The Rod of Correction Prov. 22: 15

The Rod of Correction Prov. 22:15 CLICK TITLE FOR AUDIO

The rod of correction drives out foolishness – very early in a child’s life this foolishness is evident – they have to know that there are bad consequences to bad behavior and that there are good consequences to good behavior.

The rod shows your love – Prov 13:24, “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.”  Compare God’s chastening in Heb 12:5-11 – the point of the discipline is three-fold – it parallels God’s love [it is motivated by love], it is grievous [and applied by fathers for a few days], and it yields righteousness.

The rod inflicts a beating obviously not a deadly or injurious beating – it is the means of saving a soul from hell – Prov 23:13-14, “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.”

The rod yields wisdom if it is combined with reproof – Prov 29:15, “The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.”  The withholding of the rod can result in shame – how many prisoners were not hurt by the rod when younger!

Corporal punishment is not illegal but must be administered in such a way as to yield obedience without injury – it is designed to enforce a command or to correct a child or to punish – it is not reserved for you to merely relieve your stress or anger – the quicker the better after the first disobedience – don’t let things escalate – if applied when the child is very young, it is more effective than if he is older – it is a method of training [you train them according to how you discipline] so it is only one part of the whole training.

From Wikipedia (Nov 2006) – this article has since been substantially updated at

Corporal punishment is the deliberate infliction of pain intended to correct behavior or to punish. Historically speaking, most punishments, whether in judicial, domestic, or educational settings, were corporal in basis.

During the eighteenth century the frequent use of corporal punishment was heavily criticized, both by philosophers and legal reformers.

In the modern world, corporal punishment remains a common way of disciplining children. Although it has been outlawed in a number of European countries, most legal systems permit parents to use mild corporal punishment on their children.

In the modern world, corporal punishment has been largely rejected in favor of other disciplinary methods.

In terms of punishment in judicial and educational settings, approaches vary throughout the world. The practice has, for instance, been almost completely abandoned in Europe and North America, whilst other societies retain widespread use of judicial corporal punishment

While the domestic corporal punishment of children is accepted in many countries, it is also illegal in a number of others.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), however, in an official policy statement (reaffirmed in 2004) states that “Corporal punishment is of limited effectiveness and has potentially deleterious side effects. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that parents be encouraged and assisted in the development of methods other than spanking for managing undesired behavior.” In particular, the AAP holds that any corporal punishment methods other than open-hand spanking on the buttocks or extremities “are unacceptable” and “should never be used”.

Opponents also note that much child abuse may begin with spanking:

Issue Before the Supreme Court of Canada

The issue before the Supreme Court of Canada was whether section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada is unconstitutional. Section 43 provides that a parent, teacher or person acting in the place of a parent is justified in using force to correct a child that is under his or her care provided that the force used is reasonable in all of the circumstances.


The Supreme Court of Canada decided that section 43 of the Criminal Code is constitutional; it found that section 43 does not violate a child’s rights to security of the person and equality, and is not cruel and unusual punishment. More specifically, the Supreme Court held that section 43 ensures that the criminal law applies to any use of force that harms a child, but does not apply where the use of force “is part of a genuine effort to educate the child, poses no reasonable risk of harm that is more than transitory and trifling, and is reasonable under the circumstances.”