But Heb 12 applies in broad way, I think — and even for babies there may be some instances where a tiny amount of pain is the best thing for everyone involved.

Case in point: I know a lady whose breastfed baby sometimes bites her nipples. She said she gave baby a quick smack a few times and that fixed that. Presumably baby would never have bitten them off, but I know if it was my wife I’d much rather have a baby with a tiny smack on the bottom than a wife with no nipples. :-)

The audience of the passage quoted early in Hebrews 12 really has nothing to do with the metaphor that follows.

You are right, Proverbs 3:11-12 is a father speaking to his mature son about the discipline he can expect from the Lord. The Writer in Hebrews 12 is writing to Christian Jews to remind them that God disciplines those he loves. The Proverbs passage is quite applicable so he quotes it as a source.

The Writer then uses a metaphor to illustrate the point — the discipline of parents. The metaphor, on the face of it, endorses ‘physical discipline’ for want of a better term. It is this metaphor that is used by smacking proponents.

9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. 11 For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

You can’t use the possible demographic of the original audience of the passage quoted earlier in the chapter (which wasn’t even about the discipline of children by parents) to conclude that, here, later on in the passage, the Writer was only talking about the discipline of older children.

2. Dave, I haven’t heard anyone here suggest that ‘we’ use Heb 12 to justify the pinching and head-hitting of one year olds. Good rhetorical device to make your interlocutors sound really bad, though.

In regards to Proverbs 3, it is a converstaion between a father and son. The son is a teenager. It is a conversation of a level well above that which you would/could have with a two year old. So how can i use that converstaion as a basis for how I should discipline my 2 year old?

Proverbs 3 is not teaching how we are to discipline a baby. It is a converstaion between a father and his teenage son.

Yes, Lucy is under the desire of God for her to honor me as her father. And it’s my job to teach her how to do that. And there will no doubt be times when she will not do that. And when she fails, I will have to be gracious (just as our Father is gracious), forgive her (just as our Father forgives us), and disciple her again as to how she is to honor me.

Exodus 20 tells of the God of Israel giving His commandments to the entire nation of Israel. All of Israel, young and old, were under those commandments.

I would like to please be shown a verse that teaches me how I am to discipline my 1 year old child.

The complicated language used in a passage of scripture doesn’t necessarily make that passage inapplicable to a young child. Exodus 20:12 says, ‘Honour your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.’ Your 2.5 year old daughter might not understand that (especially the second clause) if you read it to her, but is it not a command you still expect her to follow?

When we read Proverbs 3, we see the writer is addressing his son. That’s obvious as it starts off with the words “My son…” The writer then goes on to talk to his son with advice, wisdom, challenges, warnings and encouragement. The level of language used is well above the level of language I could use to my 2.5 year old daughter, let alone a six month old.
e.g. 7 Do not be wise in your own eyes;
Fear the LORD and depart from evil.
8 It will be health to your flesh,[b]
And strength[c] to your bones.
9 Honor the LORD with your possessions,
And with the firstfruits of all your increase;
10 So your barns will be filled with plenty,
And your vats will overflow with new wine.

Regardless of the ‘old English’ feel about the words used, even if it were modernised it would still be a converstaion that would be well above that of a 2.5 year old. I’d even go so far as to say it’s the type of conversation you might have with a young teenager coming into adulthood. And isn’t that exactly what Proverbs is? A father instructing his son in the ‘ways of the world’ as he is about to enter adult life?

So why is it that we use these texts to say “we are commanded to smack our children” and then to teach little 1 year old Johnny not to play with the tv remote we smack him or pinch him or hit him on the head (I have seen all methods used, justified by this ‘command’)?

There are many ways to correct/train/guide a 1 year old. I do not believe that smacking is necessary or commanded. And I do not believe that these texts (Hebrews or Proverbs) can be used as justification for smacking our young children.

As Christians, our reading of the Bible must always be done through the lens of Christ’s teaching and life. There has been a lot of talk about ‘Spare the rod and spoil the child’, an attitude that can be sanctioned by scriptural proof-texts such as Proverbs 13 : 24 — ‘Those who spare the rod hate their children, but those who love them are diligent to discipline them’ (NRSV).

However, it is inappropriate to take such texts out of their ancient cultural context, and out of the broader context of Scripture, so as to justify modes of behaviour in a modern situation very different from that for which they were given. Such texts need to be read in the light of the way Christ responded to children, placing them in the middle of the group with respect and care, as in Mark 9: 37: ‘Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me’

In other words, because Jesus told us to welcome children, parents aren’t allowed to discipline them with smacks. Brilliant, my lord bishops…