic, always concerned not to alienate the spankers and for that he's to be commended. Rather than lampoon them he goes out of his way to affirm the shared goal to be biblical. But he avers that they simply don't go far enough. When they move beyond a static reading of scripture to appreciate the redemptive-movement in the canon they will appreciate that the deeper principles of biblical justice, discipline and compassion will in fact commend going beyond, and thus abandoning corporal punishment.
Needless to say, I am very sympathetic with Webb's reasoning. In my view the problem, ironically enough, is that Webb shares the problem of the spankers in failing to carry his logic through to a more consistent conclusion. Consider the case of his son Jon. Webb makes it quite clear that it would be wrong for him to beat Jon. As he says, that "would degrade him as a human being". By the same token, Webb also clearly believes it is wrong to beat children and adults. But to say that an action is morally wrong is to say that the action is evil. That seems to leave Webb with the conclusion that certain actions which are commended in the Torah and Wisdom literature are in fact wrong and evil.
So how does Webb deal with this surprising implication? To put it bluntly, he tiptoes around it while providing a series of unconvincing half-measures. Consider the following passage where Webb unpacks the logic of the redemptive-movement hermeneutic:
"The idea of a redemptive-movement hermeneutic is not that God himself has somehow `moved' in his thinking or that Scripture is in any way less than God's Word. Rather, it means that God in a pastoral sense accommodates himself to meeting people and society where they are in their existing social ethic and (from there) he gently moves them with incremental steps toward something better. Moving large, complex and embedded social structures along an ethical continuum is by no means a simple matter. Incremental movement within Scripture reveals a God who is willing to live with the tension between an absolute ethic in theory and the reality of guiding real people in practice toward such a goal." (67)
While this passage sounds winsome, take a closer look and you see that it presents God as being either impotent or evil.
Let's return to the use of the heavy knife commended in Deuteronomy 25:12-13. While other legal codes commend that the offending wife have her eyes gouged out or her breasts amputated, Webb avers that God instead chooses to "gently move" the Israelites by commending a hand amputation. I'll grant that hand amputation is not as bad as the alternatives, but it is still an evil action. Imagine three men pinning the screaming woman down while a fourth fixes her hand on a wooden stump and then begins hewing through muscle and sawing through bone with a heated knife. Why would God commend this?
Webb clearly rejects the conclusion that God is evil. But he does seem to leave us with the picture of a God who is in some sense impotent as he is limited to "accommodating" people within their current social ethic so that God must make do with evil commands like Deuteronomy 25:12-13 as "gentle" stepping stones to a more humane ethic.
But what reason is there to think God is impotent in this way? When the British came to India in the eighteenth century they were horrified to discover the practice of suttee (widow burning) according to which a widow would be obliged to climb onto the burning funeral pyre of her deceased husband and die with him. If we were to buy into Webb's reasoning then the British should have sought to move the Indians gently to a more humane ethic. Perhaps they could have introduced a legal code stipulating that a widow be beheaded (a much more merciful fate than immolation). Later they could have ammended that to slavery, and then banishment, and then finally to a modest pension and a Christmas hamper.
There is another possiblity. Webb could espouse a form of cultural relativism according to which it was morally good in ancient Israel to beat children and slaves and amputate the hands of certain feisty spouses but this is good no longer. However, this option seems to be blocked off by the assumption of culture-transcending moral progress that under-girds the redemptive-movement hermeneutic.
Consequently, Webb leaves the reader with the implication that God was forced to command evil actions at various points in history, with no plausible account as to why this would be the case.
Webb correctly recognizes that many people who adopt the static reading of biblical texts think they are adopting the "safe" position. But is it really safe? Webb quotes nineteenth century Christian John Henry Hopkins who ultimately endorsed slavery because of an adherence to biblical teaching:
"If it were a matter to be determined by personal sympathies, tastes, or feelings, I should be as ready as any man to condemn the institution of slavery, for all my prejudices of education, habit, and social position stand entirely opposed to it. But as a Christian ... I am compelled to submit my weak and erring intellect to the authority of the Almighty. For then only can I be safe in my conclusions." (cited in 124)
In restrospect we can see the error of Hopkins' thinking. His static reading of scripture was not a safe reading. Indeed, it put him on the wrong side of abolition and, from the perspective of most Christians, of God's kingdom. Webb's redemptive-movement hermeneutic offers an important way to illumine this risk and offer another way forward. While it is an excellent effort, Webb's failure to address why he believes God would command evil actions like beatings and amputations suggests he hasn't yet gone far enough.