It seems smacking (or, to use the American, spanking) has reared its head in Christian circles again. I recall some time ago John Piper arguing along the lines that, should this form of physical discipline be prohibited in law he would see it as a matter which required civil disobedience. Typically, when such arguments are made, reference to Proverbs 13:24 is not far behind. Other verses are cited making a similar case. This, it is argued, makes smacking a prescribed means of punishment in scripture. It is this that I wanted to address here. I think those making these arguments prove too much.
Consistency demands beating with rods
If they really do want to take a very literal interpretation of the term ‘rod’, then they are bound not merely to smack (or, spank for my American friends) but to beat with rods. Indeed, there is no escaping the repeated use of the word rod in Proverbs always refers to beating (cf. Proverbs 10v13; 13v24; 14v3; 22v8; 22v15; 23v13-14; 26v3; 29v15). In the New Testament, mention of rods comes in 2 Corinthians 11:25. In this case, it is indisputably talking about the beating of the Apostle Paul. in the Roman era, such beatings were administered with metal rods at that. If you want to insist that the Bible demands corporal punishment based on these verses, there is no grounds in them for insisting the prescribed means of discipline is smacking with an open hand. If you wish to make this argument, consistency weds you to defending beatings with a physical rod.
Consistency demands application to adults
This kind of argument is usually employed in defence of smacking specifically in the context of parents disciplining their children. One of the common arguments to this end insists that young children in particular cannot be easily reasoned with because they lack understanding and the cognitive ability to process delayed punishment. As such, the argument in favour of smacking is often employed in the context of parents disciplining young children. The problem is that scripture does not limit the use of rod to young children but extends it to adolescents and adults too.
It is hard to avoid the context of the book of Proverbs itself evidently not being written to young children. It is presented as the advice of a father to his son (Prov 1:8) but then goes on to speak about avoiding the temptations of adulterous women (cf. Proverbs 5). Clearly the advice is not being written to a young child, but (minimally) to an adolescent or even a young man. Nor can we avoid that the discipline described as being meted out to a son (cf. Proverbs 13:24; 23:13-14) is exactly the same discipline that is to be meted out to adults (cf. Proverbs 14:3; 26:3). The fact is, this biblical teaching is being written into a context in which it was normal for adults to also receive corporal punishment. If we want to argue that it is a matter of biblical fidelity to discipline children with corporal punishment this way – and taking such a line consistently means doing so by physically beating with rods – we are simultaneously wedded to insisting that the same must be true for adults too.
Consistency demands we go further than beating with rods
The scriptures do not stop at simply demanding beatings with rods for rebellious sons. Deuteronomy 21v18-21 says the following:
18 “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father or mother and doesn’t listen to them even after they discipline him, 19 his father and mother are to take hold of him and bring him to the elders of his city, to the gate of his hometown. 20 They will say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he doesn’t obey us. He’s a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of his city will stone him to death. You must purge the evil from you, and all Israel will hear and be afraid.
If we want to insist that the Bible demands the physical chastisement of children, and we have no exegetical grounds to insist that rod means anything less than beating with rods, we also have to contend with scripture making us go further still if we employ this hermeneutic. Rebellious sons who are not corrected by the rod of discipline were to be brought before the elders and stoned to death. Again, if we employ an insistence that proverbs demands physical chastisement, we are not only wedded to beating with rods, but going further if and when such disciplinary measures fail to work.
Consistency demands the whole community get involved
Clearly the commands in Deuteronomy – just as those in Proverbs – are given in the context of the covenant community in Israel and must be understood as such. However, if we are not understanding the rod of correction in those terms, insisting that provides a prescription for the physical discipline of children today, consistency demands not only that we insist on beatings, and extend it to adults, and do not stop at beatings if they fail to work, but that we also involve the whole community. If we want to argue the church now fulfils this function, we are still wedding ourselves to a position that insists our rebellious child (or an adult) should be brought to the elders of the church, after you’ve beaten them with rods, in order for them to pronounce to the church that the miscreant be taken out back and stoned to death!
The problem with this approach is it effectively rests on a principle of theonomy. It is predicated on reading the Old Covenant law and insisting it must apply as is in the New Covenant. Whilst theonomy provides a grounds for those who wish to employ Old Covenant laws into New Covenant settings, even out and out theonomists tend not to advocate for the actual methods of discipline scripture insists on for Old Covenant Israel. Those who want to make this case are wedded by consistency to enforcing all of the Old Covenant laws, on the terms they were given, and not just cherry-picking and changing those which no longer suit. Those who are not theonomistic (more on which in a minute), there are no exegetical grounds to make this case.
That is not, of course, to say these verses from Proverbs nor the Old Covenant laws have nothing to say to us today. But it is to say, if we want to argue for a biblical prescription of corporal punishment from these verses in Proverbs, consistency will push us to enforce far more than we ever intended to prove. The fact is, we cannot read the Old Testament in the way that those who wish to insist disciplinary smacking/spanking is a biblical prescription want to do so.
The answer – as most New Covenant believers have come to realise – is that rod of discipline is not to be taken in a literal sense. Rather, it is a metaphorical term for corrective discipline. Rather than prescribing corporal punishment in the form of smacking children – an argument that can be found nowhere even in the specific texts cited – these verses are taken to mean that corrective discipline in a wider, more general sense is important. Whilst one may then wish to make a case for smacking children to be a biblically permissible means of discipline, it also has to be recognised such a reading means any form of corrective discipline might be in view ranging from the literal beating with rods all the way through to a stern look or seeking to correct by ignoring the behaviour. The point being, corrective discipline is clearly in view, there is no specific prescription for the particular form that discipline must take. Just as most would want to insist punishment beatings with rods to be an unnecessary and highly inappropriate form of discipline today and is, therefore, evidently not prescribed so they have to admit that corporal punishment and physical chastisement in particular is equally not prescribed here either but simply corrective discipline.
Indeed, when we look at the New Testament texts concerning discipline, the emphasis seems to fall less on harsh corrective discipline and more on gentle formative discipline (cf. Ephesians 6:4; Colossians 3:21; 1 Thessalonians 2:11). Indeed, one could make a case that these things stand in direct contrast to the harsh Roman discipline of the day. Christian parenting, whilst still insisting on discipline and expecting obedience (cf. Ephesians 6:1) nevertheless encourages parents to get it without beating their children with rods, indeed without necessarily even smacking them, but with encouragement, gentleness and patience.
All of which is to say, the case for scripture prescribing the smacking of children proves too much. The hermeneutic employed to get to it would demand far more of us than even the most vehement smacking advocate would wish to claim. None of that is to say smacking is necessarily proscribed by scripture either; there is a case to be made that it is a legitimate form of parental discipline. But we cannot insist it is the prescribed means of discipline. The Bible calls on Christian parents to discipline their children lovingly; it doesn’t insist on the specific form of discipline and the arguments that claim it does can only take us to positions that would make the overwhelming majority of smacking advocates deeply uncomfortable.
All of which is significant when it comes to the question of Christian duty. What, exactly, does the Bible demand of believers and would we have to disobey the civil authorities should smacking be banned? It seems to me the biblical duty is to discipline our children lovingly and not in such ways that lead them to exasperation with the precise form that takes left unprescribed. Which, if true, necessarily means two things.
First, the governing authorities do have a role to play in determining the lawful and legitimate extent of discipline. If all forms of discipline are outlawed, then we would have to civilly disobey (though how such a measure could possibly be achieved seems impossible, being as even a stern look might be construed as discipline). I have spoken before about some attempts to outlaw emotional abuse that, as a far as I could see, though well meaning would be entirely unworkable. But civic limits on discipline, even if they were to include smacking, do not stop us from fulfilling the biblical mandate to discipline our children and do not constitute a grounds for civil disobedience.
Second, closer to home, if scripture doesn’t prescribe the means of discipline for Christian parents then Christians ought not to be judging those who discipline their children in different ways. The biblical mandate is not to physically chastise our children but to lovingly discipline them. It seems ethnic and cultural norms, personalities (both of parents and children) and extra-biblical parenting philosophies will inevitably play a role in what seems right in any given situation. But such as the Bible doesn’t prescribe the means of discipline – and I don’t think it does – it isn’t appropriate for Christians to look on in negative judgement at others discipling their children differently to how they parent their own. We may have our thoughts and opinions on the most effective means, we may have views on precisely what we think is best, but in the end – as I have said many times before – bible people don’t want to say less than the Bible says nor do they want to say more. If the Bible insists that wise Christian parents will discipline their children, we can fairly encourage and instruct Christian parents to discipline their children. But where the Bible doesn’t prescribe the particular means by which they do it, much as we might wish it did and it matched what we did, we cannot insist others follow suit.
What caused NT believers to “come to realise” that the “rod of discipline” was metaphorical? Was it ever literal?
It seems pretty literal in the OT. It’s not so much that NT believers argued it was metaphorical so much as don’t refer to it at all!
I guess our Lord referred to it indirectly at Matthew 5: 18, so we have a problem.
What do you perceive to be the problem here?
No argument, but Hebrews 12:4-11, which you do not refer to, seems to imply that whatever form of discipline parents apply to their children there will be times when in parallel with Gods discipline of us it will hurt indeed it may be painful. Our Father in heaven has perfect wisdom and love in his discipline of his children and Christian parents seek to reflect this in their parenting.
Yes, absolutely.
But there doesn’t seem to be any reason in Heb 12:4-11 to assume that is referring to physical pain. Indeed, in Heb 12, it seems to be referring to the emotional pain of undergoing discipline from the Lord.
Heb 12 certainly is saying that nobody enjoys discipline as it is being received. It is painful in that regard. Its parallel to parenting seems to be saying the same in relation to parental discipline. Not so much physical chastisement in view necessarily, but the emotional pain of it evidently not being very enjoyable as it is received, whatever form the discipline may take.
Sir, Thank you and I have benefitted from your blog before! I definitely resonate with a new covenant trajectory that is taken here. My minor but significant quibble with this post would be that perhaps it misses the larger point in our current climate…. Do Christians judge other believers for perceived inadequate parenting and discipline? Sure. But surely the larger issue (and here I go judging) is poor, hands-off parenting among believers, generally speaking and literally. I think you run the risk of making a technically correct argument but missing the real problem. I appreciate you acknowledging that spanking is “a” form of discipline; I am just arguing that discipline of any kind is sorely lacking.
This is surely only a problem if we want to make the argument that smacking is the only acceptable kind of discipline or that scripture prescribes smacking. What I have shown here (I think) is that scripture does not demand smacking nor prescribe it as a God-sanctioned form of discipline.
Your point about ‘discipline of any kind’ is, then, in the eye of the beholder. If one insists smacking is the only appropriate form of corrective discipline, the question is set up in such a way as to discount any other form of discipline as actually disciplinary at all. I simply don’t think scripture allows us to make that argument.
If, however, scripture simply tells us to lovingly discipline our children, and is not hard and fast about the means of discipline, then I am not sure your objection stands. What you seem to be saying is you perceive a lack of discipline, whereas what you may witness is a different form of discipline that, as you judge it, isn’t effective. That is, of course, a conversation we can have. We just have to accept it isn’t a biblically stipulated one.
Consistency demands that we use actual 1st century weights and measures to extract financial wisdom from Proverbs. Pain was the point, not getting an acacia branch whittled precisely. It is modern sensibilities at play when we waffle on stuff like this.
Where in the text does it say anything about pain? It talks about discipline and then about beating with rods. We can either insist what it says is what is prescribed, and therefore we are called to beating with rods, or we can argue it is a broad principle concerning discipline. There is nothing in the text that says pain is the point nor that other forms of corporal punishment (if we are arguing beating with rods is not appropriate) is being prescribed either. Exegetically, there is nothing that says pain nor open-hand smacking is being prescribed.
Whips are for horses, bridles for donkeys and rods for fools. Surely it if fair to assume either
1. Fools are not like horses and there is something of the rod that is dissimilar from whips and bridles
Or
2. Fools are like horses and there is something of the rod that is similar to whips and bridles.
We then use our reason and our knowledge of animals and conclude that the answer is ‘pain’. The rod is appropriate to fools because it is a pain-causing instrument and when the Bible calls for the use of the rod it is calling for the use of pain*.
* I don’t think 14:3 is calling for the use of the rod. It is acknowledging the rod, and advising people to be careful with their speech to avoid it.
Actually I don’t go far enough there. I imply that we try to work out whether fools are like animals and then look at similarities or differences in the movements.
In fact, it is immediate the reader that these are tools of pain to produce a right response and thus a fool is like a beast in requiring it.
That a rod is like a bridle isn’t something we deduce from the passage, it is something that we are expected to know that we can learn the actual point.
I don’t think either option you give in your first comment is right. Why do you think we are being drawn to compare fools to horses and donkeys rather than comparing the tools of discipline? It seems the verse is specifically saying fools are not like horses which are not like donkeys hence the need for different tools to achieve the same ends. What we are being drawn to compare is not how these people/animals are dis/similar, but to consider that different means are required to accomplish the same end in each case? The big question is: what is the end being achieved by whips, bridles and rods in the specific cases?
You say it is ‘immediate the reader (I assume you mean ‘immediately obvious to the reader’) these are tool of pain to produce a right response’ but that isn’t at all the obvious meaning. Indeed it seems odd to assume that the end in view is the causing of pain of itself. There is no reason to assume pain is the linking idea. Rather, it seems to me they are all intended to steer an animal/person in the right way. Why should it not be taken to simply point out these are tools that steer an animal on the right course and therefore discipline is required to steer a fool on the right course?
Your interpretation may be a valid reading of the text, but I am not at all convinced it is a) the only reading; b) the required reading of the text; c) the ‘immediately obvious’ reading; nor, d) that it isn’t you using eisegesis to maintain the requirement of pain so you can insist the Bible demands corporal punishment.
It also bears saying, if you want to take this verse as your example, you still have quite a bit of work to do to prove that you are not, then, arguing for the corporal punishment of not just children (who are not in view in this verse) but adults too (who are). Perhaps you are also arguing for such corporal punishment of adults?
So, is part of the teaching “don’t whip donkeys and don’t bridle horses”? (Not in the sense that our doing so today is sin, but in the sense that the Israelites would have considered the whip an inappropriate tool for a donkey?)
I don’t think Proverbs commands us to use corporal punishment. I don’t think it commands us to do much of anything apart from seek wisdom and to fear God. What it does is tell us that the A+ method for guiding fools and children is the rod. If we decide not to use the rod – perhaps wisely if the state would take our children if we do so, perhaps our kids are far from fools and well-supervised and it isn’t necessary and would have other problems- then we ought to work out why the rod is effective and look for the A- solution.
And again, I don’t think Proverbs requires us to support corporal punishment to adults. You might like our current response to career criminals of having periods away from society as we either pray for a miracle or wait for them to get old. What I think Proverbs tells us is that if we desired them to become wise and societally useful then we would support corporate punishment (specifically the rod).
I think also that saying that 26:3 uses ‘rod’ as a type of ‘discipline’ is exactly the same issue that you pointed out with people using rod as a type of ‘corporal discipline’.
Especially since bridles aren’t even a form of discipline or punishment. In contrast both whips and bridles are causers of pain.
I’m unclear what you are disagreeing with me over here? I have said proverbs doesn’t demand corporal punishment and you have said that above too. I have said corporal punishment is a form of discipline one could make a case for, you don’t seem to disagree. I have said proverbs doesn’t demand corporal punishment but does demand consistency in discipline. So I don’t quite understand your objection.
I think you may have a narrower view of discipline to me. Biblically, discipline is not always or necessarily synonymous with punishment. Bits and bridles are training tools to steer animals, just as discipline is supposed to be a training tool for people. It can be both formative and corrective. Clearly in the verses in proverbs it is corrective (that is what bits and bridles do, they correct animals going off course to steer them properly). This seems to be how the rod operates there too.
The point I am making is, if we do not think proverbs demands physical beating with rods, the only other position we can take exegetically is broad discipline is in view. If we do think it demands physical beating with rods, that literal hermeneutic employed that way binds us to literally approach the other aspects in proverbs that take us well beyond what most want to argue.
I think it is unfair to horses to say that the bridle corrects them when they are going off course. Sometimes they will do that, but sometimes the rider has a course that the horse doesn’t know about.
I think we disagree on how to read the anthropology of Proverbs in general, and we disagree on why there is not a command for corporal discipline (I think there are few commands in Proverbs, I think you think the command is for some form of unspecified discipline or that there was a command for Israelites to beat their children that has been done away with). But my reason for posting is disagreeing about whether pain is key to Proverbs use of the word – if the suggestions that the fool should have the rod is a suggestion that he should be corrected, does that imply that the non-fool should not face any form of correction since surely fools are to be treated differently from non-fools, indeed I would say that not heeding verbal correction is one of Proverb’s primary markers of fooldom – as I think that pain is what whips and bridles and rods have in common.
I think you are making an odd case about horses 😂 clearly I am talking about horses (and donkeys) going off course *as their master judges the correct course* and so they use tools, like bits and bridles, to correct their course. That is what discipline is designed to do.
I haven’t argued proverbs provides a command to beat children. I have argued the opposite of that 🤷♂️ what I have argued against is those who insist today that proverbs demands physical chastisement and pointed out such a case demands the consistency I point out. So I really am confused what you are arguing against here.
And yes, you are right. The fool is to be corrected and the wise (who are not being foolish) do not need correction. The particular form of correction – as I have said repeatedly – is not prescribed and I imagine the wise will correct in the most appropriate ways.
Would you call “reproving” either discipline or correction? Because Proverbs is explicit that the wise man might be reproved (and that this is profitable for him) in 9:8. I think Proverbs is clear that there are two types of discipline: The rod & the reproof. Reproofs should be the norm, but won’t work on fools and that requires the rod. It also won’t work on children all the time and that requires the “rod” too. (And, maybe, you can argue that the naughty chair is an effective “rod” and not “reproof” (Or just ineffective), I am not married to where to draw the line but I’m convinced that there is a line being drawn by Proverbs of forms of correction .)
I think the idea that only a fool needs correction is false and harmful. It is false because we all need correction*, it is harmful because it makes correction humiliating as an accusation of being a fool.
* And it is a shame that some people are in positions where they’re not able to receive it
Yes, it is a form of correction. We’re in the world of general truisms in proverbs aren’t we. I was suggesting it is generally true that wise people act in wise ways and don’t need correcting generally, but encouraging to continue acting in wise ways. That is not to say they *never* need correcting, and proverbs seems clear they will be wise enough to hear and respond positively to words of correction *because* they are wise. Fools generally won’t respond to gentle correction, which is why they are foolish.
This strikes me less as giving us prescribed means of correction and more means of identifying who are wise and foolish (cf. Prov 15.5).
“Fools generally won’t respond to gentle correction”
So, you’ve accepted a form of discipline called “gentle correction” and presumably there is a form of correction that is non-gentle?
And 22:15 says “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far away.” so would you agree that this is telling us that we may sometimes need to apply non-gentle correction to our children (since folly is bound up in their hearts)?
And then I suppose its just a question of whether effective “non-gentle correction” is basically synonymous with corporal correction. Or generally where we draw the line to the discipline that the fool (including children in certain states and way) will respond to. Which, I have no strong feelings on.
No, don’t accept your construction here. I accept fools will despise gentle correction (as proverbs says) whilst wise people will respond to it. But it’s a identifier rather than a stipulation of what we need to do (as I said).
If a man is disciplining his children – and “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child” – and doing it in a way that they will despise, rather than respond to. Then I would suggest that Proverbs would identify him as “hating” his child
“Flog a mocker, and the simple will learn prudence;
rebuke the discerning, and they will gain knowledge.”
Do we have a moral responsibility to teach the simple prudence? Actually, yes, a parent does have that responsibility and Proverbs make clear that “rebukes” and “reproofs” aren’t other forms of gentle correction aren’t a panacea (and nor is harsher discipline, but we should expect it to be the right tool some of the time.)
Brother, I’m happy to let you have the last word here 😊
Thank you for the discussion. I found it really useful for thinking about the book of Proverbs as a whole (a book I love)
There are a number of flaw I find in your argument, but the most notable I’ll point out here is that you seem to assume we must hold the exact same hermeneutical methods for the Law in Deuteronomy as we do for Proverbs in order to be consistent.
Where do I make that assumption?
Correct me if I’m misunderstanding, but the entire two sections “ Consistency demands we go further than beating with rods” and “Consistency demands the whole community get involved” seem to imply that assumption.
Perhaps it would help if you explain (what I presume you are inferring is) your different hermeneutics you apply to those different passages. It might help me see what you are actually objecting to.
Certainly! Forgive the lack of nuance that brevity demands.
The general interpretive principle I apply to Proverbs would be that they provide timeless and universal principles of wisdom to be taken literally in certain specific circumstances. In the example of 23:13, the principle seems to be that corporeal punishment is a valid form of discipline for children in a least some circumstances (and as with other proverbs, this one does not spell out those circumstances). I would not rule out seeing the rod as metaphorical, but I see no exegetical reason to believe it must be metaphorical. Of course, I would run that principle through the teaching of the New Testament, as I would with all of the Old Testament, but again, I don’t see any NT teaching that restricts us from corporeal discipline for children.
For OT law, what is laid down by God are laws for the covenant community of Israel. There is general wisdom we can find in the law about who God is and what He desires for His people, but we find the fulfillment of that law in Christ, and therefore as the New Testament does not demand death for children’s disobedience to parents, that law would not apply for the New Covenant people of God.
In short, I don’t see a reason for consistency between how I apply OT law and how I apply wisdom literature, because I interpret wisdom literature as universal and timeless wisdom for all of God’s people, and I interpret OT law mainly as a specific rule for the OT community of Israel (with the caveat that those rules absolutely apply to NT saints when they are expressly demanded in the NT).
Hopefully I explained myself clearly. We may be working off of different hermeneutical principles, and of course I welcome any suggested corrections to my own.
So I’m not sure why you wouldn’t consider Deuteronomy to also have lasting, universal and timeless wisdom for us today too? We surely think it says something to us and ought not to be stricken from the biblical record? So, I don’t see a distinction between accepting Proverbs has timeless and universal wisdom for us and Deuteronomy also has timeless and universal wisdom for us.
We similarly have to understand both Deuteronomy and Proverbs in their canonical and salvation-historical context. Both would be included in ‘the law and the prophets’ which have been fulfilled by Jesus. I don’t see that we can argue Deuteronomy has been fulfilled but Proverbs hasn’t. Again, as per the above, that doesn’t mean they don’t have things to say to us but we must understand them both through the lens of Christ.
Of course, I recognise that Proverbs – being wisdom literature – must be understood as general truisms that do not hold in any and every circumstance (cf. Prov 24:4-5 for eg cannot both be applied all the time). They cannot be both literally applied in any and every circumstance, but are general pieces of wisdom that broadly and generally apply in appropriate situations. So, I think we need to understand the comments it gives on discipline with this in mind – namely, they are general truisms that broadly apply concerning the nature of discipline in the appropriate circumstances.
Even if you think there is a different hermeneutic principle going on here, I’m still not sure what you disagree with. For example, you say ‘I see no exegetical reason to believe [the rod] must be metaphorical’. I agree. I don’t think it is metaphorical in Proverbs. I think it is quite literal. In fact, my argument to consistency rests very much on the view that ‘the rod’ is very literal in Proverbs and therefore the principle it is elucidating is not that we must beat our children with rods but rather it is unwise to fail to discipline those under our care without prescribing a particular form.
The case for consistency further rests on proverbs itself demanding corporal punishment of adults and done so in the context of the community. Deuteronomy was brought in merely as a matter of the wider context into which the wisdom of Proverbs is being delivered. I would argue, given the context into which Proverbs is delivered, the Deuternomistic call to stone wayward children must hold because Proverbs itself calls for the beating of children and adults in that very specific covenant community. A literal application of Proverbs that insists corporal punishment is required, I argue, then binds us to the rest of what Proverbs says and to a literal understanding of the context in which it was given continuing. I don’t think it is good hermeneutics to divorce instructions from the context in which they were given and the specified reasons for which they were given. We must understand both to understand the instruction.
You go on, ‘I don’t see any NT teaching that restricts us from corporeal discipline for children.’ I also agree and said this in my post. I don’t argue anywhere that the NT proscribes corporal punishment. I simply make the case that it doesn’t demand it. My argument is that the wisdom principle in Proverbs is that we are to enact discipline but it makes that point without prescribing the form. I think it is those who insist that the form is prescribed who have to prove the hermeneutics they employ do not force them to the consistent application that I outline.
Corporal punishment in some form is necessary according to Pro 23:13. If spanking is outlawed it can be inferred that other forms of corporal punishment are also outlawed. Civil disobedience is a necessity at that point.
Prov 23:13 (as I mentioned in the post) does not demand corporal punishment. It either demands, on its own terms, beating with rods or it demands discipline in general terms. There is no exegetical reason to jump from what it says to corporal punishment (unless you wed yourself to beating with rods). There is nothing in the text that suggests other forms of corporal punishment are acceptable unless you take the view that it is speaking broadly about discipline, at which point the most we can argue is other forms of corporal punishment may be permissible.
Unfortunately, I grew up in a “Christian” family and subculture which took this totally literally. My parents (and the parents of our friends) used wooden sticks or belts to beat their children with all their strength for any perceived infraction, i.e. anything the parent felt mad about, which was several times a day.
I totally agree with you that the “rod of discipline” is metaphorical, and not because of my experience, but because that’s the only sensible hermeneutical reading of the passage. I don’t think it *excludes* spanking, but it certainly doesn’t demand it, and definitely not in the ways that some “Christians” interpret it. I put “Christians” in scare quotes because if you are dominated by anger and hatred to the point where you feel the need to frequently beat your children, you know nothing of the God who is love.