"Back talk": Why back talk is allowed in true biblical parenting

Many parents want their children to listen to them without question. Child abuse such as corporal punishment is the most common form of domestic violence. The idea of "back talk" being immoral for a child to so is actually unbiblical and heresy. Child surrender, in the biblical context, was very different than it is commonly understood today by Christian parents.

The Fifth Commandment, in full, commands mutual submission. It says in Colossians 3:20-21 KJV:

Children, obey your parents in all things; for this is well-pleasing unto the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they become discouraged.

The Greek root word translated "obey" is υπακουο (Latin: hupakouo) and literally translates to "rest under", meaning secure, vulnerable rest and trust in the love and grace of parents, with children petitioning the needs and a redress of grievances in relation to parents, with children demanding and parents supplying, with children being able to share with parents anything and everything under the sun, with parents deserving absolutely nothing in return, but with children nonetheless showing gratitude and thanksgiving by following the example and footsteps of their parents. The Greek root word υπακουο and uplifts a specific historical context in parenting that is attachment-based. Children could demand anything from parents, with children being close to parents, with intimacy with mothers being to the level of nudity. Child nudity was legal everywhere in the biblical context, and that was so mothers could be close to their children at the lowest level possible. Mothers swaddled infants as old as age 3, or even older, to her bosom for breastfeeding purposes, as well as for skin-to-skin contact. Skin-to-skin contact was a way for mothers to earn the trust, and later compliance, of their children. Even young men who usually were out on the search for a bride, regressed into their childhood selves when around the warmth of their mother and the loving encouragement of their father, who also played a role in closeness from a foreshadowing distance, yet while encouraging children to learn their alphabet and study the Law as they got older. Both parents played a nurturing role, mother from up close, and father from near far.

The Greek root word translated "provoke...to anger" is ερεθιζο and literally translates to "stirring up" anger or upset in children, referring to the Jewish idiom "stirring the pot" in terms of a child's emotions. This was a command from God, through the Apostle Paul, not to use corporal punishment, or anything that provokes a child to anger. The slightest of personal offense perceived by a child is a provocation to anger, and is abuse, as the Law was understood in both the Old and New Testaments. Any corporal punishment was judicial in nature, and was not practiced by the Christian Churches of God. Corporal punishment was the final prerequisite before the father's son was put to death, and most whippings were administered to adults, never children, for things such as falsely prophesying, murder, and child abuse. The father was merely an accessory in a hitman-style investigation, meaning the authorities were hired and otherwise were dormant, and in a hitman jurisdiction, the police are agents that work for the victim(s) of the offender.

In ancient Jewish culture, which 1st Century Christianity was adjacent to, talking back to parents was perfectly acceptable, and many times even encouraged by fathers as a form of reverent rebellion. Reverent rebellion refers here to how children were outspoken about their needs, and bluntly so. This was intended to keep any power parents may have had in line, meaning make sure parents had duties, and children have rights. Child surrender was a questioning surrender, not an unquestioning one, based on closeness and intimacy, not fear of punishment, and that closeness allowed for brute honesty with parents about big emotions, either by crying freely around parents or telling them off. This same setup allowed for children to freely play, their way or no way at all. Children could be very compliant and calm when out in public, not leaving the side of their parents, instinctively staying close, while falling apart when they get home, with children running around. Children wore no clothing, as per Judeo-Christian custom, in order to be close to mothers, by way of snuggling with children in the nude. Any man who sexually objectified mother-child intimacy was guilty of vile fornication merely for the utterance coming out of his mouth. How to apply this today? Any way that applies based on how parenting was then, in spirit, as Christ died and rose on the third day to abolish the strict adherence of the Law, the capital and corporal punishments that came with it, and any capital and corporal punishment, period.

The depraved and entitled parents who provoke their children to anger by shutting down opinion will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Children have the right to their own opinion. Let those who infringe on those rights and civil liberties descend into the abyss that is the lake of fire and burning sulfur, which is the second death, which is Satan's final resting place! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!