"Back talk": Why children are allowed to talk back in the Bible

Many parents think that children shouldn't talk back, and then cite the Fifth Commandment to use as an excuse for punishing children for "back talk". The fact of the matter is that children have the right to talk back in the Bible. The Bible does not forbid even speaking back against your parents.

The core of Christian parenting is Christian love, which is putting children first, and parents last, in a convicted way leading to dutiful and selfless submission to children and their every need, expecting absolutely nothing in return, with children resting safely and securely in parents. See 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 be discouraged.

The Greek root word translated "obey" is υπακουο (Latin: hupakouo) and refers to secure, vulnerable rest in the love and grace of parents. This form of respect is not based off of fearful compliance, but in the form of openness and honesty, meaning children can tell parents anything and everything under the sun, including demands for needs and a redress of grievances. Parents in biblical times were bondservants beholden to their children and their every vulnerable need. Attachment parenting was the norm in Ancient Israel and the Early Church. Think a Christian mother holding pales of water, with a young child wrapped up in swaddling blankets next to her bosom, and an older child strapped to her back in a papoose bag. Boil over, then safe. That was the parenting then, and rest in parents was seen as being wrapped up next to mothers in skin-to-skin closeness.

The Greek root word translated "provoke...to anger" is ερεθιζο (Latin: erethizo) and refers to damages or abuse, namely child abuse in this context. This refers to the slightest of personal offense perceived by the child, including the slightest of offensive touch or speech perceived by the child, coming from entitlement. In this commandment, the Apostle Paul was lifting up the Law on punishment and controlling demeanor towards children, rebuking Greek Christians for misusing the book of Proverbs for their own pagan custom of punishing children. Punishment and controlling demeanor towards children was severely dealt with under the Law, with punitive parents being put to death in the Old Testament, and with punitive parents being excommunicated in the New Testament. The seven verses in Proverbs that depict the rod of correction are repealed verses, meaning the verses are only relevant to the cultural and legal context to which they were given. This is because these verses do not refer to any "biblical spanking" but to a specific, archaic form of judicial corporal punishment closely conflated with the death penalty in Ancient Israel - the 40 minus 1 lashes with the rod of correction, as a final warning before putting a lawless ADULT son to death, administered to the bare back (never the buttocks) in a courtroom setting, after adjudication in a criminal court of law leading to conviction. MINOR children could not be whipped for anything, as they could not be charged with a criminal act or civil wrong in anyone's court of law, including that of their parents - minor age was a legal defense in a criminal or civil court of law.

Children had the right to demand needs and a redress of grievances from parents. The goal of every Hebrew and Christian parent then was a secure parent-child bond, and this bond was taken to the level of policing attachment, where children would literally police their needs from parents. Children could give orders to their parents, and even bring out the law if they really needed something from a misunderstanding parent. Parents were mere milking-objects then, to be used to milk the child's needs from the parent, with parents not resenting being used one bit.

Not only did children talk back, but they engaged in mischief, with said mischief being tolerated. Children were not put into submission, but were loved for their mischevious faults, seen as imperfect extensions of God, and their imperfections were what made children perfect. Children would make messes, and even knock items over in the house, and parents would simply laugh. Parents then knew that children of a certain age don't get the harm in their actions, and if they don't get it then, they won't understand, period, until they are older...This context, and the paragraph below, is to give a broader context to the concept of back talk being allowed.

Parents did not have any parent anger directed at their children, and that was because their children were naked wherever they went. That setup allowed for parents to "grow up with" their children, lowering the level of attachment to full equality, thus parent interactions with children were immature yet guiding in nature. Mothers were also naked traditionally, but only within the family home, and so mothers snuggled in the nude with their children, engaging in skin-to-skin closeness and intimacy with their children...Some of this context is dated, but much of it is applicable today, perhaps with some tweaking. Sexual battery only is a crime if the setup has sexual intent behind it, under the English common law. 

The depraved and entitled parents who provoke children to anger will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them be cast into the lake of fire and burning sulfur, which is the second death prepared for Satan and his accomplices! Let them descend into the abyss which is the ever-burning Hell of fire and burning sulfur, suffering God's Wrath forever and ever! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!