Having children in the Bible was a big deal. Mothers pleaded to God (or to their husbands) for a child. God sometimes acted miraculously to do so (think of Hannah weeping before the tabernacle or Rachel thinking of death as an alternative to barrenness). Today, the subject of having children is complex and engages a spectrum of issues, such as infertility, birth control, abortion, adoption, single parenting, and methods of discipline. Whatever the burden one carries in regard to children, it is imperative to remember that God deeply cares about each family’s situation. That’s the easy part. To extend that same care to yourself or to those you may believe are making poor choices in regard to their children, that’s the hard part.
Raising children can be considered a branch of disciple making. Though Scripture offers nuggets of parental guidance (2 Cor. 12:14, Eph. 6:4, Col. 3:21), most of the families focused on in the Bible will provide plenty of examples of what not to do in raising children (e.g., playing favorites, neglecting discipline, living an ungodly life). But if we can learn from their mistakes and our own mistakes, then our children will each be a star in their parents’ heavenly crowns. However, in the hopes of our children being saved, Proverbs 22:6 has been invoked in a way that doesn’t integrate well with free will and the great controversy metanarrative. A brief, prayerful study on this famous text will hopefully bring some clarity and provide us with some other interpretive options.
Part II: Commentary
Scripture
Proverbs 22:6 is a rare verse possessing just the right amount of translational ambiguity and theological consequence to produce either existential hope or psychological trauma—or both. It is an exegetically juicy bit of Old Testament wisdom literature whose potential English translations can be virtual opposites of each other. Proverbs 22:6 made the short list of Douglas Stuart’s “My Favorite Mistranslations,” in his W. H. Griffith Thomas Memorial Leadership lectures in February 2013. Studying this verse can serve as a microcosm for the challenge, thrill, and surprise that make deeper Bible study all worth it. That this verse is arguably the most known or quoted verse on child rearing in the Old Testament makes it worth parsing, as we reflect on parenting for this week’s lesson.
The Standard Translation
What I am calling the standard translation is the one followed by almost all English translations (and multiple German and French translations), which follow fairly close to the King James: “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it” (Prov. 22:6).
First, the lesson brings out a crucial point that briefly bears repeating. No matter how one translates this text, it does not mean that every wayward child is the direct result of bad parenting. So, let’s get that off the table. One always has to take into account the literary genre of the text, and this one falls within a wisdom anthology full of proverbs and pithy (brief, forceful, and meaningful in expression) sayings. A proverb wouldn’t be a proverb if it included a list of qualifications, exceptions, and exclusions. So, this verse should be taken as a general principle about how experiences in earlier years can have long-term consequences. Parental guilt and/or parental assurance, as reflected in the query “When is my child going to come around to ‘the way he should go’?” should be transformed into parental reflection, lessons learned, and continued prayer.
Supporters of the standard translation have had to defend the phrase “in the way he should go” because the Hebrew only reads “according to his way.” Translators, however, picking up on the general point of Proverbs, were convinced contextually that the “way” in this case was the way of the wise and righteous that Solomon and friends were advocating and so inserted “should” to preserve that notion. A little pushback on that translation comes from those who see “his way” as referring to an individual’s discovering his or her vocational propensities and being encouraged in that direction. This view is the tack The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary takes on this verse as it observes that the “lifework should be in line with the natural bent.”—The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 3, p. 1020. Some, however, feel that this view imposes an anachronistic psychological perspective on the text that falls outside of Proverb’s themes.
The Minority Translation
Another translation also takes issue with the modifier “should” in the phrase “the way he should go” and believes the Hebrew should be taken at face value as “according to his way.” Doug Stuart and others also have a problem with the Hebrew na’ar being translated as “child” in the standard translation and opt instead for “an unmarried young adult.” (Doug Stuart’s full 2013 Griffith lectures entitled “My Favorite Mistranslations” can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJnnbIypnz8&t=16s.) In light of this proposal, the verse now involves our teenagers rather than our toddlers. Stuart proposes the translation: “Train an adolescent in his own way, and when he is old he will not depart from it.”
The text is now understood as a promise, not that good parenting guarantees good results, but that lax parenting that caters to the teenagers’ undisciplined “way” will have long-term deleterious results. Stuart quotes the medieval Jewish philosopher Ralbag’s (acronym for the Rabbi Levi ben Gershon) translation: “Train a child according to his evil inclinations, and he will continue in his evil way throughout life.”
So why doesn’t this angle of translation have wider representation in modern versions? There is likely a certain translational inertia that is created from a popular/early translation that subsequent versions often have a difficult time resisting. Gordon Hugenberger offers a theory on the possible initial misstep: “It is likely that earlier translators missed this understanding of the text as a warning not because of any difficulty in the Hebrew, but because it construes the first clause as an ironic command. It tells the reader to do something he should not do: ‘train up a child according to his way.’ Actually, such a rhetorical device is entirely at home in wisdom literature such as Proverbs, which uses sarcasm to good effect. Compare Prov. 19:27, ‘Stop listening to instruction, my son, and you will stray from the words of knowledge.’ ”—In Gary D. Practico and Miles V. Van Pelt, Basics of Biblical Hebrew Grammar (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), p. 163.
A 1,000-Year-Old Interpretation . . .
The following “translation” is more of a historical interpretation than a translation. But it has just enough converging evidence to make it a tantalizing possibility.
If you were to look at the Leningrad Codex, which is the oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible, you would find notes in the margins. These were written by the Masoretes, a group of Jewish scribes and scholars between 600 and 1000 c.e. who created diacritical marks around the consonantal Hebrew text in an attempt to standardize the pronunciation. In other words, they added a vowel system to the text so that the Jewish community wouldn’t forget how to pronounce/read their Hebrew. They also wrote technical and linguistic notes in the margins. It is these notes that potentially give us a thousand-year-old window into how they understood Proverbs 22:6.
The Masoretic understanding of Proverbs 22:6 goes all the way back to Enoch and the spelling of his name. There are two spellings of Enoch’s name in Hebrew. The Masoretes noted the variant spelling in their margins. Usually Enoch’s name contains what is called a holem waw (the holem waw gives the o sound in Enoch’s name). But there are three instances in which it is spelled “defectively” and only contains the holem (which still gives the same o sound).
Keeping in mind that there is more than one Enoch, we note that the first occurrence of the defective spelling of Enoch’s name in the Masoretic manuscript is Genesis 25:4. The Masoretes noted in their margin for that verse that the three texts containing this defective use were Genesis 25:4, Numbers 26:5 (this case is a bit different because it is the “Hanochites,” or, we might say, the family of Enoch or “Enochites” that has the defective use), and Proverbs 22:6. In other words, the Masoretes see Enoch’s name with its alternate spelling in Proverbs 22:6.
But wait, Enoch’s name doesn’t appear in Proverbs 22:6, or does it? It just so happens that the verb form of “train” in Proverbs 22:6 is spelled exactly the same as the defective spelling of Enoch’s name. (A note for those familiar with Hebrew: it is true that the Masoretes could be commenting on the Qal imperative of chanak, but the defective holem is standard for Qal imperatives, according to Wilhelm Gesenius. Isn’t it more likely they would annotate an anomalous variant on “Enoch” rather than the customary conjugation of chanak?)
What’s more, the Masoretes make a marginal note in Proverbs 22:6, connected directly to the “Enoch/train” Hebrew word. Their marginal reference, which is not in the form of a sentence, literally reads: “twice,” “beginning of,” “verse,” “Methuselah.” Again, that is the Masoretes’ comment on the Hebrew word hanoch, which in English could mean either “Enoch” or “train.” A smoothed-over English rendering of the Masoretic marginal note to Proverbs 22:6 reads: “In two instances, the word [hanoch] begins a verse . . . Methuselah.” Isn’t it interesting that Methuselah is mentioned? The fact that Methuselah is being written as a comment on hanoch opens the possibility for hanoch to be interpreted, or seen as, “Enoch,” instead of, or in addition to, translating hanoch as “train.”
The other instance in which this “Enoch/train” word begins a text is 1 Chronicles 1:3, which says, “Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech” (ESV). This Enoch is referring to the same Enoch who walked with God in Genesis 5. In light of these marginal notes, it seems plausible that the Masoretes (who lived and breathed the Hebrew Bible) had Enoch on the mind when they read Proverbs 22:6, and possibly Methuselah too. Here is an interpretation based on Joseph Lukowski’s rendering to whom we are indebted for this entire discussion: “[Use the example of] Enoch for a child according to his way [i.e., the way of Enoch]; even when he is old [like Methuselah] he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6).—https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/21709/what-is-the-proper-translation-of-proverbs-226/21787#21787. Loosely paraphrased, Lukowski’s interpretation could be rendered: “Raise your children in the Enoch way, and they will stay faithful till an old age like Methuselah.”
It very well could be that the Masoretes saw this verse as encouraging parents to raise their children to personally know and walk with God the way Enoch did. As a result, a persevering righteous life would carry them into old age (see Exod. 20:12)—even as it carried the oldest man who ever lived, Enoch’s son, Methuselah.
Part III: Life Application
We all want our children to walk in the way of Enoch, regardless of whether the Masoretes were seeing him in Proverbs or not. The fact that Enoch never saw death serves as an analogy of the hope we have that our children never experience the final/second death (Rev. 20:14).
How can we make “walking with God” so attractive to our children that they want it for themselves as much as we parents want it for them?
One Christian speaker who had just finished a writing project gave public thanks to his family for their support. “I want to thank my wife, who lovingly helped, . . . and my children, who lovingly hindered.” Children can be both a blessing and a trial (maybe the trial is the blessing). In what ways have children in your life helped mature and shape your character?
Adjust My Preferences
Welcome! Please set your reading preferences below.
You can access this panel later by clicking the
preference icon
in the top right of the page.
Having children in the Bible was a big deal. Mothers pleaded to God (or to their husbands) for a child. God sometimes acted miraculously to do so (think of Hannah weeping before the tabernacle or Rachel thinking of death as an alternative to barrenness). Today, the subject of having children is complex and engages a spectrum of issues, such as infertility, birth control, abortion, adoption, single parenting, and methods of discipline. Whatever the burden one carries in regard to children, it is imperative to remember that God deeply cares about each family’s situation. That’s the easy part. To extend that same care to yourself or to those you may believe are making poor choices in regard to their children, that’s the hard part.
Raising children can be considered a branch of disciple making. Though Scripture offers nuggets of parental guidance (2 Cor. 12:14, Eph. 6:4, Col. 3:21), most of the families focused on in the Bible will provide plenty of examples of what not to do in raising children (e.g., playing favorites, neglecting discipline, living an ungodly life). But if we can learn from their mistakes and our own mistakes, then our children will each be a star in their parents’ heavenly crowns. However, in the hopes of our children being saved, Proverbs 22:6 has been invoked in a way that doesn’t integrate well with free will and the great controversy metanarrative. A brief, prayerful study on this famous text will hopefully bring some clarity and provide us with some other interpretive options.
Part II: Commentary
Scripture
Proverbs 22:6 is a rare verse possessing just the right amount of translational ambiguity and theological consequence to produce either existential hope or psychological trauma—or both. It is an exegetically juicy bit of Old Testament wisdom literature whose potential English translations can be virtual opposites of each other. Proverbs 22:6 made the short list of Douglas Stuart’s “My Favorite Mistranslations,” in his W. H. Griffith Thomas Memorial Leadership lectures in February 2013. Studying this verse can serve as a microcosm for the challenge, thrill, and surprise that make deeper Bible study all worth it. That this verse is arguably the most known or quoted verse on child rearing in the Old Testament makes it worth parsing, as we reflect on parenting for this week’s lesson.
The Standard Translation
What I am calling the standard translation is the one followed by almost all English translations (and multiple German and French translations), which follow fairly close to the King James: “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it” (Prov. 22:6).
First, the lesson brings out a crucial point that briefly bears repeating. No matter how one translates this text, it does not mean that every wayward child is the direct result of bad parenting. So, let’s get that off the table. One always has to take into account the literary genre of the text, and this one falls within a wisdom anthology full of proverbs and pithy (brief, forceful, and meaningful in expression) sayings. A proverb wouldn’t be a proverb if it included a list of qualifications, exceptions, and exclusions. So, this verse should be taken as a general principle about how experiences in earlier years can have long-term consequences. Parental guilt and/or parental assurance, as reflected in the query “When is my child going to come around to ‘the way he should go’?” should be transformed into parental reflection, lessons learned, and continued prayer.
Supporters of the standard translation have had to defend the phrase “in the way he should go” because the Hebrew only reads “according to his way.” Translators, however, picking up on the general point of Proverbs, were convinced contextually that the “way” in this case was the way of the wise and righteous that Solomon and friends were advocating and so inserted “should” to preserve that notion. A little pushback on that translation comes from those who see “his way” as referring to an individual’s discovering his or her vocational propensities and being encouraged in that direction. This view is the tack The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary takes on this verse as it observes that the “lifework should be in line with the natural bent.”—The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 3, p. 1020. Some, however, feel that this view imposes an anachronistic psychological perspective on the text that falls outside of Proverb’s themes.
The Minority Translation
Another translation also takes issue with the modifier “should” in the phrase “the way he should go” and believes the Hebrew should be taken at face value as “according to his way.” Doug Stuart and others also have a problem with the Hebrew na’ar being translated as “child” in the standard translation and opt instead for “an unmarried young adult.” (Doug Stuart’s full 2013 Griffith lectures entitled “My Favorite Mistranslations” can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJnnbIypnz8&t=16s.) In light of this proposal, the verse now involves our teenagers rather than our toddlers. Stuart proposes the translation: “Train an adolescent in his own way, and when he is old he will not depart from it.”
The text is now understood as a promise, not that good parenting guarantees good results, but that lax parenting that caters to the teenagers’ undisciplined “way” will have long-term deleterious results. Stuart quotes the medieval Jewish philosopher Ralbag’s (acronym for the Rabbi Levi ben Gershon) translation: “Train a child according to his evil inclinations, and he will continue in his evil way throughout life.”
So why doesn’t this angle of translation have wider representation in modern versions? There is likely a certain translational inertia that is created from a popular/early translation that subsequent versions often have a difficult time resisting. Gordon Hugenberger offers a theory on the possible initial misstep: “It is likely that earlier translators missed this understanding of the text as a warning not because of any difficulty in the Hebrew, but because it construes the first clause as an ironic command. It tells the reader to do something he should not do: ‘train up a child according to his way.’ Actually, such a rhetorical device is entirely at home in wisdom literature such as Proverbs, which uses sarcasm to good effect. Compare Prov. 19:27, ‘Stop listening to instruction, my son, and you will stray from the words of knowledge.’ ”—In Gary D. Practico and Miles V. Van Pelt, Basics of Biblical Hebrew Grammar (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), p. 163.
A 1,000-Year-Old Interpretation . . .
The following “translation” is more of a historical interpretation than a translation. But it has just enough converging evidence to make it a tantalizing possibility.
If you were to look at the Leningrad Codex, which is the oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible, you would find notes in the margins. These were written by the Masoretes, a group of Jewish scribes and scholars between 600 and 1000 c.e. who created diacritical marks around the consonantal Hebrew text in an attempt to standardize the pronunciation. In other words, they added a vowel system to the text so that the Jewish community wouldn’t forget how to pronounce/read their Hebrew. They also wrote technical and linguistic notes in the margins. It is these notes that potentially give us a thousand-year-old window into how they understood Proverbs 22:6.
The Masoretic understanding of Proverbs 22:6 goes all the way back to Enoch and the spelling of his name. There are two spellings of Enoch’s name in Hebrew. The Masoretes noted the variant spelling in their margins. Usually Enoch’s name contains what is called a holem waw (the holem waw gives the o sound in Enoch’s name). But there are three instances in which it is spelled “defectively” and only contains the holem (which still gives the same o sound).
Keeping in mind that there is more than one Enoch, we note that the first occurrence of the defective spelling of Enoch’s name in the Masoretic manuscript is Genesis 25:4. The Masoretes noted in their margin for that verse that the three texts containing this defective use were Genesis 25:4, Numbers 26:5 (this case is a bit different because it is the “Hanochites,” or, we might say, the family of Enoch or “Enochites” that has the defective use), and Proverbs 22:6. In other words, the Masoretes see Enoch’s name with its alternate spelling in Proverbs 22:6.
But wait, Enoch’s name doesn’t appear in Proverbs 22:6, or does it? It just so happens that the verb form of “train” in Proverbs 22:6 is spelled exactly the same as the defective spelling of Enoch’s name. (A note for those familiar with Hebrew: it is true that the Masoretes could be commenting on the Qal imperative of chanak, but the defective holem is standard for Qal imperatives, according to Wilhelm Gesenius. Isn’t it more likely they would annotate an anomalous variant on “Enoch” rather than the customary conjugation of chanak?)
What’s more, the Masoretes make a marginal note in Proverbs 22:6, connected directly to the “Enoch/train” Hebrew word. Their marginal reference, which is not in the form of a sentence, literally reads: “twice,” “beginning of,” “verse,” “Methuselah.” Again, that is the Masoretes’ comment on the Hebrew word hanoch, which in English could mean either “Enoch” or “train.” A smoothed-over English rendering of the Masoretic marginal note to Proverbs 22:6 reads: “In two instances, the word [hanoch] begins a verse . . . Methuselah.” Isn’t it interesting that Methuselah is mentioned? The fact that Methuselah is being written as a comment on hanoch opens the possibility for hanoch to be interpreted, or seen as, “Enoch,” instead of, or in addition to, translating hanoch as “train.”
The other instance in which this “Enoch/train” word begins a text is 1 Chronicles 1:3, which says, “Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech” (ESV). This Enoch is referring to the same Enoch who walked with God in Genesis 5. In light of these marginal notes, it seems plausible that the Masoretes (who lived and breathed the Hebrew Bible) had Enoch on the mind when they read Proverbs 22:6, and possibly Methuselah too. Here is an interpretation based on Joseph Lukowski’s rendering to whom we are indebted for this entire discussion: “[Use the example of] Enoch for a child according to his way [i.e., the way of Enoch]; even when he is old [like Methuselah] he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6).—https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/21709/what-is-the-proper-translation-of-proverbs-226/21787#21787. Loosely paraphrased, Lukowski’s interpretation could be rendered: “Raise your children in the Enoch way, and they will stay faithful till an old age like Methuselah.”
It very well could be that the Masoretes saw this verse as encouraging parents to raise their children to personally know and walk with God the way Enoch did. As a result, a persevering righteous life would carry them into old age (see Exod. 20:12)—even as it carried the oldest man who ever lived, Enoch’s son, Methuselah.
Part III: Life Application
We all want our children to walk in the way of Enoch, regardless of whether the Masoretes were seeing him in Proverbs or not. The fact that Enoch never saw death serves as an analogy of the hope we have that our children never experience the final/second death (Rev. 20:14).