“Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it” (KJV)
Introduction
Proverbs 22:6 “is probably the best-known verse in Proverbs on child training” says one commentator.1 And at the same time other Bible commentators say it is one of the most difficult verses in Proverbs to interpret and apply.2 Many Bible expositors fail to even comment on it in their written works.3 One Bible scholar says it is futile to even attempt to explain it. The Septuagint (LXX), which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced just before the time of Christ, completely neglects this verse altogether, as it skips from 22:5 straight to 22:7! Maybe those Greek-Jewish scholars found the verse too difficult to deal with and just gave up?
But that should not be the approach of a Bible-believing Christian. We don’t wave the white flag of surrender when confronted with a challenging passage in God’s Word. Proverbs 22:6 definitely belongs in the Bible (Prov 20:5-6; John 10:35; Rev 22:19), was written by King Solomon (Prov 10:1), was inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Tim 3:16), and was intended by God to guide and encourage believing parents (Prov 1:1-4).
Since the time King Solomon penned Proverbs 22:6 (around 970 BC), it has been a verse of hope and encouragement to believing parents regarding the spiritual development of their children. For some it has even served as a foundational pillar for their overall parenting philosophy. At the same time, this verse has proved to be a source of guilt, confusion, and even frustration for many parents as their children left the faith never to return when they got older, a heart-breaking reality that flies in the face of what this proverb seems to promise at face value.
Because of the long-standing and universal reality of countless children turning their backs on the biblical faith of their parents, many have questioned the popular interpretation of this verse. More and more scholars and Bible teachers have likewise questioned the traditional understanding of this verse, thus engendering caution before presumptuously glomming onto its surface, promise-oriented words to parents. As a result, in the past century the meaning of this Hebrew maxim has been highly disputed in the believing community with respect to how it should be understood and applied by faithful parents. The goal of this chapter is to reexamine this divinely inspired maxim and get to its true meaning so that parents can have confidence in reading it, understanding it, and applying it.
Before coming to a conclusion on how to personally apply this verse, parents should first be aware of three important considerations surrounding it. Being conversant with these three considerations will bolster one’s ability to understand the proverb in keeping with the original author’s intention. The three pressing considerations include the following: (1) an awareness of the popular views suggested; (2) establishing a correct translation of the text; and (3) understanding the genre of the Book of Proverbs. We begin with a survey of the popular views that have been suggested throughout the centuries.
Popular Views
Over the course of Church history, and 1,000 years of Jewish tradition before that, at least six different popular views on the meaning of Proverbs 22:6 have been proposed. This has been a great source of confusion and frustration for the average Christian reader. The main views include the following: (1) the promise view; (2) the guideline view; (3) the tailoring view; (4) the warning view; (5) the baptismal view; (6) and the apprentice view.
The Promise View
We begin with the “promise” view, which has been the most popular view for ages. The promise view takes this verse as it is written in the King James version at face value. This view assumes this proverb is saying that if you start teaching your child beginning in their most impressionable years then you will set indelible convictions that he will retain for life. And these views will be religious and biblical in nature.
In other words, if parents teach their children the Bible starting when they are young, then they will believe the Bible when they are older. Some even say this verse promises parents that their children are guaranteed salvation when they are older if they are taught the Bible as children. So, the obligation of the parent in this view is to “teach” the child biblical truth in an ongoing manner, in every context possible. This is consistent with Deuteronomy 6:7 which commands parents to “teach [Bible truths] them diligently to your sons and…talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.” The key here is to “teach” your children well and in every circumstance of life.
Teaching our young children biblical truth is a priority in parenting. It is essential to helping them develop a Christian world view. But “discipling” our children includes more than just “preaching” to our children. Children need to grow in four domains: spiritually, socially, physically and intellectually (Luke 2:52). There needs to be a balance. Those holding the traditional promise view can at times over-emphasize a rigid didactic, preachy approach to parenting, with the priority of imparting head knowledge through “teaching” while neglecting development in the other three areas. It holds that if a parent teaches the right things to their kids then God’s promise is the children will turn out right, maybe even securing their salvation. This view can lend itself to a mechanical approach to parenting, even one-dimensional, with the idea that just teaching the right information will prove to be the panacea to successful parenting. This view can also foster a legalistic approach to parenting due to its one-dimensional view if proper precautions for balance are not put in place.
The popular pastor, Charles Bridges, championed this view 150 years ago and it is still widespread today.4 He called this verse a “rule” and a “command” for parenting. Children will become what they were taught by their parents. Bridges called the second part of this proverb “the parental promise” and “a plain promise.” He states categorically, “The man will be, as the child is trained.” Proper biblical instruction will bring results that are “sure,” he wrote. If the child becomes a “prodigal” at any point, he will certainly “return” to the faith later. Bridges goes on to say that if the children get off track later in life and leave the faith, then it was the parents’ fault. A child defecting is proof positive that the parents compromised their biblical mandate to teach their children properly. The children became defective because the parental instruction was defective or inconsistent somewhere along the way.
More and more Bible teachers are rejecting the traditional “promise” view for various reasons. One obvious one is that it blames the Christian parents for a child who becomes a rebel later in life. It operates on the faulty premise that good, consistent parenting will guarantee that a child will become a faithful, believing adult. A cursory reading of the Bible exposes such thinking as folly, for the greatest parent ever, YHWH of the Old Testament who is God the Father of the New Testament, had many children that He reared who defected. As a matter of fact, the majority of God’s “children” in the Old Testament, the Israelites, rebelled against the faith. Yet, God is the perfect parent. The Book of Isaiah begins with God lamenting in heartache over His children who turned against Him and His perfect, loving, fatherly care:
Listen, O heavens, and hear O earth;
For the LORD speaks,
“Sons I have brought up,
But they have revolted against Me” (Isa 1:2).
The “promise” view has some challenges at face value. It is not wrong for suggesting that Proverbs 22:6 makes a promise. In fact. I believe it does make a promise. The question is, what is that promise? I don’t think the promise is that parents can be assured that their kids will be eternally saved contingent upon the parents’ aptitude in teaching Bible doctrine to their kids. The promise is something else which we will examine shortly.
The Guideline View
The second popular view is what I call the “guideline” view. Proponents of this view usually accept the King James translation of the verse but emphasize that this verse is not a hard-and-fast truism, or a guaranteed promise. Their focus is on the disputed phrase, “he will not depart from it.” As such, they say that this proverb is just a suggested guideline, albeit a Divine one at that. It’s a rule of thumb, a general truism; but it is not a binding promise. Generally speaking, says the guideline view, children raised with biblical instruction are likely to live in accordance with a modicum of biblical principles later in life, but there are always exceptions. Advocates of this mitigated view argue that the whole Book of Proverbs is constituted of just wise guidelines and not axiomatic, universally guaranteed truths.5 They do so to accommodate the reality that many good and godly parents have produced children who have rejected the faith. They say ultimately it is the child who is responsible to either believe in Christ or reject Him. Parents can’t coerce their children to believe; therefore, this verse cannot be an iron-clad promise.
This view has some merit but has challenges as well. An obvious weakness is that it is based on a wrong view of the Book of Proverbs, categorically saying that all the proverbs are only general guidelines and not promises. That is just not the case. The book of proverbs has over 500 individual proverbs which are written by different authors and contain a wide variety of literary composition. Not all the proverbs are the same. Proverbs 22:6 is in a section of the Book of Proverbs that has many clear divine promises as well as universally true and binding axioms. For example, Proverbs 15:3 says, “The eyes of the LORD are in every place, watching the evil and the good.” That assertion is indeed always universally true and binding. And 22:2 says, “The rich and the poor have a common bond, the Lord is the maker of them all.” Those two proverbs are Hebrew couplets written in synthetic parallelism just like Proverbs 22:6, and those two verses are not just sacred suggestions or godly guidelines. They are always true for everyone.6
Another shortcoming of the “guideline” view is that it fails to highlight, or even mention, that Proverbs 22:6 is an imperative.7 The main Hebrew verb that begins the sentence is a command, an imperative from God to parents. In that regard, Bridges was correct in seeing this as a divine mandate which entails a promise. And it is a definitive command from God which He expects believing parents to obey. Ironically, the proponents of the “guideline” view would not typically label other commands in the Bible as mere “guidelines” that are sometimes true and sometimes not.
The Tailoring View
The third view I call the “tailoring” view and it is rising in popularity. This view takes the verse to mean, “Tailor your parenting priorities in keeping with your child’s unique personality, particular needs, individual propensities, and innate abilities, for every child is different.” Advocates of this view prioritize the middle phrase, “in the way he should go.” The “promise” view people prioritize the last phrase in the verse: “he will not depart from it.” The “guideline” view people prioritize the first phrase in the verse: “Train up a child.”
Those holding the “tailoring” view understand the phrase, “in the way he should go,” to mean, “according to his way.” They emphasize and personalize the pronoun “his,” as the determining factor, and the phrase “his way” becomes the determining exegetical definer of this proverb. They argue “his way” means each child’s unique “bent” that God instilled in them from the time of conception. So, they understand this proverb to say, “Train up each child according to his or her unique bent.” One child may be born as an introvert while a sibling may be born as an extrovert. One child may be an artistic, left-brained thinker while his twin could be born a right-brained thinker drawn toward engineering. The parents need to figure these details out and then parent accordingly, catering all available pedagogical resources and energy to each child’s differentiating internal “bent.”
Understanding each child’s specific personality is key to this approach. In this view, the child’s personal DNA drives the parenting process. Parenting is then “reactive” and “responsive” more than it is “directive.” Parenting “accommodates” more than it “dictates.” Each parent, then, must assume the role of a privatized Sherlock Holmes, to discover the innate mysteries of each child that will unlock his full potential. Of all the views, practically speaking, this approach is one of the most “child-centered.” Pastor Chuck Swindoll has been one of the more popular advocates of this view for the past generation, and many have followed suit.8
Similar to this view is the more general interpretation which says “his way” refers to the unique life and growth seasons that all children go through from birth to adulthood. This view is a little less individualized than the preceding view, but is still in the same genus. This view follows the behavioral model of secular psychology. Gene Getz has popularized this view.9 He says there are four specific seasons of life humans go through as they develop: (1) the security phase which is birth to age one; (2) the exploratory phase, age one to two; (3) the imitation phase, ages two to three; and (4) the identification phase, up to age four. Parenting and the instruction of young children needs to be tailored to their unique needs in light of their age and development. “Don’t treat little kids like adults,” is the gist.10
Although this view has practical wisdom with respect to common sense in parenting, it does not actually represent what Proverbs 22:6 teaches based on the grammar, syntax and context. This view is actually quite recent compared to the promise view which has been around for millennia. This “new” view infuses too much specific artificial meaning into the one generic prepositional phrase, “according to his way,” at the neglect of other key terms and phrases in the verse, especially the main imperative which begins the verse. In fact, it categorically gives an illegitimate meaning to the adverbial phrase, “according to his way.” It is a common phrase, or idiom, in the Hebrew Old Testament and never means, “according to his bent.” It is best translated as, “according to his way,” or “the way he should go.”11 Its many usages show that it means, “what is appropriate to an established authority or standard.”12 The way a child should go is determined by God’s universal standard, not the child’s individual DNA. This view also holds too narrow of a meaning for the Hebrew word for “child” (Heb. na’ar). It does not only refer to infants and toddlers as Getz seems to imply. The Hebrew word can also refer to teens and young men.
The appeal of this view for parents is the practical suggestion that children should not be treated like adults with unrealistic expectations that could frustrate or exasperate the child (cf. Eph 6:4; Col 3:21). And Scripture does command parents not to exasperate their children. That is good advice. But that is not what this verse is emphasizing. Another appeal of this view is that it suggests that children go through developmental stages of growth that need to be attended to and guarded, giving them what they need when they need it; parents should teach their children in age-appropriate ways. This is also true. Paul speaks about this in 1 Corinthians when he reminded his readers, “When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things” (1 Cor 13:11). But this biblical truism is not the point of Proverbs 22:6 either.
The Warning View
The fourth popular view of Proverbs 22:6 is the “warning” view. This is the only view that sees this verse strictly from a negative perspective. It understands the statement to be an indicative, or declaration, and not an imperative. Advocates say it is to be understood as saying, “if you let your child go ‘his own self-centered way,’ without parental intervention, then he will go the wrong way and end up living for himself like a fool.” “His way” according to this take is “the way of the fool” which is mentioned many times in Proverbs (cf. 1:7; 10:18, 23; 12:15; 14:9; 19:1; 28:26).
So, according to the “warning” view, Solomon is here warning parents that if you let your kid do whatever he wants to do during the younger years, then he will live for himself in his later years. This is understood to be a warning against permissive, child-centered parenting. It is a rebuke to parents who fail to discipline their disobedient children.13 Advocates say that the Proverbs knows of only two ways: God’s way and the fool’s way. The way of the fool comes naturally to all children who are born sinful. As such, they need deliberate, remedial, corporeal training by the parents to save them from themselves. Dr. Jay Adams, the grandfather of the modern biblical counseling movement, popularized this view in the modern church.14
The main problem with the warning view is that it treats the main verb which begins the sentence as an indicative (or declaration) and not as an imperative (or command). Contrary to the Jay Adams warning view, this verse is not passively declaring what might happen if parents fail to do something. It is commanding parents to do something proactively.
The Baptismal View
The fifth take on Proverbs 22:6 I call the “baptismal” view. This view is held strongly in certain liturgical enclaves who practice infant baptism. It alleges this verse is commanding parents to baptize their infants with water as a sign of dedicating their eternal souls to God forever. Bird, who is Lutheran, explains:
Dear parents, your own children are not your own. They are yours, yes, but more importantly, they are the Father’s children…God loves them perfectly from all eternity…he bought them with the price of blood. Dedicate them to him…who claimed them on the cross. As important as the training of your children is, much more important is handing them over to God–from the very beginning, from infancy, and beyond. This happens in a liquid exchange, as we hand over our children to the father, in word-filled water. In the dedication of baptism, God claims every little one as his tiny temple…The child enters a new way, a new mode of life…they can’t leave this behind or depart from it, because it is God’s doing, not their own.15
The one positive nuance of this overly sacramental view is that it recognizes the personal and solemn element of “dedication” or “consecrate” inherent in the verb chanak as it is used consistently in the Old Testament. This solemn element is directed at the overall attitude of the parents regarding the gift of children entrusted to their care. God expects parents to “dedicate” their children to Him from the beginning. The debate is over how or in what manner the parents are to dedicate the children. Does infant baptism alone fulfill this mandate?
This view has obvious weaknesses. The main one is the author of this view equates the verb for “train up/dedicate” with “baptize” which is illegitimate. And Solomon did not teach infant baptism. Infant baptism does not exist in the Old Testament or the New Testament. Infant baptism is a man-made religious practice foreign to the Bible that crept into Christian churches during the second and third centuries AD. As such, it is clear that Proverbs 22:6 is not commanding infant baptism.
The Apprentice View
The sixth and final view is the “apprentice” view which is a recent interpretation that assigns rigid, nuanced meanings to all the key words and phrases in the verse. This view says the verb “train up” actually means “to dedicate or celebrate” and the word for “child” refers to a young man, probably a teenager, of high status who is socially in the “upper class.” Taken together, this proverb is not to be used as support for early childhood training, nor can it be applied to all children. Instead, it refers to a young man who “is a royal squire who is in the process of being apprenticed in wisdom for taking on royal responsibilities consistent with his status as” a young man with royal blood.16 After all, Solomon the King wrote this verse.
This verse then exhorts parents of high status or royal blood to give due respect and dignity to their boys when they become young men while celebrating them and launching them into society with all rights and privileges as mature citizens. While there is not direct application for most parents today, who are non-royalty, there is the general application or principle reminding parents to treat their children as adults when they become adults with the proper balance of letting go of the restraints while providing needed support for them to thrive as independents during the apprentice stage of life.
This view is probably the most creative, and yet it most likely is not what this verse is teaching. It is illegitimate to constrain the meaning of the word “child/youth” (na’ar) to mean “a young man of high status.” And it is also unwarranted to narrow the verb for “train up” (Hebrew, chanak) to mean “celebrate” in Bar-Mitzvah-like fashion that is just a one-time event. Chanak means “dedicate” and has the capacity to include the idea of “celebrate,” but not only that idea. This view is rather novel. It is hard to accept that Solomon’s true intention of Proverbs 22:6 was not discovered in its fulness until almost 3,000 years after he wrote it.17 The truths of the Proverbs of Solomon were written to be understood clearly by all believing parents and young people and implemented for daily living (1:1-4), not as secret puzzles that only the small minority of the initiated could discover.
Translating Proverbs 22:6
After examining popular views of Proverbs 22:6, it is time to establish an accurate translation of the verse. The first rule or hermeneutics, or Bible interpretation, is actually “translation,” or making sure we render the original language of a biblical text into another language accurately. One of the reasons we have so many English translations of the Bible is because the translators are trying to preserve the original meaning of the Hebrew and Greek in a way that we English speakers will understand. And the English language is fluid, always changing from one generation to the next in different ways.
The King James Bible was translated in 1611 and it has many words we don’t use today, such as when the woman with an issue of blood touched Jesus’ garment, and the King James says, “immediately her issue of blood stanched” (Luke 8:44). We don’t use the word “stanched” today. And sometimes the King James simply had misleading words or phrases that needed to be corrected by updated translations, such as its rendering of Genesis 4:21 where it says, “Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ” (Gen 4:21). Jubal lived around 3,500 BC and there were no organs. The Hebrew word here just refers to blowing into something, hence a simple wind instrument. And so, appropriately, the New American Standard Bible says Jubal invented the “pipe” and the New King James says “flute.” So, reexamining the translation of Proverbs 22:6 is a priority.
All six main views examined above have their strengths and weaknesses. The problem with the first four views is that they base their interpretations and applications on taking the 1611 King James Translation of Proverbs 22:6 at face value. Only the “baptism” and “apprentice” views base their interpretations on a different translation than suggested by the 1611 King James rendition. I propose that the King James translation needs some tweaking in light of the Hebrew text, and in doing so will impact one’s interpretation and application.
The King James translation reads as follows:
“Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”
This verse was probably written originally by King Solomon as a Hebrew poetic couplet and thus could be rendered,
“Train up a child in the way he should go:
and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”
This format preserves the most dominant feature of Hebrew poetry which is parallelism. Line A, which begins with the verb, “Train up,” is advanced by the second part, line B, which advances line A in some regard, either by way of contrast, synonymously, or through elaboration. Most of the modern English translations closely follow the King James rendering including the NASB, NKJV, ESV, LSB and the NET Bible.
“Train up” or “Dedicate”?
The first consideration in reexamining the proper translation is to look at the verb which begins the sentence in English and in Hebrew. The popular English Bibles say, “Train up,” which is only one word in Hebrew, namely “chanak.” This verb occurs only five times in the Old Testament and the other four usages are best understood as “dedicate” or “consecrate.” All four instances refer to the “dedication” of a new house (Deut 20:5) or the Temple (2 Chron 7:5).18 The word is used when Solomon solemnly and publicly “dedicated” the brand-new permanent Temple of God that he built in Jerusalem which replaced the portable Tabernacle. Upon dedicating the Temple, God’s presence took up residence within the holy place. First Kings 8 describes the historic and glorious occasion:
Solomon offered for the sacrifice of peace offerings, which he offered to the Lord, 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep. So the king and all the sons of Israel dedicated [chanak] the house of the Lord. On the same day the king consecrated [qadash] the middle of the court that was before the house of the Lord, because there he offered the burnt offering and the grain offering and the fat of the peace offerings (vv. 1 Kings 8:63-64).
At this celebratory national gathering, Israel and King Solomon formally “dedicated” the Temple to God. “Dedicated” is the Hebrew word, chanak, the same verb used in Proverbs 22:6 which the King James rendered as “train up.” Notice also that the use of the word “dedicated” is immediately followed by the use of the word “consecrated,” which in this context serves as a synonym to “dedicate.” Solomon dedicated and consecrated the Temple of God.
The four usages of chanak outside of Proverbs 22:6 refer to dedicating a building, two times in Deuteronomy in reference to a house and the two other references describe the “dedication” of the newly built Temple of God in the days of King Solomon. The Deuteronomy verse reads as follows:
The officers also shall speak to the people, saying, ‘Who is the man that has built a new house and has not dedicated it? Let him depart and return to his house, otherwise he might die in the battle and another man would dedicate it (Deut 20:5).
We saw above how the verb chanak was translated as “dedicate” in 1 Kings 8. The parallel passage is in 2 Chronicles describing the dedication of Solomon’s Temple and translates the verb in the same manner as 1 Kings 8:
Then the king and all the people offered sacrifice before the Lord. King Solomon offered a sacrifice of 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep. Thus the king and all the people dedicated the house of God. The priests stood at their posts, and the Levites also, with the instruments of music to the Lord, which King David had made for giving praise to the Lord—“for His lovingkindness is everlasting”—whenever he gave praise by their means, while the priests on the other side blew trumpets; and all Israel was standing. 7 Then Solomon consecrated the middle of the court that was before the house of the Lord, for there he offered the burnt offerings and the fat of the peace offerings because the bronze altar which Solomon had made was not able to contain the burnt offering, the grain offering and the fat (2 Chron 7:4-7).
In addition to the five usages of the verb chanak, there are eight occurrences of the related noun, and in all eight cases it is translated as “the dedication” (cf. Num 7:10, 11, 84, 88; 2 Chron 7:9; Neh 12:27 and the superscript in Psalm 30). So, taken together, aside from Proverbs 22:6, all twelve usages of the verb and noun of chanak are rendered as “dedicate” in our English Bibles. Even the King James Bible translates all four other usages of the verb chanak as “dedicate” or “dedication,” so there is no real precedent to translate the same verb as “train up” in 22:6. Although no current English Bible translation renders the phrase as, “Dedicate a child in the way that he should go,” most scholarly and exegetical commentaries acknowledge the fact that that is what the verb chanak means. The CSB (2017) moves in this direction with its, “Start a youth out on his way” as does the NIV which gives a similar rendering: “Start children off on the way they should go.”
All four Bible references that translate the verb chanak as “dedicate” in reference to a building, whether a soldier’s house or the Temple, emphasize the newness or novelty of the building, thus emphasizing the building was in its “infancy” stage regarding its usage. Metaphorically this parallels a young child as mentioned in Proverbs 22:6 who would be in his infancy stage in life. The verb “dedicate” then would have the nuance of “initiation” or “consecration,” something in its beginning stages of usage. Hence the CSB and the NIV legitimately try to catch this nuance with the verb “start.” In light of the foregoing, the first phrase in Proverbs 22:6 should be translated as, “Dedicate a child.”
Because all four other instances of chanak in the Bible clearly refer to the act of dedicating or consecrating a new building for practical use and service, many Bible scholars believe chanak should be understood in the same manner in Proverbs 22:6, and hence should be translated as “dedicate” or something comparable. And since all four usages of the verb refer to something that is new, it should have the nuance of “initiate,” something in its beginning stages.
Another argument in support of the “dedicate/consecrate” view is that the verb chanak is never used in the Old Testament in reference to teaching, instructing, or training. It’s not a pedagogical term. The Old Testament uses a host of other terms to describe the pedagogical process. The most famous verse of all regarding the mandate for parents to teach their children is Deuteronomy 6:7 and does not use the word “chanak/dedicate,” but shahnan, and is translated as follows:
“You shall teach [shahnan] them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.”
Other common terms referring to teaching and instruction in the Old Testament include lamad (Deut 4:10), yarah (Deut 33:10), darak (Ps 25:5), sakal (Ps 32:8), basar (Ps 40:9), nachah (Ps 73:24), yada (Prov 9:9), nathan (Prov 9:9). So, to say chanak in Proverbs 22:6 refers to traditional “training” or “teaching” is not consistent with Old Testament usage. Other terms are reserved for that imperative. In light of the foregoing, the error of the Living Bible’s rendition of Proverbs 22:6 becomes obvious as it reads, “Teach a child to choose the right path….” Whatever chanak means, it should not be translated as “teach.”
Which “Way”?
The next part of Proverbs 22:6 to reexamine regarding translation is the adverbial prepositional phrase that the King James rendered, “in the way he should go.” The Hebrew is just three words–two prepositions plus the noun “way” (derek). The noun has a singular personal pronoun attached, so it is literally “his way.” Taken together a literal rending is, “according to his way.” The King James translation is not the best as it does not properly reflect the wording used by Solomon in the phrase. The phrase in the King James, “should go” is misleading leaving the English reader to think that this is a verbal phrase in English, but in Hebrew it is literally “according to,” which is a prepositional phrase that modifies the main verb, “dedicate.”
So, the longstanding King James translation needs to be amended to be in line with what the Hebrew text actually says. Adding the main verb previously addressed, the translation is then, “Dedicate a child according to his way.” This whole phrase is the mandate from God to parents: God requires parents to dedicate, or consecrate, a child according to his way. Remember that “dedicate” (chanak) is an imperative or command. When God commands believers to do something, He expects them to do it, and He also empowers them to do it. He does not require us to do something on a practical level that we don’t have the resources for.
“He will not depart”
The last part of the verse to reexamine regarding translation is the whole second part of the verse that we earlier called phrase B, the second part of the poetic couplet, which is rendered in the King James as, “and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” This is a word-for-word translation of the Hebrew text and cannot be improved upon much. So, after 400 years the King James translation of this phrase has stood the test of time, despite an ever-changing and amorphous English dialect. Kudos are in order for the King James here.
The word for “old” (Heb., zakane) is used about 27 times in the Old Testament and consistently refers to the “aged” or older adults. In Genesis 18:13 zakane is used to describe Sarah who was way beyond childbearing years; she was eighty-nine! In Proverbs 22:6, “old” is used in a direct and deliberate contrast to the word “child” (naar) employed previously in phrase A. This is a classic used of Hebrew parallelism in action. “Old” here does not mean when your kids are in college or their early twenties. It is referring to when they are much older, as in their twilight, and even senior years. If that was Solomon’s intent, then many, if not most parents won’t see the full fulfillment of this promise in their lifetime. Many parents pass away and die before they see their children reach “old” age. Christian parents make a mistake when they apply this verse to their young, high school or college-age kids.
The word for “depart” that concludes the verse is the verb soor and occurs over 300 times in the Old Testament and 17 times in the Book of Proverbs. Its literal usage means to “turn away from” something and then go in a different direction. It is used this way when speaking of Moses who “turned aside” from the path he was walking on to go in another direction to see the burning bush where God would speak to him (Exod 3:3). It is also used metaphorically to “turn aside” from obeying God’s commands in favor of sinful behavior (Exod 32:8). It is also used metaphorically in a positive sense to “turn away from” evil toward God’s law and obedience (Prov 3:7).
Of the seventeen usages of the verb “depart, turn away from” in Proverbs, sixteen are metaphorical and only one is literal (cf. 9:16). Proverbs 22:6 uses it metaphorically in reference to moral behavior. On twelve occasions in Proverbs the reference is positive (i.e., to turn away from evil and toward God); five are negative (describing a fool turning away from God’s truth). In 22:6 the usage is positive. Eleven times the verb is used in the context of an indicative statement or general truism. Six times it is used in relation to an imperatival statement. Proverbs 22:6 is one of those instances. In that case, parents are commanded to “dedicate” their young children, which in turn leads to the positive, metaphorical statement that, later, their children will not leave or “turn away from” the way intended.
A Fine-Tuned Translation
In light of all that has been argued thus far, a fresh translation that is faithful to the original Hebrew can be rendered as follows:
“Dedicate a young child according to his way, and when he is much older he will not turn away from it.”
In the next and final article, we will consider briefly how one should read the Book of Proverbs.
NOTES
1Sid Buzzell, “Proverbs” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord (USA: Victor Books, 1988), 952.
2Two of the most highly respected Evangelical Bible scholars, Walter Kaiser and F. F. Bruce, collaborated on a book that became widely popular called Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996). It addresses only the most difficult passages as determined by the saints for the past two millennia. They tackle knotty problems in almost every book of the Bible including Proverbs. Of the 915 total verses in the 31 chapters of Proverbs, they only deal with ten verses/passages in Proverbs. And Proverbs 22:6 is one of them. Even more telling is Gleason Archer’s classic work called, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (1982), where he also tries to explain the most difficult passages in every book of the Bible. When he gets to the Book of Proverbs, he only deals with two passages and Proverbs 22:6 is one of them. And he dedicates several pages to his exegetical explanation of it. The works of Kaiser, Bruce, and Archer are a good reminder that Proverbs 22:6 poses a great challenge for us as Bible readers, so we need to tread carefully and diligently in pursuing its meaning.
3Andrew F. Walls, “Proverbs” in ed. by Francis Davidson, The New Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1956).
4For Bridges’ whole extensive discussion on this verse see his commentary, Proverbs (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1979), 401-406; more modern advocates of the “promise” view include R. Laird Harris, “Proverbs” in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, ed. Charles F. Pfeiffer and E. F. Harrison (Chicago: Moody Press, 1990), 574; J. Terence Forestell, “Proverbs” in The Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond E. Brown (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), 503; R. F. Horton, “Proverbs” in The Expositor’s Bible, Vol III, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 422-425), 1943.
5Sources that hold this view include John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible (Nashville: Word Publishing , 1997), 908; Walt Kaiser, Hard Saying of the Bible, 288.; The Nelson Study Bible: New King James (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1997), 1064; The Moody Bible Commentary, ed. Michael Rydelnik (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2014), 943.
6For more information on the different kinds of Hebrew couplets and their implications see Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 13 (Jerusalem, Israel: Keter Publishing House, 1973),1270; The Interpreter’s Bible, “Proverbs,” ed. George Buttrick (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1955), 771-772.
7Claus Westermann correctly says it is “A maxim expressed in the form of an imperative”; cf. Handbook to the Old Testament, Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1967), 237; Hildebrandt calls it a “verbal imperative,” cf. Ted Hildebrandt, “Proverbs 22:6a: Train Up a Child?” Grace Theological Journal 9.1 (1988) 4. The main verb, “dedicate” (Heb., chanak) is a masculine singular imperative in the Piel stem which is not stative but transformative/causative; cf. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, ed. Bruce K. Waltke (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 401.
8See his parenting book, You & Your Child (Nashville: Word Publishing, 1982, 1998), 5 ff.
9Gene Getz, Life Essentials Study Bible (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2011), 864-865. Keil and Delitzsch advocated a similar view in 1872; see, C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary On the Old Testament: Proverbs 18-31, Volume 6 (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1989), 86.
10Christian parents need to be aware that some popular secular pedagogical and parenting methods operate according to this presupposition, namely, that children need to be guided more than indoctrinated; children need to engage in discovery and self-exploration in order to learn. This is passive instruction and is the basis of the widely popular Montessori method of education. The Montessori method of education is contrary to a biblical worldview at the foundational level, as it imbibes secular, ecumenical, and liberal Catholic ideology; cf. Alair Marie August, “A Theological Analysis of the Educational Method of Maria Montessori,” Thesis for The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, May 2023, 113-116.
11Roland Murphy, Word Biblical Commentary: Proverbs (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 164.
12Waltke says, “Here his way dictates the orientation of his dedication,” meaning, his way as a youth (Prov 1:4; 7:7) needs to be brought into conformity with God’s rule (Prov 8:22) as clearly laid out in Proverbs (11:5) and the Law (Deut 10:12); cf. Waltke, Proverbs, 205; cf. Hildebrandt, “Train Up a Child,” 16.
13Eli the high priest and King David both failed to discipline their children, being passive fathers, and suffered dire consequences as a result; cf. 1 Sam 2:27-34; 2 Sam 13.
14 See his Competent to Counsel (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1970), 158.
15Chad Bird, “ ‘Train up’ or ‘Dedicate’? The Hebrew Gem in Proverbs 22:6”; www.1517.org.
16Hildebrandt, “Train Up a Child,” 14.
17Hildebrandt’s intriguing view was not introduced to the world until 1988.
18Derek Kidner, Proverbs: Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1964), 147.
This article has been adapted from a forthcoming book on parenting from With All Wisdom Publications.
