Proverbs 13:24 reads, "He that spareth his rod
hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."
Ellipsis
 |
| A proper time-out can do a world of good. |
While reading through the verse, one thing of note
that I saw was the ellipsis in "his son" and "him." Perhaps this was scrutinized a bit too much,
but choosing to use the word "him" instead of something a little more
clarifying does in fact make the phrasing seem a bit different. Adding to this is the fact that the verse
begins with a "He," but this refers to the father and not "his
son." Maybe I stretched this nuance
further than it was supposed to be, or misused terminology, but the subtlety
did stick out to me.
Paradox
A tad more obvious than the last instance of rhetoric
was the paradox contained in sparing the rod, or punishment, which demonstrated hatred for another, yet chastening (with or without a "rod") displayed an act of love. When one thinks of
loving another, it is usually not in terms of abuse or punishment, physical or
otherwise. Even so, the verse still
holds true. Abstaining from punishing a
child in the wrong does lead one to think that is the loving thing to do, but
is not allowing the child to persist in their error far worse than correcting
them? Does a parent truly love their
child if they give absolute freedom, without even the slightest
chastisement? Obviously, there are
different extents that warrant different levels of punishment or tolerance, but
I do believe that there is a point when the parent needs to step in and
moderate for the benefit of their child's growth. As evinced in these words that I just shared,
the power of the paradox is a potent choice of style in that it spurs thought
in the audience. Handing over the
excitement directly to the audience so that they can experiment themselves truly
ups the rhetorical value of (probably) most any given case.
I don't think you stretched the use of ellipsis here; I agree that it is an important part of the expression from this scripture. I think that this is a good example of a very common rhetorical theme of paradox that we see in a lot of scriptures. It is interesting to note that the paradox helps us to understand a lot about what the scripture is teaching, but also it can help to teach us what the author was really trying to express in the context in which it was said.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what the scripture would sound like without the ellipsis....
ReplyDelete"He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth HIS SON chasteneth HIS SON betimes."
The ellipsis-free rewrite makes me as the reader feel incompetent. I think the ellipsis pays a complement to the audience by trusting that they can understand which pronoun belongs to the father and which to the son.