March 1, 1992 Issue
by Ronny F. Wade

Question: Please explain Proverbs 22:6. When a child becomes unfaithful is it a sign that the parents have failed to teach them properly?

Answer: There is nothing more devastating to a caring parent than a wayward child. This very day, throughout the land, many fathers and mothers are languishing over children who walk in forbidden paths. Night after night they fervently pray that something might be said or done that will bring them back to the Lord and His way. Such questions as "where did I fail?", "what did I do wrong?", and "what could I have done that I didn't do?" are frequently asked in an attempt to determine the reason for prodigality. The verse under consideration reads: "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."

The interpretation given this verse by many is as follows: "if we teach our children as we should and bring them up in the church, when they are grown they will be faithful to the Lord." I have heard preachers use the following illustration to reinforce this interpretation: "the Catholic's claim that if they can have a child for the first six years of his life, he will die a Catholic. If this is true, why can't we make the same claim about our children?" Which is supposed to mean that if we teach our children as we should, none of them will leave the church. Not only is this a misinterpretation of Prov 22:6, its implications, in some instances, unduly burden the parents involved.

In the verse under consideration the word "train" means much more than simply imparting instruction. The Hebrew word (chanak) carries the idea of "to put in one's mouth". Embodied in its implications are such things as laying the groundwork of character and instilling principles. All of this presupposes the ability and willingness of the child to receive the training given by the parent. Since our children are free moral agents they cannot be forced to receive the training we give them. If as parents we teach and train our children as we should and they refuse "their fathers' instruction", the result envisioned by Solomon will not follow. The fact, however, that the child refused the training does not, in itself, prove that the parent failed in his duty and obligation. Often two children in the same family receive the same training, yet they turn out to be very different in disposition and character. This can be explained on the ground of difference in children, and not in the training which they received.

Next, notice the phrase "in the way he should go". What is its meaning? Many would reply, "it means in the church, or in the way of truth and right. The truth is, it means neither. Its actual meaning is: "according to the tenor of his way." F. C. Cook in Barnes' Notes says "i.e. the path specially belonging to, or specially fitted for, the individual's character." Taught here is the responsibility of parents to know their children, study their nature, disposition, and temperament and train them accordingly. This is in harmony with what Paul taught in Col 3:21 and Eph 6:4 Solomon is not talking about an unbending standard applied indiscriminately to all children, but rather a training approach that takes into consideration each child's own temperament. Let me remind my readers that I am not saying that there isn't a standard revealed by God in His word by which we are expected to live, I am merely pointing out that in this verse the phrase "in the way he should go" does not have reference to that standard. The final part of the verse..."when he is old he will not depart from it" is usually interpreted to mean, "when he is grown, or is an adult." The passage neither says this nor teaches this. As Guy N. Woods points out "The affirmation of Solomon deals with the fruit of training in old age; and, the meaning is, that an individual who has been trained properly in the principles of truth and has lived in harmony therewith until he reaches old age will not then abandon that which has become second nature to him." We cannot, however, rule out the possibility of one leaving the teachings of his youth. To do so, would be nothing short of teaching the impossibility of apostasy. Hence, the interpretation of the passage that says a child raised and taught properly will never leave that teaching, must be rejected. If we reverse the proverb, the result would be equally unacceptable i.e. "train up a child in the way he should not go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." This would be, in effect, saying "train a child wrong, and he will always be wrong." This, of course, we do not believe.

There is no justification for those parents who fail to discharge their responsibility in teaching and training their children in the ways of right living and godly service. Their actions are indefensible. However, I cannot condemn and unjustly criticize those godly, concerned parents who try to train their children in the right ways of the Lord, but, who through no fault of their own, fail. Even though parents sometime do their best in teaching and training what is right and good, we must remember that our children as individuals, as free moral agents, may choose to reject our teaching even though they break our hearts in the process. Both Eli and Samuel had ungodly children. The scriptures furnish us with no information indicating that Eli tried to restrain his children from sin. God condemned him for this. Samuel, on the other hand, tried to restrain his wicked sons, without success. No word of condemnation from God is found in the scriptures for Samuel. He tried, but he failed.

In closing, I offer the following scenario for your consideration: Jane and John, both Christians, marry and have two children, a son Bill and a daughter Louise. Both are trained in Christian principles and taught the truth. When old enough both obey the gospel. Some time later, however, Louise falls in love with the world and leaves the church. Question: did John and Jane fail in their duty as parents? Some may say "yes they did" because Solomon said "train a child up in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it," And since Louise left the church her parents must have failed to train her as they should. But, suppose in five years Louise realizes her mistake and returns to the church. Question: will we now say that John and Jane did not fail, since Louise has returned? The truth is this: when Louise left the church, she did so as an act of her own will, she chose to live a sinful life. We cannot blame her parents for this. By the same token when she returned to the church, she did so as a result of her own free will. As an individual she made both choices and is therefore responsible for the consequences of both.